Talk:Kid Nation

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Kid Nation, the legality of Kid Nation, nor any drinking games you made up involving Kid Nation. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Kid Nation, the legality of Kid Nation, nor any drinking games you made up involving Kid Nation at the Reference desk.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Reality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reality television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Someone wrote on the article that she was 11.I think she was 11 in late-2007.Why does it say she's 11 in the whole article and not in the participants article?! 138.88.43.78 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There might have been some confusion because she was 10 when the show began but 11 by the time it ended. I fixed it. For An Angel (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE REVIEW THE GUIDELINES FOR THE TALK PAGES!! This is not the place to discuss the show. This is a talk page for the ARTICLE! Xylogirl07 00:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make this page clearer, especially for those new to Wikipedia, I've deleted the non-article-related entries. If I've missed any, please add. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes. Thanks.Barte 01:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is in New Mexico. --Alx xlA 05:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bonanza Town real, or did they just put up some buildings for the show? It is Real.Daman1234 18:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was filmed at Bonanza Creek Movie Ranch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.242.173 (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor inserted the word "not" in the opening paragraph: "Participants were not paid $5000...". Please cite a source for this claim. The only source I could find was a Times article that said $5000 was paid. Matt Fitzpatrick 17:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was specifically said on the show that each participant recieved $5000.

At the end of eatch episode the council awards a cash prize (a gold star worth $20,000) to one of the kids in the city. The article needs to be corrected. http://www.cbs.com/primetime/fall_preview_2007/?source=reprise+google+Upfront_Kid-Nation+Kid

There is nothing to correct. This is true.

I like the charts. They exhibit an encyclopedia-like obsessiveness. They would be better understood with an accompanying explanation of what the column categories and color-codes mean, as well as why some of the participants haven't been assigned a color.Barte 02:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some weren't assigned a color, because it's not 100% known at this time. All we heard were talks between the council, but the kids without colors didn't have camera time, to show their name with the respective color. —TRAiNER4 (talk • contrib) 03:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--makes sense.Barte 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone was assigned a color by the Town Council during the first episode. Three kids left the show (Jimmy, Cody, and Randi) and that is why they have a black spot on the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurelgirl (talk • contribs) 14:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any information from the CBS website about when these 40 days took place in real life; it seems like January or February based on the cold weather. If anyone can find out, that would be an important piece of information to add, especially based on the cold weather affecting them in the second episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmitchelf (talk • contribs) 00:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Barte 04:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was approximately around Febuarary and March. I'm not completely sure, but one of the kids was missing from school for approximately 40 days around this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.1.36 (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was filmed from Apr.1 - May 10. I know this for an absolute fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.242.173 (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already put in the April 1st date with a citation. And I think it was a 40 day shoot. So the April 1-May 10th date sounds right.....but it'd be nice to see it verified by a reliable source. ("I know this for an absolute fact." doesn't quite do that.)Barte 21:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an interview with Sophia and her mother Lori on the "Television Without Pity" website, the filming dates are given as April 1 to May 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.118.41 (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone put that "The kids buy items in the shops with a special Bonanza City currency called Buffalo Nickels..." This is inaccurate however as it is not a special Bonanza City currency called Buffalo Nickels, they use the real life, early 1900's Indian Head Nickels, mostly known as the Buffalo Nickel. Even though the show inaccurately states that the pioneers in 1885 used them (they used the V Nickels or Libery Heads), the article should be corrected to say something along these lines:

The kids use an old form of United States currency known as Buffalo Nickels, officially

Thanks 24.46.123.59 15:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the article to reflect this better. I changed it to: "The kids buy items in the shops with the Bonanza City currency called

User • Talk

) 23:06, 29 September 2007

Somehow, this dropped out. Re-inserted. Barte 04:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I assume that since she celebrated her birthday in the last episode and Jimmy, who is now gone, is the only contestant listed as being 8 years old, that Mallory is now the youngest contestant still on the show? I was thinking of adding that in the chart the way it says that Jimmy was the youngest. Ospinad 20:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Jimmy is gone, he still was the youngest participant. Adding that Mallory was the second-youngest would make the table become excessive. - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 10:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Can we say what the two choices were instead of just saying which one they chose? including the ones where they didn't win either... Ospinad 20:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea, but create a new section under each episode, because I think that the table will look too crowded with all of that information in it. Maybe we could even include the reason for the decision. - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 20:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think this is necessary because they don't have those things that they rejected, so it doesn't impact their lives on the show. That is a reason that the possible rewards for the failed tasked aren't shown either. bmitchelf•T•F 03:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's stupid reasoning behind it. People will want to know what other choices the contestants had. Darkmeltdown 04:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in the exists section there are people mentioned who didn't leave, (but were only thinking about leaving) so I don't see why we can't also say what rewards they almost won. --Ospinad 21:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The alternate choices obviously affected the elections. MMetro 03:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the chart. It's an important plot point that each time they get to choose between something temporary, or fun, and something long-term useful. SchmuckyTheCat

