Talk:Lucille Ball/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
May 2004–April 2008
Discussion
Lucille Ball has not one 13 Emmy's, according to the official Emmy website, she was NOMINATED 13 times, and won 4 competitive awards. She is not the person with th emost Emmy's -----pallen@olp.net
- Is there a similar museum for Lucille Ball in the California Universal Studios?
Zerbey 20:51, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Needs more discussion of Here's Lucy, The Lucy Show, and Life with Lucy, or at least links to them.
Socialist Grandfather?
Is this correct? If it is so be it, but I find it odd to put her grandfather's political leanings in the opening paragraphs since it really adds nothing to the article. Perhaps the author meant to write "socialite," it seems to make more sense here. I didn't want to change it myself in case it really is supposed to read "socialist."
Trivia
A few months back I made the 'trivia' section and listed it in chronological order by date. I know someone flagged it saying the section didn't look good, but I think it looked a lot better than listed all of her awards/honors in one paragraph as it is now. Can't we put it back the way it was? It looks awful now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow2700 (talk • contribs) 00:36, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism
I was appauled to see that someone vandalized Lucy's page, saying "she was f*cked by many rapist."(Without the star in the curse word!). I deleted it, knowing this is not true. Sime also, when Rhode Island is mention, put, Rhode Island is the dumbest mostest dumbest state ever. I deleted that line as well. I think this article needs a clean-up! --71.229.59.237 01:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Source please
I have never seen anywhere before the allegation that 1950's actress Suzan Ball was any relation to Lucille Ball. Could someone please source this?
Gay Icon Project
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Star Trek/Mission: Impossible
After buying out her ex-husband's share of the studio, Ball functioned as studio head but apparently had little direct involvement in production. For instance, she apparently completely misunderstood the premise of one of the company's most (belatedly) famous productions, Star Trek thinking it was a contemporary drama about actresses.
- I'm reasonably sure this is inaccurate. Gene Roddenberry talked closely with Lucille Ball, and she believed in Star Trek's vision of the future, and that's why she supported keeping it on the air. There was a special in the past couple years on PBS, that said she took two chances in keeping, and that was Star Trek and Mission: Impossible. - AJHalliwell 04:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm going to remove that part of the article if it hasn't been already. There is no evidence to support it and apparently evidence to the contrary. Theshibboleth 07:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
On the subject of Trek and M:I the main article says: "Desilu produced several other shows, most notably the sitcom 'Mothers-In-Law'." I have never even heard of that show. If the "most notably" language is to be used clearly it needs to be used for Trek. MichaelSH 01:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Mother's-In-Law
Mother's-In-Law was a dreadful throwback of a sitcom in the late 1960s time period. It starred Eve Arden, Kay Ballard, Herbert Rudley, and Roger C. Carmel. I found it to be unwatchable. Desi Arnaz was a producer, I believe. — 70.108.189.231 20:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- The title is The Mothers-In-Law, no apostrophe. It was from Desi Arnaz Productions, not Desilu. — Walloon 06:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Clown schtick section
I don't understand the point of this. The opening paragraph suggests a common theme of either Lucy clowning, or attempting to be some kind of performer, but the examples don't all lend themselves to this theme. I can think of other examples where she clowned or jumped on the opportunity to put on a show or take to the stage that are not mentioned so why just these examples? It looks very disjointed and random, and the choices seem to reflect a POV - ie it looks like a list of someone's favourite episodes and some of the descriptive text is clearly POV. Ball used physical comedy extensively so I can't see any reason, for example, for singling out the candy conveyor belt episode. If it's iconic (and perhaps it is) it should be on the I Love Lucy page, but I don't understand why it's here. The writing style is also very unencyclopedic and looks more like the blurbs you would see in a TV guide or on the back of a DVD case. Rossrs 15:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- oh right. It is on the I Love Lucy page so that begs the question : why is it duplicated here? Rossrs 16:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed this - this is duplicated on the I Love Lucy page, and this page is more her biographical info. There may be some overlap of information (ie, some of the "firsts" that Ball did in TV) but that information about the show clearly belongs on the show's page. NickBurns 20:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
At the age of 2, Lucy dropped out of high school
That can't be right. That can't be right becauseshe would have droped out in the age of a4 to 177 not 2 and 1st of all she wasn't in school at the age of 2 and second she couldn't have droped out then if she couldn't speak for herself considerind that se could't say much at all and third she had a respectible family they wouldn't have up and let her drop out of school.That is myreason
In 1825 after a romance with a local bad boy (Johnny DeVito),
That can't be right, either.
