Talk:Cally Henderson Tyrol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battlestar Galactica mandala This article is within the scope of WikiProject Battlestar Galactica, which aims to improve the quality and depth of Battlestar Galactica articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please edit this or any other related article, visit the project page, or take part in the project's discussion.

Contents

[edit] Thanks & Kudos

Kross: thank you for cleaning the article up a bit! Looks much better now! VigilancePrime 02:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cylon Speculation

Is there any page for speculation about BSG characters? Personally, I think that Cally is a cylon based on her Jack Ruby-esque murder of Boomer. Oddly, I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist in real life, but I think that there's something up with Cally besides her love of the chief. --Radaar 19:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Check out Battlestarwiki (link is at the bottom of the page); we have an article linking out of the Cylons' dealing with Cylon speculation, etc. However, I do *NOT* think Cally is a Cylon, because as we saw in "Flight of the Phoenix", etc. MOST of the crew also wanted to kill Boomer, and Cally actually had specific reasons, plus in deleted scenes for FotP, she stated that if she was given a choice she'd do it again. Doesn't seem too conspiracy-ish enough for me. Besides, my longstanding theory has always been that Jammer is a Cylon (the guy in the yellow jumpsuit), because he's always trying to demoralize everyone, always accuses other people of being Cylons every chance he gets, tells them that they shouldn't even bother trying to build the Blackbird, etc. Plus he's the one that yelled at Cally that she should be mad at Boomer. In short, I've thought Jammer was a Cylon since episode 5 of season 1, when Cally and Socinus said that it was wrong to suspect the Chief of being involved with the Cylons when there was no actual evidence against him, and Jammer accused him anyway (and, as Cally pointed out, sowing paranoia among the humans is exactly what the Cylons want). His actions continuing into season 2 have only solidified this theory in my mind. --Ricimer 05:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cally's near-death

I remember reading or watching the RDM discussion/commentary about Cally being raped and killed in Bastille Day, but I can't locate it ATM. I'll work on it again soon. Personally, I'm just glad they kept her! (If anyone also saw/read this and can reference it, please do!) VigilancePrime 07:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

According to this article it's from Bastille Day's DVD commentary. -- Gordon Ecker 04:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cally's first/last name

http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki:Official_Communiques#Pegasus_.28Extended_Version.29 ...So apparently BSG writer Bradley Thompson has been coming to the Battlestar Wiki discussion page saying that, when they script the show, Cally is the character's first name; her last (maiden) name is Henderson. The art dept. apparently uses Henderson to label her locker, uniform, stuff like that, though it's never been clearly seen on the show. He's also made comments to this effect at comic con. I don't know if any of that represents a citable source, but it is potentially more authoritative than the novelization of the mini, which this article does mention. The Battlestar Wiki article now identifies the character as Cally Henderson. I wonder if this article should at least mention this possibility... [unsigned comment by 24.7.108.71]

Thanks to Ellen and Saul Tigh we know that spouses do take the same last name. However, we don't know whether this is a requirement. So until we see 'Specialist Cally' referred to specifically as 'Cally Tyrol', should we really take the name 'Cally Tyrol' as canon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.12.88 (talk) 03:22, October 28, 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would have preferred that the name had stayed "Specialist Cally". The title of the character article shouldn't be something that indicates only part of the character's continuity in the series. I understand that people who follow the show want to update the various BSG pages to reflect the latest events, but we have to consider that this is an encyclopedia article about a fictional character, and shouldn't be temporally-specific. I propose moving it back. -- Fru1tbat 16:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

