Talk:King & King

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 December 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

A fact from King & King appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 April 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that because it depicts a same-sex marriage, the children's picture book King & King was the subject of a question in the 2008 Democratic U.S. presidential primary debates?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/April.

Wikipedia

Children's literature Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature 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.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): R.dever.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

removal of section

The critizism section has been removed several times, why? i think its notable to put in a mention of the books reviews both positive and negative.Qrc2006 21:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This book is a sick piece of garbage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.13.5 (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's one negative feedback for you. ^^99.154.132.178 (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell us what criticism section you're talking about? I can't find a section called "Criticism" in the history. The Wednesday Island (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the opposition section directly below the Reception and Analysis section. The opposition section is definitely about criticism. However, I think the correlation between conservatives and book sales may be a leap. This may require a removal or further citation.Anthonyabat (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Use In CA

Here in California, this book has become the topic of discussion when a young daughter tells her mom "princes can marry princes, and I can marry a princess" as part of the Yes on Proposition 8 advertisements (2008 General Election Ballot Item). --71.198.205.241 (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source: http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10757746 ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kingkiss.jpg

Image:Kingkiss.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) 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kk copy.jpg

Image:Kk copy.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) 20:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NYT source

Regarding this diff [1]; The only claim that this source backs with respect to this diff is that sales increased due to the "hullabaloo". While the claims in this edit are certainly true, it would be better to have additional sources referenced to support this statement. If not, lets just list the sales increase. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that additional sources would be helpful. There is an implicit statement in the NYT source, but in an effort to paraphrase, I think some synthesis was introduced into that paragraph. It should simple say that following the controversy, sales increased. - Mr X 03:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've no idea how this made my watchlist btw. Possibly my stiki addiction from last year or Benjiboi. Book looks cute however. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on King & King. 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: 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) 18:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the King & King page

I plan to make some changes to the King & King page. These changes will make the article more reliable and will fix some content gaps. Please see my annotated bibliography in my sandbox for the sources that I will use.R.dever (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC) R.dever[reply]