Talk:Kath & Kim

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Links[edit]

I'm wondering if it is appropriate for the external links section of this article to basically read like an advertisement. I keep reverting the phrasing of the links "e.g. #1 Fan Site!" but they are constantly and relentlessly reverted back. Should I bother? Daydream believer2 00:30, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Absolutely revert them out! Wikipedia is not supposed to be a list of fan sites. At most, the official site and the BBC sites. - Ian ≡ talk 02:00, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No offence Ian but the Fansites are there for Kath and Kim Fans to use, I am admin of one of those sites and I have friends who are also admin of those sites and i dont think its adverising, I think its more what the fans want to see! - Thomas
Yes but no one has proposed removing the link, just rephrasing the description of the link to something more neutral. Personally I am unlikely to follow a link that says something like "Number 1 Kath & Kim site" because it instantly sounds like an exaggeration and it is too general anyway, giving little real idea of what the site it like, what it contains. MinorEdit 00:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I'm proposing removing such links - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a billboard. If people want to find fansites, they can use Google. Remy B 16:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but keep in mind that this may be the slogan that the site uses below their name, they may not just be implomenting it here. - Thomas
Are you referring to "Foxymorons - The #1 Site"? Because I went to the site, and sure enough it's called "Foxymorons" and I think the site contains enough news information to make it qualify for inclusion, but nowhere did I see "#1 Site". Nice try, but that should be removed - and left removed - as User:MinorEdit said. The site is good, but leave the link title as ONLY the title of the site please. Rossrs 11:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian - I am Tash from FM.net, and we have been around since 2002, albeit originally as an MSN group. If you had cast your eyes to the title bar at top of screen you will see the phrase #1 Fan Site. Also, if you look around properly and also look on Google you will note that our claim is 100% correct. Next time please consider checking your facts - and seeings Wikipedia did not say anything about not advertising, why shouldnt we? And as Thomas said it is our slogan, it goes with the name, just like many other sites/businesses.

Tash, you need to be sure you know what people are talking about before you jump in on the defensive. Looking at the sites - Foxymorons says "The Original and # 1 Fansite" which is different to what was recorded in the Wiki article which was just "#1 in all things Kath and Kim" (which looks like somebody's opinion and is different to what's on the site). Hornbags.net was described as "A great fansite, with loads of features" and funnily enough that's not what the site is called. It's actually called "Hornbags.net - The Ultimate Kath & Kim Fansite". If people are going to use links that's fine, but they should use the title exactly how it appears on the site, and not flower it with things like "a great fansite" which is their opinion only. Also before you tell other people to check their facts, you should really check your own, otherwise it's a bit hard to take you seriously. I'll fix the links in the article so that it contains nothing but the official names and no added stuff like "great fansite", which is what people were objecting to... Hopefully everyone will be happy. Rossrs 11:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a web directory and it is not a free advertising opportunity. If you have a fansite, then I suppose that listing it is OK but I do feel that tags such as "The Original and # 1 Kath & Kim Fansite", "The Ultimate Kath & Kim Fansite!" and "The Home of Kath & Kim" are both unecessary and not in the spirit of what this place is all about - refer also Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Those terms may be your official slogan, but that's irrelevant - at most you're listing a site via a link - the link is not there for the sites promotion. Have a look at the bottom of the Nicole Kidman article as an good example. I am removing the tags (again). - Ian ≡ talk 13:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me - no-one that works @ FM.net created the link, it was done by a fan. Maybe Wikipedia needs to put something on their site that says what you do above and then it would be clearer to everyone.

