Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/SpongeBob SquarePants work group/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

If you would like to sign up to be interviewed, please tell me right here. I will randomly draw someone's name each month from the list, and I will interview that person. The interview will be published in the newsletter. I am hoping that the opinions of the members will help improve the SpongeBob articles on WikiPedia. -AMK152 14:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Interview me sometime--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 13:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And me. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 08:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but may I join this Wikiproject? I could use something to work on. King Toadsworth 00:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• You dont have to ask, just join in! Sign your name on the members section of the article. -AMK152 19:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha that is so cool I will I can add lots of good stuff--Aved 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please also note Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20 for a review of the decision regarding Category:Actors by series. Tim! 08:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm currently revamping the SpongeBob Squarepants page at Wikiquote, and I've noticed that many of the recent episodes listed on Wikipedia have quotes in them as well. I will gladly move them all over to the proper place, but I'm curious to where on Wikipedia I should point people to the direction of Wikiquote. I am aware that there is a link to Wikiquote from the main SpongeBob SquarePants Wikipedia page, but I'm afraid of people continuing to add quotes in the episode pages, with out realizing they're in the wrong place. So I guess I'm asking if I should add the { { wikiquote } } template to the end of the episode pages or watch the episode pages for all quotes and remove them if they should reappear. Thanks! Curlyro 03:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a note in the WikiProject template on the Talk pages. Adding a Wikiquote link would be a great idea. Putting the link to Wikiquote on the episode Template would be a sugguestion as where to put it. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 12:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Although the above category doesn't in fact exist, it is the header under which the discussion is located, so the discussion link will work. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the more words in the plot need to be wikifed. If you are going to wikify a word, read

16:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking at the plot here and feel that this too needs to be rewitten better and not in levels either, but in an actual plot-line, so to speak. However, I can not rewrite it myself, as I have not played the game myself. Captain Drake Van Hellsing 08:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in joining, however, I cannot find the template for signing my name on the article the way they appear. (It doesn't work with the four tildes; it doesn't show the "talk-contribs-count-logs" thing.) Help very much appreciated. The Bone III 22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• To join, add {{User10|USERNAME}} ~~~~~ to the list. Replace USERNAME with your username. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 23:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The Bone III 23:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added the deletion tag for the Wumbology article. I do not beleive that it merits a merge with another article or to remain an article unto itself. It is simply not relevant enough in the SpongeBob universe to be considered encyclopedic material. The Bone III 21:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What about just redirecting that page to the relevent episode? Would that be better as instead? Captain Drake Van Hellsing 09:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

IT MIGHT BE..ILL TRY THAT..=] Push It Baby!! ..Dats Muh Song!!..=] (Tay) 13:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

HEY WHERE IS THE EPISODE PAGE FOR "im your biggest fanatic"?...=] Push It Baby!! ..Dats Muh Song!!..=] (Tay)

"Wumbology" is from the episode

Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy IV. The Bone III

21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

oooooooo lol..=] Push It Baby!! ..Dats Muh Song!!..=] (Tay) 02:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Single episode articles do not need to exist for most series. Only certain shows of high regard (

19:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you merge these articles, what would happen to the title cards? Would they be tagged for deletion or would they be readded back to

WP:FU. Before that, I opposed having all those images in the article and I still do. If these images are readded, the article might regain the reputation of being a "giant fair-use disaster."). Pants^(T)

23:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

They'll tagged as orphans. With the newfound strictness towards non-free images, they certainly won't be going back to the list. Nemu 23:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a few concerns:

SpongeBob is as high regard of a show as the Simpsons. It is a very notable and popular show, and many of the episodes are notable as well.

What about all the work put into the episode articles, plot summeries and some production details? People have put in a lot of effort on trying to improve these articles. Yes, quotes belong on Wikiquote. Trivia is trying to downsize. Some trivia even includes production details.

I have looked at some Simpson episode articles and saw that they look pretty much the same as SpongeBob, except the name of the show and that the Simpsons includes more production details. SpongeBob does have information on production details, and if you look at a few of the articles you'll see them. Audio Comentary, DVD bonus features, interviews with cast and crew can be found on the internet or on DVDs that can provide extra information on the episodes. However, I only own the SpongeBob Movie DVD. If I had the others, like season box sets, I would use these to improve the articles. I believe the SpongeBob SquarePants articles have potential to improve. You name the specific problems and I believe they can improve. I'm sure that a compromise can be made. Please name me, in your opinion, the best SpongeBob episode article and the worst SpongeBob episode article also. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 20:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, its a children's show that is pretty popular. It is no where near the standing that The Simpsons has gained over the years. The only production details on these episode articles are trivial goofs; these are nothing close to what is needed. There is no way that they have enough to actively source the articles either. It's likely only notes of the series's main production anyways. They also need reception, which is unlikely for 10 minute cartoons.