I agree this information should be in the article, but the Episode summary isn't the place to put it because the table becomes too big. I think that we should add a "Town Bonus" heading right above the Gold Star winner in each episode's section, that way the table stays small, and the episodes are given more information. - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 10:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I tried adding it to the individual episode section. If someone doesn't like the way it looks I hope they will rewrite it or expand on it (maybe adding their reasons for choosing what they did or any disagreements between them) but I hope they don't just remove it. I know I'm not the best writer --Ospinad 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried adding tihs to the table and was removed. why was it removed? --Ahkat 21:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about tables to make an informed suggestion about how to fix this, but — if a Yellow Team member's name is placed in the table in yellow, it is nearly impossible to see! Is it possible to use a darker yellow, or perhaps a yellow outlined in black? — Roger 01:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I changed Cody's name to this colour, even though it isn't the same as the yellow team's background, so that we can actually read it. - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 01:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed that CBS.com has "Welcome to Bonanza City, New Mexico" (here) as the title for Episode 1 and "Hungry for Fresh Meat" (here) for Episode 2. Tv.com has "I'm Trying to Be a Leader Here" (here) for Episode 1 and "To Kill or Not to Kill?" (here) for Episode 2. I changed our Overall Summary chart to reflect CBS' titles, because they are the network broadcaster. Please discuss. - zachinthebox ₍

Hmm. I distinctly remember "I'm Trying to Be A Leader Here!" being shown as the title of Episode 1 during its broadcast.

radio me!) 21:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I just checked the CBS video of the first episode, and it has the original title of "I'm Trying to be a Leader Here!" displayed in the beginning. It seems as if CBS just changed the titles for the episode summary pages, not the actual titles of the episode. I would go back to the old ones, and reference the video for now (because in the future it probably won't be on the webiste), perhaps. bmitchelf•T•F 21:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm POSITIVE NASCAR Fan24 is right. I remember.

I just removed the {{

I think having the results in a table is clearer --Ahkat 21:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we already have enough tables in the article and keeping it in paragraph form goes nicely with the rest of the other episode summaries - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree.. by the way.. who gets to make the decision if we disagree? I think having a table is easier to read. --Ahkat 03:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus among whoever takes the time to reply to your message here - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 10:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I liked the table when it was there but I also like the way it is now. The paragraph form leaves room for short summaries. Of course if there is a way to put it into a table and keep the summaries that might be better, too. I was also thinking if we can't use a table then what if we just colorize the district names? That might help a little... When you can't agree, you compromise. :-D Ospinad 05:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way it is now (with the bullets and colours). Good work everyone - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 15:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It is hard to read now because there are no colors or tables. I still think we should have color table as a summary and a paragraph to describe what happened. --Ahkat 05:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is easier and looks better to leave the columns to just Name (with color), Age, State, and Notes, to consolidate the other columns back to that one. All the empty boxes just look bad. The overall notes column would be especially fine because each kid only has one "note" so far, and no notes that fit into the notes column as it currently stands. bmitchelf•T•F 02:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should keep the table as is now (with the town council, gold star, exits columns) so that information is easily identifiable which participant has done/received what. If all the information is in one column (the notes) you will have to search every row for the item you wish to find, or have to know which participant you want to look up. - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 10:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with Zachinthebox, I think the extra columns are a good idea especially since as time goes on they will inevitably be filled in more. I have a question though, what do we put in the notes column now that it's empty? Ospinad 14:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the new notes column, the only stuff we could put there so far is the oldest and youngest contestants, and maybe the fact that Mallory celebrated her birthday. I can't think of anything else so far. bmitchelf•T•F 19:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bmitchelf, and I can't think of anything to put in there either. Maybe "Original Town Council" for the 4 people appointed to council. I don't know. - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 20:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

