Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants (character)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article SpongeBob SquarePants (character) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Nickelodeon (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nickelodeon, an attempt to better organize articles about or mostly related to Nickelodeon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or please visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Animation / American / Television / SpongeBob SquarePants (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Television (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Animals in media (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animals in media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animals' presence in literature, movies, television, and theatre 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article has an assessment summary page.

Peer Review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in this question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AMK152(TalkContributionsSend message) 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


Bikini Bottom years[edit]

Ok Bill, I won't revert it, but I would like to talk about it. I just don't think a citation is necessary in this case. I feel like common sense would say that Bikini Bottom uses the same years we do. Sandy is from Texas, so they obviously live on earth. Everything on earth uses earth-years by default. If a dog lives from 2000 to 2007, we say its 7 y/o, not 49. I mean they even use the same months we do. It's too much a stretch of the given evidence on the show, and the imagination, not to say that a year in Bikini Bottom equals a year here. Carl.bunderson 15:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's probably Ok to assume these things. But there's no firm source on it. Also there's various things that contradict it which make assuming unreliable. The employee of the month awards for one, SpongeBob has way to many for the show to be in real time/accurate. Wikipedia requires verifiability and in this case I believe that the show should directly say how old Spongebob is before it's included in the article. ●Bill (talk|contribs) 17:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume they use the same years we do.LM1998

I don't know about that because when Squidward goes 2000 years into the future a calender says he's in, I think 4008? And the episode was made in either 1999 or 2000. User: EuroJordan 17:55 November 5, 2007

Okay. The following are the only signs of any sort of "year(s):"
  • In "SB-129" the calender in the future says "March 6, 4017." (Title card said 2000 years later)
  • In "Chocolate with Nuts," the magazine cover says "December 02."
  • In "Sleepy Time" and "No Free Rides," SpongeBob's drivers' license says "July 14, 1986."
  • In "Sleepy Time," Mr. Krabs' drivers' license says "November 30, 1942."
  • In "Hooky," Mr. Krabs mentions "the Chum Famine of '59."
  • In every episod spongbobs favorit color was brown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.136.79 (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
These are the ONLY instances that the show has revealed such a thing. -AMK152(TalkContributionsSend message) 00:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Still today, Spongebob is still playing. New episodes are still being created once and a while. Spongebob is showen very often on Nickelodeon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.160.60 (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that the creators state spongebob is asexual, witch means he has no sexual attraction, thus not liking men nor women, but in the episode with the magic conch he askes it if he will ever get married and whean it replys "Maybe some day" he giggles in a joyful way, wouldnt this mean he has a sexual attracton to men, women or both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicobbsessed (talkcontribs) 23:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it was just a joke on how that many little girls often imgagine what their wedding would be like. Mumbles (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone please move or make a new section for this, i'm just marking this doesn't belong here.--Backslash166 03:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backslash166 (talkcontribs)

sexual attractions?[edit]

Dear Bill, SPONGEBOB IS NOT SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO ANYONE!!! He just ASKED the Magic Conch Shell that. He never mentions any sexual attraction to any creature. On the other hand, Patrick is sexually drawn to Princess Mindy in The Spongebob Movie. :-) 75.111.230.86 (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Natalie


I see that the creators of the character state he is asexual, witch means he has no sexual attracton twords any gender or anything, but in the magic conch episode he asks the magic conch if he will ever get married and after it replys "Maybe some day." he giggles in a happy or joyful way, wouldent that apply that he has a sexual attraction?--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It does suggest something, but coming to any kind of conclusion based on that would be original research and can't be included in the article. Bill (talk|contribs) 00:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Supposing Spongebob is gay, one theory could be that he's asking if same-sex marriage will ever become legal. Just one way of looking at it. 74.33.174.133 (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


What's the problem ? It's the creator's point of view, not a random person' one.

--Mr Alex (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Inferring from his actions that he has a sexual attraction is OR, esp when the creators have said pointedly that he is asexual. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

All sponges are asexual. But he's SpongeBOB, not SpingeTINA or anything, so it's natural he'd be called "he". But then again, I think starfish are asexual too :P Mumbles (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

He's right, just like clams, sea sponges and starfish never have sex to reproduce. They just throw their reproductive cells out of their body, but in antoher hand, Patrick has a crush on Princess Mindy. This is so confusing!

