# Talk:Kim Possible (character)

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)
Slash haven is not a source people to determine how popular something is. Seriously wikipedia should not be subtext driven. There is no proof to determine how popular a ship is. Also you tell us to direct questions to alexlayer. Yeah he's really unbiased...Seriously he is one of the people who supports this crap. It has nothing to do with the show. There is no  subtext. Seriously a message board is not a source. We are not prudes. We just are not delusional. Kim is Straight. Shego is Straight. They hate each other. They have each tried to kill each other. We see that. Seriously...I find it funny alex calls slash haven a source and say's what's on that site means he's researched it. slicknickshady —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.68.225 (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 

There is no reason to remove the information under Wikipedia guidelines; it is properly referenced, sourced material about the fan reaction.  Note that there is *no* claim that anyone in the show is gay, bi, or straight; the material being removed is purely material that relates to fan reaction to the character.
As for claiming bias on the part of Alexlayer, I have yet to see him violate Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy with his edits; you, however, are failing to Assume Good Faith as required by WP policy, by attributing his edits to "delusion" and bias.
For other editors reading this, while I can't automatically assume that he is the same person, someone using the account name of "slicknickshady" has been one of the most determined Kim/Ron proponents in the "shipping wars" that have occurred in KP fandom, frequently jumping into unrelated discussions to express his outrage that anyone even considers Kim with anyone else.  Please take this into account in evaluating these comments.  rdfox 76 (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I am evaluating them and I am just in my reason to delete them. It's fine if it's mentioned but you can't prove it's "THE SECOND MOST POPULAR". There is no scientific theory to prove that. Slash haven is not a source to determine that. If you use a pro gay/lezbian website to determine if something gay/lezbian is popular it clearly biased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.68.225 (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC) 
Why does a Wikipedia article need to tell people that certain types of fan fiction exists? A credible encyclopedia wouldn't include useless stuff like that. Isn't that what Wikipedia is, at the very least, attempting to look like? The only reason someone would push for its inclusion is if they want their fan fiction to be more widely recognized by the general public, which is a biased reason. It's embarrassing. - Buddy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.60.251 (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC) 
I'm with you, Buddy. Then again Wikipedia has gone downhill. The fan reaction stuff should be saved for tvtropes. It doesnt belong on Wikipedia.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.84.20 (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC) 

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Of course it's a pun on "impossible".  That's clearly illustrated by the reported conversation between the two creators (see the Kim Possible article).  It's an ironic name just like "Ron Stoppable"/"unstoppable".  Powers T 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kim Possible (character)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: SL93 (talk · contribs) 17:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

prose = The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
mos = It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
ref layout = It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout.
reliable sources = The second reference is an unreliable personal website. The 8th reference is an unreliable website. The 14th reference is an unreliable web zine. For the 32nd reference, eBay should not be used as a source. The 38th reference is not a reliable source. The About page of the website says that anyone can apply to write for the website, no matter their background. The last reference is an unreliable blog. (no)
Done.  All unreliable sources removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
original research = The last sentence in the section Fictional character biography isn't cited. (no)
Done. Sentence removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
broadness = The article is sufficiently broad for an animated character.
focus = The article stays focused without going into too much detail.
neutral = The article is sufficiently neutral.
stable = The article is stable.
free or tagged pics = A valid fair use tag is on the the infobox picture. The second image is properly tagged as free use on Commons.
pics relevant = The images are relevant to the topic. The infobox picture is of the character discussed in the article and the free use picture if of the voice actress.
This will meet all Good Article criteria once the unreliable sources are taken of, which also includes the content that is referenced to them needing to be verified to reliable sources, and the unreferenced sentence being reliably referenced. SL93 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is one remaining problem. Now, the reference for "becoming the longest-running Disney Channel Original Series until it was eventually surpassed by Phineas and Ferb." makes no mention of Phineas and Ferb. SL93 (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Problem solved.  Found a new, quite reliable reference for Phineas and Ferb.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The article is now listed. SL93 (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much!--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Kim Possible (character). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=100698
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wizardworld.com/kpochcarobig.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ugo.com/movies/animated-hotties-kim-possible
Corrected formatting/usage for http://telebisyon.net/Kim-Possible/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ugo.com/movies/animated-hotties-kim-possible
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kim Possible (character). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newswire.ca/releases/July2002/30/c9080.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/ae/tv/1440446
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Kim Possible (character). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/disneys-kim-possible-disney-book-group/1120075811%3Bjsessionid%3D14CB5EE205C2D9E040EF71EAB04BD5F8.prodny_store01-atgap11?ean=9780786846290
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304080309/http://www.sptimes.com/2007/02/05/Floridian/Anything_s_possible.shtml to http://www.sptimes.com/2007/02/05/Floridian/Anything_s_possible.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304080309/http://www.sptimes.com/2007/02/05/Floridian/Anything_s_possible.shtml to http://www.sptimes.com/2007/02/05/Floridian/Anything_s_possible.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160404085103/https://feministfairytales.wordpress.com/tag/kim-possible/ to https://feministfairytales.wordpress.com/tag/kim-possible/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160415063818/http://ptrevs.net/2013/02/review-kim-possible-tv-2002-2007/ to http://ptrevs.net/2013/02/review-kim-possible-tv-2002-2007/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kim Possible (character). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160313200633/http://www.imovies.ge/cast_member/23818 to http://www.imovies.ge/cast_member/23818
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kim Possible (character). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170402115016/http://www.celebuzz.com/2008-08-11/anneliese-van-der-pol-meet-the-disney/ to http://www.celebuzz.com/2008-08-11/anneliese-van-der-pol-meet-the-disney/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Why does it say Kim isn't a tomboy? We might think she'll still be considered one. --Eloc08 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)