She's been referred to as "Cally Tyrol" in dialogue, she will keep the name even if she she loses her job or is promoted (And, in fact, she had left the Fleet when she was living on New Caprica, so she technically isn't "Specialist"), and William and Lee don't have "Admiral" and "Commander" (respectively) in their article names. It should stay here. JBK405 17:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed my point... What her name currently "is" or "isn't" is irrelevant, per Wikipedia's various style guides (see WP:WAF, for example). The character's entire continuity "is" at all times, which is why articles about fiction are written in the present tense. You make a good point about her promotion, though, to which I offer this as a counter-point: What if she and the chief get divorced? If we're choosing a title which is least likely to change as events in the series unfold, maybe just "Cally (Battlestar Galactica)" would be the best choice... "Cally Tyrol" is inappropriate, though. -- Fru1tbat 18:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Though I personally preferred her last name as Cally, and created the page originally as Specialist Cally here at Wiki, I agree that the article is properly named Cally Tyrol now. Kara Thrace, Lee Adama, Saul Tigh and others follow this pattern, and Cally should be no different. Further, as you mention the encyclopedic nature of Wiki, you must then realize that Funk & Wagnalls and other encyclopedias also update; were Hillary Clinton to have had an article before marrying Bill, she would have been "Hillary Rodham," but later editions WOULD have her as "Hillary (Rodham) Clinton" or similar. Same concept. This is the correct page name, now. VigilancePrime 22:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not a matter of preference, though. Nor is it a matter of updating -- the rules are different for fictional characters, which makes Hillary Clinton a poor example here. The other articles you mentioned aren't very good precedents either, since those don't involve characters whose names have changed. The bottom line is this: There is no such thing as a character's "current" name as far as Wikipedia is concerned. WP:WAF specifically uses the word "inappropriate" for such temporal words. I reason that an article name which is updated to reflect a current name as it changes is therefore also inappropriate. Besides that, it puts a spoiler in the article title itself! Unfortunately, there isn't a Wikipedia guideline that directly addresses this issue ("article names of fictional characters whose names change during a series"), but interpretation of the other policies seems to indicates that "Cally Tyrol" would not be considered an appropriate article name. If nothing else, it reveals a plot development unnecessarily, and considering all the care taken to include "spoiler" tags, I can't see how that could be acceptable. -- Fru1tbat 00:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
To be acurate, this article was NEVER properly named, as it did not have the character's actual name. "Specialist Cally" was half a name and a title. Now that we KNOW her full name, this is corrected. This is the first time we have had a full name with which to title this article. VigilancePrime 04:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, after waiting a month or so for comment (without anyone else offering an opinion), I've taken this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battlestar Galactica, as I feel it's still an important issue that needs broader consensus, and also because it represents an issue that may apply to a broader set of articles (i.e. set a precedent), and so is a matter appropriate to the overall BSG project. Feel free to join the discussion there. --Fru1tbat 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler warning?

I dunno... Does this article need a spoiler warning? Especially now that events from the season 2 finale have been added... (unsigned post by 169.229.15.35)

Good point. Probably does, even though those of us REALLY onto BSG would see it as past, I imagine that spoiler tags are warrented. Whoever would next agree and is able to do this (I don't know how and right now don't feel like learning), I would urge to so do. [NOTE: Please sign comments!]  :-) VigilancePrime 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I added them. Sorry for not signing my previous note. I put the endspoiler before the section about her name; I don't think that section needs a spoiler. Darthmix 18:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you and Thank you.  ;-) VigilancePrime 02:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
aaaaand I've removed the endspoiler tag. The name section now makes it clear that Cally is married, and to whom, and this info is not revealed until the very end of season 2. So that section also needs to be included in the spoiler warning. The only place for the endspoiler tag, now, is the end of the article, and that seems silly.Darthmix 16:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now the title of the article makes the spoilers in the name section a non-issue, so I'm putting the endspoiler tag back in, right before that section. Darthmix 17:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now this article really needs a spoiler alert warning

Since the information about Cally dying in Season 4 has been added, this article really needs a spoiler alert. Sob!