--Mr Alex (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

PEOPLE!!!! THIS IS A FICTIONAL CARTOON CHARACTER!!! CHILL OUT!!! 75.111.230.86 (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)goshfreakinpeople.

How is he an icon for gays?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.58.118 (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Just one thing to point out, You don't have to be sexually attracted to anyone to want to be married. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.177.6 (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that SpongeBob has basically an abnormal childish behavior, children have no sexual attractions util they get older.

--Mr Alex (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


Ok he is so not because he asked thee magic conch shell if he would ever get married and it replied "maybe someday" and then he laughed and the show went on do you think this is an adult show it's a child's show, they wouldn't do that. (Twilight578 (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)) Edward and bella

§ ₪ ₰ Sponge bob is my bestfriend and you guys shouldnt be saying he is gay! judgers! i dont understand why my bff is on wikipedia

~Courtney


In case none of you have noticed, the episode where spongebob and patrick pretend to be married and look after the clam, the very end of it, patrick turns to spongebob and says, "Let's have another". Doesn't that get you thinking? And if you don't believe me, look it up, it's the last line in the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.51.64 (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


Stephen said that they like to think of him as asexual, I don't remember him saying anything about him actually being asexual.(Spongebob Squarepants: The Movie, in the extras. It explains alot about the series and behind the character, I think everyone should watch it and it might explain a bit more :D) He got married to Sandy, anyway. - devoted spongebob fan :) Hirorulez (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


197.174.37.98 (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)SpongeBob is a fictional caracter and thus I agree that he has no sexual attraction, but I too have wondered about this. I don't believe that SpongeBob is gay. I think he is mearly curious to what it would be like to be married, since ,to him ,it will be a whole new experience. As to the post where Patrick turns to SpongeBob and says, "Let's have another", I would not read anything into it, because Patrick is an unintelligent being and anything he says sould not be taken seriously. - LZ197.168.171.104 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Asexuality[edit]

Why does his infobox keep reverting to him as "male"? Murdersaurusrex (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Asexuality" is a sexual orientation while "male" is a gender, so he can be both without any contradiction. Bill (talk|contribs) 00:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to forget, he is spongeBOB and is obviously male. Also, HUMANS can be asexual, by the meaning of not being sexually attracted to anybody or anything--Backslash166 03:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backslash166 (talkcontribs) Spongebob has a sexual attraction to sandy, he stalked her a lot and Mr. Krabs and Squidward had a sexual attraction to Patrick when he's disguised as a girl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.136.79 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we were talking about SPONGEBOB not Mr.Krabs, or Squidward. Also please provide support for the "Stalking" of Sandy


STALKING DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN YOU KNOW WHAT!! (Coke12 (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC))


Sponges are bisexual - both sexual and asexual, meaning that spongebob is neither male nor female —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.31.118 (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


I don't think it matters, really. But in Truth or Square, Spongebob and Sandy are married. (I haven't watched it though, my brother told me.) To be honest though, I think he just loves her like a sister. Also, he doesn't stalk Sandy. In an episode, he shows some interest in Squidward. He says 'bye Squidward' twice, Patrick notices and then Spongebob says 'I like Squidward' in 'that' way. But, it could mean nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirorulez (talkcontribs) 18:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Squidward's species[edit]

The article indicates that Squidward is a squid. I recall reading (though I can't cite the source) that he is (despite his name) an octopus. This, by the way, makes sense, as: 1) he looks more like an octopus than a squid; and 2) in various episodes (e.g., the one where SpongeBob tries to be a comedian and gets laughs by telling squirrel jokes), you can see squids that actually look like squids.

