Talk:Myka Bering

Full name

While her middle name may be Ophelia, she's never referred to by her full name. The title of the article should be changed to simply "Myka Bering." Her full name can be stated in the body of the article. IJVin (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Relationships

I added material to and reorganized the Relationships section. I'd like feedback on whether or not the new format is acceptable. It's similar to the old section in that it goes character by character, but I tried to make each character pop out. I feared the old section was bound to develop into a rambling and hard to follow narrative. I also added some general information about Myka's relationship history before getting to the character-by-character list. The section needs additional work in terms of references, but I hope to improve on that. If the new format is generally found to be acceptable, or if we can mutually agree on an acceptable format, I'd like to update the articles for the other main characters in the same way. I've listed the characters chronologically in the life of the fictional Myka.--107.9.24.141 (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with H.G. Wells

Aren't we going a bit overboard with the whole Myka-Helena thing? Nearly half the article is now fixated on this one piece Myka's personality. Seems rather obsessive to me. Can't it be trimed down to a one paragraph recap rather than chronicling their entire history? In the meantime, I'm breaking off all the Helena stuff under a separate heading because it is simply overwhelming the "Relationships" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.114.9 (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding “significant other” status for the relationship between Myka and H.G. … The definition of significant other as used here states “Significant other is colloquially used as a gender-blind term for a person's partner in an intimate relationship.” Myka and H.G. where never “in” a relationship. They may have had feelings for each other, but they never entered into a partnership, and hence, they fail to meet the significant other definition. Furthermore, the true nature of their feelings can only be speculated about as they have never been clearly articulated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.114.9 (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the HG Wells section overblown compared to the rest of her relationship entries? It's bizarre that HG gets her own section with regards to Myka, while Pete gets a small paragraph, Artie gets a sentence, and no one else on the regular Warehouse team gets a blurb at all. The detail about Wells in comparison seems obsessive. Mongoose22 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Joanne Kelly went on record at Comic-Con 2012 in San Diego and stated categorically: "Myka will always love H.G." - in a later interview the same day when asked about her relationship with H.G. by an interviewer, she stated "we're in love". Eddie McClintock responded with "but not in a scissors kind of way" thinking he was clarifying her position - but she corrected him to state "No, definitely in a scissors kind of way." She then specifically explains that they fell in love and how wonderful a twist it is for Myka to fall for a woman rather than for Pete. There should be NO question WHATSOEVER as to whether or not H.G. fits in the category of "significant other". To snipe over definitions is far pettier than I would hope a wiki article would allow. The actress herself make it categorically clear - and the refusal to allow the listing is why the H.G. section keeps growing and growing and growing. Electprogeny