I looked at twenty of the episodes, and they all have the same junk or lack of content, so there is no way to choose a best or worst. Nemu 21:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

SpongeBob is not only watched by children. Many teens and adults watch the show as well. There are some production details in some of the episodes. Scene removals and stuff like that. What is your opinion of cultural references? I'm sure there is a way to distinguish a best and a worst. Like I said before, SpongeBob episodes do have production details, they just havn't been added yet. Like I said before, trivia needs to be cleaned up. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is watched by all ages, like every show, but the vast majority are children. Scene removals are too trivial to care about. You need true production notes similar to the ones in the example articles. That is doubtful for ten minute cartoons. There may be a couple points here and there, but they will not suffice for actual sections. Cultural references are trivial, unless they are the basis of a full episode. Those can easily be integrated into a plot summary if needed. Please provide a couple examples of "production notes" if you really believe that they are note worthy. Nemu 21:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want this discussion to get ugly. Since you havn't proposed a compromise, I have:

Plan A. Keep the articles the way they are.

Plan B. Merge episodes into 5 articles: Seasons 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. If an episode is good enough for its own article, its contents can be put back in its article. The Infobox would be cut of the episode list and serve as a place to provide writers, directors, guests, airdate, prod #, etc. Each season article would basically look something like this:

Head, describing season.

==Episodes Name==
Plot summery, production details, cultural references (within plot summary, like your suggestion) and other information goes here. Info box would be located to right of section.

==Episodes Name==
Plot summery, production details, cultural references (within plot summary, like your suggestion) and other information goes here. Info box would be located to right of section.

==Episodes Name==
Plot summery, production details, cultural references (within plot summary, like your suggestion) and other information goes here. Info box would be located to right of section.

==etc.==
etc.

==References==
References go here using <ref> format.

((SpongeBob SquarePants}}

[[Category:SpongeBob SquarePants seasons]]
perhaps other categories as well.

Of course, the images for the episodes would make the article's quality improve, although this fair-use controversy is out there. Typical episode articles have one or two images. I believe scene removals are part of production details, some removed for certain reasons, like in

. People have different opinions. Episode articles would be redirects, not non deleted articles to maintain the history of people's edits. Please tell me your opinion of this. If you agree, I would be willing to compromise with either plan (yet I prefer Plan A). However, 5 days isn't enough time for discussion. It's best that others participate in this discussion and voice their opinion. Are there any Wikipedia guidelines regarding episode articles? I mean, these articles have been around for a long time. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 21:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There really is no point for season pages. All of this can easily be stuck under the current episode list. You do not need to list cast for single episodes; it's pointless cruft. Each episode needs a three line plot summary at most. That and the basic information is all it needs. No images would be used either. Scene removals are trivia; they do not constitute the true information needed anyways. You need deep analysis of how the plot was devised, what went into it, and stuff like that.

So far, only two people have taken interest. Waiting longer than five days will do nothing.