We can either get rid of the column or try harder to fill it up. At one point it said things like Greg killed chickens, and Olivia was Mallory's sister... Ospinad 06:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should change the participants list to be in some sort of order other than alphabetical. It would be much more useful to have them grouped by team, or by age, or something else. You can always use search to find the name you're looking for if you want to find a name, so alphabetical order doesn't make sens.e —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a way you can make a wikitable sortable, so each user can sort it the way they want. I'll work on that.

radio me!) 21:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Unfortunately, it doesn't sort correctly at first glance, so I'll leave it as sortable so a user experienced with tables can figure it out.

radio me!) 22:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

For some reason when you try to sort by one column, it sorts it by the previous column (i.e. sorting by age actually sorts by name). I'm not sure why this happens or how to fix it. - zachinthebox ₍

User • Talk) 01:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I had a feeling this was happening because the first column in the table was actually the district color and not the name. So I took out the "colspan='2'" for the name and gave the color column its own heading. It still wouldn't work until I put in a letter in that column, I guess that's the only way it could know how to put the colors in order. It looks a little weirder but at least now you can sort by district and all the sort buttons work for the correct columns! :-) No need to thank me, lol Ospinad 21:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thanking you anyway LOL - maybe we can change the font colour of the District colour to match the background so that the actual letter is kind of hidden, but it will still sort by District color? I'll try changing it but revert if you don't like it. - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 21:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The sorting doesn't seem to work in Safari (2.0.4). Is it working in other browsers? - DoubleVibro₍User)

I'm using Firefox and it works fine for me. - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 11:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Looks like a Safari issue. Still takes an extra click in IE6. - DoubleVibro ₍User) —Preceding comment was added at 23:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the next episode there will be a shakeup of teams, that means the participants table and any other item that indicates the team/color of a participant will need to be made flexible enough to show their old and new teams. Any ideas on how to do this? AlphaArry 02:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be complicated, but I suppose it might be possible to make a subtable in each element of the participant color cell such that it becomes a multi-colored cell. -DoubleVibro 04:39 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleVibro (talk • contribs)

Why was my info about the cold sores removed? Most of the children have contracted some form of these and I presume its from each other. It is a serious health risk and should be documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morthanley (talk • contribs) 18:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no source for this statement. - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 19:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Have you seen the show? the kids are covered with them Morthanley 04:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reference in this New York Magazine column Barte 06:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are a lot of cold sores, but I don't think this article has any information: it simply states that there are cold sores, not a disease causing them or anything. - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 11:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I removed the cold sores statement again. The source given merely says that the children appear to have cold sores. It might simply be chapped lips. Furthermore, I don't believe that it is even possible to have a cold sores epidemic. "Cold sores" are a type of herpes, in fact, and something like 50% of the population already has them, and I highly doubt they would possibly be able to spread so quickly amongst those who didn't have them. And cold sores usually appear inside the mouth, not on the lips, and those who have them will only generally have outbreaks a few times a year, not all at once. I expect they're all outdoors all the time in dry windy weather getting chapped lips with no sort of lip balm available.--Xyzzyplugh 13:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For fun I went and re-read through this article again tonight. The cold sores comment struck me in the way that is was very
  Wiki articles. Regardless, what was seen on the show may or may not have been herpetic; based on how fast they all seem to have healed up, I'd guess not, but even that is a guess and thus I wouldn't include it in the Kid Nation article either. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Why are cold sores so serious? (rhetorical question) does it even matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.68.197 (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After making a few present-to-past tense edits, I realize I'm not sure which is appropriate. The show is airing now, but in a few months, it will have aired. As it was taped, all the events seen have already taken place. So I would think that most of the article should be written in the past tense, which is how it will live on long after the show is gone. Any thoughts? Barte 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, just looking at a couple Survivor articles, that the standard for reality shows is the past tense, since it is something that actually happened rather than a fictional situation where you would use present tense. bmitchelf•T•F 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I looked at Survivor, American Idol and a few other. The general rule seems to be that the rules and "operating environment" of the show are in the present tense, with descriptions of what actually took place in a given episode (or news account) in the past tense. But once the show has expired, the entire article reverts to past tense. Barte 21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it should be past tense after the episode airs, because, just as you said, then the description is in past tense in both reality and episode-wise. zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

And here is the "Source." [1]

Bryse 00:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the work of childish vandals - reverted now.