Can anyone sort this biographical data?
- At the age of 2, Lucy dropped out of high school. In 1825 after a romance with a local bad boy
- She moved back to New York City in 1902 to become an actress and''
Help needed to sort this out and check the entire document over, c'mon you Lucy fans out there, there must be an American queen out there who knows this stuff, i'm a British queen and her impact here was much less, lol. --Brideshead 17:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- A quick Google search shows several sources saying she dropped out at 15 years of age. 70.153.252.105 17:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Another point is that a recent documentary on the History Channel states she was raised in Binghamton, New York. That's in the same ballpark as Jamestown.
House Un-American Activities Committee
Ball survived this encounter with the HUAC, naming no names. Well, most people survived. In fact, they all did. Can we re-phrase this sentence to make it a little less dramatic? 207.172.222.90 00:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Death
I have just glanced at this Biography and find this lacking one major event. I do not see her Death of April 26, 1989 listed anywhere. Surely someone else has caught this too right? Any reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.13.105.138 (talk • contribs)
(Different Surfer than that which posted directly above) Absolutely. I agree. It is the spookiest Wikipedia entry I have come across, and it is all in the present tense when we are talking about the biography of a dead female actress. What gives? Have I stumbled upon the Cult of Lucy by accident and spoiled the party?
-Just Wondering, Califonia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.165.106.23 (talk • contribs)
- It's vandalism, ongoing from a series of AOL IP addresses. Given the way AOL hands out IPs, it's almost impossible to block the vandal. But if it continues for much longer I may drop semi-protection on the article just to get it to stop for a while. - TexasAndroid 19:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- And there we go. The vandalism ramped up in frequency, so semi-protection has been dropped on the page. - TexasAndroid 19:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the vandalism? I have not see anything that appears to be vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.65 (talk • contribs)
-
- Constantly inserting totally false information, in this case reverting an article about someone who's been dead for many years into an article that makes it look like she's still alive, is vandalism. - TexasAndroid 19:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
One thing about the "Desilu" shows listed here:
...many of them were not actually produced BY Desilu. "Make Room for Daddy", "Andy Griffith", "Dick Van Dyke", "I Spy" and others were Sheldon Leonard-produced shows which were filmed at Desilu Studios, and thus bore the logo in-credit. The others listed in that paragraph ("Our Miss Brooks", "The Untouchables", "Star Trek", "Mission: Impossible") were in fact from Desilu and/or its successor Paramount Television. ElCartero 05:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Changes
Hi all. I was just curious as to why I keep seeing different versions of this article. They seem to change constantly. First it will say that she is still alive, and then it will say that she is dead? What gives? -- 172.162.129.51 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, wikipedia articles change constantly. It's not clear if there was vandalism here or simply confusion on the part of one of the editors, doing some copyediting. If you see this happen again, please post a note at my talk page, as well as on this page, if you don't mind. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 03:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Camerawork Details
It seems like an out-of-place paragraph or two in the I Love Lucy section about the camerawork; while relevant to the show, has essentially nothing to do with Lucille Ball. should remove, I think. Personamb 03:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
No names to name
I removed:
"Ball named no names in her encounter with the HUAC."
How could she name names when she didn't know anyone to name? In order for that line to be valid, someone needs to show that she actually knew communists in Hollywood. There's no proof that she knew any communists in the industry. Also, is there evidence that she was even asked if she knew any communists in Hollywood by the HUAC? Hence the obvious deletion. Jtpaladin 23:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I<3Lucille Ball
Lucille Ball is Dead
See the above discussion about her death Talk:Lucille_Ball#Death.