WP:EPISODE is the guideline. Nemu

21:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Not the cast, i mean writers and directors and etc. Plot summaries and production details. How can production details, when they are added, all fit on one single page? Your opinions of scene removals are only opinions. This is a very big discussion and needs more than 5 days for discussion. I don't understand what is wrong with season articles. It's only 5 articles. Your complaining about 150+ articles since you started this, now your complaining about 5 articles? Of course we could follow my suggested season format for the episode list, but it would make it too long. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 22:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Writers and directors don't need to be listed either. Their role in the series should be described in the main article, so their separate works are unnecessary. Scene removals need two sentences at most, so they are trivia. That isn't that much of an opinion. If only three people contribute to this, it isn't a big discussion. Five days is fine unless ten+ people suddenly jump in. If the plot summaries are kept to a minimum a split is unnecessary. Nemu 22:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If people don't contribute to this discussion, and they contribute to SpongeBob SquarePants articles, there will be edit wars. It is better if we prevent these by giving the discussion more time. Those example articles you linked, you said that these articles are worthy of having their own articles since they meet certain creteria. If SpongeBob episodes work their way in improvements, the episode list would be huge. Season articles are better to have. If you look around Wikipedia episodes, you'll see that writers and directors, and such are listed. You think they are unnessary, however, that is another opinion. Also, there are only a handful of episodes that have production details and reception information. By the way, SpongeBob episodes are 11 minutes long and there are also 22 minute specials. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 22:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. What is wrong with having season articles? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 22:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If people don't contribute to the discussion, nothing will happen. Leaving it for ten days will gather as many people as five days. Season articles are unnecessary unless the actual page becomes way too large, which won't happen because we well keep it nice and condensed. They're also rarely used. It doesn't need writers and directors because only a handful of lists use them. That isn't an opinion. Nemu 23:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at Simpsons episode articles and I noticed that they use IMDB and TV.com ratings in their reception sections. This could easily be put into SpongeBob articles, if it qualifies. I've also noticed cultural reference sections. SpongeBob episode articles have cultural references sections, so why would you complain about having one thing in one set of articles and not complain about the same thing in other articles. I've also seen trivia and episode goofs. Your saying that season articles arn't needed because the episode list can be "condensed." Are you discouraging improvments to the SpongeBob episodes? And I don't want to keep repeating myself. Many people edit these articles and we need more than 5 days to discuss. Do you consider the "House" show to be of "high regard" considering it's pilot's episode FA status? I have seen quotes and trivia, as well as cultural references (I've noticed they also use the term "allusions" which I believe is better than "cultural references") Of course, that was the pilot episode, as in the first episode, which is reasonable for it to have a reception section and become a FA. Of course, some of these episode articles are well-written and SpongeBob articles could be well-written as well. It helps if growth is encouraged, quotes are transferred to Wikiquote, trivia is cleaned up and the important facts are incorporated into the rest of the article. Production details and reception details are out there, but they have yet to be added to the article. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 01:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Those two sites will only be useful if a reception section has something other than them. Basically, they're only mentioned if the section would exist otherwise. Cultural references are a problem that I have addressed on the project page, and will try to fix up soon. I would be perfectly fine if these were adequately sourced, but they cannot meet the standards. I will just make sure that they plot summaries stay small, so they fit on the page nicely.

I don't know how many time I have to tell you; it doesn't matter how many people edit the articles if they don't come here to discuss it. As shown by the current activity, just you, nobody will be showing up anytime soon. Trivia is to be completely removed. You will not find it in any FAs or GAs. CRs are trivia, and there is a small push to merge them. If there are actual production and reception details, show them. Do not just assume they exist. TTN 01:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is: I don't want an edit war to occur, and I believe encouragement for improvement is needed. You said to get the production info. First off, I don't have the DVDs or any books about SpongeBob. Other people do. I would go search for other sources of this sort of info regarding production and reception details, but there is way too much pressure here. I wish I had known about such creteria otherwise I would have included this in our project objectives when I first started rebuilding this project, which was about 8 months ago. Just think what could have been done in that time. Such "problems" were never addressed until now. However, I was aware of

here. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message}

) 02:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is OK to be optimistic, but you're going a little too far. Do you honestly believe that anyone besides you, and a few choice editors cares about the state of these articles? These pages will never get any better. The rest of the editors could care less in reality. If the pages don't exist, they'll just move on to others. There may be a bit of production info, but it will be for choice episodes, and it will not be enough for an article. We are just beating around the bush. You say they can be improved, so do it. We cannot just wait for the magic "wiki-fairy" to come down and make these better, so either get some people together and make an effort or stop with your argument. TTN 02:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And can you respond to whatever other argument we're having? TTN 02:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Only choice articles, you say? Choice articles would apply to all shows, even the "high regard" shows. I would create an effort and get people together, but there is too much pressure here. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 02:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not choice articles, choice episodes, as in ones that actually get full commentary. Those will still not be enough to have content to make decent articles. Just give it up; you know that nothing would come from it. TTN 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to "Choice" episodes. It's quite possible, but requires work. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 20:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You have to give at least a bit more than your own thoughts to back that. Show something. Show sites that do full reviews of the single episodes. Show articles saying how the episodes have affected something or how they have received mass attention. Show how the DVD commentary if full of valuable information. TTN 20:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

