Talk:Lucille Ball

POV?
Um, how exactly is she to be referenced, as in which POV? She wasn't mentioned, afaik, in any episodes...and she wasn't exactly involved in production, so why is she here? --Alan del Beccio 00:00, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Desilu and I Love Lucy are here, but those are here for a reason. I only added to this to make it better in case it should be here. -Platypus Man | Talk 00:04, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * You have a lot of non-Trek stuff on here... and her name was linked to by several articles, so I made an article. 1985 00:41, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be any non-Trek "stuff" on here and if there is, please point it out. Otherwise, when creating *new* articles, it helps a lot if you can cite them when you create them to justify their existance, not just because you see a red link, because they may not always be right. --Alan del Beccio 00:44, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, i added a comment to the "I Love Lucy" article about how Lucy was on set during the filming of the second pilot, -- i believe this might come from one of Robert Justman's memoirs -- but the fact remains that she was not credited but did in fact run the studio where Star Trek was made, so there are a number of anecdotes describing her as being present at key production meetings and on some sets. Lets take some time and cite this instead of discussing why we shouldn't -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 00:51, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Lucille Ball
Lucille Ball (from talk page)
 * Um, how exactly is she to be referenced, as in which POV? She wasn't mentioned, afaik, in any episodes...and she wasn't exactly involved in production, so why is she here? --Alan del Beccio 00:00, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Desilu and I Love Lucy are here, but those are here for a reason. I only added to this to make it better in case it should be here. -Platypus Man | Talk 00:04, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * You have a lot of non-Trek stuff on here... and her name was linked to by several articles, so I made an article. 1985 00:41, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I can only find indirect references made about her in wikipedia and other google results, mostly about her owning Desulu which was produced Star Trek and Mission:Impossible. She wasn't involved with any of the production. I really see no relevance here. --Alan del Beccio 00:41, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all 3 They may have been refrenced, but so desciretely that they should not be here. Tobyk777 00:44, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Lucille Ball...was not referenced. Desilu and I Love Lucy are not even being voted upon. The former is legit because it is directly involved with production, the latter was mentioned in the episode cited on the page. --Alan del Beccio 00:52, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * keep, for reasons stated in Talk:Lucille Ball -- she was part of the production of the original Star Trek, just as her studio was. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 00:53, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, however, they are all indirect, I can find no direct reference to her being involved with the production of Star Trek other than owning the company that produced it and visiting the set. Does that mean we should make articles on every single individual who visited the set of all the other series, as well as the owners of Paramount Pictures who had nothing to do with the other series? --Alan del Beccio 01:00, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. (re:Tobyk) Since when did MA not use "discrete references", we've got dozens of pages for people whose names appeared on dedication plaques. (Keep for I Love Lucy and Desilu, despite the fact we're not voting on them) And I agree with Gv', she was never directly referenced. We don't have pages for every head of Paramount, why for Desliu? - AJHalliwell 01:08, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lucille Ball was the person who approved initial production of Star Trek, although it appears this may have been inadvertently so.    However, whatever content ends up on the page should be very limited. -- SmokeDetector47undefined 02:45, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * But Rickyyyyyyyy! Okay, anyway... I know she approved intitial production on TOS... but then what about those who approved production on TNG? DS9? VOY and ENT? The movies? Should we add articles for every single individual who approved or had something to do with the start of a production? That would be a bit much, if you ask me. As much as we all love Lucy (no pun intended, believe it or not), I don't believe an article about her belongs here. Delete. --From Andoria with Love 04:15, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, for DS9 there's Brandon Tartikoff (which should theoretically be nominated for deletion as well under the criteria being used here). And I don't think it would be too out of the question to start specific articles for other individuals if they're noteworthy, though the planning behind the other series seems to be more of a group effort of in-house production people (i.e. Gene Roddenberry, Rick Berman, etc.) than any specific person and was greenlighted by Paramount Pictures/Viacom as a huge entity.  Arguably, if it weren't for Lucille Ball, there wouldn't have been a Star Trek. -- SmokeDetector47undefined 04:23, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm... good points. Okay, I vote to keep. :) --From Andoria with Love 04:35, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Brandon Tartikoff was at least mentioned with the title card memorializing his death at the beginning of . --Alan del Beccio 18:13, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. This has nothing to do with Lucille Ball, but is it really necessary to have image files of title card that read "In memory of Some Guy" when writing the text out would have the same effect? --Schrei 18:16, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as stated above, with no Lucille Ball there would be no Star Trek.--Smith 03:16, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Question: does someone know what episodes it means when it says her work has been imitated in trek? it might help establish some relevance if there was an explanation of how her work influenced it and how it relates to her specifically. Makon 03:29, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I still think, in it's current state, that it should be deleted. Yet, 8 days later, everyone has voted to save it, yet no one wants to make any effort to update it beyond "hearsay". --Alan del Beccio 06:08, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep 1985 16:30, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I've edited the article to only include her impact on Trek (although the I Love Lucy reference must also stay, for obvious reasons). --From Andoria with Love 19:03, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Archived (Can't say I completely agree with it, but oh well.) -Alan del Beccio 05:46, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Removed
I removed this: ''An irony of Ball's involvement with the production of the second pilot,, is that she allowed NBC to remove Majel Barrett's character from the series concept on the grounds that a female in a position of authority was unacceptable. Ball was herself the first female studio boss in Hollywood history.'' because of the following reasons:


 * 1. It's not background information.
 * 2. It's a very personal opinion.
 * 3. Lucille Ball was not involved directly in the production of Star Trek in any way. There were executives at Desilu who were in charge of the show (such as Herb Solow and Oscar Katz). Lucy never said a word about any of their creative decisions. She held their word in regard, and only cared about the financing. If Majel was fired, she was not responsible for it. She haven't "allowed" or "disallowed" it, because it wasn't her job and her desk. When Solow and Katz were developing "The Cage" with Roddenberry, Lucy first thought Star Trek was a series about musical stars touring the Pacific during WWII. It's all chronicled in Inside Star Trek: The Real Story.
 * 4. Majel was not fired because she was a woman in a command position. That's the biggest false urban legend about Star Trek. She was fired because NBC people thought she's a bad actress and not qualified for such a big role. NBC had a policy of supporting gender equality on television, and they actually liked the idea of a female first officer. Roddenberry was angry because her mistress was fired and called a "bad actress", that's why he came up with all this stuff. It's all in the aforementioned book.

I guess I've made my point. ;-)) --Lt. Arex 21:38, 7 February 2011 (CET)