![]() | 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)
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)
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)
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. -- BlueSquadron Raven 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 WP:MOS#Wikilinking first before doing it. Do not wikify words such as "he." Squirepants101 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)
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)
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)
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 ( The Simpsons, Dr. Who), that can have actual information, need them. An episode needs to be capable of having more than just a plot summary; along with a nice, concise plot summary, they need to have at least well sourced development, and reception sections. Examples of this can be found here, here, and in any of the episode articles here. Obviously, they won't just pop up for every episode article, but it is easy to tell that this is very unlikely to happen for this series. I plan on doing this in five days if no concerns are brought up. If they are brought up, I will address them. Nemu 19:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
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 Just One Bite. 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)
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 WP:EPISODE and much of them will probably never reach featured article status or even good article status, as far as I'm concerned. If these articles are redirected and someone opposes or changes it, then this discussion shall be held again. Pants (T) 12:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll probably start this a little later today. TTN 17:44, 14 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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)
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)
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)
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. -- BlueSquadron Raven 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 WP:MOS#Wikilinking first before doing it. Do not wikify words such as "he." Squirepants101 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)
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)
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)
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 ( The Simpsons, Dr. Who), that can have actual information, need them. An episode needs to be capable of having more than just a plot summary; along with a nice, concise plot summary, they need to have at least well sourced development, and reception sections. Examples of this can be found here, here, and in any of the episode articles here. Obviously, they won't just pop up for every episode article, but it is easy to tell that this is very unlikely to happen for this series. I plan on doing this in five days if no concerns are brought up. If they are brought up, I will address them. Nemu 19:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
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 Just One Bite. 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)
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 WP:EPISODE and much of them will probably never reach featured article status or even good article status, as far as I'm concerned. If these articles are redirected and someone opposes or changes it, then this discussion shall be held again. Pants (T) 12:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll probably start this a little later today. TTN 17:44, 14 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)