Talk:Shego

Talk Pages ≠ Message Boards

Maybe we should start writing down what isn't acceptable to start a section regarding.

• Anything that doesn't have to do with Shego.
• Anything that is clearly already in the article. ("What about Shego in STG?")
• Anything that is widely known to be true/false. ("Is Shego a badguy?")
• Anything that is pure speculation w/o evidence. ("I have a theory that Shego's parents...")
• Anything that doesn't show a pattern. ("Remember when Shego did that one thing she never did again?")
• Anything that relates to shipping (This goes for KiGo, D/S, Rongo, and any other romantic ship involving Shego. Shipping is primarily opinion-based, and therefore has no place in a factual article. Since this talk page is meant to discuss improvements to the article, it naturally has no place here either.)

The current spate of IP vandalism

Anyone else think that maybe we should request semi-protection for the article to stop the people who keep adding the speculation about a Drakken/Shego relationship? I was gonna leave it be with the current revert method, but now that they're screwing up the references with it, it's starting to get out of hand here. (Er... and anyone remember HOW to request semi-protection?) Rdfox 76 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

They don't seem to be doing it as much lately (or at all, for that matter), so I don't think it's necessary. At the current level, we should be able to simply delete or edit the offending content so that it conforms to the rest of the article. If it starts getting out of control, then maybe we should request it. But right now I really don't see the need. Beeftony 18:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think on the recent Graduation Day episode Kim asked/made a reference to Shego about her having romantic feelings for Drakken. I honesty cant remember exactly what she said but it was a clear indication at romance, though Shego did not confirm that suspicion. If someone could look up the script for the episode (if its available) that could reasonably be added. If not, it doesnt really matter. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 00:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the creators themselves confirmed the relationship in the finale chat on RS.net, though it was only hinted at in the actual episode. The whole thing is moot anyway because implied romantic relationships have no place in a factual article.Beeftony 07:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet, the words posted only one a forum doesn't work as reliable source for Wikipedia. If it were, just think of the things some fans could label as "canon" by appearing around forums with the name of the creators. --Alexlayer 16:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Shipping

Yes, whoever added that line to the rules is correct. Shipping has no place. I've been gone for a very long time, and I don't see any sign of it now. --=CJK= 23:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I added it. Shipping is for message boards, not Wikipedia. Beeftony 20:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mhhh,it still seems that people try to add that Drakken and Shego are in a canon relationship,which hasn't been proved.I deleted it recently Tantrix 20:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.2.21 (talk)

Besides, even if it were proven that they have a romantic relationship in canon, it still has no place in a factual article. Too many individual opinions are introduced this way. Beeftony 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Specific Examples

My contribution to the personality section of the article was recently shrunk from two paragraphs to three sentences. Normally I would be in favor of brevity, but I can't help but feel that a few things were lost in the translation.

I believe in providing as many specific examples as possible so that there can be no doubt that what I've written is fact. While I understand the reasoning behind the current system of making general statements and linking to specific episodes in the references, I think that specific examples provide an insight into Shego's character that the current system does not allow.

I'm willing to compromise and cut down on the amount of examples I use, but the recent edit cut too much out for my tastes. I'll wait until Alex responds (as he is the one who made the edit) before making my decision as to how much I should put back in. Beeftony 21:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Beef, I suppose you do have a point, but you got to remember that brevity is a very valuated thing around Wikipedia, specially now that this article is awaiting a review.

I suppose you can add specific examples if you feel that they are needed to express/explain something about Shego's character, but please try not to add anything that might be unnecessary. Also, try not to add anything expeculative (Because, for example, what you added in Powers and Abilities once was totally not allowed at wikipedia) --Alexlayer 02:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's cool. I'll have to completely scrap your edit, though; given that English isn't your first language, I'm willing to cut you some slack, but... let's just say a few things were definitely lost in translation. *winks*

Edit: Okay, there, I edited it. What do you think of it now? Beeftony 03:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, although I think we should look for a way to brief all those facts from "Car Alarm". Mmm... --Alexlayer 03:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, whadya think now? --Alexlayer 04:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It just comes off looking choppy, probably due to our different writing styles. I'll undo your edit, then try and trim it down some more myself, okay?

Edit: There. Three sentences. Just as long as your revision. That should be good, don't you think?Beeftony 04:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is... it states nearly the same thing twice. "though she has demonstrated an almost callous disregard for human life" and "This demonstrates that Shego doesn't care much for the general populace" are expressing the same thing. What I tried to do in my edit was to let this two as one. Do you have another idea of how to solve this? --Alexlayer 04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the last sentence. That should do it. Beeftony 05:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of September 29, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The aticle seems well written, punctuated correctly and interesting to read.

2. Factually accurate?: This article is accurate from the tests I performed on the more obscure points of the article.

3. Broad in coverage?: This article takes every section into highly in-depth detail - specifically, her psychological state as she moves through the series.

4. Neutral point of view?: The article, as far as I can tell, is neutral in view (no anti-Shego or pro-Possible text).

5. Article stability? The article does not seem to have been subject to edit warring.

6. Images?: The images have had their fair use proved, such as Image:Shego SD.jpg.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

-- Jhfireboy Talk 23:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Shego Disturbed?

I think it would be pretty cool to expand the sociopath sentence that Beeftony started into, perhaps, a section? Thoughts & comments welcome. --=CJK= 14:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And, no, I don't think it would be WP:OR so long as we adhere STRICTLY to the guidelines of the DSM-IV. --=CJK= 14:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)