Yes...I work at FM.net and I must say that what has happened here is disgraceful! I only found out about FoxyMorons.net being listed here a week ago by my web host provider. I did not create the link or have anything to do with what has been going on about the slogan crap. Some key points to mention are as follows: #1 - Who really cares if there are slogans or not? Are you people that sad that we need to bicker over it? It’s such a small issue and so insignificant in life! #2 - Someone needs a lesson on what is and is not an external (official site) and a fan site! The official Kath & Kim site is www.kathandkim.com! There is only this one that is truly official, the two BBC sites that are listed are not official and one provides old information about K&K which should not even be listed! I note that not even the true official site is listed under external links or even on the site at all! So whoever edits this page and keeps changing everything around, you clearly need a lesson in what is official and what is unofficial! Also, who are you people to decide what information the fan sites provide and what they do not provide? Are you even Kath & Kim fans and do you run Kath & Kim fan sites? If not, leave it to the people that know, the managers of the fan sites! That said we thankyou for the link and we link to you on our site!

I think you'll find that the official website: http://www.kathandkim.com/kathandkim.html and http://www.abc.net.au/kathandkim.html are one and the same. I've changed the article link to: http://www.kathandkim.com.
By the way, did you know you can sign your messages by typing "~~~~" at the end of your entry? This makes it a lot easier for others to follow a discussion. - Ian ≡ talk 04:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with whoever was speaking above re we the site managers should decide what we have! Now "The Home of Kath and Kim" is The Good Room's Slogan and has been since January when our site began, we do thank you for the oppurtunity of having our links there and people being able to use them, but the point is i think we should atleast beable to have a slogan or a description of what the site contains and offers instead of just the name! - Thomas

As I said above, please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Editing rules are governed by Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines - have a read. Anyone can edit wikipedia, but it only works if basic rules are followed. - Ian ≡ talk 04:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well Ian, I couldnt agree more, everysite has rules that must be followed and if they are the rules then we must follow them!Ian in relation to the Official Sites websites! http://www.kathandkim.com/kathandkim.html and http://www.abc.net.au/kathandkim.html are not one and the same! www.kathandkim.com is run by Riley Turner Productions (the TM owners of K&K) and does not contain any real content or informaiton other than some odd news and prizes. The other site www.abc.net.au/kathandkim contains a whole host of information for fans, with content, games, message boards etc etc. This site is run by the ABC and not Riley Turner Productions. They are two different organisations and two completely different sites! "Ben, FoxyMorons.net"

  • My apologies, my mistake!. Links changed. Regards - Ian ≡ talk 06:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Worries! Just so its all correct for Wikipedia! "Ben, FoxyMorons.net"

Da Kath & Kim Code[edit]

Congrats on the quick update, pity no-one spotted the vandalism in the episode guide (now fixed). 144.139.143.253 11:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that up. And well spotted. I was disappointed with Da Kath & Kim Code - an hour and a half is a bit too much in one sitting. Cnwb 11:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outer suburbs[edit]

Maybe a braver soul than I can point out that they live in a perfect rendition of Melbourne's outer suburbs -- with the pretty brick houses and a mega-mall as a focal point for each suburb. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.54.192.207 (talk • contribs) .

Except there must be millions of suburbs just like this, in towns and cities with modern sections, all around the world. Nothing especially unique about the place where this is set. Asa01 08:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the fact they go to "the cup" and talk about trams. Short of Sydney's LightRail, you're looking at Melbourne through and through, so in my opinion its fairly incontrovertible where the show is set. In Melbourne's outer suburbs. Hell, even Prude and Trude are typical Melbourne middle-uppper class wine sluts, which you simply don't find anywhere else. Rolinator 14:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one ever claimed the show is not set in Melbourne!!! I said only that there is nothing especially unique about the suburban locale seen in the show! Asa01 08:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fictional place is normal but the place where it is set i would say would be a bit different. Kath & Kim is set in the suburb of Patterson Lakes on South Melbourne, If you were to look at even a map of this place you would realise that it is unique because of all the lakes flowing through. I havent been there myself but I am hoping to go soon, I would think there would be more suburbs with lakes like that over the world but not many! -Thomas

