Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:51, 17 February 2016

This is an archive of past discussions about SpongeBob SquarePants. 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.

When SpongeBob Became #1 (continued)

Just leaving a note for myself that the current version of the article has no mention of when the show first reached #1 in the ratings. An earlier version of the article suggested that this happened during the second quarter of 2002, but it appears that this information was inaccurate. The article was then corrected to say that it happened during the fourth quarter of 2001, but AussieLegend removed this statement from the article (see this edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpongeBob_SquarePants&diff=next&oldid=624451139]) on the basis that it was supported by an unreliable source (nickandmore.com). If at all possible, we should make sure to find a source for this, as I feel that it's pretty much the most important fact that we could mention in the "Ratings" section of the article.

Also, there had been some discussion earlier about the clarity of ratings - I agree that these sort of ratings aren't very easily understood (and have no idea what they mean myself). Some sort of explanation should probably be worked into the article. --Jpcase (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad removal. Although it's clear that SpongeBob did reach #1 for its demo, Nickandmore is just parroting a Nickelodeon press release, which would probably not be sufficient, since they are a primary source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know - an article shouldn't be based entirely on primary sources, but there's no rule against using them to supplement an article. Interviews are essentially primary sources after all, and quite a bit of info in this article is coming from interviews with Hillenburg and Kenny. I think if we could find the press release in a more reliable source than Nickandmore, then we could probably use it for this fact. --Jpcase (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi JP: potentially controversial statements about when the series went "#1" should not come from the primary sources, since the primary sources have a clear incentive to inflate the information or to skew it in such a way as to obfuscate the relevance. I mean, couldn't there be subtle wordplay behind the claim "Ranks as Number-One Net for First Quarter '02"? I don't know firsthand, and I haven't quite done the research, but being circumspect is the better approach. Is "net" the more meaningful value? Do they mean #1 for boys 2-11? #1 for girls 4-6? When writing about churches and controversial authors, for instance, we would treat their self-reported congregation stats and book sales values with extreme skepticism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You make a good point. Okay - I'll make sure not to add anything about this unless I can find a third party source. --Jpcase (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Bikini Atoll location

The "Setting" section currently reads, "Much of the series' events take place in Bikini Bottom, an underwater city located in the Pacific Ocean beneath the real life tropical isle of Bikini Atoll. Much of this is supported within the context of the episodes themselves. However, despite implications of the city's location, as well as analogies to real life, Hillenburg has stated that he wishes to leave the city isolated from the real world." Does anyone know how the setting is implied by actual episodes? Or what these "analogies to real life" are supposed to be? I can't actually recall any moment from the series when the real world location of Bikini Bottom was disclosed or even hinted at. --Jpcase (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I've traced the page history back to a time when this statement was cited with two sources - SpongeBob Exposed (which is still being used, but doesn't actually mention "implications of the city's location", "analogies to real life", or even "Bikini Atoll") and this webpage (which doesn't mention hints being given in the series itself, but does mention vague hints being given in the film. No specific mention of Bikini Atoll though.) The second reference states that Hillenburg has wanted "to leave the location of Bikini Bottom to the peoples imagination." Meanwhile, although SpongeBob Exposed does contain a quote from Hillenburg about the characters being "isolated from the real world", it's within the context of not wanting to do pop-culture jokes - the quote has nothing to do with the location of Bikini Bottom. For simplicity's sake, I'm going to replace SpongeBob Exposed with the second reference in the current version of that sentence, but this is just a temporary measure. I'll do a little more research soon, to figure out why the second reference was removed and whether it meets RS criteria. --Jpcase (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so Mediran removed this reference back in May 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpongeBob_SquarePants&diff=556357714&oldid=556355572), under the basis that it's a fan site. Closer inspection of the website reveals that it is indeed a fansite (as stated in the fine print at the bottom). No further information seems to be provided about who runs the website, so it seems safe to assume that it doesn't meet RS criteria. I'll go ahead and remove the reference (and the sentence that it is being used to support) from the article. --Jpcase (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Since nothing is ever stated about Bikini Bottom's location in the series itself (even the above-mentioned fansite, which says that subtle hints are given in the film, doesn't connect those hints to any specific location), and since Hillenburg has never (as far as I know) specified the city's location, I don't think that we should be so definitive about Bikini Bottom being located under Bikini Atoll. It's certainly notable that two reliable sources have provided a specific location for Bikini Bottom, but context ought to be provided for where this information is coming from. I'll rewrite the sentence. Let me know if any of you are aware of a stronger reference though. --Jpcase (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...so the article is describing Bikini Atoll as a "tropical isle", as does the QSRmagazine reference, but an atoll is essentially a coral reef. A coral reef isn't an island is it? It seems to me that there are several islands in the area around Bikini Atoll, but that Bikini Atoll isn't an island itself. Maybe QSR meant to refer to Bikini Island, which is one of the islands in the atoll - whoever created the image in the "Setting" section seemed to be thinking along those lines. But neither of the refs actually mention this island by name. I'll go ahead and change "tropical isle" to "coral reef" and swap the photo out with one that doesn't box Bikini Island. --Jpcase (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI - This Cracked article also mentions Bikini Atoll. Again, this isn't enough to make any definitive statement about Bikini Bottom's location, but it may be worth adding this as third reference for the claim. The whole article could actually make for an interesting addition to the Legacy section (it talks about a popular "fan theory"). There's some dispute as to whether Cracked meets RS criteria - my personal view is that while it shouldn't be used as a news source, it's notable enough to be treated as a sort of self-published source. So in other words, while we would never use it as a source for facts, I feel that it would be appropriate to note that Cracked commented on a certain facet of the show. Oh, and while Cracked is usually pretty good with fact-checking, they do drop the ball every now and then (hence, why they shouldn't be used as a news source). Their claim that the Bikini Atoll location is "confirmed by the official Nickelodeon-written synopsis" is backed up with an IMDB plot summary written by a user named "Nickelodeon". Is this user an official representative for the studio? Eh, maybe. But there's no way to know that for sure. So I stand by my view that the location hasn't been out-right confirmed.

