PNA-incomplete: could use some of the computer generated effects from the proposal for the project that were seen in Star Trek II, as well as a paragraph on the Klingons theft of information for, and perspective on the Project, discussed in both Star Trek III and Star Trek IV. --Gvsualan 19:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What does "the Genesis Project was created by Craig Huxley" mean? Tough Little Ship 19:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well sinces its in italics, it means the computer generated graphics which represented the project for the movie were created by Craig Huxley. --Gvsualan 22:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree there's quite a bit of information lacking from this entry (Starfleet and the Klingon Empire's response to the project, etc.). Let me see what I can do. --RTOlson 19 Jul 2005

Process Edit

This needs to be re-written. I don't think it is proper to simply have the speech of Carol Marcus, especially if it is not represented as a quote. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following:
Genesis, simply put, is life from lifelessness. It is a process whereby the molecular structure of a given object can be restructured at the subatomic level of an equal mass. The intention of the process is to introduce the Genesis Device into a preselected area of a lifeless space body; a moon or other dead form. The device (when delivered) would instantaneously cause the Genesis Effect; matter is reorganized with life generating results. A living, breathing planet would reform from the dead body, capable of supporting whatever life forms are deposited onto it. When one considers the cosmic problem of population and food-supply, the usefulness of the process becomes clear.
The above is merely a redundancy in that it explains what has already been explained. The article explains the process well enough as it is without having to resort to quoting Marcus's entire proposal. --From Andoria with Love 05:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Like Teleporter/Replicator-Technology Edit

The way the device works seems similar to teleportation and replication. Also, the device might not have gathered the material for making a planet, but might have reformatted a planet. We should not make unfounded assumptions.

— Ŭalabio‽ 04:04, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

There clearly wasn't a planet there when the USS Reliant was destroyed, so the only way the planet could be created is by using the matter from the Mutara Nebula and the Reliant to create the planet. An unfounded assumption would be that the project might have been a success if it was used on a preexisting planet. - Archduk3:talk 04:14, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
I do not mean that the reliant was on the planet. It could have been near the Reliant. It might have been in the same system as the research Station where the Doctors Marcus and their colleagues created the Genesis-Device. We know that the system is very close to the nebula. The star of the system could have been the Sun of the Genesis-Planet.
Also, assuming that the Genesis-Planet has a mass of about 6*1024 kilograms, its creation would liberate nearly 1033 Joules from gravitational potential energy. The planet would be molten. The oldest rocks on Earth solidified 800 million years after the formation of the Earth. Before that, the Earth was molten.
¿Does any what I just wrote belong in the article? Not without marking it as speculation. It is speculation. The whole point of this is that we should not have any speculation in articles without marking it as so. We cannot say as a fact that the Genesis-Device created a planet — it might have created a planet or merely terraformed a preexisting planet.
— Ŭalabio‽ 04:39, November 28, 2009 (UTC)