The lakes or the setting of a lake-type suburb is not apparent in watching the actual show. As presented in the show it is a bland suburb like 1000s of others. I thought the show was set in the fictional suburb of Fountain Lakes, though lakes and waterways are not visually apparent in the show itself nor in any way included in the show's stories. Asa01 23:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are right! I was morely talking about the actual place of filming which is called Patterson Lakes! and it is a normal suburb when the back fence is put up for the start of filming. -Thomas :)
So the aerial shots and the house used for taping are in Patterson Lakes? Wondered where it was. Asa01 03:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Beginning credit aerial shots can't be from Patterson Lakes because of all the waterways going in and out, none are visible, so to fit in with the storyline i would be thinking they would go to an outer suburb to shoot that bit. -Thomas

Another series ?[edit]

Im sure Ive seen an episode where Kims father returns and swindles her out of her house, and her and brett have to go and live with Kath again, or am I imagining it ? Lincolnshire Poacher

Yes, the father is played by Mick Molloy. Cnwb 00:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This happens in series 2 & 3, he appears in the last episode of series 2, but in Series 3 Kim takes a second mortgage out on the unit and he goes away Thomass 28 23:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Series 5[edit]

I heard that the girls where in the process of writing series 5, is this true? i do hope so, i'm having kath and kim withdrawl's.... Claire from Devon 10th june 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.82.124 (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speech[edit]

"I couldn't care more about what mum is doing, and I most certainly couldn't care less" 1. This is an incorrect subtitle, it is "I couldn't care more about mum's final floral design piece, I certainly couldn't care less", it says above that it is used frequently, this is not correct it is only used once throughout the whole series, I have removed it because of it being incorrect Thomass 28 23:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would this mean a 4th season is in the works?[edit]

In the Sunday Herald Sun on October 16, 2006, on page 21, there is an article which says that one of the comedians from Little Britain, Matt Lucas, will be a guest star on Kath and Kim. Here is half of the article word for word:

It will be Australiana verses Little Britain when UK comedian Matt Lucas films a guest spot on the comedy Kath & Kim next year.

The bald actor, one half of the hit comedy duo with partner and friend David Walliams, is bringing the live version of the sketch show to Australian on January 22 at Vodafone Arena and will film the scenes before the tour starts. Lucas said he was unsure of exactly what his part was, but has been a long-time fan of the show and has met it's creators Gina Riley and Jane Turner.

Lucas said "There was some possible suggestion that I would play a member of their family, an english cousin or something."

What do people think about this? It's getting me very excited indeed. --Lakeyboy 04:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly! I am extremely certain that this means there will be a new Kath and Kim production, which could be a 4th series, a telemovie or even a stage production like we have seen Little Britain do.. whereas the main page is saying that there WILL be a new series in 2007 which i think should be changed Thomass 28 00:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive character pages and extra articles[edit]

It looks like User:RaptorRobot is going flat out creating extra articles (on characters and more, by the looks of the Bret Craig (Kath & Kim) (sic) article. I have posted a message on his talk page about the poor page naming, but what does everyone else think of these? -- Chuq 07:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every other article about a TV series has seperate pages about their characters, so I don't see what is so wrong with Kath and Kim having one! RaptorRobot 11:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess it's not that bad, but redlinks such as Fountain Gate Shopping Center in the navbox probably struck a fancruft chord with me :P -- Chuq 11:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was only a redlink due to use of the American spelling, otherwise we would have got Fountain Gate Shopping Centre. Asa01 00:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name spelling[edit]

Hi, this article is already very good. I'm just wondering about the spelling of Epponnee-Rae's middle names. Is there an authority for this? I would have expected them to be spelled with an "ene" ending rather than "een", eg. "Darlene" instead of "Darleen". Frickeg 00:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have used FoxyMorons.net as a source and it says Epponnee Raelene Sharlene Kathleen Darleen Craig so a little bit of both i think this might be in the wrong order though, I always thought it was Epponnee Raelene Kathleen Darleen Sharlene Craig

Somebody has changed the spelling and order of Epponnee Rae's name so instead of debating over what it actually is i have just simply written Epponnee Rae Craig untill we can confirm what her name actually is because it is said as two different names in the series itself so its impossible to tell

Fountain Gate Shopping Centre merge[edit]

Unless the FGSC article can be fleshed out more, it doesn't appear from the article that FGSC is notable by itself, I suggest that that article be merged into this one and a redirect be created from FGSC to this article. A precedent for this is the redirect from Cicely, Alaska to Northern Exposure. --Joe Decker 14:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. Fountain Lakes shopping Centre is already noted in the Kath & Kim article as well as the Fountain Gate and Southland shopping centre articles. I'm putting this article up for AFD. --Lakeyboy 05:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone confirm whether the shopping centre in the series is named Fountain Lakes (like their fictional suburb), or Fountain Gate (the name of a real Westfield shopping centre)? --Scott Davis Talk 14:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They call the shopping centre "Fountain Gate" after the real one in Narre Warren but they use both the Fountain Gate and Southland Westfields for filming. --Lakeyboy 11:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD releases and other details to add[edit]

There's a box-set of seasons 1-3 that could have a mentions, also each episode could follow the TV episode template and be bulked out further. A TV infobox could also be added... Peter 09:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll construct a DVD table now. To date, there has been single season DVD's, a 1 & 2 box set, a 1, 2 & 3 box set as well as the "Da Kath & Kim Code" telemovie DVD. I might work on the tv episode templates. Where are the TV episode templates. Can someone please locate them. The infobox is already in place. --Lakeyboy 05:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All DVD releases have now been added to the article in tables. Next on my agenda is episode boxes similar to the ones used in List of Prison Break episodes. --Lakeyboy 11:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be "toned down" a bit please ? i got a pretty big monitor and two DVD releases still tend to fill it up completely. Please look a the table used in for instance List of Smallville episodes. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Huge hit"[edit]

Can anyone qualify the statement, or cite sources, that the show is a "huge hit" in the United States? Since the bottom of the article mentions it's being remade in the US, I wouldn't think it was a success at all. MrHate 23:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find anything about that either. Either Kath & Kim was popular enough in the US to warrant it's own version or US TV producers just wanted to buy the Kath & Kim format from Riley and Turner. --Lakeyboy 04:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it actually was not the success that provoked the US series. Riley and Turner sold the series to a US team, or so I've herd, but I have not found any source for this either. I have re-writen the opening section, and will assist anyone in updating this article, if need be. Also, I've created an episode guide page. Angel2001 17:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember when Kath and Kim was first released in the US it wasnt that popular, however it is a huge hit in both Australia and the UK
The original Australian version was broadcast on minor cable networks with limited viewer ship in the United States. The programme is not being recreated with American actresses because the Australian version was a hit in America – in fact (unfortunately) the Australian version remains largely unknown in the United States. The rights were purchased and it is being recreated because the American producer saw this as a profit-making vehicle. This method has been used to create many hit television programmes in the United States; The American series All in the Family was based on the British series Till Death Us Do Part , the American Sanford and Son was based on the British situation comedy Steptoe and Son, the enormously popular American Idol was based on the UK’s Pop Idol. The Office, Ugly Betty are the latest imports to be remade for the US market. Life on Mars is the next British Series scheduled to be recreated as an American entity. This is not an indication that the original series was a hit in the United States – in all cases the original series would have exteremenly limited exposure or no exposure in the United States. The decision to copy the series is, therefore, not based on popularity in the American audience. The American audience is usualy oblivious to the series before it is broadcast as an American programme. The trend has been going on for years with American production companies going from taking bits and pieces to taking the entire series lock-stock-and-barrel and not changing anything except the actors and actresses and the setting.

