Talk:Kim Possible (character)

Archives
Archive 1: January 18, 2006 - March 4, 2007

More Kigo

If people insist on including Kigo, please could they

1) Properly source everything. 2) Avoid WP:OR at all costs (it adds to wiki-nazi's arsenal in their quest to over-regulate articles on fiction, which hurts us all in the end). 3) Not read too much into little things, or take them out of context. 4) Either keep Kigo smaller than Kim-Ron, or boost Kim-Ron to match (having more about fan fiction more than cannon relationships just plain looks bad. Especially when wiki-nazi come over to pry).

perfectblue 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree. Fan ships should not be put on wiki.

kopa2

Shipping is part and parcel of the public reaction to a series or franchise. It is notable enough to have a single paragraph stating that it exists. I've WP:V'd it so it complies with all wiki policies and guidelines.

perfectblue 11:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The section is about the character's official crushes/love interests which are mentioned in the show, not some fantasy fan ships. They are only acknowledged by a minority of viewers and never mentioned/exist.

kopa2

have policy on my side for its inclusion. Fringe views and fan reactions are both allowed under wiki-regs so long as they are noted as such and are not portrayed as cannon/official, and I have a source that says that they exist so they do exist. Therefore they are valid for inclusion. Besides, the creators of the show specifically said that they intended for Kim and Ron to end up together, so shipping was inevitable.

perfectblue 18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you really insist, so be it, though i still don't agree with some points.

kopa2

Maybe it would help if we talked those point over. I'd like to reach an understanding on this.

perfectblue 09:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, basically i still think that fan ships should not be put on wiki. However, since you make an entire new section Fan reaction, there aren't much i can say/edit. I see that it's not only about Kim but also the other characters so you should move it to the main show article.

kopa2

If you want to put it on the main show, I won't object, but Kigo is certainly notable enough to have 20 or so words stating it's existence

perfectblue 09:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So you just put it on. Just want to note you that i didn't do anything with that Fan reaction section.

kopa2

One question. What in the heck is "Kigo"? Some weird viewer trying to read in a lesbian relationship between these two rivals. Gimme a break! WAVY 10 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Kigo (KIm + sheGO) is very popular, check around: [1] --Alexlayer 04:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

These guys have way too much time on their hands, apparently. WAVY 10 12:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Some peole try to bring Kigo on Fan reaction section, others try to remove it. Honestly i don't know when this mess end.

kopa2

Considering that the fact stated ARE resourced and, acording to Perfectblue97, the information is worthy of mentioning, it all resumes into that there's a certain Anti-Kigo who doesn't want the truth to be expread. --Alexlayer 19:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the site in question count as a fansite (discouraged on Wikipedia)? WAVY 10 13:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Kigo should be on the page. The information is not fit to be in an encyclopeida. -Rosepuff12 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It WOULD not be encyclopedic if it would REALLY be fan-shipping or original research (see: Wikipedia:Verifiability), but as you can probably see, all the information is sourced, and it's not like that small fragment is claming something as "Kigo ROCKS and it's better than canon!", it's totally formal and explaned in neutral point of view. The small fragment at the end of the Fan Reaction page just mention that fan-shipping exist (though it actually exist for everything) and mentions Kigo's popularity, which is also sourced. Deleting this information would only mean an attemp to stop real information from spreading, and that's can be considered as even vandalism. --Alexlayer 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with perfectblue's original post; but support putting as much emphasis as possible on the fact that the whole Kigo thing is fanon, not canon. WAVY 10 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's clear enough in the paragraph in which the fanship is mentioned. --Alexlayer 01:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we just going to keep on going back and forth deleting and reverting the paragraph, or are we going to settle if the paragraph should or should not be on the page once and for all? -Rosepuff12 20:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've stated the reason for that paragraph should be on the page, but some people keeps deleting it without even discussing it here, and they give no valid reason, only things like "I don't think KiGo is popular enough", someone even claimed that it was DECIDED that it was not notable enough (For the sake of... I think I could even add more sources if I'd look for them), when such person had never even made a comment in this page. So far, no one has stated a valid reason for not including paragraph, and I don't think such reason even exist. As I stated before, actions like this are to be considered considered vandalism, and that's meant to be reverted. If this vandalism keep going, it'll have to be reported. --Alexlayer 02:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, there is nothing in wiki-policy that justifies deletion. It's a real and verifiable phenomona among fans and it most certainly is notable. I've come across may share of Kigo fan art, fan pics and fan messages, which makes it more than notable enough too.

I wonder how many of the people deleting it are prudes and how many simply aren't active enough in fan circles to know about it's relevance. Maybe they should start researching slash fiction, it's become increasingly popular because of the influence of Anime and Manga on the US, and the fact that they have introduced a generation to non-pornographic emotion based same sex relationships in popular fiction.

perfectblue 07:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, It exsists and there are many fans. also, most Kigo is non pornographic so, why not?

-no name

Let's leave it out, and be done with it, okay? Whoever said that the kigo people are horny 14 year olds was right. What does it add? seriously???

=CJK= 03:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You REALLY think you're rigth on that? Believe me, you're wrong. You don't even know a thing about the fandom supporting that shipping.

