Did you know nomination

edit
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk14:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Comment: Might be at the edge of the 7 day requirement, due to article only hitting the new article announcements yesterday at the relevant Wikipeda project.

Moved to mainspace Created by Jorahm (talk) and modified by DocFreeman24 (talk). Nominated by Shooterwalker (talk) at 23:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC).Reply

Since you've shortened the case name in this hook ("Stardock v. Reiche and Ford"), shouldn't the article name also be shortened from its current version, "Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford"? Also, the lead sentence uses "Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche". It might be good to strive for consistency across the board. Take a look at MOS:LAW#In the United States for reference. Edge3 (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Looking at those naming conventions, I might standardize it across this name across the board board to either "Stardock v. Reiche and Ford" or "Stardock Systems v. Reiche and Ford". Is that compatible with what you're seeing? Shooterwalker (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
MOS:LAW#In the United States states that we should use Bluebook format when possible. I'm not a lawyer, but I looked at some Bluebook guidelines. I also looked at a case citation for this particular lawsuit [1] and a separate lawsuit involving Stardock in Michigan [2]. Based on my reading of the Bluebook guidelines, and also the two sources I checked, I believe the appropriate name is "Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche". Note that this is already consistent with the infobox and the lead sentence that you have in the article. Edge3 (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Understood and fixed. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Article was nominated 8-9 days after creation, but the primary author (Jorahm) is a new contributor to Wikipedia, therefore I agree that the deadline should be waived per WP:IAR. Article is long, and no copyright or paraphrasing issues detected. QPQ not required because the nominator (Shooterwalker) has fewer than 5 credits.

The hook states that the trademarks were "in the names of aliens from the game Star Control". Would it be more accurate to say "alien races" instead? Also, where is this supported in the source? Polygon states that the trademarks included ones for The Ur-Quan Masters, Star Control, and "Yehat". But from that list, "Yehat" appears to be the only one concerning an alien race. Could you please clarify? Edge3 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. I think I was confused by "in the names of" because it could also mean "on behalf of". I think better phrasing might be "for the names of aliens". We can also keep it at "aliens" instead of "alien races" or "alien characters", as the vagueness might prompt more people to click on the hook.
What do you think? Edge3 (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Yes!!! ALT1 is good to go. Congrats to all who were involved in this article. Edge3 (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks again and I'll keep an eye out for it! Shooterwalker (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply