Talk:Tuvix

message: Do we really need the extra paragraph on the episode called 'Riddles'?
Lots42 11:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we do, so fanfic writers don't fall in the same trap the official writers fell into. ShutterBugTrekker 18:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking the same thing. the "Riddles" paragraph isn't warranted. Maybe a mention in a sentance but the paragraph should be in it's own article. Wikipedia is for the general public and interest and should be organized. Not for sending messages to fanfic writers. (out of interest though, what was the mistake? having the same theme? hardly a mistake i'd say...) BlueArcher 20:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Riddles

message: has added a non-free image of the Tuvix character (:File:ST-VOY 2 24 Tuvix.jpg) to the article, and I want to bring it up here to ask if anybody feels it's necessary.  The article doesn't have any critical commentary on the character or actor's appearance to necessitate the image for illustration.  The image's description page itself doesn't have any reason the copyrighted image is necessary either.  We don't illustrate every guest star in television articles because it doesn't meet the muster of WP:NFCI or WP:NFCC#8, and I don't see how it's germane here.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The very episode is named 'Tuvix'. Having a picture of the featured character is essential, IMHO. Lots42 (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:NFCC#8 says copyrighted media is only used if it would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."  The article doesn't discuss the character or actor's appearances with regard to any reliable sources, and nothing in the article as written requires an illustration to understand; not seeing Tom Wright as the character of Tuvix doesn't make anything written in the article as written less understandable.WP:NFCI lists an acceptable use of copyrighted TV media as "[f]or critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television."  The article as written has no reliably sourced critical commentary or discussion of the content of the image, namely the appearance of the Tuvix character or Tom Wright.For what it's worth, I am still collecting sources for the article and am personally hoping something that warrants NFC will come up.  I have already selected, cropped, and enhanced an excellent image should the opportunity arise, and I still have three or four book resources outstanding for inclusion.  That being said, none of this applies to the article as it stands now though.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NFC addition

message: I agree with the broader lede that offers overarching information about the episode and its reception. Per MOS, the lede does not require -- in fact, should avoid -- citations (because the lede summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article). The trimmed version removes useful content and breaks MOS by adding in a pile of cites (particularly for some strictly factual information that doesn't require cites in the first place). I support Fourthords edits and the argument made here. I hope the IP editor engages in this discussion per WP:BRD. If not, I support restoring Fourthords version after the IP has a couple of days to respond. --EEMIV (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that the material removed from the lede appears to be a summary of material contained elsewhere in the article (and sourced properly when it comes up) and is okay for inclusion. That being said, I think the percentages can and should be omitted from the lede; it's enough to say that the episode was well-received. There may be other snippets that can be trimmed as well to keep the lede brief while providing a more comprehensive overview of the article. Doniago (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:   It is 2021 and those percentages are still in the intro. It is disappointing that this was never resolved. The anon IP should have discussed and shown a bit more good faith before deleting other peoples efforts but the editor who added it should have made some effort to explain themselves too. As was already mentioned, the intro is supposed to summarize what is actually in the article (MOS:LEAD). Those percentages are weird, they look a whole lot like original research as they do not directly  correspond to anything in the Reception section. I suppose someone might argue it wasn't WP:OR or WP:SYNTH and that they performed a WP:CALC to convert from 8 out of 10 into 80% but that's not helpful or necessary, at best it is unclear and confusing. The percentages can and should be omitted, it is better to say that the episode was well-received or received generally positive reviews or something like that. -- 109.77.208.89 (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cut the sentence that included the percentages and mentioned the approval of critics that was already mentioned further up in the lead. Happy to discuss if you feel further edits are desirable, but as the article isn't protected, that I know of, there's also WP:SOFIXIT. DonIago (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good. I made other fixes but didn't want to jump on this one without asking first since it had gone unresolved for nearly a decade I thought there might be more to it. -- 109.77.208.89 (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede

message: Jordan Hoffman (recently, 2021) wrote an article for Polygon and it might be useful to show that there was a lot of fan discussion about the episode. Could maybe be addedto the Reception section. -- 109.77.207.127 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sharing that source!  I've included it in this edit.  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Fan response