You may want to fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.198.165 (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Squidward = Squid/Octopus?[edit]

Why don't we just call him a cephalopod ("head foot", or the category of mollusc animals that include squids, octopusus, nautuluses, etc, which Squidward was actually referred to as in the time machine episode)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.121.204 (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Squidward is a squid not an octopus (hence SQUIDward), can somebody fix this because it's protected and I don't feel like making an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.37.146 (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I don't think referencing his name (that the name SQUIDward means he's a squid) holds water. Remember the episode featuring "Clamu"? That creature was not a clam but an oyster. Spongebob is sea sponge that looks like a dish sponge. The snails and worms in the show are drawn like their more easily recognizable land counterparts (earthworms and garden snails), although their inclusion in the show references the marine namesakes of those organisms... In other words the writers like playing around with names, making puns and visual/verbal jokes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.121.204 (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Despite the name, he is an octopus. If this originally identified him as such and it was then changed, it should be changed back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.198.165 (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Hillenburg states in the bonus features of The Spongebob Squarepants Movie that Squidward is an octopus. This needs to be changed back. Skafri (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The official Nickelodeon website profile says he's a squid which makes it the most easily verifiable. But I have seen that Hillenburg says he's an octopus. If you can think of a way to word it to include both then it should be fine to have them both in there. Bill (talk|contribs) 10:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Remember, though: octopus means "eight legs"(I think), and Squidward only has six tentacles. If it doesn't have eight legs, it's not an octopus. Therefore, Squidward is a squid. Or, he could be something else entirely. After all, Squidward is just a cartoon character. ~QuackOfaThousandSuns (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
so if an octopus loses a leg, it's not an octopus anymore? squidward could be from a species with 8 legs but he would have lost two of his limbs. (71.227.177.6 (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Octopi have the ability to regrow their limbs, so he would have 8 limbs one way or another.

At Internet Movie Database, in the trivia section about Spongebob Squarepants it states that Squidward is an Octopuss. He was drawn with only six limbs because he looked odd with eight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.245.74 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, it is referenced in one of the spongebob articles (maybe someone should fix this) that he is an octopus but they didn't want to give him eight legs because it be too encumbering. --Backslash166 03:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backslash166 (talkcontribs)

Actually, Rodger Bumpass, the voice of Squidward, explained the following words are as follows and I quote: "Squidward is an Octopus, but he has the name Squidward. It was a lot easier to draw him with six legs than eight. And I guess Octa-ward didn't quite work out, so we call him 'Squidward'" Belugaboy535136 (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


A consensus[edit]

We should probably try and form some kind of consensus about it. We have three different options here.

  1. Steven Hillenburg, creator of the show says Squidward is an Octopus in a DVD commentary.
  2. Nickelodeon, owner of the SpongeBob SquarePants show says Squidward is a Squid on their website.
  3. We could simply mention that he is both, as it is done on his entry in the characters article.

All 3 options are verifiable so it is up to us how we present it. Thoughts? Bill (talk|contribs) 18:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that since both are backed up by RS, we need to mention them both. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Nickelodeon did not make the show! Steven Hillenburg did! I think if the creator of the show says he's an octopus, than he IS an Octupus. I don't see why everyone has to make a big deal out of it. --Landfish7 (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2009



(UTC)


I think that he is a squid because It does not say Octopusward or Octiward so he is pretty much a squid. (Twilight578 (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)) (twilight)

Stephen said that he's named Squidward because Octiward sounds dumb.

Sign your comments and stop using bold, also I have removed your small personal attacks.Backslash166 01:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

he could be an octopus because maybe squidward was supposed to sound like edward, also his brother is called squilliam, meaning william so he may be both —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.236.180 (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


This subject has quite annoyed me. Despite his name, he is indeed an octopus. Stephen has confirmed it in the extras of Spongebob Squarepants: The Movie. If you don't believe me, buy it and watch it. By the way, Squilliam isn't his brother, it's his arch-nemesis from school. They don't have the same last name. Squidward Tentacles and Squilliam Fancyson. Just because his name has squid in it, doesn't necessarily mean he is one. Stephen also said that if he were called Octoward or whatever, it wouldn't sound right, which it doesn't, not really. I also heard that he's called Octoward or something like that in the Netherlands, I think. I may be wrong. - devoted spongebob fan :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirorulez (talkcontribs) 18:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Gay Icon[edit]

the http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4190699.stm source doesn't indicate who sees Sponge Bob "as an icon for adult gay men in the US, apparently because he regularly holds hands with his sidekick Patrick."