Months later this page is still plagued with vandals adding/removing/changing information to make it appear she is still alive. Maybe this page should be semi-protected? akuyumeTC 02:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ask on WP:RFPP, but many people are watching this page to see if the vandal comes back or not. Miranda 03:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- This is, IMHO, the work of one person. No idea why he's so fixated on this one act of vandalism, but he is. For now, best is just to revert him and let the admins block him each time he returns. - TexasAndroid 12:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- People following this discussion might be interested in edits to the article a few minutes before this date stamp. Semi-protection only gets you so far. Darkspots 01:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Technicolor Tessie
Her nickname while at MGM in the 1940's was Technicolor Tessie as per many resources on the web including IMDB and TCM (www.tcm.com/thismonth/article/?cid=147380) Bjbyrne 19:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)bjbyrne
- If the source is reliable, then we should include that into the article. Miranda 21:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Queen Mary
I was watching the Discovery Channel, on a documentary on Lucy and they said she haunts the RSM Queen Mary. There is nothing on the haunting on either page. Miranda 12:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Trivia
This trivia section was added to the article and I've removed it: some of it is already in the article, some things are inconsequential and it was full of typos. In any case this kind of section shouldn't appear in this fashion. Anything notable that isn't already in the piece can be integrated into appropriate places - that's why I moved it here. Tvoz |talk 07:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
And now this and more trivia was dumped into the article - again, much of the notable parts are already in the article, much is irrelevant. This is not how articles are written - if someone wants to take the notable material, source it, and piost it in appropriate places in the article that's fine. But unsourced infodumps do not belong here. Please discuss, don't just dump. Tvoz |talk 19:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Tvoz - well done for removing these. —Moondyne 04:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Her Father
He can't be a descendant of George Washington, as he had no children. I'm editting this to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.170.228 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment
Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Canyouhearmenow...
What's with the high-handed deletions of material without explanation? I mean, I suppose it's your right to behave like an imperious twit, but really -- deleting sourced material without a word of explanation? For apparently no other reason than to feed your own vanity? ('Cause apparently if you didn't write it, it doesn't deserve a place in this article...)
Got a problem with a sourced, easily verifiable piece of material? Fine. Identify the nature of the problem, and make your argument against it. If enough people agree with you, out it goes. Heck, maybe you've got a really strong argument that will get us thinking "Hey, y'know, that Canyouhearmenow is actually a pretty clever person...." 192.30.202.20 (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I am unsure as to what your problem is. However, I have explained to you here [1], here [2]. I could go back all the way to when you started these edits. I have told you many times that the source you are giving is not a good source as it requires a subscription to be used. You continued in your pursuit and violate the WP:3RR rule as well. I am sorry you think I am taking this personally. I have no emotional connection to this page and I am not reverting edits that are constructive and usable. I would appreciate that you refrain from using this kind of wording as that violates WP:Civility. That in itself could cause you to be blocked from being able to edit on wikipedia. Thank you and lets move on. Canyouhearmenow 21:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I attempted to check out the references that were removed and couldn't get past the point where I had to pay to continue so couldn't verify the referenced information. That explicitly violates wikipedia's rules about what is a usable external link. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Also pointing to a website instead of a specific location in that website makes verification extremely difficult even if I were willing to pay to see the information. References don't need to be on the net to be usable and these references were effectively off the net as nobody can freely link to them. If the information is in a book or journal it can be referenced but the reference has to be extremely specific down to the issue and page. See WP:REFERENCE for more info. You might consider posting the information on the discussion page for comments and working with others to see about getting usable references. Also Wikipedia is not just a indiscriminate collection of information so some editorial pruning will occur. Just because you want something in the article does not mean it must stay if others disagree. --NrDg 21:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you NrDg. I am sure that 99.230.227.201 is trying to make a valid contribution, but I just could not get it through that the source was not usable. Hopefully, this will be the end of this and they may find a reference that can be used. Again, thank you. Canyouhearmenow 22:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)