TV.com is edited by users, so it cannot be used for anything. The rest are minor ratings, which don't build reception sections. All of those are also full specials, so that means little for the rest of the single episodes. You'll need better sources than those to even hope to build any decent articles. TTN 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been about four days since this consensus started. The only user who opposes this is AMK152. I, myself, would not mind if these articles were redirected. Most of them fail

12:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably start this a little later today. TTN 17:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, idiots, for redirecting all the important spongebob articles to the main page. How come that stupid little show Little Einsteins gets an article for every single episode and some major famous show like Spongebob doesn't. You all are idiots. Help Wanted is a perfectly good article with production details and notes. Why don't you be a little optimistic and revert your edits and I'll do the rest. I can't do it myself because the page is protected. So please help me and be nice admins. Oh, and thats two editors who oppose your deletions, TM whatever. I will do anythig in my power to do so. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 15:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The existence of other articles doesn't give these the right to exist (I also redirected that show's episodes a while ago). Help Wanted has no actual out of universe information. Those "notes" are nothing more than trivial details. You need actual reception and production details. If you can appease

WP:EPISODE's conditions, you are free to bring them back. TTN

19:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is reminding me of the

Pokemon test. Pants^(T)

21:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Kitia, calm down. Calling people idiots isn't going to solve anything.

WP:CIVIL is a core policy. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz}

! 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to comment because I've been fixing episode articles for

talk|contribs

) 22:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

On Help Wanted: For people who want to know what is special about this episode, they could (before the merge) see how the animation style was different without actually watching the episode. Now they do, plus they have to look onto another website beside wikipedia or watch the show to find out what the plot is. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 20:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That stuff is trivial, and most likely unsourceable. Most shows change in animation after the first few episodes, so it's not like that's even important. TV.com is better than this site for episodes anyways. TTN 20:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is better to edit than TV.com and TV.com has WAY too much trivia. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 21:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting a little ridiculous. I personally support episode pages because when people want to look up specific information about an episode, this is the easiest place to find it. Commenting on the 10 days to wait or whatever, a lot of people don't check their articles every day. This needs to be discussed at a much greater length before any of the articles have been merged. I vote that we un-merge the articles and come to a consensus before we make any final decisions.Bovineboy2008 01:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If I want to look up a cheat code for a video game, should it be provided here just because it would be easy to look it up? Cheat codes belong on game sites, and episodes belong on television based sites. Only when the information becomes encyclopedic, does it come here. The Konami Code is an often referenced, and pretty popular cheat code, so it belongs here. A code telling how to unlock a character doesn't belong here. Abyssinia, Henry, a popular, and well referenced episode belongs here. The Sponge Who Could Fly, a minor episode with no possible sources does not.

While I agree with all of your points, I still am not going to change my opinion about episode pages. I feel that episodes are not the same as cheat codes. Cheat codes are a way of hacking into games that wasn't set up by the creator of the game. Episodes are what t.v. shows are. They can't be anything more except for culture reference to specific points in the episodes or dumb arguments over it on Wikipedia.13:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As the episodes are already merged, it is a better idea to actually see if people will care enough to actually discuss this. And note that even if twenty people were to come here and say the episodes should stay, it won't make a difference unless they can appease

WP:EPISODE and the related guidelines. TTN

01:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants is a very popular show, why it always comes in the top 15 Neilson ratings. Obviously, it deserves its own episode articles. People would want to find out more about SpongeBob episodes, so they'll turn to their favorite source of information: Wikipedia. However, they instead find themselves being redirected to an episode list. The episode list itself isn't helpful at all. It only provides the episode title, a brief summary, an airdate, and that's pretty much it. The examples of a proper Wikipedia episode article from House and The Simpsons are featured articles. What do you expect? It's not like the only goal of every Wikipedia article is to gain featured status. That's only for a few articles. All of the vandalism that goes on in the articles has nothing to do with anything and can be easily fixed. As for images, I am trying to encorage people to upload proper screenshots so that the articles look good, but I don't have a DVD-playing computer or a video capture card so I can't do that myself. Images just give a helpful illustration to support the article. Some people may say that you can easily go to TV.com and use their information, but believe me, most of the articles that Wikipedia had contained more information than what TV.com provided. TV.com is mostly helpful for reviews and such. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be helpful, not perfect. It's ridiculous to fight over whether something's perfect or not. I didn't see anything wrong with SpongeBob having episode articles and so didn't most of everyone else. This discussion not that shows of high regard should have articles. What makes you think SpongeBob isn't of high regard? Read what I said earlier please. Anyway, I said all I wanted to say. I'm just saying that SpongeBob episode list is pointless without episode articles. --SpongeSebastian 02:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You can speak about their importance as long as you would like; it isn't going change a thing. You need to either work to meet

WP:EPISODE's standards, or nothing is happening. TTN

10:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, those pages need some time to meet

WP:EPISODE's standards? --SpongeSebastian

20:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The episodes were around for quite a while; if they could be brought up to standards, there would have been traces throughout them. For now, you need to show that it is possible by presenting sources. Then you need to use those to bring a good number up to standards to show that the rest can follow. I have no doubts in my mind that it is impossible. One or two episodes could possibly make it, but the rest will never have that chance. TTN 20:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If we deleted every Simpsons episode articles that doens't meet standards, then only a few episodes would have articles. Like AMK said, The simpsons also has articles that are similar to SpongeBob's. I'd be happy to strengthen the articles myself and have the rest to grow. No offense, TTN but why do you seem so anxious to have these articles deleted? I know there will be farther arguments, but I'm just saying that if we merged all the episodes with the episode list then the page would be way to long. That's why they need their own articles. --SpongeSebastian 22:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the Simpsons episodes have proven their potential worth, time and time again, with three featured articles and around thirty good articles. Not one SpongeBob episode reaches past the start class; they cannot be compared. If you actually believe that the articles have worth, create a sub page on your user space, and bring a few up to a decent quality. They cannot, so I say don't bother.

I want these redirected because cruft is annoying. They can only exist with a plot summary and some trivia, so they're cruft in my eyes. The episodes don't need to be merged. They're fine on the list at this point, and they don't need much more than they already have. If it is absolutely necessary, season articles can be created. TTN 23:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe with hard work we can surely bring SpongeBob episodes to better standards. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 23:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Then do as I suggested, and bring some up to standards in a sandbox. Idle talk will get you nowhere. TTN 23:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this whould be a good example of an episode article. --SpongeSebastian 02:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's sourced with all items

talk|contribs

) 02:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The only real content on that page is the summary. The marathon needs a few sentences at most. Trivial details and a giant list are worthless. The only actual reference is the "highest rated day" one, which can be shoved elsewhere. Even if that was a model episode, it wouldn't set any sort of bar due to the marathon part. TTN 02:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to come back into this argument by telling that the "trivia" section for most episodes puts in some production details and fan reaction. And the Best Day Ever page deletion was a massive deletion of information on Wikipedia. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 15:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The "production details" are no more than minor goofs, which are certainly not important enough to care about. I don't see any fan reactions besides junk like "many fans find this to be the worst episode ever." That's some quality information right there. TTN 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of them are minor goofs but most of them are important information to the reader that have been deleted. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 22:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the pages should be returned for a month, and if they are improved as much as they should, they should be kept.Lima bean of the north 03:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It would take more than a month. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, I'm just saying they should be returned so that they could be improved.Lima bean of the north 00:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should go one episode article at a time to improve it. But how? Also, all the images are/will soon be in danger of deletion because many are orphaned. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 21:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Use a sandbox, fix up an article there, post a link here to see if it is actually good enough, and it can then be put back up if it meets

WP:EPISODE. That is the best course of action. TTN

22:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Okay everyone, we can work episode by episode here:
  Wikipedia:WikiProject SpongeBob SquarePants/Episode Improvement. Contribute there to the article and as soon as that article has improved greatly, it can be put back to normal and we'll move onto the next article. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message}
  ) 22:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That works. TTN 22:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is directed directly at TTN because I am getting very annoyed. I have never known that we can just deleted becuase they are "not good enough." If we go by that standards then half of this web site should be deleted.Bovineboy2008 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

They aren't good enough and there is little chance for improvement. There may be plenty of stubs, but they can be improved upon. TTN 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the episode articles were senseless. All they ever consisted of were way too detailed summaries, a "title cards used" section (what the?) and songs section. As for cultural references, I thought the producers said spongebob didn't use them? --

Philip Laurence

07:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If the Spongebob individual episodes are taken away, the Spongebob WikiProject won't have a purpose or goal anymore. I really liked the individual episodes, and I say to put them back where they belong-the way it was before.PS. Bovineboy2008, I completely agree with you. --Mr. Krabby Patty 11:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make articles on each SpongeBob SquarePants episode, you can do it at the new SpongePedia Wiki. SpongePedia Main Page --Sponge1987 02:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)