Who said that? a survey among gay men? the ambassador of gayness? Unless there's some official source stating a reasonable amount of gay men consider him one of their icons, the point is just made up. Cher for instance can be clearly noted as a gay icon because her fan base consists of gay men. Sponge Bob's case is more about speculations made by radical conservatives.--20-dude (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

All is needed is a reliable source making the claim, and this claim is made in both the BBC and the WSJ. This is the requirement for Wikipedia and we shouldn't be doing our own indepth analysis on the topic and sources. --Bill (talk|contribs) 07:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but we can challenge the reliability of the sources. That's why wikipedia asks for reliable sources. And news are not always reliable (you'd have a tough time quoting FOX news or MSNBC), specially when they don't indicate the source for their statement. In this case some survey/ratings (ratings among gay men are key, here) company or a gay authority/personality/institution of some sort. However, since we lack that sort of sources, indicating the news source and quoting it with its correct context, wouldn't be a bad idea in this case.--20-dude (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that this case needs to be treated any different to other cases. The BBC and WSJ are both reliable sources as defined by WP:V. The BBC is a well respected publication and there are no requirements in Wikipedia to have the require provide the exact sources of their data. Otherwise there would be very little sourcable content on Wikipedia. If you can provide equally reliable sources (by wikipedia standards) that dispute this information, then there would be a case for changing it, but at this point there is no reason to disbelieve what the sources say. It would be holding it to a higher standard than normal sources for no good reason. --Bill (talk|contribs) 21:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that in the first episode with Sandy in it SpongeBob seems to try to impress her therefore he could've been attracted to her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.144.220 (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


This is really discriminative. Is it to say that if men were to hold hands with another man they'd be thought of as 'gay'? Yet, if two girls were to hold hands, it wouldn't be thought of as them being 'lesbian'. I'd rather refer to Spongebob as 'feminine'. Not all gay men act feminine though, and not all men that act feminine are gay. - devoted spongebob fan :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirorulez (talkcontribs) 18:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Parenthesis[edit]

"...and he is seen as an icon for adult gay men in the US, (apparently because he regularly holds hands with his sidekick Patrick)."

Either remove the comma, or remove the parenthesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.208.68 (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm taking out that line altogether. "Is seen as an icon for adult gay men in the US," besides being rather weaselly, implies that this is some kind of consensus in the U.S. I don't think most American viewers (and I am one) even think of Spongebob's sexuality. There is a distinction to be made between saying he has gay fans (which is affirmed) and saying the above statement. Funnyhat (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Body Characteristics[edit]

The Appearance and characteristics section could mention something about SpongeBob's body characteristics. For example, that if he breaths in heavily his body will expand and he will float up, he can remove and reattach body parts, and even cut off and regrow parts (see for example in Scaredy Pants). --82.171.70.54 (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any secondary sources discussing this? As we cannot start describing much about the characters beyond the main characteristics without sources. --Bill (talk|contribs) 15:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually kind of confused about this. Not to pull the "other stuff exists" argument, but I was under the impression that things like television shows (and descriptions of things that happen on television shows) don't particularly need to be referenced, as the show itself is its' own reference. An example would be almost any article on an episode with a "Plot" section. You aren't going to find a news article detailing the plot of a SpongeBob SquarePants episode, but explaining it from the original source without citations would usually be sufficient. Only things like "Critical Reception" and "Production" seem to need references. I would assume we can add body characteristic information just from what you can see in Scaredy Pants, or any other episode. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 21:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The difference is with describing a plot you're using major elements from the whole work (the single episode). By describing smaller aspects such as the characteristics of the character it involves cherrypicking information from one or more episodes. Normally using primary sources is limited to describing major and the most basic of elements of something. Using one episode as a primary source to describe a character which exists in hundreds of episodes is usually not accepted as good usage of a primary source, and doesn't meet the good article criteria. --Bill (talk|contribs) 07:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Spongebob's age[edit]

Okay, so it says on Wikipedia that Spongebob was born on July 14th 1986. So, he'd be 24 this year. I'm just thinking about does he ages in the show? I guess it really depends on what date the show is set in, but that means that in 1999, when his first appearance aired, he would have been 13 years old. Obviously, a bit too young to be living by himself and getting a full-time job as a fry-cook. Maybe the show was set in the future? But I've seen the section about the time setting for the show and there has been evidence that it is set in the time period we are. I'm just a bit confused about this. - devoted spongebob fan :) Hirorulez (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, when they go "2000 years into the future" the year is 4017 on the calender. If the show is really set in 2017, then he is 31. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.4.5 (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Then wouldn't it make more sense to put his age rather than birthdate? -- Mr. Upper School 01:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

