Talk:Kids in America

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kids in America article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"From New York to east California"[edit]

I've always taken the lyric "From New York to east California" to imply that she's from Los Angeles, the San Fernando Valley, or another city in the western part of California. 72.87.188.97 03:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell it was just a geographic glitch more than anything else -- don't forget, the writers of the song (Kim's brother and father, I think) were British, and wouldn't necessarily be any more clued in on American geography than the average American. Haikupoet 04:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the words. "Washington to down south Florida..."

Fair use rationale for Image:Kids in America 1994.jpg[edit]

Image:Kids in America 1994.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 07:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kids in America Single.jpg[edit]

Image:Kids in America Single.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) 17:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kim Wilde - Kids In America excerpt.ogg[edit]

Image:Kim Wilde - Kids In America excerpt.ogg 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) 17:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections[edit]

I'm removing all the bands that have been credited with Fourth Grade Nothing's version, i.e., most of the punk bands.Jasper420 00:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves[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: move the pages, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Clear primary topic. Unreal7 (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added a link on the dab page to Children and adolescents in the United States. It's not much of an article, but it's certainly another possible target. Dekimasuよ! 22:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the song isn't that famous and (song) isn't harming anyone. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The song is not "that famous", but there is no other topic with the title that is anywhere close. That the needless disamb "isn't harming anyone" is not relevant. Please see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:SummerPhD I'm not talking about possible confusion with kids in America with a small "k" I'm referring to the film and album. Why do you say "there is no other topic with the title that is anywhere close"?

"Kids in America" (song), a 1981 song by Kim Wilde
Kids in America (album), a 2003 album by American Juniors participants
Kids in America (film), a 2005 independent film

These titles seem identical to me. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The titles are identical. However, someone searching for that title is far less likely to be searching for the low budget ($750,000, which it didn't make back) film or the album from a short-lived reality show. I believe they are more likely to be searching for the song that went top 10 in 15 countries in the 1980s and continues to be covered by a long list of bands, including two new releases as a single (in 2004 and 2007), numerous albums by notable artists, appearances on Rock Band 2 and X Factor and soundtracks for several major films (Clueless, Cars 2, Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius, Bio-Dome, Meet the Robinsons). A Google search is usually biased for issues like this, due to recentism and a bias toward pop culture. The alternative titles are far more recent and certainly pop culture. The song completely swamps them on Google. Looks pretty clear to me. YMMV. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what happened here is that the user seems to have misinterpreted your remark that "there is no other topic with the title that is anywhere close" as referring to there literally being no similarly named titles, rather than your intended meaning that no pages with this title come anywhere close to being a primary topic. Of course, that means the !vote simply boils down to a case of opinion that the song isn't famous, which isn't particularly a helpful !vote anyway, since all signs show that it is.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is clearly the primary topic. The unlikely search for Children and adolescents in the United States under "Kids in America" can be handled with a simple hatnote. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wouldn't Children and adolescents in the United States be the primary topic for such a term? -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the song isn't "Kids of America", Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, kids in America needn't be kids of America. An article about children in the United States doesn't require that they be American, nor that we be classifying them in the manner of The Birds of America. Dekimasuよ! 00:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As the primary intention for people using this search term. While technically we can argue that this is equivalent to the article on children in the United States, it seems clear that readers searching Wikipedia for this exact term are likely searching for the well-known song, rather than the underfleshed and short article on the general topic. Sort of like the Bride over the River Kwai.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as primary Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. One of the things that should be considered when moving articles is stability. This has been at the same place for 5 years... Why the sudden urgency to move? Is the present title misleading? --Richhoncho (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, no. But that rationale could be used to say pretty much any primary topic, common name, or general disambiguation move should be opposed. Moving for no good reason is certainly unnecessary, but avoiding a move that fits the reasons for a move simply because moves in general are a type of change doesn't seem too logical.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes there are excellent reasons to move articles, but this is not one of them. I read your, "I mean, no" to agree with me, even though our conclusions are different. No matter, it looks like this article will be moved, somebody might dab all the incoming, on the other hand they might not. One thing is certain there is no benefit to moving this article, save for aesthetic reasons - then again, we are supposed to be building an encyclopedia not a work of art. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For those ~~debating~~ talking about Children and adolescents in the United States, here's a few more examples - Rule the World doesn't redirect to world government and Party in the U.S.A. doesn't redirect to List of political parties in the United States. Unreal7 (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really debating (or even opposing this move), but these examples are really neither here nor there. The specific search term is what's in question. "Kids in America" is a plausible encyclopedic search for someone seeking the information I suggested, which is not really the case for your examples. Dekimasuよ! 00:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The problem is, none of the topics on the DAB are particularly notable. Agree that the song is the most notable, but whether it's more likely to be the desired search result over all others taken together... maybe at best, we're comparing near-zeroes so the only sure thing is uncertainty. No great long-term significance either. I'd leave it as is. Andrewa (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't agree with that, this song's been highly notable for 33 years - that's extremely long-term. Unreal7 (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - For the users basing their !votes purely on the opinion that elements of pop culture are inherently insignificant (and who I would ask please try to provide some other rationale behind their !voting so that we can find a real consensus) note that the page view stats do indicate a clear primary here. I realize that we aren't talking about a war here, but to say that you will assume that there is no long term significance for a song that , over 30 years that came out still gets hundreds of current google news hits comes off as rather dismissive or even elitist.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone above is doing that. Pop culture is of course encyclopedic, otherwise this would go straight to AfD rather than RM. Page stats are helpful, as are ghit figures, but I think you're reading too much into these ones. Andrewa (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey Andrewa, thanks for responding, sorry if I sounded a bit bitey. I realize no one is actually saying this topic doesn't meet the bare minimum of the GNG or anything like that. But it still does seem rather confusing to say that articles that are on pop culture elements are pretty much all equally relatively weakly notable, when one of them meets all the requirements of primary topic and is a 30 something year old song that can still manage to pop up in the news to get 10s of thousands of views every now and then.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Easily a support. I'm kind of astonished that this wasn't already the case. Clearly the topic most readers want when they type in Kids in America. Red Slash 04:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clear primary topic. This topic received 44,936 views in the last 90 days, compared to 604 for Kids in America (album) and 5071 for Kids in America (film). It's a very unlikely search term for Children and adolescents in the United States, especially considering that that article only received 1937 page views in the same period.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All signs point to this being the clear primary topic. -- Calidum 03:01, 2 November 2014 (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.

Covers section[edit]

The way the covers section is placed and the type of its content is unfortunate. There are no flowing paragraphs, only right-hovering boxes, which leads to an apparently empty section itself, with two singles boxes flowing around the next (references) section, and it all looks a little confusing and out of place. --88.70.190.211 (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kids in America. 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.

New genre sourcing[edit]

Hi everyone, I recently added an updated reliable source for the genre. I also removed the Synth-Pop genre source due to the source not even mentioning Synth-Pop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreakyBoy (talk • contribs) 14:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]