I understand American networks remake foreign television series, because US networks need a twenty-two episode run of a series. A British series may only be made in blocks of six. Eligius (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colors and navboxes[edit]

Can someone cleanup all the various templates for navboxes of this show and the colors they use in them please ? It's all over the place with yellow, orange and green. Also the character table and the character articles need a LOT of work. Please read the convention on Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy the neighbour?[edit]

is mandy a recurring character since she's been in the show alot this year?

A bit part snob with no dialogue played by at least two different actors? No she is not really important enough to rate mention on her own, maybe could be mentioned once is reference to Kath and Kel buying her home in one episode. Format (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, or is mentioned in the article. I was wondering whether the title is a pun on the expression "kith and kin"; is there any evidence of this being the case? Thanks in advance for any responses. Oberschlesien 07:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have no evidence of this though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matturn (talk • contribs) 08:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy[edit]

A lot of this article repeats information like crazy. Lots42 (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA[edit]

y does the us HAVE 2 have a remake y cant they use our 1 --58.168.196.126 (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper punctuation, correct spelling, logical syntax, and coherent submissions are always appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.16 (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The poor spelling and muddled thinking exampled on this Talk page are a clear indication of the show’s principal fan base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.86.167 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article lacks real info[edit]

I was reading through the Kath & Kim article, and I thought that it lacked real information.

I think it may be a good idea to add a Reception/Response section; with info about how the show was received by the viewers, critical reviews, show statistics, the show's place in society, its impact, etcetera. This section may also be merged with the ratings.

A production section would also be good. This could include behind the scenes information, filming locations, etcetera. Basically, any real information.

A place I have found to be a good source of info is the Australian Television Information archive, the Kath & Kim articles section has many old newspaper articles that would have many, many useful facts that could be used in these sections. Plus, there is a good source of references that are also needed for the article. Daniel99091 (talk) 09:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much needed cleanup[edit]

I've done a major cleanup of this article, and have made new articles, expanding sections and added new chapters e.g. the "Characters" section. The only part of the article that deserves significant attention is the "Reaction" section, which could do with a major expansion and a lot more references.Jv821 (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed most content of USA version[edit]

I have Eyreland someone putting allot of information up on the upcoming flop in the American's version. I do agree that something should be placed in the article about it, but this should be a small something, leading to the USA article for more detail. MattyC3350 (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some dubious parts[edit]

I've removed some dubious (and uncited) parts:

  • "The strong and intelligent script" - never heard it called that, and much as I love it I'm not sure it's an accurate description.
  • Sometimes makes statements about Australian politics - disagree. Any statements I recall are passing, indeed the characters have no idea about politics I'd have thought (in one episode Kath doesn't know the name of the PM). Adpete (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the gag where Kath doesn't know the name of the PM is totally intended as a political crack (when given the answer she smirks and says "Oh??! Really? I would have got that wrong"). The "bloody Howard" / "well YOU voted for him" episode is full of criticisms of the GST. It ends with "I've got one word to say to you: RECONCILIATION!", another political reference. As the article originally said, the show does sometimes make statements about politics. Melbn (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've put the politics comment back. Adpete (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I don't see any of them as statements about politics, other than stating that people like K&K are utterly clueless about politics. I'd rather it said K&K makes references to Australian politics. Adpete (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Michael Higgins[edit]

what the hell? I just saw john michael higgins in this show, and his wiki page says he has a staring roll in it, yet he doesn't appear on any page about Kath & kim..what gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.165.129.163 (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad, theres an American and Australian version of this. Maybe this article should be titled Kath & Kim (Australian TV series)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.165.129.163 (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 February 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 14:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kath & Kim (Australian TV series) → Kath & Kim – No conflicting articles exist, other than the U.S. version of this show. Kath & Kim also redirects here. I believe this is the primary topic. Melonkelon (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - this is the primary topic. Stickee (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This has just under twice the page views as the other show, which I think is enough to count as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. kennethaw88 • talk 00:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kath & Kim. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kath & Kim. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kath_%26_Kim&oldid=1213666914"