radio me!●ER) 00:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it was vandalized again... "During episode 5 of Kid Nation, Tyrone Biggums Jr. aquired several ounces of Peruvian cocaine from an illigal immigrant working in the town. He then cooked it up with baking soda, egg, and cinnamon, making crack." That whole passage needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.79.108 (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to add a short description of what the main theme was for each episode? For example, in the last episode the kids had to deal with the accumulating garbage problem, so each district chose a few members to carry the garbage out past the water pump and bury it. I think it will help to understand the names of each episode for the people who haven't seen them. Ospinad 16:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually just thinking that when I was watching the episode. I think it should be included with the ep. title and the days it progressed from. - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 19:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it is pretty good that we have ratings for each episode. However I think it is wrong to have them described by words in the Later Reaction section. I believe that that part is redundant since all the informations can be obtained by simply reviewing the table we've made. In that way reader will be allowed to form his own judgement instead reading the lines in last paragraph that can be a spin. For example article makes big deal about show shedding so many viewers comparing to the Premier while at the same time fails to point that ratings for Epissode 6 were second strongest. It is simply impractical to keep it there. What would happene in the next few episodes if ratings start to be volatile. For example: Raitings deeped but than got up, but than deeped a bit more, but than in next episode recovered a bit ...... and so on. I say, keep the things about sponsors (since that is the only way reader will see that information) and refer him to the table for ratings. What do you think? --Trigor 12:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I had originally put the reference there based on a New York Times article that talked about sponsors staying away, then coming back by the third episode--only to find viewership down. But it is redundant--and a pain to keep updating. Barte 12:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to keep the prose, removing the data from the table. The Neilson's have little do to with what happened during a show and pretty much are limited to the show's reception. If you do it in prose, you can explain what the lower viewing numbers meant to returning advertiser numbers without them having to review back up a ways to the table. --MASEM 13:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having already removed the section (I felt entitled, having put it there in the first place--but you're of course free to add back in), I'd say that we don't really know what the returning number means. The only reference I've seen said was the above mentioned, still-footnoted NYT story that by the third episode, advertising was up, viewership down. After that, according to the chart, viewership dropped further, then returned--but what effect that has had on advertising is uncertain, especially if we're not going to engage in

OR or speculation. The other thing is....people feel pretty passionate about the content in those tables.Barte 13:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Pleas do not remove data from the table.... The table is most appropriate place for it, and gives complete and easy access to information. I agree with Barte. It is pretty difficult to analyze how viewership numbers will affect sponsors. If some of them pull out of the show, we can make a note of that as well as quoting viewership numbers as a POSSIBLE reason. But even this would be speculation unless we could find some certain link like Barte did previously. Further more MASEM it is pretty difficult to describe how ratings change every week and at the same time provide as much data as the table does. Not to mention spin that can be put to it (unintentionally), or should I say what could be perceived to be spin by some. Table is the least controversial way to have it. --Trigor 13:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a suggestion, one to keep in mind if there's another usable article about ratings vs advertisers for the series. Right now, that table is the only appropriate place for it, but it more of a section on ratings and response can be developed, it may be useful to move them down to where they are talked about in more detail. But as there's only one source about advertisers, it doesn't make sense to move them yet. Just consider it if more details do emerge from reliable sources. --MASEM 14:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen an issue of World Magazine and article in USA Today that both criticized the fact that the kids had created a well functioning society, but then the adults chimed in and added a class system.They saw this as ruining the experiment with major adult involvement that proved to be less than helpful. This Wikipedia article should definitely mention that in the criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.86.170 (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will add this here, since it fits as "Another Common Criticism". Based on testimony cited in the Los Angeles Times, there was a lot more producer "involvement" in what the kids did and said than was admitted. The production company was very sensitive to this, because...if they admitted that the kids received a lot of "coaching" and suggested dialogue...the kids might actually fit the legal definition of being "child actors" instead of just being participants in a filmed documentary. That would require much more expense, based on union rules...including greater payment, catered meals, limits on filming time, tutors on the set, etc. That's the reason that...though many of the kids were recruited based on past theatrical experience...no kids were chosen from either California or New York due to the aggressive nature of AFTRA and Equity unions in both states.

Hey everyone,

I was thinking about splitting the episodes into its own article. We could keep the first table where it is here for a summary, but the rest of it can go in a separate List of Kid Nation episodes article. And/or we can also change the format for each episode, I was thinking of something like this....