As others have suggested, this obsession with H.G. Wells is way over the top. This article is supposed to be a brief character history. To obsess paragraph after paragraph about Myka’s relationship with one reoccurring character is not what this article is supposed to be about and is entirely inappropriate. A brief paragraph is all that should be devoted to the Myka-Helena relationship. If any one wishes to write more about the relationship, please consider a new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.46.10 (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Electprogeny wrote, "and the refusal to allow the listing is why the H.G. section keeps growing and growing and growing." ... If listing H.G. Wells as a significant other is the trade off for deleting the voluminous relationship history, then fine, let’s list her. H.G. deserves no more text than a single paragraph under the relationship heading like every one else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.46.10 (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Electprogeny wrote, "To snipe over definitions is far pettier than I would hope a wiki article would allow." ... Please spare me the outrage. Check the dates on the above postings - it was the other side of the argument that reached out more than nine months ago in an effort to start a converstation. If you had engaged in a discussion back then maybe an agreeable solution or compromise could have been worked out before we got into a ridiculous edit war. It's hard to work out differences when only one side seems willing to talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.9.24.141 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to check yourself with those comments. It's not like I own the character nor am I responsible for arguing for an entire fandom of people - clearly I'm not nearly as obsessed as you might imagine or I WOULD have been having this discussion 9 months ago! In any case, I think it would be rational to believe people will relax regarding the H.G. thing with her being listed in the relationship area - but, if not, then I can't say that I'd really think there was something horrifically wrong with people giving as much information about the character as they can. In terms of the show, Myka's character has been given the most opportunity for character backstory and depth of growth - it would make sense that her entry on wiki would reflect that. I think you'll see much more to come with this new season for Claudia and Artie, however, based on the premiere. But, then, that's just me assuming people are rational... and clearly that is a bad assumption. Electprogeny —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I just noticed the entire section on H.G. is now gone. Assuming no one starts complaining that the article has been defaced, I'll just say that I find nothing wrong with paring down the amount of data on H.G. in favor of something more objective. I don't think it's important to have to "prove" the relationship considering she is now listed as a significant other. But that's just me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electprogeny (talk • contribs) 00:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with people writing about the Myka-H.G. relationship, but the content had grown to something like 40% of the entire article, which is way too much. Myka is a far more important and complex character to focus so much on just that one part of her. If an in depth study of the relationship is desired, I believe an H.G. Wells article might be a more appropriate place to put it, since H.G.’s relationship with Myka was far and away the signature part of her character. Regarding having to “prove” the relationship, that should have taken place in the talk section, not in the body of the article. Isn’t the purpose of the talk section to discuss what content should or shouldn’t be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.46.10 (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To play Devil's Advocate, I'd say that for much of Season 2 and 3 the relationship with H.G. actually DOES define her rather significantly. It is with H.G. that we see Myka take the leap of faith to trust someone - and until then we had never seen her behave that way; then HG causes her to leave the Warehouse; and then is responsible for her return; and then shatters her with her death in the S3 finale. Heck, in the premiere we actually see Myka behave WICKEDLY out of character to bring HG back! I do think she did that for more than just H.G., but it was HG she was thinking about in the premiere's opening moments while Artie and Pete are thinking about the Warehouse. They'd all just watched HG die for them, but she was the only one thinking about her. And, yes, I absolutely agree that the majority of the content appearing in that section for Myka would be more appropriate in an article about H.G. - not all of it, though. Some of it was pertinent to this article. And I don't think many people who come to a wiki article really know about or use the discussion pages. I only do so when an article is locked out. Electprogeny —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I agree Myka’s relationship with H.G. is BIG and I’m in no way trying to diminish that. On the other hand, Myka’s character in the first season was largely defined by her coming to grips with the loss of Sam. And clearly her relationship with Pete is huge (there have been hints that Myka was mostly friendless prior to the closeness she now shares with Pete). All I’m saying is that the article needs to have a proper balance. Growing the article is a good thing, but the previous H.G. section, I believe, went into unnecessary detail and was way out of proportion to the rest of the article. The main points can be summarized in just a few sentences, which is consistent with the format used throughout the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.46.10 (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that. The article, in general, is pretty generic in terms of Myka's life and history - the HG section, while informative, definitely was not in that same style. I just authored an article for H.G.'s character, and if it is approved perhaps folks can add their obsession with the Bering & Wells thing there. In creating the article I did put Myka as her significant other, and also said that Myka is her presumed love interest on the show. I kind of enjoy the nit-picking of the fandom over the details, but I do think there is a way to do that which strengthens a wiki piece rather than detracts from it. Electprogeny (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Electprogeny. I definitely think a separate article is the best way to handle this situation. I had no problem with the H.G. section per se, but this article just wasn’t the right place for it. I look forward to reading what you wrote about Bering & Wells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.46.10 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is now up. Helena G. Wells though now I'm fighting someone who deleted it because they think she shouldn't have an article at all. As it turns out the reasons stated were not valid per the rules for deletion. In any case, I have created just the start of an article for her - people can add to the Bering & Wells part of it. I've listed Myka as her significant other and stated that Myka is her presumed love-interest. If people want more than that, then I suppose they can create a section for it. lolElectprogeny (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was much more than I expected. Nicely written, Electprogeny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.46.10 (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Ridiculously, the article is being targeted by someone who feels it should not be an article because H.G. is not a principle character. While I do not dispute the wiki-objections for improvement, I am taking serious issue that the only objection s/he's raising is with Helena's article when it's more sourced than any other character page with external links and is written with the exact same style. It's been a problem all night, but I'm finally at the point where I'm being told by the helpers that the secondary sources and the content will allow it to stay an independent page. I'm going to continue improving the page for style, etc., but right now I'm just sitting her pretty aggravated that it even came to all this. Why in the heck are people trying to control whether or not an article should be allowed to exist simply because a character wasn't a principle character on the show? What difference does it make, seriously, if every character had an article so long as there was enough actual information about that character to fill an acceptable-length article? I'm seriously just boggled by this. Electprogeny (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)