[edit] removed jack ruby reference

Hello. This text "When the scene was shown, the pacing and blocking resembled the 1963 assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald by nightclub owner Jack Ruby" was removed claiming a citation was needed. The citation is to BSG itself, which is already implied, this shot was clearly set up with this effect in mind. I don't think a citation is needed here. But, I'll try to get a side by side image comparison to support it. Debivort 22:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"Clearly" is not verifiable, "clearly" is your point of view, a screen capture will not suffice. You will need a verifiable citation (e.g. from TPTB) that states it has that "effect in mind". Secondly you'd need to make it non-trivial. Matthew 22:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think your interpretation is overly stringent. Can you link me a WP guideline or policy page that reiterates it? If your interpretation is correct it would mean every description of a Simpson's episode as parodying a movie or what not would need a citation to a published statement from one if its creators? Does the page for Scary Movie need citations from TPTB that it spoofs Scream (film). I doubt it, but if you think so, then you'd better go fix that article, as it notes tons of allusions without citation. People make reasonable interpretations all the time without needing a reference when the interpretation is common knowledge. I don't know what "make it non trivial" means. Debivort 22:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability, it states very clearly and very explicitly: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" -- you've provided no verifiable citation that it's "clearly set up with this effect", etc.. oh, and don't give me no frakking argumentum ad igonrantiam. Matthew 22:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Dude, they say right in the podcasts that it was set up like Jack Ruby. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 23:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, so why not cite it? Do you think peple will just read your mind.. ? Matthew 23:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Matthew - you haven't answered my question with any specificity, all you've done is reiterate your position. To simplify the question: Where does it say that statements made with common knowledge are not verifiable? By your interpretation of Wikipedia:Verifiability, every statement in the encyclopedia would have to be sourced. As for your latin retort - is that referring to my question about Scary Movie, or to my not knowing what "make it non-trivial meant", or something else? You should assume good faith, rather than assume I am trying to play a rhetorical trick on you. Debivort 00:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Look it up in Wikipedia ("argument from ignorance", a la: I -must- do this if I argue that). It says it right at the top of the page ("Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources"), since when has "common knowledge" (which you've yet to prove as common) been a published reliable source? See Wikipedia:Common knowledge. See also Wikipedia:Trivia. Matthew 00:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess it was silly of me to think you would provide an explanation of your argument as, you know, a courtesy. Good luck on your quest to delete all statements that do not cite an article. Debivort 00:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The only issue seems to be that a source wasn't cited at the time. A citeable, published, reliable source (the podcast) has been identified. Are there any remaining issues? -- Gordon Ecker 04:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article re-write

Oh Hi! I normally write under the Nic cobolhacker, but i seem to have lost my password :( or the account was deleted :(( I figure that at least one third of Wikipedia is fan cruft, but if we are to fill it with cruft then it should be encyclopedic grade fan cruft. The article seemed a very spare so I cleaned it up a bunch to bring it more in line with the other good BSG articles. A major supporting character deserves it.

Unless someone beats me to it, I promise that I'll fix up the ep. references, proof the article some more and include proper refs for the 'Henderson' last name thing. Sep 8, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.207.95 (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy-edits. Someone other than me should be doing that anyway. I am curious tho, why was the tense in the character bio changed to the present tense? I'm not pissed or anything, just curious. Hasn't all that happened in the past? Cobolhacker 20:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

When you talk about "all that" having happened in the past, I have to ask: all of what, and what exactly is your definition of the present within the context of the show? Although there's a lot more info about writing fiction here that you should probably read up on, it's simply the fact that the past (and future) is relative to the viewer. It also kind of borders on the "in-universe" no-no because referring to something in past tense gives the impression that it happened in our reality. That should be reserved only for references to events that happen anytime before the start of the show (i.e., the Cylon War or what we see in the flashbacks in "Hero"). Hope that helps. --Bacteria 15:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That does help, thanks. I find article writing to be sort of relaxing and there are a couple of others I've thinking of doing this to (not BSG). I figure the best way to make a shit wikipedia entry useful is for someone to undertake a top to bottom rewrite then let the copy editors do their stuff to make it all shiny. But at the same time, you don't want to make any more work than you have to for the editors who follow you.Cobolhacker 22:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Poor Cally. One of the saddest, most tragic supporting characters on television.Cobolhacker (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SpecialistCally.jpg

Image:SpecialistCally.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)