AskMen?? And why is there a "Critical Reception" in the first place?[edit]

Under the "Critical reception" section, they quote "AskMen" for the Top 10 Irritating '90's Cartoon Characters with Sponge at #4. Why are we including a poll by grown men about a kid's show? Yes, it is popular with kids and adults, but what is the purpose here? I think this section is unnecessary; does Harry Potter (character) have a "Critical reception" section? No, but it's pretty plain to see that if the show or movie is popular, the titular character is usually equally or similarly popular. Why are Wikipedia's editors trying to attach a "critical reception" to every rock, tree, and blade of grass? I doubt that there are many people out there that love to watch The Andy Griffith Show, yet somehow can't stand the Andy Taylor character. 24.10.181.254 (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.41.166.46, 2 April 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

The Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide should be in italics because it is a TV show.

68.41.166.46 (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks. Celestra (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! 68.41.166.46 (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone detecting a little bit of Original Research in this little gem?[edit]

Wow...Seems like the way this article is getting hammered with homosexual overtones, it needs to be labeled in the discussion page as part of WikiProject LGBT. SpongeBob's not a freaking homo! This is all ridiculous original research, or should I say unoriginal bullcrap. I don't care if there are sources, er... I mean fabricated links. And to say that he's a "gay icon"--says who? The president of homosexuality?? Or is it the official spokesperson? My bad!

If it's fair game to put any kind of claim or label on what kind of icon he is, can I say that he's a Muslim icon? Or how about a Brazilian icon? I bet many Martians are feeling left out. This cruft is not only useless, but completely irrelevant. This is a kid's cartoon. Go take your claims to some blog--assuming there's going to be anybody idiotic enough to care. If you want to debate the sexuality of a--good grief! A cartoon character?! Obsess with your sick fantasies elsewhere. He may have appeared in some video about promoting diversity and tolerance, but so did other cartoon characters. Why are their pages not bloated with claims about gays? I say that unless Hillenburg explicitly states that Sponge and Pat are gay, we should leave all this sheer and utter nonsense out. I'm sorry my attitude is very far over the top, but this endless "gay-saying" has gone too far. I think this whole Criticism/Controversy section should be wiped completely. That's just me. Another thing...What's with the AskMen poll? Is that another obsessive attempt to try and pull a Sponge out of the closet? The "Reception" section is more appropriate for movies, albums, and the like, not for Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck and Quick Draw McGraw and Scooby Doo. I think personally that this whole "Reception" section needs to get deleted, or at least reworded. If we have to play the "What's My Icon?" game, my two cents are he's definitely either an 'agnostic icon' or an 'ADHD icon'. Have a nice day.

Wait, I need to break in one more time. This is not intended to be a verbal attack against gays. Long story short, this is just as much a plea for it not to be WikiProject LGBT as it is a plea for it not to turn into WikiProject Latter Day Saints or WikiProject Basketball. The End. 24.10.181.254 (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your opinions on what is "utter nonsense" is not part of the inclusion criteria for article content. There is no reason why content reported in reliable, mainstream, third-party publication should be omitted on that reasoning. An editor needs to take an objective stance and let the sources produce the content for the article rather than base the content on their own personal preferences and opinions. --Bill (talk|contribs) 15:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Some copy errors in "Reception." "Well-meaning" should be hyphenated, "extremely" is spelled wrong and you could probably get rid of the "very." 174.111.9.90 (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Audited article of limited subject matter --Bill (talk|contribs) 15:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Episodes[edit]

List of Spongebob Episodes

Image new[edit]

File:Hallmonitor.jpg--Banck (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality Reference - JP Dennis[edit]

I've started a section about this one reference on the Reliable Sources noticeboard at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Cartoon_Sexuality, any interested parties may want to participate. Judgeking (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The consensus at RS noticeboard is that A. the source is an RS and B. the RS noticeboard is not the place for determining whether something is of undue weight.
Undue weight is an editorial concern, and that is resolved on an article by article basis on the talk page(s).
WhisperToMe (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.125.0.115, 2 December 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Spongebob SquarePants And His Wife <redacted>.

