Talk:Mikaela Banes

What is the point?

ANSWER TO ALL BELOW STATEMENTS: SHE'S HOT, AND NO ONE CAN DENY IT, lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.44.210 (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly does this one character have an antire article devouted to? not even any of the witwickys from the G1 cartoon has and it wouldnt be pointless if she was a major character but i wouldnt exactly say that shes done much. Behellmorph 21:51, 15 June 2009

She was originally a section of the Witwicky family article, but since she's not part of the family I spun her out of it and onto her own page. Mathewignash (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, people needed a full article for her so they could put Megan Fox pictures on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.50.238 (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

True that, the only real reason their is for this article is to have an excuse for pictures, well otherwise the character should just be moved back in the witickys because from that box at the bottom it makes her look like a vital part of transformers history Behellmorph 15:25, 4 July 2009

At least Sam should have his own article if Mikaela does, or more importantly, the movie Transformers should. Actually, why is it that Mikaela has her own article and the movie's incarnations of Optimus Prime, Megatron and pals, who are arguably far more relevant and undoubtedly more iconic, only have tiny sections on hardly-visited side pages? --172.162.213.74 (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

By Transformers movie, you mean before the 2007 film, right? That has its own article at least...if you mean The Transformers: The Movie. Flyer22 (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Economy of space. If there were 5 different version of Mikaela then they would all share a page. The 5 version of Optimus share a page. All the Witwickys share a page. Mikaela used to be on the "Witwicky Family" page, but she's not a Witwicky, so that was stupid. Mathewignash (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we merge the pages and retitle it as "Human Characters in Transformers". Then we can add fleshbag characters from RiD and the Unicron trilogy.209.106.203.252 (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Human ahcaracters from RiD already can be mentioned on the RiD main page. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Formatting for article

As I stated to Mathewignash, I appreciate his looking out for this article and I know that he created it, but I pondered his revert to this old version of the article, with the exception of a bit of the wording I added to the lead and other stuff from a few other people. He seemed fine with it in the days after I tweaked it. Thus, I questioned, "Why revert now?"

My reasoning for changing it in the first place and reverting back to "my" version is due to better formatting. The lead (intro) of the article should summarize the article and not be too short in proportion to the rest of the article. The lead of this article was not like that until I tweaked it. Not only that, but the main (and only, in this case) picture of the character was not at the top where it should be so that everyone sees what the character looks like right away (no matter how famous or well-known the character is). In addition to all this, most editors here do not consider "movie" to be an encyclopedic word; they prefer the word "film." This is why I changed it to "Film plot." And considering that she is not only in the 2007 film but also the 2009 film, and quite possibly the third film, it does not make sense to only have a section titled Transformers 2007 film for the plot, unless we are going to have two different sections about her roles in each film. That would be overkill, though, and is not needed. What she did in both films can fit into the one section titled Film plot. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Flyer's lead is better. Neither version of the body seems overly different other than a section header difference. Flyer is right in that the lead should be below the infobox. That's just standard on any page (film, TV, character, star, animal, etc.). "Film plot" is better than "Movie plot", but neither should really be used. It should be "Appearances", followed by simple "Films" (it's understand that you're putting the film's plot there), and then possibly "Comics", where you summarize all the comics. You really shouldn't break a part the different comics/magazines. Toys should really be "Merchandise" or something like that, and it should be it's own section instead of a subsection.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in on this, Bignole. I have asked others, including Mathewignash, to comment on this matter as well. I know that this article needs more work than what I gave it, but I was simply going over the basics first. I am definitely all for following your suggestions for improving this article; what you stated is how all the good or featured articles of this type are formatted here at Wikipedia. But I also am willing to listen to Mathewignash's reasons for wanting to deviate a bit from the "correct" formatting. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I just used the same style all other Transformers characters are written in, where we start with the main tage in the first series/show the character appeared in. Mathewignash (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Typically that's what you should start in for an Appearances section, but in her case I think it's misleading. Fox was filming the movie before the comic was written. That was merely released before the film was. The films are her primary appearance, and should really be first when discussing her appearances in fiction.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Mathewignash, the style you're proposing has a strange layout, being the comics and toys, subsections of a '2007 movie' with higher hierarchical level. I, for one, tend to prefer the one proposed by Flyer22. Also, the somewhat expanded article intro doesn't hurt, and it's conceptually right for the time being, since the portrayal of Mikaela has been the same in all the media she's been in so far. I would only advise the 'Film plot' section's name be changed to 'Transformers (film)', since currently it doesn't match the other sections in the same hierarchical level. --uKER (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, UKER. I just now changed the title of the plot section to "Films," considering that everyone who comes to this article knows the title of these films and since the plot consists of both films. The Toys section, for example, does not say "Transformers toys." Is everyone okay with this small change for now, until we better fix up this article?

If "Transformers" is still felt to be left in the title for now, I still state that it should not simply be titled "Transformers 2007 film," seeing as the plot incorporates both films. Maybe I could go for "Transformers (film)" for now, though, like UKER suggests. Flyer22 (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more appropriate to call it something along the lines of 'Live action films', implying that it includes both of the Michael Bay movies. --uKER (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am okay with that for now. Anything that keeps "movie" from being in the heading's title (unless it is actually titled movie, LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know you wanted that too. Thing is all official media refers to it as a "movie", not a "film". If this isn't right should we go and change all existing Transformers articles - not that that's impossible, but if it's that important and technically right ot say "film" then we should be consistant. Mathewignash (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Film" is typically seen as the encyclopedic wording for "movie" here at Wikipedia by its editors (from what I have seen, which subsequently caused me to now view it as the encyclopedic wording for the word). I mean, celebrities are often called by their first names in articles as well, but here at Wikipedia we go by their last names after originally mentioning their first names. Why? Because referring to them by their last names is formal, while referring to them by their first names is personal (as if we know them, which is seen as unencyclopedic). Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, there's no sense in naming a section 'Film plot' if you haven't stated what film it is from. --uKER (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I'd say call it something like "film plot" then in the text say "In the 2007 Transfomers movies she did this, then in the 2009 Revenge of the Fallen she did this." Mathewignash (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, "Film plot" refers to a movie you still haven't named. That's not right. Also, you're not describing the plot. You're describing the character's role in that movie. --uKER (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, good point about the "Film plot" heading, UKER. For some reason, that did not cross my mind. I mean, I was still thinking of it as the film's plot because it partially describes the plot by summarizing Mikaela and a few other characters' roles.

So is everyone okay with the heading "Live-action films" for now, until we format this article in the typical way (such as making an Appearances section, noted by Bignole above)? Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to "Films" like I did before. "Films" or "Live-action films" will do for now. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge:

Harking back to the "Witwicky Family" argument from earlier, Mikaela Banes, I don't think, deserves her own article. That said, I think we should merge the two articles and retitle it as "Human Characters in Transformers" Who agrees with me?209.106.203.252 (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - She's appeared in 2 movies, and several comic series and has established herself as a character. She shouldn't be throw in with backgrund characters on some list page. She's a pretty major human character considering Hasbro has made three toys of her so far. Mathewignash (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, Sam, Spike, Buster, and Sparkplug deserves their own pages. 209.106.203.252 (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

They are sharing a Witwiky page, and Mikaela was on that page, but she's NOT a Witwicky, she got her own page. Mathewignash (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"based on the G1 character Carly"

It says in the first paragraph that she is based on the G1 character Carly, but now that Dark of the moon has been released, there is a Carly (played by Rosie Huntington-Whiteley), so this sentence proves to be inaccurate. I will remove this line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odie1344 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)