#	Title	Days
1	"I'm Trying to be a Leader Here!"	Days 1-4
Description	Forty kids from across America arrive in Bonanza City for 40 days and are immediately struck by the lack of comforts in their new home. Friendships emerge and teamwork ensues, issues arise and the first Town Council convenes. The first Gold Star, worth $20,000, is awarded on the series premiere.
Showdown	The districts had one hour to fill three large bottles with their own district-colored water by carrying outhouses over an old fashioned television.
Gold Star	Sophia: The Town Council recognized Sophia's work ethic in the kitchen. It was a fairly easy decision for the Council, despite Sophia's voicing of complaints over what she saw as problems in the kitchen.
Exits	Jimmy:: Being the youngest contestant, Jimmy became homesick and decided to leave Bonanza, even though Cody, Laurel, and Campbell tried to convince him to stay. His decision came after three days of debate over his abilities versus what was expected of him.

...how does that look? --Ospinad 18:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: the article is begging to be split, with some kind of summary and a longer sub-article. And it will beg all the louder as more episodes get broadcast.Barte 18:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea, though I think the "description", "gold star", etc. text should be black, not coloured. Looks great! -zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 02:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ospinad: I don't see any objections here (of course it's only been a couple of days). If you decide to go ahead and split the article, go for it--and reference this discussion in "talk." Barte 15:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I formatted all of the episodes into the table (with a few modifications), but I'm not very experienced in creating new articles so I'm just going to leave it in the main article for someone else to do it. - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 16:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Either am I (experienced at creating sub-articles). But your formatting looks great. Barte 21:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple suggestsions as to be more inline with other episode lists is that the airdates (presently in the summary table) should be moved into this table (as typically done per

WP:EPISODE, and if we can find them, production codes. Or at least duplicate the air dates, we can discuss later how the summary table should look once it's determined how applicable the Neilsen data is to the table (post-show). --MASEM 21:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I finally went ahead and did it. I moved the list of episodes to List of Kid Nation episodes. I invite everyone to make improvements (such as adding air dates and stuff like that) because I left it pretty basic. I'm sorry to whoever added the Pioneer suggestions, I thought that with a more complete description section the Pioneer suggestion section wasn't needed. (Also someone might want to rephrase the desciptions I put in there seeing as how I got most of them from CBS.) Ospinad 22:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the chart of participants has an age column. Should this be the age of the participants when they started, or their current age at the time of a particular episode. For example Mallory was 8 when the show started, but she turned 9 during the course of the show. The chart indicates her current age. I might suggest that the chart represent the age of the participant at the beginning of the show.

I agree, I think it should show her starting age because it already shows she celebrated her birthday in the notes column, and now with it being 9, it looks like she's 10 on the show. - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 10:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It should be starting age, since that puts the kids in the same frame of reference. Current age will have to be constantly updated and become obsolete anyway, and episode age, while somewhat relevant, will just add to the confusion. If an updated age has to be mentioned, it can be handled with a "Mallory, now age 9," sort of thing. MMetro 12:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they brothers? I was going to edit the chart, but I'm not absolutely sure. Kairyu512 01:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, they are just friends, check out where they are from. AlphaArry 02:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to fix those episode reviews because the really are bad. I want to know about other stuff than "exits" and gold star winners, like in the last episode the surprise election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.30.176.172 (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one "needs" to do anything. Wikipedia is a voluntary effort. Barte 23:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that it should be edited that DK, Greg, Blaine, and Micheal are going to run for their respective council positions in the end of the latest episode recap? Darkmeltdown 23:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to wait until next week to see the actual outcomes first, in my opinion. -