And the paragraph does add. That you don't like the fact that the shipping exist and is notable is no reason enough for deleting it. What you're doing there is to try to hide the truth, and that not something you could call morally right. --Alexlayer 04:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Kigo people are horny 14 year olds"? I'm not sure I follow. I mean, originally it was started by a female and from what I understand, and it had been around a couple years before any male had even started going with it. As it is, I know of two men who are far too old to be considered even near 14 yrs. old. So, I see that as someone's opinion, which really shouldn't affect whether or not what's put up here. --TriElemental 00:52, 19 May 2007

The best Kigo artists that I know are female and are certainly not 14 years old. -

The person who said that "kigo people are horny 14 year olds" has no idea what they are talking about. I am a Kigo person. I'm a reader of Kigo fiction. I'm also a reader of Kim/Ron fiction as well as many other pairings. I enjoy all of them. I just personally like Kigo a bit more than the others. I am female, not male. I am NOT horny and I am well past 14 years of age. It's been decades since I even saw my teenage years. Most of the Kigo people I've gotten to know are in their 20's, 30's, 40's and up. How would the Kim/Ron fans like it if I called them all a bunch of preschoolers, since that's one of the age groups this show targets. I know that's no more true than referring to Kigoers as 14 year olds. Kindly use that brain that resides inside your skull before insulting any group of people. You've got intelligence. Kindly use it. Creativetoo 18:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please and thank you (to quote KP) for perfectblue97's last edit on this page. WAVY 10 14:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh

Now, I'm no regular contributor, or even registered. But this caught my eye, as the slash section wasn't there last time I googled KP.

There's no section on Kirk/Spock in the James T. Kirk article, even though the term slash was coined there AFAIK.

What exactly justifies including it here, about a vastly less known show?

..or is it just that there aren't any fans willing to troll about it there?

edit: signing, for whatever good it does

84.3.78.184 14:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, what are you exactly meaning by slash section? The whole love interests of Kim? Or the last paragraph of the Fan Reaction?

At any rate, if it is the second case, read the discussion previous to this to see the reasons.

Slash fiction is probably the number 2 area of KP fandom so it's more than notable enough for brif mention. Check out deviantart and the slash fiction message boards.

As for Kirk/Spock, I wasn't involved in writing Kirk's page. I'm not sure that I've even been there. You'd have to ask the regular editors why. My guess is that the page is probably edited by male Startrek fans over the age of 25, which puts them outside of the normal male-on-male slash-fiction writing/reading demographic. It'd also suggest that Kirk/Spock is old news whereas Kigo received a boost in interest earlier this year when KP went into its fourth season.

perfectblue 17:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Layout

I did some drastic changes to the picture locations. If you guys have any thoughts tell me. I SWEAR I didn't touch the text so don't gripe at me. =CJK= 04:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you did a good work with the pictures, though I don't think some of them need to be as big as you are putting them. --Alexlayer 04:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I got rid of three of the dead images cluttering this page. WAVY 10 16:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Kim's an aweful friend

No, I mean it! I think Kim is an aweful friend to Ron. Here are a few examples: (1) In Stop Team Go, when Shego turned good, Kim started to do everything with Shego. I agree with Kim that she should spend some time with Shego since she turned good, but whatt about Ron? Shego was only being nice to Kim anyway because she was sort of under mind controll. As for Ron, he's always been nice to Kim. And like Ron said: "...Who used to punch and kick you! And mean it!". Whenever kim finds another "Friend", she always ditches Ron. (2) In So The Drama when Erik came to school Kim (again) started doing nothing with Ron, and everything with Erik. Supposedly Kim didn't know Ron was upset about it, but if she's such a good friend to Ron, wouldn't she know that she was leaving him out? P.S. (Erik turned out to not even be human!). (3) Kim isn't exactly encouraging to Ron. In the episode Hidden Talent, Kim said to ron "I didn't know you even had a talent." RUDE! If she thinks that about him, she could keep it to herself. (4) And what about when Kim first met Monique? She (AGAIN) did eveything with Monique instead of Ron. Also I think there should be somthing about this in the Ron part of the Kim article. Any comments?Bracelet 22:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they just have a strong enough friendship to survive those things. --=CJK= 04:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to how Ron acts around Kim? An example is set in STG: "I love rollerskating, but we never go because Ron always falls." Kim said that to Shego. And earlier in the ep Kim invited Ron to join in the time she was spending with Shego, but he declined because he didn't want to go see a movie he wasn't interested in, while Kim has. The example for that is in Team Impossible where Kim was less than interested in seeing Bricks Of Fury III. A quote from there is: "If you've seen a movie about a disgruntled security guard enacting his own brand of street justice using a cinderblock, you've seenc them all." Then when Kim and Ron started going out, Ron wasn't being too good at that. As he was funding the entire date, from what we can tell, with coupons. And Kim pretty much tolerated it. She didn't dump him like most people would. Then on the part of Kim meeting someone new, like when she met Monique, that was two days if not three that she spent time with Monique there. At that time Kim and Ron were friends. Where is it written that good friends have to spend all their time with that friend and that friend alone? Essentially you're saying that Kim isn't entitled to time by herself if Ron wants to hang with her. Also with Eric, at that time she saw Eric as her boyfriend. So of course she's going to spend more time with him! As friends usually take time away from each other that just HAPPENS. It's not anything that declares someone as a bad friend. And it'd be a poor friendship in the first place if any of that ruined the friendship.

--=TriElemental 14:32, 9 September 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:KPCBonnieVSKim.jpg

Image:KPCBonnieVSKim.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 17:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KimPossible.png

Image:KimPossible.png 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kimmissionclothes.jpg

Image:Kimmissionclothes.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 15:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KPCBonnieVSKim.jpg

Image:KPCBonnieVSKim.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 16:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KPCBonnieVSKim.jpg

Image:KPCBonnieVSKim.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) 23:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Pun of "impossible"

I removed that uncited and wrong information that was at the end of the intro cuz is not true. The writers said it's to mean "anything is possible" not a pun of "impossible" someone had to make that up because that doesn't even make any sense for the character. Also saying who the voice was done by twice in the lead is unnecessary.What's wrong wit this place?Catagraph (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)