71.125.0.115 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I don't know for sure what that means, but I'm worried it might be an insult towards a living person, so I am not only not doing the request, but I removed the name. If you have a serious request please explain what it is you want changed. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

SpongePedia has moved[edit]

New link: en.spongepedia.org --88.65.59.234 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth[edit]

Spongebob Squarepants' date of birth is July 14th 1986. We first discover this in season 2 episode 8, named Christmas_Who?, where we see Spongebob Squarepants' birth certificate which states his date of birth[1]. This is further backed up in season 2 episode 10, named No Free Rides, where we see Spongebob Squarepants' driving licence[2] which also states July 14th 1986.

  1. ^ "Christmas_Who?". SpongeBob SquarePants. Season 2. Episode 28. 2000-12-06.
  2. ^ "No Free Rides". SpongeBob SquarePants. Season 2. Episode 10. 2001-03-06.

An entire section was recently added for SpongeBob's date of birth. This is way too trivial of a detail to have its own section, and I plan to remove it. I will post it above this message. Please discuss why it should be included if you feel otherwise. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC) User:Fan of sponge bob... Hi SPONGEBOB IS SO FUN! PLEASE SEND ME SOMEMORE MOVIES AT:1880 SYCAMORE ATLANTA GA 30309 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.138.158 (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Full name?[edit]

In the episode when Patrick becomes smart, he refers to SpongeBob as "Robert". The beginning of the article should be Robert "SpongeBob" SquarePants76.90.16.81 (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually intelligent people lengthen other people's names, so SpongeBob's real name is SpongeBob. Voxhit (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess the facts don't matter in cartoons..[edit]

There are some inconsistencies here with the facts regarding spongebob's age and the time setting of the show.. if Spongebob's date of birth is 7-14-1986 (As stated twice in this talk page) then the show can't be set in 2017, which was also stated here. You see, in the spongebob movie, right before the opening of Krusty Krab 2, spongebob states he has earned "347 CONSECUTIVE employee of the month awards".

This adds up to a minimum of 28 years and 11 months that he has worked for Krabs. it is highly unlikely that spongebob started working when he was 2 1/2, (which would have to be the case to make the above numbers accurate) therefore either he wasnt born in 86, or the Time Card in SB-129 was estimated/rounded, making the assumption the show takes place in 2017 inaccurate. BigKG (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 12.74.248.193, 5 June 2011[edit]

Hi, in order to stop interwiki conflicts on this article, someone with an account should remove the interwiki to cs Wikipedia. That article is about the television series, not the character. 12.74.248.193 (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Done - Happysailor (Talk) 18:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.61.212.247, 14 August 2011[edit]

The character is often refered as SpongeBob. 99.61.212.247 (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Yes he is. Do you have a suggestion for an improvement to the article? Avicennasis @ 17:31, 14 Av 5771 / 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What to do with the "Other Appearances" section[edit]

Apart from the subsection on merchandising, is the "Other Appearances" section really necessary? It seems to be just a bunch of unreferenced trivia. Also note that it was not present when the article passed GAR, and (at least partially) because of it, the article now fails 3b of the Good article criteria: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" (my bolding). Chris the Paleontologist (talkcontribs) 14:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Such indiscriminate list of connective factoids are unencyclopedic if not as undue weight then at the least by presentation. The section is entirely unreferenced so per core policy, it can be removed entirely per WP:BURDEN and anyone who wishes to retain the material is required to provide inline citations to reliable sources in order to place it back. I have for the moment challenged the verifiability of the material by adding an unreferenced section tag.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Move section to new article 'SpongeBob SquarePants in popular culture' per WP:POPCULTURE (but delete the worst nonsense please); then the material can sink or swim on its own (irresistible aquatic pun). --→gab 24dot grab← 20:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow, that is a huge unsourced list. Definitely should be deleted (I am neutral on the idea of creating a new article with it). Torchiest talkedits 15:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Have come from the reassesment page and boldly deleted that section. If it stays the article will most likely be delisted. I have no problem with someone creating an in popular culture article if they want, but it is not something I would do and if it is taken verbatim from this artciles history I doubt it would survive. AIRcorn (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

Since this page is semi protected, can I have the ability to edit it so I can put in a general picture of Spongebob? If not can someone who already has access do it? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants (character)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LuizM (talk · contribs) 15:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    No problems.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Ok.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Ok.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Ok.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Ok.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Ok.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

There's no problem with the article, so, . LuizM (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)