Talk:Cogenitor

message: :Image:Cogenitor (ENT episode).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Cogenitor (ENT episode).jpg

message: I object to the uncommented cross-reference made to the "third gender" article. The cogenitor is nothing like this.
Humans have two sexes, according to the definition of sex in the "Sex" article: male and female, while the Vissians have three of them: male, female and cogenitor, who to produces neither male nor female gametes but is needed as an aid to combine the gametes of the other two. At least this can be inferenced from the few details that Phlox gives Trip.
In opposition to this, the "third gender" article discusses a phenomenon which is typical for species with two sexes: being biologically (chromosomes like XXX, YY oder XXY) or emotionally different from the usual "male" and "female" definition.
Rolf b (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the wikilinked article is not the appropriate article for the term that is linked. The "Third Gender" article is concerning a quite separate topic from what is meant by 'third gender' (more accurately: third biological sex) in the Enterprise episode. The "Third Gender" article is only applicable to species which require only two sexes to reproduce (which eliminates it from applicability to this current Enterprise article). Wikilink should be removed (I doubt there is a current WP article that is a relevant replacement). — al-Shimoni (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreed. For this episode it should be "Third biological sex" and not "Third gender". Martiniturbide (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The wiki link was not related to gender as this episode understands it so I removed the link again. The terminology used in the episode was refer to a "third gender" (or tri-gendered species) so I restored that. Modern politics and perspectives on biological sex or gender identity do not change the words that the episode chose to use at that time nearly twenty years ago. Rewrite the terminology only confuses the plot section. Perhaps some other part of the article such as the Production section could explain the terms used in the show but it doesn't belong in the plot section. -- 109.77.200.34 (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Gender 

message: This episode is startingly similar to the novel (published several years earlier) called "Halfway Human": Halfway Human  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.250.77 (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show a reliable source, otherwise any claimed connection is WP:OR original research. -- 109.77.200.34 (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarities to Halfway Human 

message: I have added some information about the ratings of this episode, and I want to provide some extra context and explanation to other editors that the sources do not quite allow me to add directly to the article. I have tried to provide some context (with a neutral point of view) and present what the ratings show but avoid adding unnecessary interpretation, but all editing is selective. Variety noted the dominance of American Idol on Wednesday night (the same night Enterprise aired) and the sources allow me to state this, the part I that I did not say and that I hope is implied is that general dominance of talent shows and reality tv at that time. Variety pointed out that the ratings for this episode were a significant (39%) drop from the previous year, what they didn't say that the ratings for Enterprise this week were better than most weeks. Among genre shows the season 2 finale of Alias on ABC on Friday got big ratings, Smalleville was big on Tuesdays for The WB. (Fox had already snuffed out Firefly by this point.) What this doesn't quite say is that the big networks ABC, CBS, NBC dominated most every week, and Fox sometimes got ahead. The two smaller networks UPN and WB simply did not have the market share and jockeyed for their placing behind the big networks. This week Enterprise (UPN) managed to stay ahead of Dawson's Creek (The WB). Enterprise was a big show for a small network, but small fish in the wider sea. -- 109.77.200.34 (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Further context: In syndicated sci-fi, the season 4 and series finale of Farscape aired about a month before this episode, and Stargate SG-1 (season 7) was not starting until June 13, 2003, but there would have been plenty of Stargate in reruns. Andromedia season 3 also existed (episode 20, aired April 28, 2003). I looked this up in case maybe something seemed significant. It didn't, but it serves as background. Also TV listings for Wednesday April 30, 2003. -- 109.77.200.34 (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings