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.

That is Barrets name, not the name of the character. She used alternate names, there's a whole bunch of them in her IMDB page. It is also mentioned in "Star Trek" in the 1960s: Liberal-Humanism and the Production of Race Author(s): Daniel Bernardi Source: Science Fiction Studies, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Jul., 1997), pp. 209-225 Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Leigh Chapel" (a homage to M. Leigh Hudec) is given as Number One's name in "USS Enterprise Officer's Manual" by Geoffrey Mandel. The comic mentioning Robbins' name said only "Eur-", definitely not Eunice. Therin of Andor (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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).

References

Edit has been restored again

Thumperward deleted around 2~3kB of text, apparently a reversion to the dogru144 edit. His rationale was different though; while dogru144 complained of a lack of references, the latest complaint was that the subsequent references constituted "original research". The edit has been reverted for now. It may be necessary to refer the page for arbitration and/or protection. (Sdoradus (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Hi Sdoradus, I think it's perfectly possible that the 2 complaints are compatible. What is being said is that in order to demonstrate the content isn't original research, a reference is required that provides linkage between the term used in Star Trek, and the usage in the American and British navies. The Original Research policy explains:

“ To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. ”

From what I can gather, the editors seeking to remove the content are acting within policy. PhilKnight (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with PhilKnight. The problem isn't that the information isn't cited, it's that you have to make a leap of logic from the material in the cites to the subject material in the article. This is a spot of synthesis and is frowned upon.

Sdoradus, if you disagree, perhaps you might obtain a third opinion. Alastairward (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is a lot of theorisation and posturing in this article that makes it seem like original research. It really needs to refer to a published article on the specific topic I think. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Android

She was an android, model "Number One." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.203.177.177 (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Name Meaning

Is it trite to point out that Una means "one" in many languages?22:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)~~ 86.8.145.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'm left wondering if it's the character's given name or a nickname. Sounds more likely to be the latter, though I haven't seen this series. Do they clear this confusion up anywhere? If so we should here, as well.

In a similar vein, the article doesn't point out that "Number One" is a longstanding naval term of address for a first officer. The entry appears to suggest it was invented by Star Trek writers. Laodah 22:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)