Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants

Due to errors in page moving the edit history for this page prior to March 26, 2006 is at [1].

Peer Review

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

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: hasn't, won't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 15:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

New Writers Re-route Show

Anyone think the article should address the new characteristics of the show as of late? Since the show hired new writers, the show has gone downhill. Spongebob's voice (by Tom Kenny) has gone up even higher. In almost every one of the new episodes, one or more characters go crazy at some point. Also, for some reason the animators draw Spongebob's nose as limp more than often, so that it flucuates between limp and normal. Is that a new function of Spongebob's nose? Also, the humor has become very childish. Whereas, before, the humor was laid out as the plot progessed, the new episodes just feature non-sensical humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.28.6 (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I am a kid, and I have been disapointed in the new episodes but the humor part is just an opinion. If you find any ratings anywhere that prove your point, then I think we should add it to this article. EuroJordan (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we would need reliable sources. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 13:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comeback?: Evidence

Alright, well I'm the same person who, before, suggested that the show is indeed declining in quality and that there should be a note of this. Now, I did some research at tv.com (for those who don't know, its a website where registered members can vote and average a score for an episode, as well as other information). Now, I've composed this data and I will post it for you to view. This is a compilation of episode scores based on the publics vote (from tv.com) they are in order of lowest score to highest score and organized by season. It is set-up so that it is like:

Season #

Episode Score - # of Episodes that received that score

(etc.)

Season One

8.0 – 1

8.4 – 2

8.5 – 4

8.6 – 4

8.7 – 2

8.8 – 2

8.9 – 1

9.0 – 2

9.1 – 2

Lowest: 8.0 (1 episode)

Majority: 8.5/8.6 (4 episodes each)

Highest: 9.1 (2 episodes)

Status: Good start with reasonable average

Season Two

8.6 – 4

8.7 – 1

8.8 – 1

8.9 – 5

9.0 – 1

9.1 – 1

9.2 – 4

9.3 – 1

9.5 – 1

Lowest: 8.6 (4 episodes)

Majority: 8.6/9.2 (4 episodes each)

Highest: 9.5 (1 episode)

Status: Strong follow through with varying episode quality

Season Three

7.6 – 1

8.1 – 1

8.6 – 1

8.7 – 1

8.8 – 2

8.9 – 1

9.0 – 1

9.1 – 3

9.2 – 3

9.3 – 4

9.4 – 1

9.5 – 3

Lowest: 7.6 (1 episode)

Majority: 9.3 (4 episodes)

Highest: 9.5 (3 episodes)

Status: Superb third season, one bad episode, but 15 (of 22) episodes are 9.0 and above, that’s amazing

Notes: This includes the Spongebob Squarepants Movie

Season 4

6.6 – 1

7.2 – 1

7.9 – 1

8.0 – 1

8.1 – 1

8.2 – 1

8.3 – 1

8.4 – 2

8.5 – 2

8.6 – 4

8.7 – 1

8.8 – 3

8.9 – 1

9.0 – 2

9.1 – 1

9.2 – 1

9.4 – 1

Lowest: 6.6 (1 episode)

Majority: 8.6 (4 episodes)

Highest: 9.4 (1 episode)

Status: Getting shaky with episode quality, this is the biggest range yet, but still has some well-received episodes

Season 5

5.5 – 1

6.4 – 1

7.0 – 1

7.5 – 1

7.8 – 1

7.9 – 3

8.1 – 2

8.2 – 1

8.3 – 2

8.4 – 4

8.6 – 1

8.9 – 1

Lowest: 5.5 (1 episode)

Majority: 8.4 (4 episodes)

Highest: 8.9 (1 episode)

Status: Right here it really begins to lose its touch where there is not a single 9

Season 6 (unfinished)

6.0 – 1

7.1 – 1

7.3 – 1

7.4 – 2

7.6 – 1

7.8 – 1

8.2 – 1

Lowest: 6.0 (1 episode)

Majority: 7.4 (2 episodes)

Highest: 8.1 (1 episode)

Status: So far, not looking good

Alright, well, I'll leave this for all of you to look at and decide, and keep in mind that Season 6 is UNFINISHED. And, with this evidence, I say we should at least note SOMETHING about this perhaps change the title from COMEBACK to COMEBACK AND DECLINE. Thank you. 24.3.239.76 (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. But I bet there would be only certain types of people rating those episodes. I don't think everyone who ever watched the show rates episodes there. Some who rated may never even watched the episodes. In other words, it is not 100% reliable (see WP:Reliable). Plus, I think this would be considered original research. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 13:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No Part About S.P.F.5 Week?!?!

Hey,can someone please add to the part,comeback, something about S.P.F.5 (Spongebob Premiere Factor 5) week. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.252.134 (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Paper Luigi (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks,Paper Luigi! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.252.134 (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bikini Bottom

The Bikini Bottom section is too long. I propose a seprate article. Paper Luigi (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Making a separate article would go against decision on AfD. I don't think it's that simple to make it an article again. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Goverment??????????

This section is totally crazy! With all these "Houses" and everything like that. This is just plain stupid. And the section saying Patrick and Gary were Kings from 2007-2020 is pure vandalism. If the time in SpongeTime was really 2020, wouldn't everyone be dead?!? The "government" is very rarely explored and shouldn't be included with this article. Has Nickelodeon ever released info of the government of Bikini Bottom? I will wait for a week from today and if no one has an argument I am removing this info from this article.Cssiitcic (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I think it was all pasted in from a deleted article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Patrick

For those of you who are unaware, the page Patrick (SpongeBob SquarePants) was recently redirected to this page despite a no consensus (default keep) result. The redirector claims it was based on the peer review above but i have not seen anything in it as to why Patrick is not notable. The page is protected now because of edit warring, but after the protection is lifted (Saturday morning around 1:00 US EDT, 5:00 UTC), the page should be un-redirected pending further discussion. I personally believe the page on Pat should be kept NewYork483 (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with you, the new page on Patrick met general notability guidelines and should not be redirected here Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 04:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• I also agree. Patrick is a notable character and nothing has been discussed on why he was redirected here in the first place a few months ago. Busta Baxta (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• I also agree, if the page on Patrick is re-opened, Wikipedians would be aware that reliable sources are needed, provided the article is properly tagged. Also, it is notable based on the guide lines of WP:FICT <Baseballfan789 (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• First of all, I did not claim it was due to the "peer review" above, and that semi–automated peer review says nothing about Patrick, so to suggest the redirection (or anything substantial) was done as a result is ridiculous. Secondly, the AfD has no bearing whatsoever on the redirect, as AfD is for deletions, and its closures do not preclude regular editorial processes, such as merging. Thirdly, we do not undo decisions while discussion is pending, articles remain as the status quo until a consensus is reached. The status quo had been redirect for months, and consensus is required to undo this. If you wish to have a discussion about the status of the article with the aim of gathering such consensus, it should be had in an appropriate place. The talk page of an article on another character is no such place. Now to the article. It does not meet the general notability guideline (we may as well completely disregard WP:FICT here, the status of that page is pretty nebulous; it fails that page anyway though). In order to meet notability requirements, the character of Patrick Star (not the show, not an episode, the character himself) must receive significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only two sources on the page as it stands now do not discuss the character in any way that would grant notability. Therefore, the article does not meet WP:N. I am going to re-redirect this article until a consensus can be gathered, as that is the status quo. Further discussion should take place here, the correct page to have this discussion, where discussion has lead in the opposite direction as this quick discussion. seresin (public computer) 20:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• The Patrick Star article existed for a long time, until it was redirected to the character list due to lack of sources. Since then, a significant amount of imporvement of sources has not fully occured, as not many sources have been cited yet. We should just keep information on the character list until enough sources are cited to a point where we can make separate articles. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 13:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Eugene Krabs as a Jewish Stereotype??

I think that they should list Krabs as a Jewish stereotype in his description. If Pearl is listed as a "stereotypical American girl...", I think it would be appropriate for the editing of Krabs's description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.131.155 (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 13:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutley not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex-vandalisim (talk • contribs)

Ukrainian?

In the History > Development section it mentions that Stephen Hillenburg is Ukrainian. I googled "Stephen Hillenburg Ukrainian" and found nothing on this, so can someone give some insight on this? KSava (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants or Setting of SpongeBob SquarePants series

It is too my concern that a majority of this article is just the setting. This page is about the series of SpongeBob not the setting. I highly suggest that we make a page for the Setting, and shorten it in this article.Anfish (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Clear Up

• This article needs to be split into other articles.
• This article needs to be shortened.

For more info on Clear Up sections look hereAnfish (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Plankton

In the SpongeBob SquarePants wiki it mentions that there has only been one instance where Plankton was successful at stealing the Krabby Patty formula and that was in the Movie. In the episode Plankton's Army, I thought he manages to get to the recipe and actually reads it aloud. Am I mistaken? Just wondering! Thanks!

--Alexiswk (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In "Plankton's Army", the supposed recipe is a fake to scare Plankton. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 06:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Another view on Spongebob & Sandy.

I know this isn't a forum & I know this subject has many mixed views. But I created a long blog that may tell us some insite, that will show us what the Spongebob crew are actually trying to do. I would paste it on here, but probably would get deleted. The link is safe I promise you:

http://www.tv.com/spongebob-squarepants/show/3428/the-spongebob-andamp-sandy-evidence-page./topic/2520-1098937/msgs.html?tag=board_topics;title;5

Orangesponge (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Orangesponge

Unfortunately for your view, none of the links provided in your blog are reliable or official enough to be used in the article. The blog itself cannot be used either as you have published it yourself. Has this issue ever been mentioned in reliable publications, Interviews or DVD commentaries? Because then it could be mentioned, but until then it's just too much original research to include at the moment. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Goofs

Most of you know that the show spongebob has made many animation goofs. I think i should watch every episode and write the number in the article. If you don't like the idea write it on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex-vandalisim (talk • contribs) 16:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable, published source with these goofs, that's a no-go idea. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

F!uck!!!!! F!uck!!!! $hit $hit $hit omg go to www.bustnow.com man! I'm telling ya! It's a h.ella good spongebob place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustaDAH!fan (talk • contribs) 09:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

MUHAHAHA!