Talk:Number One (Star Trek)

"prominence of a women"

I was going to fix the mismatched number in this phrase in the current article text, but I realized I don't know the intended statement. "Women" doesn't sound right; the original Star Trek apparently intended from the start to capitalize on the cheese factor by putting the Enterprise crewwomen in miniskirts, and I don't recall hearing the network objecting to that. "A woman" also seems misleading, as there were two prominent women in "The Cage" — Number One and Yeoman Colt. I suspect that the real objection was a strong woman character like Number One, but I didn't feel confident of my memory on this issue to make an appropriate change. Could someone correct this statement, or at the very least, fix the grammar? Thanks. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Rejection of a prominent woman

Is there a cite of any sort for the rejection by the network of a female no. one officer? Barrett was rejected as an actress because of her relationship with Roddenbery, is there a quote stating the choice of a female no. one was rejected for any particular reason. Alastairward 12:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous citations for Roddenberry's point of view, although our article on Majel Barrett does suggest (with citation) that the relationship may have been a factor as well. I don't think there's any real doubt that network executives played it conservatively with audience reaction constantly in mind. The situation would not substantially change until the 1970s. --Dhartung | Talk 02:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure she had no name?

"Number One was portrayed by Majel Barrett Roddenberry, credited as M. Leigh Hudec.", from Number One's article on Memory Alpha.- Francisco.

Fair use rationale for Image:Number One (Trek).jpg

Image:Number One (Trek).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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 05:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Too many non-referenced, conjectural statements

I have removed an edit not supported by a reference. Article has too many of these edits.Dogru144 (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The above removed edit has been restored, at least for now

Multiple edits were removed by the above (Dogru144), including crosslinks to other Wikipedia articles; First Lieutenant, Number One (Royal Navy), and Executive Officer - presumably because these also did not have the references requested.

On the other hand, insisting on the rank structure having references is a little unusual; the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, for example, provides (in the article "Lieutenant") no such pointer. Such works as UK Ministry of Defence rank tables are commonly available , but rarely referred to by encyclopedias.

The entry has accordingly been restored, for now, despite the lack of references, since it removes the confusion between "number one", "first lieutenant" and "executive officer". It also allows for a framework for such references to be added. One reference has been supplied at the top of the page, to Memory Alpha, but this also is a secondary reference. 60.234.132.128 (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC).