Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Untitled

• • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]

Do you have a source? -AMK152^{(Talk • [[Special:Contributions/AMK15 I <3 spongebob}

I found that comment a load of bunk.... I dont even think SpongeBob was there in 1996... 71.238.25.226 (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

SpongeBob was born in 1986. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? Mokoniki | talk 17:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get that info? Multimusiclover1 (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As seen on his driver's license in the episodes "No Free Rides" and "Sleepy Time." -AMK152^{(t • c)} 22:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

that is a great show —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poopsmithbob1 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Isnt the Bikini Atoll in the Pacific Ocean and not Atlantic?Kongkit (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)KongkitKongkit (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is Bobson?

There is a reference to a "Bobson" (no first name) in the second paragraph of the section titled, Development (1993 – 1999). There is no other reference to Bobson in the article. It appears that the sentence is really about Hillenburg. Gbl2233 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Year of the Sponge

In 2009, Nickelodeon UK launched the"Year of the Sponge", a year long event that runs in tandem to the 10th birthday celebrations of Spongebob in the USA. A new website was launched to support this event on February 4th, [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelodeon UK (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply From SpongeBob.com-you have been very great to tell us such many things thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.183.177 (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible Political Stance?

This might be just me, but it seems that the new episode Shuffleboarding portrays the Patriot Act... Although this might just be my speculation. 71.238.25.226 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

..."opened the door to many other cartoons to use more "adult" senses of humor and come from smaller companies"?

Jay Ward's Rocky and Bullwinkle Show (Jay Ward Productions) opened that door in 1959. Their Wikipedia article's opening paragraph says as much.

Yes, a lot of the development section is unsourced opinion and original research and needs a serious rewrite. Go ahead and remove anything unsourced you believe is inaccurate. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)}

Someone else will have to edit out the section that caught my attention; this is a protected article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.18.233.109 (talk)

Ah I see. I will try to fix up the section. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Billy West

Remove the text: "Billy West: King Neptune ("SpongeBob vs. the Patty Gadget")" and replace it with nothing.

Billy West did not voice King Neptune in SpongeBob vs. The Patty Gadget. If you check the credits for the episode, it is Paul Tibbitt. Can someone please remove it? Dstrash (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Dstrash (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the Cast Order Wrong?

The cast is listed in alphabetical order. What is the correct order of showing the cast? I thought that it is listed in order of who gets paid the most (with the highest-paid cast member first, then second-highest, etc.), but I could be wrong. 98.202.38.225 (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply-Cast Order has not been wrong in a long time you are the wrong one you are not very succsesful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.183.177 (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DVD Release

In a section DVD Release and Broadcasting, the sections not encyclopaedic. Please, delete (only the sections). Buchardo (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it not encyclopaedic? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fix this page please

Can someone who has the rights please fix this page. It is currently blank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.42.121.131 (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I did… -99.255.188.158 (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Broadcasting

I think what the section Broadcasting is publicity and not encyclopedic. Delete!. --Buchardo (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it not encyclopaedic? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Spanish

Why having in wikipedia in spanish. --Buchardo (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So those who speak Spanish can read in their own language. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with sponge bob and is not correct. someone please delete it, it bugs me.--RIVER 01:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio44 (talk • contribs)

Decline in Quality

There are no viable sources to back up the claims that a decline in quality has occurred. The only source used was on a lesser known forum post. If not for the fact that it doesn't have any sources, it is biased. Also, if it NEEDS to stay on the page, at least put it in a correct section. Otherwise it looks like vandalism. Citations are needed in order to have claims be made on Wikipedia. I would fix it but for some reason it is a protected page. It shouldn't even belong anyway because it is not encyclopediac.

The paragraph that starts with "one critic says" needs to be removed. It has got to be the most useless, boring paragraph I have ever read and offered no information or insight at all. I would delete it if I could, but I can't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluepanda (talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed the "one critis says" section a bit so it actually has a point. Maybe it still is in need of some polishing up, but I think it's better now.Pittsfordljb (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please bring back the section with Spongebob's decline in quality? This is not bias. It is only the statement of an audience. If this is considered biase, movie reviews and critiques would be considered biase too. I think this decline is an overlooked issue. Many fans have reached a consensus that the show has become less funny following Stephen Hillenburg's resignation. Need sources? Check out IMDB's forums.Booksrule9 (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's considered biased because there was only one source. Here on Wikipedia, we consider sources reaching notability and verifiability, not popular opinion unless sourced. BOVINEBOY2008 13:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Add a picture of him! If the reason it was biased is because there was only one source, then can I substantiate the "Decline in Quality" section by providing more sources? I have no intention of disputing your claim. However, I believe I can prove that SpongeBob SquarePants decline in quality is notable and verifiable. Sources: http: //www.thepetitionsite.com/6/bringbacktheoldspongebob http: //www.thepetitionsite.com/1/better-episodes-for-spongebob-squarepants http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206512/board/nest/133754890?p=1 http://unlocked-wordhoard.blogspot.com/2006/05/medieval-spongebob.html http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=218185 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206512/board/thread/143620008 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206512/board/nest/142643160?p=1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206512/board/nest/141586205?p=1 Do not all these opinions make this claim notable? Do they not make this claim verifiable? Am I correct to define bias a tendency to be one sided? Since there is praise in this article, should there not be criticism to "balance" the viewpoints? How can one deny the large presence of these opinions? If opinions are shown to be representative of an audience, doesn't it make the decline in quality a valid viewpoint? I stand by my argument that SpongeBob SquarePant's decline in quality is not biased and is an accurate statement of SpongeBob's current state of production.booksrule9 (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

None of those sources are acceptable per WP:RS. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of those are forums, 2 are petitions and 1 is a blog. Fortunately wikipedia doesn't accept those as reliable sources because anyone can say anything they want about any subject. And a number of people on a forum does not equal everyone who watches the show. If any of these things are mentioned in a news article written by a reliable source then it can be added, but until then we can only use the source we have. Dark verdant (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the show has dropped in quality too. I mean, now the episodes are things only a little kid coukd like, while older episodes (which i loved) were more clever, original, and great. Also, spongebob became way dumber in season 4, right? He was dumb in seasons 1-3, but he was smarter than he is today. This is my opinion, but does anybody agree? I think the article should mention this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.100.129 (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This article should definitely include SpongeBob's decline in quality. Unfortunately, it appears the voice of fans is simply not enough to get that onto this article. To be honest, I'm quite annoyed that critics haven't picked up on this issue, since only the voice of a notable source can determine Wikipedia's content. The sad truth is that SpongeBob has garnered such a strong popularity in its past that most people ignore this decline, and critics don't bother with something with such a strong fan base. And plus, little kids can't tell the difference, so SB's fan base still has size. While I agree that my previous sources were not exactly usable for a encyclopedia, it seems like the only option right now is to rely on fans. It's a dead end unless multiple (wise) critics write something about this issue or if Wikipedia gives popular opinion more credit.booksrule9 (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with booksrule9. Critics should be paying more attention to SB's decline in quality, but since its demographic (little kids) will watch anything on Nick, no one seems to notice. IMO, SB was a lot better before Hillenburg resigned as executive producer. It's sad, really. I'd like to see the decline in quality section back as well, but for now, there are no reliable sources to back it up. 12.73.212.204 (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that notable critics are paying any attention to the show at all (apart from analyzing profit margins), so it's difficult to find any assessments, positive or negative. For what it's worth, I agree that the show was once great but has been very poor for a number of years now. Esn (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see it's not just me who thinks the show went down the drain after it's short hiatus. It's really awful! But don't expect "critics" or reviewers to notice differences in quality...I learned that lesson back in 1983 when few reviewers of the time caught just how deeply bad The Return Of The Jedi was, and praised it to the hilt, as they has the prior movies. This also happened two years earlier when Superman II received glowing reviews, critics not understanding how bad a piece of filmmaking this was (not one review I read even realized that the soundtrack was just a reuse of the first film's!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.6.48 (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I just restored the "Decline of quality" section. I agree it's very important to add such data, it's really important to understand the series now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magegg (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WARNING ABOUT SITE OF KID'S SPONGEBOB

Hello,Our site has alot of blockage because some people have been just saying thing's about SpongeBoB squarepants,we would like to let you know not to say anything anoying or too smart remembering that many kids will be on the site like us kids in the world.

This would be Nice If this site was not used for stuff like 2003-2009 that we would like to concider you band from the site if there is any abuse in the profile of SB.SP

Thank you for you notice-please remember never to be rude or vando(editing things kids want to see)if you would like to be reckless go to wiki answers.com a site for kids and adults

From Wikipedia,The Free Encylopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.183.177 (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Not done: Please see WP:NDA and WP:OWN. — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 02:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Excessive detail/OR

The "plot", "setting", and "continuity" sections contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that would interest only a small audience. Plus, much of it is uncited and therefore could count as original research. I don't want to remove it just yet though, I'd like to discuss it first. Pittsfordljb (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

New episode

There is a BRAND NEW Spongebob Special premireing Thursday July 24,2009 called Square Roots and someone needs to add that to the episodes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funist20 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 20 July 20 2009 (UTC)

Spongebob Mini Marathon on TV Land

here is the link http://forums.tvland.com/tvln/board/message?board.id=2069&message.id=98#M98, it says starting at 7am eastern but i think its 7am for everyone who has this channel because I notice that there were two episodes left at 8-9am for this marathon on the guide and I live Pacific standard time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokusho (talk • contribs) 04:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

About Bikini Bottom's population...

In WhoBob WhatPants?, the population on the sign stated it was 538, but in Pretty Patties, there were 46 853 customers at Spongebob's customer area, hinting that the population could be much higher. Maybe the population is indeterminate and non-canon. Could that be possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.51.131 (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a massive decrease in population occurred between the events of "Pretty Patties" and "WhoBob WhatPants?"? It could be a possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.71.100 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats Because The Atlantis-Bikini Bottom Metro Area Has A population of 12,098,001(2008 Census) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.80.32 (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also in Pretty Patties,the population was only 307 for bikini bottom.

Well, Bikini Bottom was destroyed by Spongebob and Partick several times, so maybe the explosion killed the majority of the citizens. I think the population is non-canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega31098 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I think that it's a pretty reasonable theory that the city's population changes over time.--76.174.71.100 (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In a more recent episode, when a giant boat was going to collide with Bikini Bottom, Ms. Puff stated that he would be killing "millions" of people in a moment when nearly colliding with the city. What's up with that? What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega31098 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

really guys you are going to argue about the population of bikini bottom. I think it is non canon. who said that the makers of sponge bob can't change it up when they feel neccesary ?--RIVER 01:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio44 (talk • contribs)

No citation about official Facebook and Twitter pages.

There doesn't appear to be a citation for that. I am on both social networking sites and I have yet to find an official page on either site. --74.130.32.27 (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

More series?

Steve Hillenburg will be making 9 seasons before he retires.Hillenburg is going to make a new show about mermaid man and barnacle boy which he will hope to make 4 seasons

Yes, I would also like to see a source for this information. Mokoniki (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Mokoniki

Do you have a source? I've looked and I cannot find one. Dared111 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleaner

Almost finished cleaning the article from repetition, I only have to move the marathons described to its own "Marathon" section. Dared111 (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's done now. I've left some data about marathons in the production section so relevant data can be moved somewhere else. Dared111 (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Star Question

I noticed on the patrick star page on spongepedia that Patricks birthdate and current age is shown how or where did you get that info? Multimusiclover1 (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to ask. Here on Wikipedia, information is supported by reliable sources. If the information isn't here, it is possible that someone made it up on Spongepedia. You probably will not find the answer here though. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize for my disruptive editing. Multimusiclover1 (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

editprotected

{{editsemiprotected}} In section "Merchandising and marketing", please replace "PEZ dispensers" with "Pez dispensers" (per WP:MOSTM and Pez/Pez dispenser). Thanks. 62.147.62.97 (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Cheers,  Skomorokh  17:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This article sucks

Sorry, guys. I know your trying to clean this article, but for now, it sucks. The "Music" section is a poor, cluttered list, and if this article is shooting for GA, it needs more sources. Also, the Episode section is unecessary and the merchandise part needs a trim.

Well if the article sucks, then why don't you help out? Mokoniki | talk 13:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'd get to it if you guys would unlock the page. User:Phil A. Fry (talk) ) 08:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a question about show time

I noticed this series is shown ALOT on Direct TV Its very hard to find a time when spongebob isnt on. It has more air time than Family Guy I think What is its normal Hours per Week? Is it the most shown? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.195.133 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

My error section

Why did you remove my error section, I did not see any thing wrong with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyoffacliff (talk • contribs) 19:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's as Mr Kupo said, the error section is not needed. It's not encyclopedic. Besides, I looked at it, through page history, and it was riddled with spelling errors. It was also original research and that's against Wikipedia policy. Mokoniki | talk 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

spongebob is a gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by KEITH567 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought Squidward was a Squid and not an Octopus?Kongkit (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)KongkitKongkit (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Protected page

Can someone restore the protection icon at the top right hand corner of the article? Tinton5 (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Squidward

--Brandon1296 (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Squidward is not a squid, he is an octopus. --asyuli4211 (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Squidward is a squid. SQUIDward. Please fix this Asyuli4211 (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)asyuli4211

Adult humour

I suggest a better example of adult humour in the "Humour" section. "Certain innuendos, in particular, are intended to go over the younger viewers' heads...in one episode, Squidward tricked SpongeBob and Patrick into thinking he was a ghost". Ghost - that is not adult humour, kids understand that. An excellent example is at the start of the episode where SpongeBob is watching a dancing sponge on TV and looking excited, and when Gary enters the room he quickly changes the channel to the football. Can we include that one instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plarter (talk • contribs) 11:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree, and think that would be a perfect example. Maybe even a mention of the bondage style leather straps that are sometimes worn by the citizens. Dark verdant (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree also, but I think that a good example would be when spongebob says "patrick, your genious is showing!" to which patrick replies "agh!" and proceeds to cover his 'getleman's area'. however, the epiosode this is from escapes me...

The source cited in that area directs you to the spongebob website. That is not an adequate source. Atomforyou (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Improvements to this article

Well, now that I'm a member of the SpongeBob WikiProject, I've helped this article out a little. I revised the "History" section and got rid of a few things. Anyone is welcome to help further. I hope that this article can become a GA. Also, hail the SpongeBob WikiProject! -Phil Fry (talk) 16:45, 05 November 2009 (UTC)

Sheldon Plankton

"...all of his schemes usually end in failure"

Either the "all" or the "usually" has to go. It's terribly clunky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.192.164 (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Scene?

I added information about a deleted scene from "Just One Bite" StevenMario (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sheldon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.207.7 (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Guest appearances

DO guest appearances really need to be in here? I don't tihnk guest appearances are really important unless they are recurring voice actors (which means no). Also no sources for them either.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The guest appearances are irrelevant. Plus, their significance is not great enough to create such a long list and take up so much space. booksrule9 (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

shorten beginning

Can we shorten part of the top? Thanks. Brainulator9 18:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainulator9 (talk • contribs)

Songs

What are the name of the most famous Rap versions of SpongeBob SquarePants? Really, looking for a rap version to listen to! Thank you. --WhiteInKnights (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Not a Forum for general discussion.

Please ask this on Yahoo! Answers or something, thanks! estemshorn ^{happy new year} 19:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Typo in article

{{editsemiprotected}} At the end of the second sentence in the Development (1984-1999) section, please change "SpongBob" to "SpongeBob" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.254.145 (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2010

Done Welcome and thanks. Celestra (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Another typo: "seies,however,shortly" in section "Hillenburg Era ..." Leeliv (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There are also Songs like: --Christle2212 (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Christle2212,12/29/2010 When I ripped my pants ,The bubble song,Cant keep my eyes off you,Gary's song,idiot freinds,Stadium Rave,The campfire song song,Goofy goober song,This grill is not a home,Goofy goober rock,F.U.N song,Doing thes pongDont,be a jerk,The best day ever,My tighty whiteys,Wheres Gary?,The very first Christmas,Now that were men,We got scurvey and,Ridin the hook.All on Itunes if i missed any songs just edit.

Wrong Words

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the / 2003 / Golden Reel Award / Best Sound Editing in Television Animation / Episodes: "Nasty Patty" and "Idiot Box" / Won

Please change "Idiot Box" to "Idiot Boy"

Not done: "Idiot Box" is correct. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206512/awards VerballyInsane 04:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Influence

Not sure if this is relevant but two kids in separate instances remembered episodes from Sponge Bob to save their friends: A 12-year old girl performed the Heimlich maneuver when her friend was choking on gum; she had remembered Sponge Bob did the same thing when Squidward was choking on his clarinet. An 8-year old boy rescued his friend who was drowning when he remembered how Larry the Lobster saved a drowning fish. Angry bee (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Iamindefinite, 17 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under Criticism and controversy it says that there was a pro-homosexual group sponsering the video. What the fuck is a pro-homosexual group? It just sounds like some bigots way of saying a group that promote the toleranse and exceptions towards homosexuals. Wikipedia need to change this. This is not Family first`s homepage. Iamindefinite (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)q

 Done Changed to "pro-tolerance" as stated in the source. SpigotMap 13:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Music

Lux Interior from The Cramps should be added to the list of alternative bands that have been featured on Spongebob. They were on the episode SpongeBob's House Party (Party Pooper Pants). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qphyto (talk • contribs) 23:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Decline in quality

This definitely needs to be mentioned. The show lost it's feel after Stephen Hillenburg resigned. All the examples of humour given in the humour section are absent after Season 4. I have even had younger siblings and acquaintances tell me "They're making spongebob gay now."

Additionally, the importance of Krabby Patties is greatly exaggerated in the newer seasons. Plankton is the only lasting antagonist in the series, and you know something is wrong when the sole antagonist for 9 seasons continues because he wants the ingredients for a burger.

The newer episodes of spongebob are flat-out depressing to watch, and if you are not 3 years old, you'd agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.155.223 (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If we had a statement from a few critics, then maybe it could be included. EDIT: According to the page about Stephen Hillenburg, he's still executive producer. So... Atomforyou (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:SpongeBob_SquarePants#Decline_in_Quality booksrule9 (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ansmwke, 19 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} please change the number of seasons from 7 to 8. the 8th season started in 2010. verified via imdb

Ansmwke (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Looks like it starts in early 2011, see SpongeBob SquarePants (season 8) →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 00:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

-=Cartoon Sexuality= Dennis ==

I've started a section about this one reference on the Reliable Sources noticeboard at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Cartoon_Sexuality, any interested parties may want to participate. Judgeking (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that this section discusses current controversies and should remain Judgeking (talk) 00:41, 24 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) 18:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This really doesnt need to be up here its rediculus you need to mention it. Its just Stupid how you HAD to put it here thats all im saying. Christle2212,12/29/2010--Christle2212 (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

I'm a longtime fan of SpongeBob, but I don't remember anybody affiliated with the series saying anything about where Bikini Bottom actually is. Who said that Bikini Bottom is off the coast of Bikini Atoll? 97.96.65.123 (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Depp as a guest star

In the episode "The Big One", Johnny Depp guest stars as that surfer dude guy who tells SpongeBob and Patrick about The Big One (I forget his name). I think this should be noted. I would also like to point your attention to the above section, also written by me, which has not seen any activity as of yet (probably because it's small and nobody noticed). But anyways, Johnny Depp was a guest star in "The Big One". 97.96.65.123 (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Guest Stars

I would like to suggest adding a list of guest stars that have appeared on SpongeBob Squarpants. There have been quite a lot, actually. The ones I can name off the bat are Johnny Depp (The Big One), Davy Jones (The Big One), David Bowie (Atlantis SquarePantis), P!nk (Truth or Square), and maybe Tim Conway (Barnacle Boy), but he's been on the show several times, so maybe he could be a "recurring guest". 97.96.65.123 (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree Kyle1081 (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

SpongePedia has moved

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

Can someone please add the adress? --178.3.207.138 (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Criticism and decline in quality" section restored

Wikipedia should not only display positive propaganda about SpongeBob. Sounds very communist/socialist. Critics who accuse the show of declining in quality should not be shunned as non-notable. And it wouldn't be much of a surprise if nobody in the press or a site considered "notable" addressed the issues of decline, as they only want to convey a positive attitude due to the show still being popular. Yet there must be some more references from noted sites, journalism, etc. out there. But you guys seem too lazy to investigate and check it out. I think we should find some way to keep such a section for sure. Classicalfan2 (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not how it works. If you want this section kept, you find the cites. Unfortunately all the whole section relies on is a single article by one commentator, that doesn't contain most of what is claimed here. To go into the detail;

• The section title "Criticism and decline in quality" is not neutral, as it states "decline in quality" as if it was fact, rather than opinion.
• "Many critics and SpongeBob fans believe". - Weaselly attributed claim. Who are these critics and fans? How are we to know their opinion is notable?
• "As a result, many fans have been turned away of the series." - Uncited claim. Where has this been claimed and what evidence is there for it?
• "a huge change was the resignation of Stephen Hillenburg as head of the series," - Uncited claim.
• "Because of this, many old writers resigned" - Uncited claim.
• The single cite that follows say none of the above and is only evidence that one commentator is unhappy.

As for your propaganda/communist/socialist complaints. What on earth are you talking about? No-one is "shunning" critics. All that is required is that material in the article, of any sort, is properly cited. Produce the cited criticism and we have something to base the section on. Until then it's all the unsourced opinions of people unknown without any factual basis. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I could have been a bit mistaken about the section and its restoration. But I know what I'm talking about for sure with "propaganda, communist, and socialist". I believe Wikipedia leans to the left on many issues, and so does much of the media. That may very well be part of why inclusion of material negative to the show is rejected by WP and the media. Just my hunch. Classicalfan2 (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system." "Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate." (The first sentences of each respective Wikipedia article are here used as working definitions of those concepts.) Now, what exactly does the quality of recent Spongebob cartoons have to do with either of those things? I ask because, even granting for the sake of argument that Wikipedia and "the media" tend to lean left politically (from the point of view of American politics), the show's popularity and quality apparently have nothing to do with communism or socialism. 24.129.30.235 (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Who knew Spongebob was such a political hot potato? Can I go ahead and remove this badly cited section? As I said, if more and better sources can be found for this material it can be included. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Traduzcan el siguiente texto: Bob esponja ya no es lo que era!!!! Desde que Stephen Hillenburg renunció a su cargo la serie se fue al cuerno... Lo dice un fan molesto!! Y hay muchos más!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.14.204.186 (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing in this article that says anything about the show's decline in quality. Why is that? It's clearly something fans of the show have pointed out for years. It should be added. 74.88.97.42 (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

get the photo of ejaculation removed NOW

REMOVE IT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.26.37 (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Put it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.171.133 (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Drawing of SpongeBob (Can I add it?)

I've been creating several graphics in the past years. I just remembered I have a SVG drawing of SpongeBob that we could use in the article. Is it ok to add it? I ask because it seems weird to me that the article doesn't have any picture of the main character. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 15:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if you created it and drew it from scratch, its still a likeness of a copyrighted character, so it may not be allowed. That said, a small, low resolution image should be allowable under Fair Use. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 04:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Spongebob over rated for little kids?

Some parents are saying spongebob has a bad influence on kids. Because they act dumb and they "sass" each other. Parents are worried if their children watch it they will start acting like them. Parent's are deciding not let their little kids watch spongebob.( I completley disagree with the parents)--B.zippy2212 (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would some people do that? SpongeBob isn't overrated as well, but SpongeBob is mostly the highest-rated show for all ages. Nobody else thinks that SpongeBob is not for kids. Although the recent episodes of SpongeBob was criticized due to it's not living up the old episodes, but not the entire show just got criticized. The episode Sailor Mouth didn't immune to negative reception, but it did only criticized by WatchDog media group and they're was an report entitled Wolves in Sheep's Clothing and [ which documents the increase in potentially violent, profane, and sexual content in children's programming, the Parent's Television Council, a watchdog media group, believed the SpongeBob SquarePants episode "Sailor Mouth" was an implicit attempt to promote and satirize use of profanity among children. The episode originally aired during the 2001–2002 television season, ironically the season in which the PTC named SpongeBob SquarePants among the best programs on cable television,[7] but the report cited a repeat broadcast of the episode from 2005 to prove its point that it promoted use of profanity among children. In a later report, several members of the PTC listed "Sailor Mouth" as an example of how levels of profane, sexual, and violent activity has increased in children's television programming.[8] Richard Huff of the New York Daily News criticized the report for misinterpreting an episode of SpongeBob SquarePants, "Sailor Mouth", over its intent to satirize profanity implicitly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.27.184 (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC) I think that the parents are rigt Spongebob is violent and stupid. There is way too much violence. Spongebob has been proven to be bad for small children. in alot of episodes people almost die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.250.232 (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Caption under the picture of Bikini Atoll and Bikini Bottom has directions reversed. I don't have edit privileges. Can someone fix that? -66.253.136.138 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible this article may need to be rewritten completely?

I found many people to be arguing over the inconsistencies of this article. Personally, I think it's very poorly written, and nobody can edit it because it's locked. Does it need to be rewritten completely, or do a vast amount of changes have to be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.97.42 (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it was something we wanted to do, we'd definitely have to discuss it first before making any plans. I don't think it's as bad as you say it is, but if it was something we'd want to do, I'd be on board to do it. If you were just able to say the specific problems you have with the article, that'd be great. 74.88.97.42 (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want 2 do it so badly y don't u reedit it yourself? 74.88.97.42 (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

SpongeBob in Translation

Hey there! I was just wondering whether there is/should be an article related to SpongeBob SquarePants in translation, similar to Harry Potter in translation. If there isn't, would anyone consider making one? I would help, of course. Get back to me with what you reckon.

TheFartyDoctor talk 20:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

spongebob squrepants

is spongebob in the category in fantasy as a genre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.45.164.121 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing Section

What happened to the section "Criticism of Decline in quality" or something along those lines? 121.218.224.189 (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What is SpongeBob underwear?

I'm reading a reference to "SpongeBob underwear" in a Salon.com article, "Our year of toilet training hell". What are these? __meco (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Season chronologies

It looks like most of the seasons of this show have begun before the finale of the previous season has aired. So how are the seasons defined? By the production code numbers of the episodes? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 12 November 2011

Update charaters with who they are you can find lots of characters on http://spongebob.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_characters thank you!!

2.121.39.56 (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done This template is for specific requests, also the Spongebob Wikia will have far more characters that won't be notable for Wikipedia. CTJF83 19:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

wrong title

change idiot box to idiot boy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.39.56 (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC) This is the dumbest show ever! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.37.91 (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Another accepted

There is a spongebob attraction at Cedar point, Sandusky, Ohio. It is 3-d and is currently operated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.101.37 (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Important Section Missing

What happened to the "Criticism of Decline in Quality" section? It is an important part of SpongeBob's history and reception. The Simpsons article has a section on it. SpongeBob's is just as noticable. Compare a season 2 episode to a season 8 one. Like that user (BOVINEBOY2008) said before: "This is not bias. It is only the statement of an audience. If this is considered biase, movie reviews and critiques would be considered biase too. I think this decline is an overlooked issue." Many fans have reached a consensus that the show has become less funny following Stephen Hillenburg's resignation."

And as the other user (booksrule9 (talk) said: "If the reason it was biased is because there was only one source, then can I substantiate the "Decline in Quality" section by providing more sources? I have no intention of disputing your claim. However, I believe I can prove that SpongeBob SquarePants decline in quality is notable and verifiable." Sources: http: //www.thepetitionsite.com/6/bringbacktheoldspongebob http: //www.thepetitionsite.com/1/better-episodes-for-spongebob-squarepants http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206512/board/nest/133754890?p=1 http://unlocked-wordhoard.blogspot.com/2006/05/medieval-spongebob.html http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=218185 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206512/board/thread/143620008 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206512/board/nest/142643160?p=1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206512/board/nest/141586205?p=1 Do not all these opinions make this claim notable? Do they not make this claim verifiable? Am I correct to define bias a tendency to be one sided? Since there is praise in this article, should there not be criticism to "balance" the viewpoints? How can one deny the large presence of these opinions? If opinions are shown to be representative of an audience, doesn't it make the decline in quality a valid viewpoint? I stand by my argument that SpongeBob SquarePant's decline in quality is not biased and is an accurate statement of SpongeBob's current state of production."

124.183.174.183 (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. I've been wondering what happened to that section for a while. The decline is extremely obvious to anyone who has watched an episode from seasons 1 through 3, and is an important viewpoint that should be provided in this article. Someone should put it back! Yellow1996 (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Somebody write it back in then! 74.88.97.42 (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stuff Patrick Says

On April 2, Nickelodeon aired a commercial including phrases like "Look, a yo-yo" and "Are living nachos there?" which are way funny. They are for the two weeks of new SpongeBob episodes.

File:Patrick Star Happy.png

Patrick Star's reaction to this

(talk) 21:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Somebody delete this! This has no reference to the article! Plus, it also has no business being on Wikipedia! Seriously, the talk pages on Wikipedia are for HOW THE ARTICLE COULD BE IMPROVED, not for opinions/general discussion! Anyone see my point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.212.106 (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2012

I just watched an episode of Spongebob that explained the origins of MermaidMan and BarnacleBoy. I would like to see a "Trivia" section that explains "Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy's real names are Eugene and Tim respectively. These are, in fact, the real names of the actors playing them." Thanks to whoever is fulfilling this.

74.82.68.144 (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: That isn't how this works. You need to detail the change and someone will insert it into the article for you, unless there is a problem. Please rememeber to include reliable sources for any factual change. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy

What is the point of mentioning the opinion of some nut job from another one of those crazy organizations with "Family" in the name - who invent controversies for publicity? It's just as valid to mention that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster considers Spongebob a cartoon character. The only meaningful paragraph in this section is the Univ. of Virginia study. 173.74.9.164 (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 August 2012

71.20.99.56 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Nothing requested. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 05:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The End of Spongebob

Spongebob is rumored to have a Season 10, which is said to begin in 2015. But only NickAndMore.com says this and it is WAY unreliable! So apparently, this means a Season 10 is NOT going to happen and that the show will end after Season 9. --71.74.87.105 (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should wait in till the writers or voice actors in Spongebob Squarepants have officially announce that there season will be the last one. Obviously when they announce it, websites and T.V News networks will surely report that. --Webclient101 (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You said that SpongeBob's ninth season will be the last and that nickandmore.com (http://www.nickandmore.com) is unreliable, I know with that. But, you are making or saying that the ninth season will be the last. I certainly disagree with that. We don't know if the ninth season will be the last season of SpongeBob, so it is not fit for you or for anybody to say that it will be the last. Still, like what happened to the third season, it was unexpected that season 4 will air because it was rumored that season 3 will be the last because of its hiatus. like what Webclient101, "I think we should wait in till the writers or voice actors in Spongebob Squarepants have officially announce that there season will be the last one." -- Mediran (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Clay SpongeBob

Starting with episode It's A SpongeBob Christmas and season 9 the cartoon had switched from digital ink and paint to claymation and theme from episode Truth and Sqaure will be used. Should be this added to wiki? 109.174.115.127 (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversial quotes and innuendos

Hi. I know I am a guest and all and that you might think I'm stupid, but could there be an expansion to the section - and even an article - about controversial quotes and innuendos? Or could this go on wikiquote?

99.29.140.145 (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)99.29.140.125

Probably Wikiquote but they may be a useful addition to the critisism and controversy section...Yellow1996 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What was the first episode of SpongeBob?

Believe it or not, the first episode of SpongeBob was actually aired in 1995 and some users say about it. 109.174.115.255 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That is obviously not true and a hoax. If it was actually premiered in 1995, please give reliable sources or links. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 13:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The Adult Swim SpongeBob Episode did not air, and it was not planned to air on Adult Swim

The sources are unreliable. One directs to a website complaining about SpongeBob being gay and the other directs to a forum. Plus, Adult Swim did not even start until 2001, where it was merely a 3 hour long block on Sundays and Thursdays. Ideas for SpongeBob date back to the 1990s, and it did not even air until 1999. Adult Swim is constantly targeted for these rumors because it's late night thing, and things can be easily missed, but they aren't going to make stuff like this even for late nights. They don't even have the rights. They could go to jail for doing that. And even as liberal as Nickelodeon is, they're not going to air an episode about SpongeBob and Patrick being gay. Not even once. It would be all over the news, and there would be a political outcry. I would have deleted this statement already, but it seems the edit option has been removed. Please, somebody fix this. Some other things on here (as obscure as they are) deserve to be on this page more than this silly rumor.

Agreed - neither source backs up the claim, or even mention AS. Removed. Bonusballs (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

spongbob square pants is cancelled

look at this website http://www.mostlylegit.com/2010/07/spongebob-squarepants-cancelled-after-star-found-dead-2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.134.44 (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoax. Article is 2 years old. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Spongebob aired on ATV World.

According to the Chinese wikipedia. Spongebob aired on ATV World. Link: http://zh.wiki.x.io/wiki/海綿寶寶 99.229.41.79 (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Correntions Needed?

Squidward is a squid, or an octopus? Looks more like an octopus, even though he has only 6 tentacles.

Bikini Bottom is near a continental shelf, or on the shelf? Seems like they're on the shelf, since Rock Bottom is at the bottom of a trench, and they're situated above it.

Painty the Pirate, or Patchy the Pirate? The movie calls him Patchy.

This article seems to have been hacked -- can't get in to edit errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.185.45 (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of the changes you are proposing seem to constitute original research and/or personal interpretation, and thus, would likely not last long. As the Spongebob article is an attractive page for fans to edit (particularly those who aren't familiar with Wikipedia rules and expectations,) the page is semi-protected, not hacked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 02:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I would love to review this article, and to help get it up to GA status. I should begin writing comments within a matter of days. PrairieKid (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much PrairieKid! I'm looking forward to this. Thannks again and have a nice day! :) Mediran (t • c) 09:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The cast seems to have two sections. (Here and here.) I had a lot more written here, but it seems to have disappeared. I will look through the article again for the problems. (They were a few minor grammar issues. PrairieKid (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

   The two sections mentioned above are two different sections. The Characters section is about the description of the characters in the series, and the voice cast section talks about the cast members who are part of the series. I'm sorry about those things you have written, but I did some massive removal specifically on the section of list of cast members without descriptions since the day I thought it could be brought up to GA.

   I think we can agree to disagree here. It isn't a major problem.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Sources are good. Y I checked several at random to ensure that they were valid and said what they were supposed to.

   Great! Thanks for that! :)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The criticism, other media and merchandise sections could definitely be cut back a little.

   I'll fix that but I already removed some. Do you think it's enough?

   Could still use a little bit less in the criticisms section. I would combine the sections into 1.

   Looking over it again, I would say it actually looks fine. I'll let it go. PrairieKid (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes sir.

   Thanks! :)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Based on edit history and talk page, I would say its good.

   Of course.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I would like more pictures, but I understand why they aren't that many. Maybe once a few of the sections are cut off a little (see above), it will seem like more pictures.

   I was also thinking of that. However, there are no much images about its cast members or crews that are available.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I will put this article on hold for 1 week. There is very little that needs to be done here before I can make it a GA. Thank you to the nominator for all the hard work, and waiting until the article was nearly perfect before nominating. PrairieKid (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks PrairieKid for taking this review on. I'm very grateful. I hope the article's quality is good enough to pass GA. Thanks! :) Mediran (t • c) 01:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I hate to be picky, but all I want is the criticisms section to be cut back a little bit more. Thank you again for the hard work. PrairieKid (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks great! Thanks for all the hard work. Spongebob Squarepants, welcome to the GA list. PrairieKid (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

How on Earth is there no mention of the series' decline in quality?

Anyone who has been a devoted fan of Spongebob since the beginning would most likely agree that since Paul Tibbitt has taken over as showrunner for the show, it has been nowhere near the quality standards of the first three seasons (the golden years). The fact that there is no mention of how much people complain about the series' decline in quality is ridiculous. If you ask me, this article should be rewritten completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.98.220 (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I do understand your frustration. It's certainly something that should be included in the article. However, there's nothing we can really do since it's locked. 74.88.98.220 (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be talking to yourself. But as has been said previously, if you can cite published, reliable sources (WP:RS) mentioning this apparent decline and its reasons, then that would be absolutely appropriate for inclusion in the article. However, what is NOT appropriate, and what you CANNOT include, is your own personal point of view, even if you think that "Anyone who has been a devoted fan would most likely agree..." or "lots of fans think...", that is not sufficient proof for an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia IS an encyclopaedia. "Most people think that fairies are real" is not good enough. You need published evidence from a reliable source before you can make such a claim in an article. Bonusballs (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you means seasons 4-9? Yeah they were pretty terrible I'm sure you could find a reliable source that glorifies seasons 1-3 and the movie while bashing seasons 4-9. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been brought up so many times! I remember back when we had a long-standing version of that section. Maybe 2 years ago, maybe more, I can't remember. Someone should find that old version and see if it would fit. Yellow1996 (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)who w ants spongebob to end not me

Honestly, I remember when that existed, and I plan on doing that. If it doesn't fit, or if it's removed, I'll search as much as possible to find reliable sources, because honestly, Spongebob is going so far under the tube that the fact that there's no decline section is just ridiculous.--Sage94 (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The perceived decline in quality works best as a subsection under criticism and controversy and not as its own standalone section. SigKauffman (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

@SigKuffman I completely 100% disagree 24.47.245.66 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

We need a notable source for this perceived decline and put it under criticism and controversy because if we just added a huge "series decline" section to every show we dont like anymore every show that has more than 4 seasons is gonna get one.Smear-Gel (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

underwater terrarium

there is a name for "underwater terrarium " it is called AQUARIUM. 50.9.97.53 (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"a newly described species of mushroom, Spongiforma squarepantsii, was named after the title character." Why is this in a section about Monopoly Media awards? And why so much about this stupid show. don't you people have anything to fight for in life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture captions at SpongeBob SquarePants (season _)

I've deleted the captions underneath the photos at each of the SpongeBob SquarePants (season _) articles a couple of times. User:VP44444 has reverted these changes a few times without participating in the discussion aspect of WP:BRD. Thus, I'm opening the discussion here. My rationale for deleting the captions has been explained in my edit summaries: "Deleted caption per Template:Infobox television 'An image with the title logo of the show does not need a caption.' " The title of the show, as well as the season numbers appear in each of the photos. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the caption is not needed here. Frietjes (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Episode overviews

I'm looking at a few SpongeBob SquarePants (season N) articles, wherein we have episode overviews (ex: [2] [3] [4]) that summarize the data tables that appear immediately beneath the overviews. Why are we duplicating this information on the same page where the information resides? What is the precedent for this, and why is SpongeBob so unique that it requires this type of atypical formatting? I can understand possibly doing something like that which is done in the Simpsons articles: i.e., keeping the episode lists shorter on a general List of episodes page. And more importantly, because of how frequently SpongeBob articles are vandalized, I don't see the value in doubling the information that can be vandalized. I'm pretty sure we all have enough anti-vandal work to do. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah i agree it is very sloppy we need to re do the whole list. Koala15 (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

yes, I agree as well. we don't need to have the information listed twice, especially when the episode summaries are supposed to be very short, so there is a very short distance between the top of the article and each episode in the main episode list. it's simply redundant information which has the tendency to become out of sync. Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If possible, I'd like to try to establish some consensus on this issue because I've seen these overviews pop up, then get deleted before. Since we establish conensus by discussion, I'm hoping to solicit some clear opinions and explanations. Thanks y'all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Episode overviews are redundant, and there is no clear precedent via MOS:TV or other prominent article that this is a preferred method of delivering episode data. It also presents a duplicate set of dates that must be managed against vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

McDonald's SpongeBob Happy Meal 2012...

The Merchandising and Marketing paragraph should be revised to say that SpongeBob has had a McDonald's Happy Meal in the summer of 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongefan1987 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Got a source? SpongeBob is also promoted in gumball machines in local taquerias, though I have no proof that isn't original research. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

How is this source [5] MarioNovi (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

remove images

Hi user keeps removing images without discussing or following correct procedure, [6] keeps trying. Please discuss if these images have to be removed. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The files wills stay removed, They do not meet WP:NFC. If you think they meet all the requirements for NFCC please file a review at WP:NFCR. Until the review is closed the files need to stay out. Werieth (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, your edit summary gives the reason file lacks critical cometary. The best dictionary definition of cometary I can find is of a celestial body that travels around the sun, usually in a highly elliptical orbit: thought to consist of a solid frozen nucleus part of which vaporizes on approaching the sun to form a gaseous luminous coma and a long luminous tail. While SpongeBob does travel around the sun, and does have a solid nucleus, and one can well imagine he would vaporize if he got too close, I have to agree he is missing the critical celestial element. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that the correct spelling would be commentary. The files dont meet the the second part of WP:NFCC#8. Take File:Monopoly SpongeBob edition.jpg for example, yes there was a Monopoly version created, but why are we required to display an image of it? how is not showing that image detrimental to understanding a TV show? Werieth (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I too would like to hear the arguments are in favor of including these images. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If images are in violation they should be listed for deletion as a first step instead of removed from this page so someone who understands rights can review it. MarioNovi (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

FfD is the wrong venue. Can you please explain why you think the files being removed meet NFC? (take the file from my last post) Werieth (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong can you please show me policy that says you remove image from article first instead of FfD? MarioNovi (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've no position one way or another as to the outcome of this discussion, but I notice, MarioNovi, that you stated as fact a few comments above, "If images are in violation they should be listed for deletion as a first step...", but you didn't cite a policy. Now it looks like you are asking Werieth to cite a policy to counter your unsupported objection. I could be wrong about what you're asking, but superficially, it reads like a burden-shift to me. Cutting through the fog though, what mutual goal are we all working toward? Can we at least agree on the goal, so that we can all figure out a reasonable route to the end? Unrelated, I just noticed in the raw text above that you pointed to a YouTube link as an example of Werieth not adhering to "correct procedure". I'm not interested in clicking the link, but I'm curious how this YouTube video is relevant to your argument. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I realize I can be wrong, I am new here, I misunderstood and can't find a policy I thought I saw. I asked Werieth because he seems to know policy and likes using warnings on talk pages so he must know why he says that. Youtube link was error, I will fix. MarioNovi (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't care if image stays or not, just thought policy was not correct. MarioNovi (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

With non-free media it can get fairly complicated if an FfD was needed to remove a file from an article for NFCC issues. Often a file may be used on multiple pages and page A might be 100% correct and according to policy, but its use on page B violates policy. You cant just delete the file because of page A's use is valid. Standard enforcement for NFC issues is to remove the content until its proven to be complaint with policy. In this case there has yet to be a valid argument put forth to why these files meet WP:NFC. PS WP:NFCC places the burden of proof on those wishing to include the media. Werieth (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It makes sense but my worry is it can be abused by people who claim that it violates policy but then no one notices. Then 1 week later image is automatically deleted. This is why I do not upload a lot of images, it means I have to watch them consistently. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Its rare that things can slip through the cracks like that. The image itself must be tagged, and the uploader must be notified. Given the fact that too many users fight tooth and nail to keep every single image in their articles (regardless of what policy states) the risk is minimal. We actually have the reverse issue. Werieth (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Uploader of these images did not complain did they? MarioNovi (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Series color

SpongeBob SquarePants deserves its own background color for the series layout, just like The Simpsons, and other top cartoons of all time.

Stick with attributes defined for the infobox. Consistency across all of wiki is the goal. The Simpsons was grandfathered. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"Ratings began droping soon after Netflix added a "just for kids" section. A Nickelodeon spokesman says SpongeBob is performing consistently well and remains as the number one rated animated series in all of kids' television." Shouldn't this be dropping? -Reggie Smith 71.126.2.85 (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok i fixed it, thanks for pointing that out. Koala15 (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Segments

Do we really need to include how many segments Spongebob is broken up into? The information looks to be WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that listing the number of segments is an ephemeral hassle. That is, it will constantly need to be updated, etc. Let's just go with eps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Various Questions

I noticed Mediran’s GA nominations for the various seasons of SpongeBob and thought about reviewing one of them, but wanted to check out the article on the series itself first. I have to say that for the most part, this looks pretty good. However, I feel that there are still several improvements to be made before it would be ready for an FA nomination. I’ve started rewriting the lead and will try to continue working on the article as I get the time. If anyone has questions about my edits or disagrees with a change that I make, feel free to let me know. I have a few questions of my own that I've posted below and will probably ask some more later.

• The lead says that this is one of the most highly rated shows on Nicktoons, but this doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the "Ratings" section. Can this information be found anywhere else in the article?

• The lead also says that the series "reached enormous popularity by the time of its second season". This is rather vague. What exactly is meant by "enormous popularity"?

• Are there any pictures of the Orange County Ocean Institute that could be added to the article? If so, then I think that this would make for a great addition.

• Can anything more be said about Hillenburg's comic book, The Intertidal Zone? This is a really interesting aspect of the show's development and I feel that if there are any more details about it available, then they should be included in this article. One specific point that I would like to see expanded upon if possible is the sentence stating that several characters from The Intertidal Zone evolved into SpongeBob characters. Are there any examples of this that could be given, besides the comic's co-host, Bob the Sponge being an early version of SpongeBob?

• Why is the Rocko's Modern Life episode "Fish-N-Chumps'" discussed in the "Conception" section? Did the anthropomorphic fish resemble any of the characters in SpongeBob? --Jpcase (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the "one of the most highly rated shows on Nicktoons", I have omitted it temporarily. I found no sources (even at HighBeam) saying it's one of the most highly rated Nicktoons shows. "Enormous popularity" as in "popularity" itself. About Ocean Institute, sorry, there are no available pictures of it. BTW, I have added an info about Intertidal Zone, and about "Fish-n-Chumps", I don't know too but that is the first episode Hillenburg did on Rocko. I don't know if I have answered all of your questions and I know I'm not that correct. Mediran (t • c) 09:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Mediran. It's too bad if there isn't any info about the specific characters featured in The Intertidal Zone, but the little bit of information that you were able to provide about this still makes for a good addition; I hadn't realized that Hillenburg used the comic as a teaching-tool for his students, and had simply assumed that it was something he did on the side.

As you can see, I decided to remove much of the information about Hillenburg's education and early career, as the focus of this article needs to remain on SpongeBob itself. While the sentence detailing "Fish-N-Chumps" makes for an interesting bit of trivia, the way that it's currently written doesn't show why it's relevant within the history of SpongeBob. I may be able to rewrite this sentence, instead of removing it, but it would help if I can incorporate the fact that this was the first episode of Rocko's Modern Life that Hillenburg worked on. Do you have a reference that I could use for this?

When I asked what was meant by "enormous popularity", I was wondering whether the description refers to the second season's ratings, its critical reviews, or some other factor; I'm also curious how the popularity of the second season was greater than that of the first season. --Jpcase (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I re-added the info about his early career because that is his background on becoming an animator. And for "enormous popularity", it simply means in ratings, reception, merchandising, etc. (like you've mentioned). About your latter question, the second season had greater popularity because it's the time the show is "becoming known". Its ratings is only behind Rugrats at the time.

And about the Rocko episode, I'm sorry, I didn't know what I said. We can add info from the available source/s in the article regarding the episode, however, I currently have no access to it. We can search for this or other source/s to add info for this. And for some unnecessary trivia, that Rocko episode served somewhat a basis of the episode "Clams", and "the live-action, big-band footage and the Jaws-like theme were things we added." (Drymon, Derek (2010). "The Oral History of SpongeBob SquarePants". Hogan's Alley. Retrieved December 19, 2013.). Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 04:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

About Hillenburg on Rocko, the episode he worked on that first aired on TV is "Belch of Destiny" according to the source above that he first worked in the third/fourth season and that the episode is the second part of the first pair of episodes of Rocko's third season. Mediran (t • c) 04:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the info about Hillenburg’s education and early career is that this article isn’t about his background on becoming an animator. He has his own article, where all of these things can be mentioned, but this article is about SpongeBob and its focus needs to stay on SpongeBob. A very brief mention about him getting a job on Rocko’s Modern Life would be okay, since it shows how he first started working for Nickelodeon, but readers of this article don’t need to know when he first started going to animation school, or that he was accepted by Jules Engel, or what his thesis film was. These facts are all interesting, but they aren't relevant.

It doesn’t seem to me that Drymon explicitly states in "The Oral History of SpongeBob" that "Fish-N-Chumps" served as a basis for the SpongeBob episode "Clams". One could infer that this is what he meant, but I’m not so sure. Have you actually seen "Fish-N-Chumps"? If so, are there any similarities between the two episodes, besides both being about fishing trips?

Do you have any figures for the show’s ratings during its first season? I see the sentence about how the show was second only to Rugrats in 2001, but the article currently doesn’t give any indication that the series’ popularity actually increased from season 1 to season 2. If the lead is going to say that the series "reached enormous popularity by the time of its second season", then the "Ratings" section has to show that there was some kind of difference between the popularity of the first and second seasons.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss all of this with me. I'm quite impressed with all of the work that you've done on the article. :) --Jpcase (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I say that we must keep the fact he first attended CalArts. Also, frankly yes, I have watched that Rocko episode and, at some point, the two are similar. Most notably is the music, but in "Clams, a "big band" was added to play the music. Anyway, I don't think I should discuss this to you as it is very clear in the article. During the second season, it became the second highest-rated children's show on Nickelodeon (which it is not during the first season). Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 01:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Hillenburg attending CalArts should be kept in this article, but again, the fact that he was accepted by Jules Engel isn't worth mentioning here. If readers want to know the little details about Hillenburg's life, then they can read his own Wikipedia article. Since the first sentence of the "Conception" section mentions CalArts, the last sentence of the "Early inspirations" section isn't really necessary. Readers of this article don't need to know when Hillenburg started attending the university; they just need to know that he attended the university. However, I could rewrite the sentence so that it reads, "A few years after studying experimental animation at the California Institute of the Arts..." Do you feel that this would be any better?

So, you're saying then, that the Jaws theme was used in "Fish-N-Chumps" as well? I can see how this might seem clearly explained in "The Oral History of SpongeBob", for someone who has actually seen the episode, but not having seen it myself, the way that Drymon phrased this was a little confusing. I'm sorry to say it, but one episode of the show being inspired by an episode of Rocko's Modern Life isn't relevant enough to be mentioned in this article either. If several episodes of SpongeBob have been inspired by Rocko's Modern Life, then that would be significant enough to mention here, but otherwise, this info should be moved to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 3).

I hope that you can understand why I'm suggesting these things. I don't want to come across as being overly hard on this article, but I have high standards, and the standards that will be expected once you nominate this for FA will be even higher. My hope is simply to help you get this article ready for when it goes through that process. If you still feel that either of these sentences should be kept though, then just let me know. I'm quite willing to continue discussing the matter, and I don't want to make any major changes that you would not agree with.

Also, I still think that the ratings for the first season should be added to this article. Yes, the series had better ratings during its second season, than during its first season, but by how much? If say, the series had been the third highest-rated children's show on Nick during its first season, then the growth in popularity between the two seasons wouldn't have been very substantial, and wouldn't be important enough to mention in the lead. --Jpcase (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

SLR. You see I was busy working on another Wikipedia article. BTW, OK, I guess you made your point. Go and remove it. About that episode, please watch it for you to understand. Also, I am did not said that you/we should mention that the episode inspired another episode. I am sorry but I have no available sources for the ratings figures of season one you but can visit:

• "Cover Biography for April 2003". Current Biography. H. W. Wilson Company. April 2003. Archived from the original on August 14, 2011. Retrieved December 20, 2013.
• Wilson, Thomas F.(Interviewer); Hillenburg, Stephen (Interviewee) (May 29, 2012). Big Pop Fun #28: Stephen Hillenburg, Artist and Animator–Interview (Podcast). Nerdist Industries. Archived from the original (mp3) on December 21, 2013. Retrieved December 21, 2013.
• Or other sources available in the season articles to compare them.

Thanks for your efforts and willingness to help this article become better. Thanks again. Mediran (t • c) 01:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, and hey, no worries about not being able to reply sooner. I had seen that you were working on the Stephen Hillenburg article. Great job with that! :)

I'll definitely try to watch "Fish-N-Chumps" at some point, but I'm not sure that it's really all that important, if we're just going to remove that sentence from the article anyway. And yes, I see now that I had been making an assumption that you would not want it to be removed, even though you had not actually said anything of the sort. Sorry about that.

If we don't have any sources for season one's ratings, then the lead probably shouldn't say anything about the popularity of season two in particular being enormous. Yes, the ratings increased that year, but they had most likely been very high the year before as well. I probably won't remove this sentence right away, as I'd like to give a little more thought to the matter first, but would it be okay with you if I do eventually remove it?

One more thought - The Ocean Institute comes across (at least to me) in the "Early inspirations" section, as though it's a school of some sort; however after looking into this further, I've learned that it's actually a center that offers various educational programs to visitors. Does ''SpongeBob Exposed! The Insider's Guide to SpongeBob SquarePants actually state that Hillenburg "studied" marine biology while he was there? If so, then I would assume that it was through the Center for Cooperation in Research and Education, which according to the institute's Wikipedia page, is focused on "[integrating] ocean research into Ocean Institute programs." I could certainly be wrong about this, but it seems to me that even if Hillenburg did further his studies while at the institute, it would have been somewhat incidental; just a means of helping him to better educate visitors, and not necessarily something that he did to significantly expand his own knowledge of marine biology.

So, I would suggest rewriting this section of the article to read:

Creator Stephen Hillenburg initially conceived SpongeBob SquarePants in 1984, while working at what is now the Orange County Ocean Institute, an organization dedicated to educating the public about marine biology. During this period, Hillenburg became fascinated with animation, and wrote a comic book entitled The Intertidal Zone, which he used to teach visiting students about the animal life of tidal pools.

Would this sound okay? --Jpcase (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Great. BTW, Thanks for removing the Rocko episode. Anyway, the ratings of the show during season one was not really big and, according to the link above, Hillenburg said "First of all, I never thought that we'd [...] I thought we might just get one season. And then you know, we get a cult following or something, and it gets cancelled." I don't know if this helps but this, for me, is an indication that the show wasn't that strong. He added that "As we went, we started to build audience and I think by the end of the second season we had fans." Also from this source, he said that "I really figured we might get a season and a cult following, and that might be it."

From the Cover Biography magazine that I linked above, it wrote that:

• SpongeBob SquarePants premiered in July 1999. At first the show aired on Saturday mornings; two years later Nickelodeon began broadcasting it at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday in addition, thus attracting not only juvenile viewers but adults as well. Since October 2001 SpongeBob SquarePants has reigned as the top-rated program among children aged two to 11 (with two million viewers in this group tuning in every night), and typically has 61.5 million viewers per month (including repeat viewers), a third of them adults between 18 and 49. Celebrities who have admitted to being fans of SpongeBob include the actresses Jennifer Love Hewitt and Sigourney Weaver, the actors Rob Lowe and Bruce Willis, the comedians Ellen DeGeneres and Jerry Lewis, and the singers Tony Bennett and Lance Bass (of the group 'N Sync). In August 2002 the Parents Television Council ranked SpongeBob third on its list of best prime-time cable shows, noting that its appeal spanned generations. (According to its Web site, the council is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization that communicates "America's demand for positive, family-oriented television programming to the entertainment industry.")

• The show's success has surprised many, and there has been much speculation as to the reasons for its popularity, since SpongeBob's innocence and fun-loving spirit are out of step with the cynical, world-weary tone of many of the other animated programs that attract adults. Robert Thompson, a professor of communications and director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University, told Tom Zeller for the New York Times (July 21, 2002), as posted on the SpongeBob Wet site, "There is something kind of unique about [SpongeBob]. It seems to be a refreshing breath from the pre-irony era. There's no sense of the elbow-in-rib, tongue-in-cheek aesthetic that so permeates the rest of American culture--including kids' shows like the Rugrats. I think what's subversive about it is it's so incredibly naive--deliberately. Because there's nothing in it that's trying to be hip or cool or anything else, hipness can be grafted onto it." James Poniewozik described SpongeBob in Time (December 17, 2001) as "the anti-Bart Simpson, temperamentally and physically: his head is as squared-off and neat as Bart's is unruly, and he has a personality to match--conscientious, optimistic and blind to the faults in the world and those around him." Writing for Variety (July 14, 1999), Laura Fries described the show as "a thoughtful and inventive cartoon about a hopelessly optimistic and resilient sea sponge. . . . Devoid of the double entendres rife in today's animated TV shows, this is purely kid's stuff. . . . However, that's not to say that SpongeBob is simplistic or even juvenile. It's charming and whimsical, but clever enough to appeal to teens and college-aged kids as well." According to Joyce Millman in the New York Times (July 8, 2001), SpongeBob "is clever without being impenetrable to young viewers and goofy without boring grown-ups to tears. It's the most charming toon on television, and one of the weirdest. And it's also good, clean fun, which makes sense because it is, after all, about a sponge. . . . His relentless good cheer would be irritating if he weren't so darned lovable and his world so excellently strange. . . . Like Pee-Wee's Playhouse [a live-action TV show that aired from 1986 to 1991], SpongeBob joyfully dances on the fine line between childhood and adulthood, guilelessness and camp, the warped and the sweet."

Again, for me, I think we should not remove it as that was one of the "key parts" of the show's entire history. That by the second season, it attracted audience that "has surprised many." That popularity is not only concerned on the audience. If you'll read through the "Merchandising" section, or at the second season's same section, you could see that the show's merchandising expanded. That "the popularity of SpongeBob translated well into sales figures. In 2002, SpongeBob SquarePants dolls sold at a rate of 75,000 per week, which was faster than Tickle Me Elmo dolls were selling at the time. SpongeBob has gained popularity in Japan, specifically with Japanese women." etc.

About Hillenburg on "studying" there, yes, your suggestion is better. Hillenburg studied marine biology in Humboldt and he only worked at the Ocean Institute as a marine biology teacher. And about the SpongeBob Exposed, I don't have a copy of that publication but that source is already there before I started to work on this article. Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 08:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining all of that. I can see a little more clearly now how the popularity of the second season might have been particularly significant, but I still have some reservations about this. Only one of the reviews quoted from in the Cover Biography magazine is really applicable here, since the others were either written prior to the premiere of season 2 or following the premiere of season 3. As for the quotes by Hillenburg (where he says that he thought that the series might get cancelled after the first season), they could be interpreted in a couple of different ways. I agree that one could infer from these quotes that the ratings of the first season weren't very good, but another possibility is that Hillenburg had felt this way before the series even premiered. He may have simply meant that he expected SpongeBob's run to be fairly similar to that other Nick cartoons, most of which had only lasted a few years and never managed to cross over into mainstream pop culture.

I seriously doubt that the ratings of SpongeBob's first season were "bad" per se, although it's certainly possible that they were significantly lower than those of the second season. The problem is that we don't know for sure. At this point, all we can do is speculate. You do make a good point though, about how the show's merchandising expanded during this time. Again, I don't think that this sentence has to be removed right now, but it's something to be thinking about.

A few more things:

• I checked the Commons and found an image of the Ocean Institute there. Since CalArts is barely mentioned in this article now, I don't think that we really need to use a photo of it anymore. Would it be okay with you if I switched the two images?

• The second sentence of the "Early inspirations" section tries to establish a correlation between Hillenburg becoming fascinated with animation and creating The Intertidal Zone. However, technically, animation and comic books are two different things. I know that this might seem nitpicky, but Hillenburg had been fascinated with art in general long before drawing The Intertidal Zone, so I'm not sure that this comic marked a change of any sort in his interests. Does the "10 Years for TV's favorite sponge" article make a connection between these two points? --Jpcase (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, replacing that image would be nice. About the section, maybe a rewrite would be appropriate to clear what the statement want to convey. The source only says that "Hillenburg is an artist and also a scientist who taught, and the inspiration for many of his show's characters came from a comic he wrote, 'The Intertidal Zone,' designed to teach his students at the Ocean Institute about tidal pool characters." That would be all. BTW, thank you again for improving the article. Mediran (t • c) 02:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mediran. I'm glad to help. :)

I did a rewrite on the "Early inspirations" section and will probably do some more later. Feel free to make changes or let me know if you preferred the earlier version. I just have one more question about this section - If Hillenburg began envisioning a project that would involve a cast of anthropomorphic sea life after leaving the institute, but it wasn't intended as a television series, then how exactly did it differ from The Intertidal Zone? Did Hillenburg have any specific plans for this idea or were they merely sketches? --Jpcase (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Jpcase for the improvements you did. Also, please make yourself free in making changes without asking me because sometimes I am forgetting to visit here and I know you know better. BTW, that section is also confusing me. I don't know how exactly it differs from the comic but I think it's sketches. I don't know if this helps but I know it do not. Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 02:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you own the first season DVD? If so, could you post the exact quote that this sentence was based on? --Jpcase (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't own any set or other releases. Mediran (t • c) 02:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I only have the first season DVD, but I do not have any other season DVDs. JJ98 (Talk) 08:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Was about to be banned for being gay?

English sources claim Ukraine's Національна експертна комісія України з питань захисту суспільної моралі (Нацкомморалі) attempted to ban SpongeBob for promoting homosexuality. But can anyone in Ukraine confirm what happened? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 13:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm from Ukraine. The situation was quite different. Members of one marginal sect (Секта Догнала) wrote a broshure to Нацкомморалі with proposition to forbid a bunch of cartoon films. SpongeBob, in sectarians opinion, is promoting homosexuality. Нацкомморалі made a session about that issue, but refused to sect. SpongeBob is on Ukrainian TV-channels without any problems now. Volodymyr D-k (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That "anyone in Ukraine [can] confirm" is irrelevant. Reliable sources are the requirement for inclusion on Wikipedia. This claim already has three references: OK, Daily Mail and Huffington Post may not be the most reliable and I've never heard of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, but they link to an article from The Wall Street Journal (I'll substitute the reference), so I think we can safely accept this here. If you find any other reliable sources to qualify or add to the claim, add them, but don't just cite someone who commented on a Wikipedia talk page as that does not meet the reliable source criteria. In any case, this discussion does not call for an RfC (although it was helpful that it brought this to my attention), so I'm removing the tag. —sroc 💬 06:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, sroc. Here are some relevant sources about that situation (in Ukrainian): 1 2. And here is a publication of that brochure, here is the first appearance of it on the site of religion organization. And this is a recent schedule of Новий канал, national TV-channel. --Volodymyr D-k (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I meant to say I want someone to find sources directly from Ukraine, but that's OK now (Also need English sources right from Ukraine, though). I'm going to change wording of the Ukrainian gayness one, but here's some sort of preview:

(Name of the organisation), (description of the organisation, like right wing, Christian or environmental), proposed to the National Comm... that several inappropriate non-Ukrainian animated films and television series should be banned in Ukraine. One of the animated TV series listed in the proposal was SpongeBob, which, according to (the organisation), is promoting homosexuality. The National Comm... refused the proposal, and all of listed films and TV series are broadcast on TV channels in Ukraine without any problem.

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've found that resolution of Нацкомморалі (1). It's really interesting. See

2. У разі отримання від Державного агентства України з питань кіно відеозаписів мультфільмів «Губка Боб»... організувати проведення досліджень, результати яких розглянути на окремому засіданні Національної експертної комісії України з питань захисту суспільної моралі щодо розгляду стану інформаційної безпеки дітей...

Thanslation: "In the case of receiving from the State Agency of Ukraine videos with cartoons "Spongebob" ... we have to organize research. Results of that research have to be considered at a separate meeting of the Нацкомморалі to review the situation of information security of children..."

So they just claimed what they have no videos to make any decisions. In the annual report of Нацкомморалі (Page 11) we can found only:

Зазначимо, що за результатами звернень громадян об’єктами аналізу та дослідження Національної комісії у 2012 році також стали мультфільми... «Спанч Боб»...як такі, що на думку громадян, пропагують... різні збочення та поширення порнографії.

Translation: "We have to say that because of appeals of people we also analyzed cartoons ... "SpongeBob" ... as posiible promoting... various distortions and distribution of pornography."

That's all. There is not information about "separate meeting of the Нацкомморалі". So it wasn't a direct refusal. They just said what they have no videos to make any decisions and never made "separate meeting of the Нацкомморалі" (though it was proclaimed). Volodymyr D-k (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC).

Broadcast section as submitted by Finealt

The broadcast section as submitted by Finealt would be more appropriate if it followed MOS:TV#Broadcast a la:

Broadcast
The series airs on Nickelodeon in Australia and New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, and the United Kingdom and Ireland. It also airs on TG4 in Ireland, YTV and on Eleven in Australia.

However the utility of such a section is questionable since it is flimsy for a section, and since SpongeBob has such global coverage. Maybe mentioning somewhere in the prose that it is broadcast to NN countries would get the point across? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, "Episodes" tends to be its own section, not a sub-section of Broadcast. Broadcast should be its own section as suggested in MOS:TV. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think, in regards to the countries Cyphoid suggested (which all are acceptable under WP:TVINTL), we have to consider the notability of the coverage it has in those countries. This is something that Erik has brought up in the discussion involving Finealt over on the MOS:FILM talk, which most of these edits has stemmed from. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a side note, Finealt has been blocked for edit warring and now claims to be retired. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Wow, that was an action-packed thrill-ride, wasn't it? It was like watching a meteor enter the atmosphere and then WHOOOSH...fizzle. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly haha. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The section looks better but I agree with Cyphoidbomb's comment that it is "flimsy for a section." I don't know if this should be kept because we don't know the notability of the show in those countries unless cited by acceptable source/s, not by TV guides or schedules. Mediran (t • c) 12:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2014

اﺁبتثجحخدذرزسشصضطظعغفقكلمنهةويىءأإؤئ 71.87.61.4 (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Kap 7 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you please remove the protection?

I need to edit something... Guycn2 (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is protected to prevent disruptions. Feel free to post your edit request here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Awards

I noticed this article contains a lot of awards. Maybe should we create a separate article for Spongebob Squarepants Awards? Kringe1 (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kringe1. I think that's done. It's here. Thanks for your input. Mediran (t • c) 08:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Licenses and Permission for Using Pictures

It seems that pictures cannot be used anywhere except this page. So is there any way to change their permission so it can be used on Sponge Bob pages in other languages?Saeed hajizade (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of term "homosexual"

This entry refers to my article "Queertoons," but uses the term "homosexual." This term is not only outdated, but extremely homophobic and extremely offensive, and I would never use it in any of my works. The proper terms are gay, LGBT, queer, same-sex, homoromantic, or homoerotic. Please change it to be more consistent with non-homophobic usage.

Jeffery P. Dennis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.110.100 (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

68.115.110.100 -  Done, though I don't understand the material difference between the Latin version of "same sex" and the English version, or why "homophobic" isn't called "gayphobic". But alas, it's probably not my place to question. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

For those other than Cyphoidbomb, see this discussion about the topic (Cyphoidbomb initiated it and reading it can help understand the matter at hand). Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Continuation

Okay, so where were we? :)

I'm really sorry that I disappeared for so long. The past several months have been a little overwhelming, and I couldn't manage to stay focused on everything that I wanted to do on Wikipedia. Things are settling down now, so hopefully I can finish going over this article.

It seems that the last issue that I had been meaning to deal with was the final sentence of the Early Inspirations section: "In 1987, Hillenburg left the institute to pursue his dream of becoming an animator, and began envisioning the idea for a project that would involve a cast of anthropomorphic sea life. Although he drew several rough sketches of the concept, it would be close to a decade before his idea would become a reality."

The phrasing in this sentence doesn't make it very clear how Hillenburg's "project" differed at the time from The Intertidal Zone. Apparently the information comes from the Season 1 DVD bonus feature "The Origin of SpongeBob SquarePants". JJ98 - do you still have this DVD? Would you (or anyone else who might own it) be willing to post the exact quote that the sentence was based on? --Jpcase (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I do. I'll have to go through that disc from the season one DVD and find it. I know don't have any rest of the season DVDs. It will take me weeks to go through with it. JJ98 (Talk) 19:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That'll be great! Thank you! According to this webpage [7] "The Origin of SpongeBob SquarePants" is only ten minutes long, but I understand if you can't get to it right away. Of course, it's possible that the information was incorrectly referenced, so you may or may not find anything on it. --Jpcase (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Disc 3. I understand your reason, but the main problems are lack of comprehensiveness and referencing. I don't think this deserves a featured article right now since it usually take a lot of work and wouldn't pass at FAC. It would be a hardiest work since many people are referring to the fictional character rather then the series. Right now, I don't feel like really working with the article anytime soon. Maybe I'll probably come back to work with Mediran (talk · contribs), but not today. JJ98 (Talk) 23:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, well I got ahold of disc 3 and watched "The Origin of SpongeBob SquarePants". It doesn't say anything at all about this project or the sketches. So I'll remove that sentence from the article. --Jpcase (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

New problem: I did some rewriting for the "Conception" section and decided to include the year of the animation festival where Joe Murray and Hillenburg first met. The year had been included in the article back in December, but I removed it. At that time, the information had been referenced with four sources: two of the sources were to "The Origin of SpongeBob SquarePants" (I've since combined them into a single source), which doesn't mention the year; one of the sources was to an interview with Murray (conducted by Lisa Kiczuk Trainor) - this source doesn't even mention the festival; and the other source was to the book Makin' Toons: Inside the Most Popular Animated TV Shows and Movies by Allan Neurwith - I just got this and it doesn't mention the year either. I'll leave the Origin of SpongeBob SquarePants and Makin' Toons references, since they both mention the festival, but I've removed the Joe Murray interview reference from this sentence. I'll probably have to remove the date as well, but want to check SpongeBob Exposed! The Insider's Guide to SpongeBob SquarePants by Steven Banks first, just in case the information was misreferenced. I have this book on order, and it should be here in a few days or so. --Jpcase (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for disappearing on you again. I've checked SpongeBob Exposed! and it does not mention the exact year of the festival. I'll do a rewrite. --Jpcase (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Archive for Big Pop Fun interview with Thomas F. Wilson and Stephen Hillenburg

Is it okay if I remove the archive link for this interview? The original url still works, and it allows listeners to fastforward/rewind through the interview (the archive url does not). Most people reading this article will likely click on the archive link, but I think that we should have the better one front and center. The archive url could always be re-added of course, if the original url becomes a dead link. --Jpcase (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. Let me know if anyone has any objections. --Jpcase (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

When SpongeBob became #1

In the reception section, it says that SpongeBob became #1 on Nickelodeon in the second quarter of 2002. But I think that it achieved that position in late 2001. I'm curious as to when was the precise week that SpongeBob surpassed Rugrats. I doubt it was well into 2002. 69.121.17.200 (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The information about the second quarter of 2002 is supported by 3 footnotes. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Striking comment to consider comments on my talk page. Mz7 (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This source is derived from a press release that says that in the first quarter of 2002, SpongeBob was #1 on Nick for the second quarter in a row: http://www.nickandmore.com/2002/04/02/nickelodeons-1q-2002-ratings-chalkzone-spongebob-and-fairly-oddparents/ This would mean that SpongeBob first became #1 on Nick in the fourth quarter of 2001, not the second quarter of 2002. 69.121.17.200 (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that source. I propose that the text be changed to the following:

In the fourth quarter of 2001, during the show's third season, SpongeBob SquarePants passed Rugrats and earned the title of the highest-rated children's show on cable. In the second quarter of 2002, the show had a 6.7 rating and 2.2 million kids 2 to 11, up 22% over 2001.

Thoughts? Mz7 (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mz7, not sure if "6.7 rating" is something universally understood. Also I think it's unclear if we mean "an average of 2.2 million kids age 2 to 11 were watching each new episode of the series"? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice work guys! I hope all goes well with updating the article to make it as accurate as possible! 69.121.17.200 (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Hmm, I see your point. I had previously assumed that the "6.7 rating" was perhaps an approval rating on a scale of 10, but now I see that this is not clear. (I'm not sure I fully understand it.) Mz7 (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

What are you guys waiting for? Are you looking for a consensus or something? If not, please correct the information in the article. 69.121.17.200 (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done: I've implemented my proposed text. Any confusion about the ratings and statistics can still be discussed. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, OK. I'm glad everything turned out square. I didn't mean to sound impatient in my last comment in case it came across that way. Best regards, 69.121.17.200 (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Needs update

Hey, this article is outdated on some areas. Like the recent Kazakhstan criticism. That has to be cited. Also, the awards. I know the show has already won 2 Emmys and one of them was won this year. Thanks 203.215.116.129 (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Theme song composers

The article currently says that the theme song was composed by "Hank Smith Music", which apparently consisted of Stephen Hillenburg and Derek Drymon themselves, as well as two others - Mark Harrison and Blaise Smith. The reference being used for this information (this reference [8]) only mentions Mark Harrison. This article [9] states that Hank Smith was a music studio owned by Mark Harrison and Blaise Smith. The two of them are the only credited writers for the song on All Music - see here [10]

Does anyone know why Hillenburg and Drymon have been credited as members of Hank Smith in this article? Is there any evidence to back up this information? --Jpcase (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've gone through the article's history and discovered that the song was attributed to Hillenburg, Drymon, Harrison, and Smith by an anonymous IP user (66.122.126.222) who only ever made five edits on Wikipedia. This was back in 2009. In the absence of any clear evidence that Hillenburg or Drymon were ever involved with the writing of the song, I don't see any reason to still mention them here. It's possible that the two of them wrote a precursor to the song, for when the show was still called SpongeBoy Ahoy! According to SpongeBob Exposed, not only was "Hawaiian music" played during Hillenburg's pitch, but Hillenburg "put a tape recorder inside a conch shell that played the SpongeBob theme song." Obviously, when the book says, "SpongeBob theme song", it's simplifying, since the show was still going under the name SpongeBoy Ahoy! at the time. So it must have been referring to a different song than the one written by Harrison and Smith - and since the show was still early in development, Hillenburg might not have bothered to hire someone else to write the song. He might have just done it himself, perhaps with the help of Drymon. Of course, I don't have any proof of this, but it seems like a decent theory for why they might have been misattributed as writers of the theme song.

All the same, if anyone has reason to believe that Hillenburg and Drymon actually were involved with writing the theme song used in the finished show, then please notify me. --Jpcase (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, what do you know. I was going through Makin' Toons again and came across a section about the theme song. According to the book, Hillenburg and Drymon wrote the lyrics to the song. So there ya go. --Jpcase (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Female Alligator named Al - What's the Source for This?

The information that SpongeBob's voice originated with a female alligator character named Al in Rocko's Modern Life is sourced with the People Speak Radio interview between Kenny and Basima Farhat. I've listened through that interview multiple times and, although Kenny does mention SpongeBob's voice originating with a minor character on Rocko, he never specifies that this character was a female alligator named Al. I went through the history and saw that Mediran added this information (and its source) in 2013. Mediran, do you remember where you actually heard about the character being a female alligator named Al? Alternatively, does anyone else know of a reliable source that contains this information? --Jpcase (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoa. I can't remember adding that information. Can you please direct me to that revision I supposedly made? Anyway, I searched the SpongeBob character article and saw that it had that information like years ago. Even before I created this account and got into WP. See this revision (https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?&oldid=435526926) dated 2011 I randomly picked. So basically, I didn't make/add that info. That came from the other article. — Mediran [talk] 14:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit (https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=SpongeBob_SquarePants&diff=556230472&oldid=556224908) on May 22, 2013. But don't worry - I wasn't trying to be accusatory. I'm just trying to figure out where the info originated, so that it can be corrected. Thanks for pointing me to that version of the SpongeBob SquarePants (character) article. I did a little more digging and discovered that the info was added a few months prior to that revision by a user named Yojunemeow - he/she hasn't been active in several years and only ever made a few edits (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Yojunemeow). A review of those edits reveals them to have been less than constructive - Fancruft, if not intentional vandalism. It very well may be that the character was a female alligator named Al, but I highly suspect that reliable sources don't exist to prove this. I'll go ahead and remove the statement from both articles. I really appreciate your help. :) --Jpcase (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

8 images, 405 citations. Lacks comprehensiveness, focus, prose and images. Its a C-Class since it reads like original research or fan theories. I don't think it follows WP:TVMOS since 2006 and 2008 peer reviews. JJ98 (Talk) 05:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014

Jeffreypatterson (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• NOT DONE no request made - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014

67.167.102.217 (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2014

I may ask that you please fix the photos of the voice actors as shown on the page as some are blank. Thank you, ~ Editor270 Editor270 (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Not so simple as that. Need to find images that are not copyrighted and fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy. I did a quick search on Wikimedia for the missing actors and don't see any image for them, not sure where to go from there. Cannolis (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You can try Flickr. I've already contacted a few people on that site, who have photos of these actors, but I haven't heard back from them. I've had success in acquiring rights to images through this method before, and it's possible that in this case, the photographers simply haven't seen my message (not all of them have been active lately). I might try some more later, or you can feel free to take a shot at it yourself. --Jpcase (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic news! I've been in correspondence with someone on Flickr, who has agreed to let us use at least one of her photos of Mr. Lawrence. She seems very happy to help us out and might (not sure yet) let us use multiple images of him. I'll upload something as soon as we've worked out the details. Oh, and I've just noticed that she also has images of Bill Fagerbakke and Rodger Bumpass, so it may be that we get the whole image-box illustrated by the end of the week. Here's to hoping anyway. :) --Jpcase (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Michelle Nakashima is amazing! Everyone needs to know that! She's agreed to let us use any of her photos of the SpongeBob voice cast, and she has quite a collection. I've gone ahead and added photos of each missing actor, but she has several of Mr. Lawrence that we could choose from and a few different options for Rodger Bumpass. I really like Mr. Lawrence's expression in the photo that I uploaded, but I may swap that one out for something a little higher quality. Unfortunately, she only has one of Bill Fagerbakke (well, and a couple showing him to the side of other actors), but I've searched high-and-low for images of him, both on Flickr and off Flickr - Ms. Nakashima's photos are the only ones even available. Gladly, the one that she has is pretty good, even though the image quality seems somewhat lower than the ones for Kenny, Brown, and Carolyn Lawrence.

I've already uploaded two or three photos of Mr. Lawrence to the Commons and will upload some more of him, as well as Rodger Bumpass, soon. Everyone take a look and let me know which photos you want to use. :) --Jpcase (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, mostly everything is up. There's one more image of Rodger Bumpass that I'm waiting on, but we have four images of Mr. Lawrence, two of Bumpass, three of Fagerbakke (again, there's only one that really focuses on him, but two others that have him to the side), and even four new photos of Tom Kenny. You can check them out on the Commons or see the Lawrence, Bumpass, and Fagerbakke photos in their respective articles (I've added them all). Let me know if you would prefer to use a different pic for any of these actors in this article. --Jpcase (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I've uploaded that last image of Rodger Bumpass to the Commons and to his Wikipedia page. --Jpcase (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Award nominations

Mediran, Cyphoidbomb, or anyone else watching this page - could you weigh in on this? I realized that refs aren't being given for the show's award nominations, but instead, are only being given for wins. Since the show has received up to seventeen nominations for some of the awards that we're mentioning on this page, I feel that it would become incredibly unwieldy to add refs for all of these. I took a look at how The Simpsons handles this situation (since it's an FA) and noticed that they only specify how many times the show has won any given award. So, I've gone ahead and removed any mention of nominations from the article - nominations are of course, still mentioned in the separate "Awards and nominations" list. Does this sound like an okay thing to do? Since it's a fairly major change, I want to make sure that everyone is okay with it. --Jpcase (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jpcase, as usual you are doing a very good and difficult job, and your notes are impeccable. I don't oppose the removal of nominations since what's most important are wins. Nominations tend to be more of a marketing win/win for a project, since they can still boast about the privilege of being included. Since we have another place to put this info (as you point out), it seems reasonable to shorten the article per your suggestion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Cyphoidbomb. Thanks a lot for the kind words as well. It's a huge encouragement to know that people are appreciating my work. :) --Jpcase (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. As I've probably said before, don't assume that nobody's watching, rather that if nobody complains, it's probably a good thing. No gripes is good news. :) I'm more of a gnome, myself, so as long as editors are doing a fine job of sculpting, I'm not likely to bother them unless something weird comes up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Top 10 Irritating '90s Cartoon Characters

The article has had mention of SpongeBob ranking #4 on AskMen's list, "Top 10 Irritating '90s Cartoon Characters". When I click on the link (here's the url - [11]), it just takes me to what appears to be the AskMen homepage, although when I search the website for the list's title, I do get results - not for the list itself, but for other lists that upon clicking and going to their respective pages, display the "Irritating Cartoons" list as a link (with a picture and everything!) But when I click on this link, I just get taken back to the AskMen homepage again. :( I've actually been able to find this list transcribed on a blog, but I know that we can't use that.

None of you would have any idea how to access this article, would you? There's one archived copy, but it just does the same thing - takes me to the homepage. I'd really like to keep this one, since it provides balance between positive and negative perspectives of the character, but I've gone ahead and removed it from the article, since I doubt that there's any way to use it. Let me know if I'm wrong though! --Jpcase (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Journal articles by Jeffery P. Dennis

The article as written seems to suggest that Jeffery P. Dennis wrote his comments about SpongeBob in a journal article called "The Same Thing We Do Every Night: Signifying Same-Sex Desire in Television Cartoons". When one clicks on the link provided in the reference though, it leads to a journal article called "Queertoons" - this is also the name that Dennis himself used when he commented here a few months ago. I've done some digging around and found this page [12], which shows that "The Same Thing We Do Every Night" was published by the Journal of Popular Film and Television. Meanwhile, "Queertoons" was published by the online journal Soundscapes. Although it appears that the "The Same Thing We Do Every Night" discusses SpongeBob as well, the information that we are citing comes from '"Queertoons", so I'll make a fix. I'm not sure as of yet what the best course of action should be regarding the comments by Martin Goodman of Animation World Magazine - I think that he was discussing "The Same Thing We Do Every Night", and it doesn't seem that I can access that article without paying for it. I'll leave another note after looking further into this. --Jpcase (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Jpcase Any chance the Refdesk could be of assistance to get you behind the paywall? Or rather, to get the information that's behind the paywall? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Good thinking! I don't know if the reference desk itself would be the place to ask about this, but the Resource Exchange should be able to help. I actually hadn't been aware of this section of Wikipedia until very recently and probably would have forgotten to ask there. Thanks for the reminder! :) --Jpcase (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Got it! I'll try to take care of this tomorrow, or at least within the next few days. Thanks again Cyphoidbomb! --Jpcase (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

mmkay...so the articles appear to be roughly the same, but with a few differences here and there. I guess that Dennis adapted "Queertoons" from "The Same Thing We Do Every Night" and made a few minor alterations - "Same Thing" is a little longer and upon further inspection, I can confirm that it is the only one mentioned in the AWM article, so that's why I'm assuming that it's the original. The best approach that I can think of would be to continue using "Queertoons" in the text of the article and as the reference for Dennis' comments, since readers can access that article without paying for it. After Goodman's comments though, we can provide a footnote that mentions "The Same Thing We Do Every Night". --Jpcase (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)