Talk:Kim Possible

Middleton Location

The article states that Middleton is in Colorado.

This is NOT specified in Canon. So it should not be in the article. While most of the evidence to support Colorado exists (and I personally subscribe to it in my fan works), the main evidence is a map of Colorado Senor Senior, Sr references in targeting missiles at Middleton, another episode references a map of West Virginia. These conflicting aired canon graphics makes it impossible to *definitively* state Colorado as Middleton's state.

BTW, I'm the Admin for the KimPossible.fandom.com wiki.

Reprise: Middleton cannot be declared as in Colorado, even though I personally subscribe to it.

I looked briefly at the history to see if I could spot when it was added, but I don't have the time for a deep dive. I would simply make the change, but I don't want to be seen as *a vandal* Love Robin (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I saw nothing when watching the series that indicated Colorado was the location. Figured Middleton was just some random stateless name of a generic city. Anyway nothing in the article supports Colorado, nothing in the series defines it as being there. I removed it. Was changed from USA with this edit in January 2020. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Reboot

Believe me or not, there has been a possibility about a possible reboot as told by Kim's voice actress Christy Carlson Romano and Entertainment Tonight (ET). 2601:196:4A01:D770:1FC5:26BB:A03D:8117 (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Reboot explication

Geraldo Perez, i just added a source, so why THE HECK DID YOU HAD TO REVERT MY FREAKING EDITS. I JUST EDIT A DAMN RELIABLE SOURCE. 73.182.164.191 (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Because the source didn't support the information added to the article. There was no announcement of any sort made, she hinted at a possibility and it is more her personal aspirations than something official from the production studio who she doesn't even work for let alone speak for. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I get that, but you should know that i was proving a reliable source. 73.182.164.191 (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That generally reliable source did not support the information that was added. Whether or not that source is generally reliable isn't the issue here - the source didn't support the information that was added to the article. She made no announcement of any sort, the source reliably reported that she "hinted" at what she hopes is a possibility and it mostly supports that she is trying to drive up support for a sequel, not that there is actually anything happening. This is not the sort of information that belongs in a Wikipedia article. There is nothing solid there to report, she is not an authority tied to the production studio who knows what is going on. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging Kim Possible: A Sitch in Time into this article. I think the content in Kim Possible: A Sitch in Time lacks sufficient notability to stand on its own. Lililolol (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Apart from the existing citations and ones like this, this and this, I found some passing mentions to it, all in reference to the development of the 2019 live-action film in Deadline, TV Line, IGN, BBC News, UPI, The Hollywood Reporter, and Polygon. I also found it mentioned in reviews of the next film, in 2005, in articles in CBR (also see here), ScreenRant, and noted in a Variety piece. Adding to this, Common Sense Media didn't even review the film (but they did review others, like the series itself, the 2019 film, and the 2005 film, which says something).

According to Google Scholar, there is a mention of it in the paper "The Human Position in an Artificial World: Creativity, Ethics and AI in Knowledge Organization" (of course, I can't access it), a mention of it on page 1298 of the article "Entity Hierarchy Embedding" in comparison to the film X-Men: Days of Future Past, and page 57 of the dissertation "Postfeminism and the Disney tween empire" plus a citation in something called "The Michael Dorn Handbook-Everything you need to know about Michael Dorn" (almost sounds like a Wikipedia page which was put into a book). Also, there's a mention of the film on page 329 of "Absentee Parents in Disney Feature-length Animated Movies" which is available free of charge here which I found when searching "A Sitch in Time" on Wikipedia Library (four of the five results were false drops. According to the same library, there was an article in the New York Times about the movie. I found the text thanks to some searching, and it says:

Don't be fooled by her looks. In Kim Possible: A Sitch in Time, a new movie to be shown Friday at 8 p.m. on Disney Channel, the girl next door musters enough mojo to fend off Dr. Drakken, Shego, Lord Monkey Fist and Duff Killigan as they tamper with the time-space continuum and send her flailing back to preschool and into the future. Freddie Prinze Jr., Raven and Kelly Ripa are among the stellar voices joining Christy Carlson Romano's Kim.

So, based on all of that, I have to agree with you. I don't think it has sufficient notability to be on its own. However, there should be content about it, plus some of these links, incorporated into the "Films" section. Otherwise, I do think each of the three films in that section should have their own paragraph, if possible.Historyday01 (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Historyday01 So what you're saying is that the merge would include all the films, Kim Possible: A Sitch in Time, Kim Possible (live-action), and Kim Possible Movie: So the Drama, into the Related media section? I don't disagree, though. I think it would be better to create a new section titled "Sequels" or "Future", because these films tie in with the series, unlike the other materials in Related media. I also feel that a dedicated section with subsections would work better if the film articles are redirected, and subsections would have more space to include detailed info about the films. Also, would the infobox images still be kept after the merge?

I've worked on this in my sandbox (here), so feel free to take a look, if you're interested, you can edit, give feedback, or just ignore it :)

+ If nobody objects to the sandbox format, I can go ahead with the merge. It's also been around a month with no objections, and given the arguably insufficient notability, a merge seems appropriate. Lililolol (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I lightly disagree with the merge. It is more a scope issue than anything else. This article is about the TV series and a merge turns it into more of a franchise article. The articles to be merged into this one meet the minimums of WP:GNG so can support being standalone articles. The films are not episodes in the series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but the films are part of the series, and I don't there is *enough* to justify Kim Possible: A Sitch in Time as a separate article at this point. Historyday01 (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking, yes. Historyday01 (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I think both So the Drama & the live action film are able to justify their own pages but a sitch in time is basically 3 episodes in one similar to disneys other straight to video films of the time. It’s even on Disney plus as 3 episodes. So I think keep the articles on both so the drama and the live action film seperate. But just merge sitch in time into the main article. Yacob01 (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Note Both animated films were eventually aired as episodes, so merging makes sense because they're essentially extended episodes. As for the live-action film, I honestly don't see much potential for expansion (the article itself is also a bit low quality, imo). So while I'm not sure a merge is the best option, I do understand why it could justify a standalone article, given the coverage. Still, there's little room for meaningful expansion. Lililolol (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incorrectly cited quote

The "Legacy" section of the article contains the following quote:

Explaining Kim Possible's universal appeal, the creators said, "Whenever there's an action complement to a show, boys get excited, and when Kim does her martial arts and when she's doing one of these incredible stunts, boys love to watch it ... And one of the things that we've always found is that boys of any age ... love humour and characters that are a little goofy, sort of silly and weird. When we tested it, the kids were like: 'Oh, Ron's stupid funny' and that became sort of a buzz phrase."

This is cited to:

Robinson, Sherry (February 5, 2007). "Anything's possible". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved November 24, 2016..

However, the quote above does not appear in the article. In fact, the use of the spelling "humour" suggests that it probably came from a British or other non-U.S. publication. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)