Talk 02:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Seeing as the red team's only concern was carrying enough rocks to win the reward, did anybody see evidence that red had enough rocks remaining, meaning that each team actually had the opportunity to carry 500 pounds of rocks? An unfair reward challenge would not only have been thematically significant to the episode, it's tampering with competitive elements. MMetro (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of changing the colors of the kids who switched teams back to their original colors. Also I thought it might be a good idea to change the colors of the kids who've left to a dark grey or something to show that they are no longer on the show. It's probably more logical to keep the original colors of the kids who've switched and say in the Notes something like "moved to Yellow team on episode 9" instead of "originally on the Blue team" for the same reason why we are keeping Mallory's age at 8. Besides, Blaine for example was on the blue team for 9 out of 13 episodes which is the majority of the season. Or we can make two color columns for the people who have belonged to two districts so we can give them two different colors right next to each other. What do you think? Ospinad (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two color columns. Also, the second column can show grey for departed participants as you mention above. Most logical and, though a significant change in he table structure, I believe the simplest solution. VigilancePrime (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine the way it is, since only three people changed, or we could put a box with the first color on top and the second on bottom for those three, leaving it as one color column overall, but I'm not sure if that will work with this table setup. bmitchelf•T•F 13:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were only three people who changed but there've been three people who've left and there might be more later. I tried adding another column like VigilancePrime suggested to see what it would look like. I tried to make them thinner but couldn't because it's limited by the size of the sorting button at the top. But at least now you can sort by original teams or current teams. Let's see what other people think. Ospinad (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should just keep one column for the participants' district colours and add their original district into the notes column because their former district information becomes nearly irrelevant for the duration of the show. Of course it is good to keep the information that they were switched into a new district, but the team they compete on for Showdowns should be the only colour that is shown in the table to keep it looking simple. _ zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 22:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree. Two columns is just too much. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point about the sortable option. I never use it because it didn't work in Safari, but now it does, so I agree with the two color columns. bmitchelf•T•F 22:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good with the two columns. If anything, the Notes section could be removed and put into a narrative section instead... VigilancePrime (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think that we need a whole column for 6 changes. I think that the other columns suffice when it comes to the switched districts and exited participants. I think that having 34 rows with identical information is redundant. - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 12:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree about the redundancy, but I think it's better than not having the information. Perhaps there's a third option we've not come up with that would be better? We could always combine the columns for those who have not changed as well as the header... then have effectively split cells for those who moved? Make them really thin... VigilancePrime (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had tried this option, but when I Previewed the page, the columns will sort properly for the first one, but it won't sort for the second colour column. Maybe someone who knows more about the tables could give it a go - or we could remove the sortable option. - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 20:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The Participants Table has been updated to reflect the color changes, but should the Episode Summary Table be likewise updated? Nathan earned a gold star while in the Blue District, but he is now in the Red District. Should some sort of notation be made? I can see it going either way and just wanted to consult. DoubleVibro (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like having the extra color when there is a change, but don't like the doubled color, which fits most of the kids. Is there a way that we could go back to the old way, with a slashed color marker [/] could represent team changes and dropouts for those that have them? MMetro (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to reduce the size of the first two columns by changing the headings to a footnote. I think it looks a little better and also clears up what they mean. Ospinad (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the footnote idea better than the headings, but I still think there's a better way to have the colours instead of two columns. - zachinthebox (

User • Talk) 23:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:Be Bold-- How making simple little colored flags? Solid color, full term, slashed color, top left is original team, bottom right is result of move. MMetro (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

That wouldn't be hard but then we'd lose the ability to sort by either column we wanted to. And besides, someone said a while back that information can't be conveyed by colors only per

WP:COLOR, which was the whole reason for making the letters in those columns visible. Ospinad (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, that's exactly it. I forget it because it doesn't affect me, but you need the letters in there for people who can't determine which color is which. Also, I think a split box would not allow for sortability. -- bmitchelf•T•F 22:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google the names of the characters (full names available at IMDB), some come up with a lot of reference points. Considering the significance of the town council members (they are in every episode, etc.), I find them "noteworthy" enough to have their own pages. In a spat of WikiDragon-ing, I put them up. I got two referenced and then ran out of steam, so four of them are only up in minimalist format mode only and need someone to go and add more content and reference them. It's easy, just a little labor-intensive. My only other thought is who else, if anyone, should have individual pages? Being more inclusionary rather than exclusionary, I think more are "worthy". All Gold Star winners? I think that Greg, Mallory and Olivia, (even) Divad and Sophia should have their own pages, as well as Jared and Alex, as they have been significant personas in the series as well. I'll leave all that hairsplitting to other Wikipedians, though (for now). Thoughts anyone? VigilancePrime (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a transcript of an interview with Mike and Sophia on the Ellen show here if that helps. Also, it looks like Jasmine is working a singing career as there was a short bio of her here and at blackgirlfame.comOspinad (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Ellen interview is an awesome interview! So much that could be added to the main article (that parents received a call every three days to update that all was well with their children, as an example). I don't have time right now to add it up, but if anyone else does have the time, check it out and absolutely get more info up. Great catch, Ospinad! (I wish I had seen that episode of Ellen!) VigilancePrime (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I first heard about it on the IMDB boards. I also tried Googling "kid nation interview" and found one from Entertainment Weekly. I don't know if it will go towards proving their notability because all they're asked is about their experiences on the show and not so much personal questions, but EW is still pretty famous. Not to mention the interview is really funny. And I found this, a video interview with Mike and Sophia, not the one from Ellen but good nonetheless. Ospinad (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So-called "notability" is euphamism for some people for "I don't like it"; see the comparison on

Laurel, she had already done a lot! VigilancePrime (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

FYI: The individual pages (in spite of their newness and, in some cases, their high degree of referencing, have been put on the

Laurel's page, for instance... yes, it got hit too, in spite of it's reasonable length and five references), without other interested users (like you all) going 1. to "vote" against deletion and 2. to continue researching and/or expanding the individual articles, they will disappear. That will also set (continue?) a dangerous precedent... well-referenced articles being deleted because someone's notability is from only (insert number here...1, 2, 5?) instance? Yes, I tend to be on the inclusionist side rather than the exclusionist side when it comes to Wiki. VigilancePrime (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Down near the bottom, forget where, but it says something about no electricity or running water. It seems as if Mike, former council leader, brought along his Gameboy Advance SP and was playing it during the latest episode while they were critizing Guylan for bringing Nathan to the red district. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.234.75 (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that one big "selling point" for Bonanza Creek Movie Ranch was that it DOES have electricity and running water throughout...and therefore production companies do NOT have to bring in on-site generators. That "pioneer microwave" that the kids won during one of their showdowns had to run on something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.118.196 (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second box which is currently colored black should be turned into yellow since Randi left Bonanza after the District Changes. Phoenixmjs (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2007 (PCT)

I agree, and tried to change this, but it was reverted twice. -- bmitchelf•T•F 15:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense as it would give the impression that she's still there and in yellow. The black/grey indicates that the person left the show. When is irrelevant. VigilancePrime (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way it is now, if gives the impression that she wasn't there when they changed districts. That's why I put in the note when the districts changed, so it should only be black for the kids who left before such time. -- bmitchelf•T•F 20:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're getting at. Short of adding a third column, I don't think both can be had in the color table. I think exiting the show is more significant than being there for the changes, though. Originally, a members color was changed to black upon exit, IIRC, back when there was only one column (I may be mistaken about that). It's too bad we can't split columns diagonally and other fancy, Microsoft Word-like stuff... VigilancePrime (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure no color was changed when somebody left; it is just different now because the people who left did not have a "second district". We probably could split the box, but it would screw up the sorting probably. -- bmitchelf•T•F 21:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are there any legal issues with the choice of letters vs. ponies in episode 10? I believe US law makes it a crime to willfully misdirect or withhold mail. DoubleVibro (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the same argument on IMDB. They said that as long as the letters were addressed to CBS then they could decide to give them to the kids or not. Sounds reasonable enough to me. Ospinad (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were simply notes written by every family to the kids as standard course on a reality show so it wasn't mail per se, thus not breaking any laws.

That's true. The parents were probably told it wasn't certain the kids would get them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurelgirl (talk • contribs) 15:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Is it really necessary to note something like that? It'd be like, "Sophia: Swore at Guylan in Episode Whatever." I don't think it's needed.

207.255.95.184 (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - several of the "notes" seem quite unnecessary, and maybe belong in the individual episode summaries rather than in the kids' boxes. 69.236.77.197 (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both the original post and the reply. There seems to be a lot of extraneous crud ending up in the Notes column. I'd like to see it revert back to what was there before. DoubleVibro (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to whoever made the changes. =) 69.236.77.197 (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have then links leading to List of Kid nation participants been removed? I didn't find any motions here for removing them. --91.185.115.12 (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, there was a deletion review for all those articles here. The result was that it was decided to combine them all into a List of Kid Nation participants article. There is a link to it from the Participants section in the main article. Ospinad (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"All four said they would happily do it again, although as Fernandez noted, "they haven't seen themselves on TV yet."[3]" This is typical newpaper type reporting and is unneccessary for Wikipedia. The actual first quote is mildly attributable, however the second quotation is purely a literary manipulation, implying that the Wikipedia agrees with the concept that once the children see themselves on t.v. that they won't want do the show any longer (which may or may not be a false assumption). At best it is speculation by the editor, at worst it is an attempt at persuading the readers to agree that kids not should not be exposed to these conditions, and is therefore an opinion. (I have not pulled this from the article, but I am irking to.)

I put the paragraph there in the first place (way back when)--and, reading it again, I agree with you and made the cut. I also cut recounting of the show's activities. That description, given before the show aired, is now better explained elsewhere in the article. Barte 20:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that it's confirmed that the final episode of Kid Nation will be on Dec. 12 and the days will be 38-40. I saw this in TV Guide and I wanted to say this as there is a question mark after 38-40 as in you guys are thinking it's 38-40 but you're not sure. You should probably keep it there until the episode airs, but I'm just saying it anyways.DancingWithTheStarsGuy 20:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks for editing it! DancingWithTheStarsGuy (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well,

The lead section, it doesn't say which country Kid Nation is filmed in or which country it is broadcast in. The reader is left to guess which country it is, or having to go to the CBS article and try and figure out which country CBS is based in and what countries CBS makes its television shows for. This isn't a United States TV guide, this is a world wide encyclopedia. You need to assume that anyone that could read this may not live in America, may not be familier with American time zones and may not be familier with towns and counties in the United States. JayKeaton (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For 12 episodes straight (the only exception being the last), Jonathan uses the exact same phrase 'worth its weight in gold; literally' to describe the worth of the gold stars. Surely this remarkable record may be worth mentioning, even just as trivia? Melaisis (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were lots of things that he said many times, like "welcome to today's showdown" and other things like that. That's just how he was. For An Angel (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just wanted to clarify. Melaisis (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the whole controversey should be its own article. Respond.--

Why? Barte (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO it shouldn't Swampfire (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting the following from the "Second Season" paragraph in the main article: Season 2 has already been filmed[ citation needed ] with no official airdates, as CBS has opted not to air the show.

This rumor was started because one of the "Kid Nation" camera operators maintained a KN-oriented website (since closed) in which he (and some of the actual KN kids who posted there) answered some "behind the scenes" questions. Because so many kids wrote him and asked if he could get them on the show, he posted a long article on the message board telling everyone that KN2 had already been filmed. Several members of the message board posted that information on the other main sites, including both IMDb and the CBS board, and this rumor because fairly widespread.

According to information posted by Jonathan Karsh on his MySpace, he stated that there would be no KN2 because there were not enough potential advertisers to justify filming it, and because the production company did not get enough "applications" from kids wanting to be on the show. (I personally do not believe that about the applications, but that's just one person's opinion.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.171.226 (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071024150017/http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep4/ to http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep4/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071103071545/http://www.cbs.com:80/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep7/ to http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep7/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110615095822/http://tv.yahoo.com/episodes_recap?id=146272 to http://tv.yahoo.com/episodes_recap?id=146272

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012000447/http://www.cbs.com:80/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep1/index.php to http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep1/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011210207/http://www.cbs.com:80/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep2/index.php to http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep2/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012014036/http://www.cbs.com:80/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep3/ to http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep3/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071020044443/http://www.cbs.com:80/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep5/ to http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep5/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071028070313/http://www.cbs.com:80/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep6/ to http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep6/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071110195614/http://www.cbs.com:80/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep8/ to http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep8/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071118123920/http://www.cbs.com:80/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep9/ to http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep9/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071123214604/http://www.cbs.com:80/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep10/ to http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep10/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071201161437/http://www.cbs.com:80/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep11/ to http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep11/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071208134737/http://www.cbs.com:80/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep12/ to http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep12/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071215155939/http://www.cbs.com:80/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep13/ to http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/shows/ep13/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011214414/http://www.cbs.com:80/primetime/kid_nation/progress.php to http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/progress.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090212162033/http://www.cbs.com:80/primetime/kid_nation/bio.shtml to http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/bio.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070916121020/http://www.tvweek.com:80/news/2007/07/the_founding_of_kid_nation.php to http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/07/the_founding_of_kid_nation.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081205175316/http://articles.latimes.com:80/2007/aug/22/entertainment/et-kidnationweb22 to http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/22/entertainment/et-kidnationweb22
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121006181056/http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/111312-Tom_Forman_Father_of_CBS_Kid_Nation.php to http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/111312-Tom_Forman_Father_of_CBS_Kid_Nation.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—

I have just modified one external link on Kid Nation. 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/20080706161000/http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms29.html to http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms29.html

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.

• 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) 13:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kid Nation. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://tvseriesfinale.com/articles/cbs-announces-their-2009-09-schedule-whos-been-cancelled/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323042607/http://www.seedebate.org/node/244 to http://www.seedebate.org/node/244

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.

• 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) 05:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]