Anyways, I'm not going to add anything from Cracked without consensus, so somebody please comment! I want to get as many opinions on this as possible. :) --Jpcase (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The 2008 diff version shows that Bikini Bottom merged into this section (see AFD discussion) after this second peer review. It also shows that it has a lot of comprehensiveness, sourcing (including unreliable refs) and image issues, mainly with trivia and original research would put out of date. JJ98 (Talk) 04:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Flanderization? - Problems with the criticism section

The section "Criticism of declining quality" reads:

"Early episodes of SpongeBob SquarePants, particularly those from the first three seasons, were praised for their wit, humor, and 'uncanny brilliance'. However, in the mid-2000s, around the airing of season four, the tone and emphasis of the show began to change. Some fans pointed to a shift in clever, well-constructed humor and likable charaters to what they perceived as an overemphasis on flanderization, zany antics, stale humor, cliché plotlines, and characters being abused and treated as black sheep for humor (partciularly Squidward and Plankton).

Ignoring the misspelling of "characters" and "particularly" I take special note of the term "Flanderization". For those unfamiliar it's a term from TV Tropes which is used to describe how a character is distilled from a more fully formed individual into a character of more singular traits, until said traits become the defining aspect of the character in question. It's named after the character Ned Flanders of The Simpsons of which the editors of TV Tropes believe to have undergone such a process.

Whether or not the characters meet that criteria of is irrelevant, as it is a term which would require the average Misplaced Pages user to have more than passing knowledge of a website unrelated to the article which they are reading (and Misplaced Pages in general).

I suggest we cull, or cut down the criticism section. Particularly everything after "Early episodes of SpongeBob SquarePants, particularly those from the first three seasons, were praised for their wit, humor, and 'uncanny brilliance'." as it would difficult to find notable, reliable sources claiming the show shifted from "clever, well-constructed humor" and "characters being abused and treated as black sheep for humor."

The section criticizing Paul Tibbit and saying that fans began to abandon the show (8 years after the perceived decline in quality I might add) reads like a disgruntled fan going out of their way to find the most negative quotes they from select DVD reviews to spin a narrative, but for what its worth it is sourced. Likewise, the paragraph also speculates that after the release of the film fans fled from the show en masse, causing ratings to erode. This is all supported by a single link, which I can only imagine was an opinion piece, but I have no way of knowing for sure, because the link is now broken. Doing a quick Google I found dead link‍] this archive of the page.

The original article itself offers no sources for where it gets its information, merely stating "According to a website devoted to 'SpongeBob,' many fans felt the cartoon 'jumped the shark' after the release of the movie based on the show in 2004." and "'Fans also began to turn away from the series, and online fan sites became deserted,' according to spongebob.wikia.com. 'Although the show is still criticized, some SpongeBob fans believe it could be making a comeback.'"

Anyway, if someone wants to rewrite the criticism section so that it's up to Misplaced Pages standards, with proper sources and all, by all means, feel free. But if this is what how it's going to look otherwise, I say we just cut it and be done with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.110.136 (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Off topic chat

Here is some more recent Ratings info for a higher-level editor to add - and also a mention of the SpongeBob cereals!

The 3rd paragraph in this section says how ratings were declining in 2012 -

http://en.wikipedia.org/SpongeBob_SquarePants#Ratings_and_run-length_achievements

- but what about how the ratings have done SINCE then? Here are 3 articles:

How about including a couple of the astonishing viewer statistics from this article, from November 12, 2013? -

TV Ratings: A Lot of Adults Watched Monday's 'SpongeBob SquarePants'

> Event television for Nickelodeon is generally only a dial-mover for the younger set, but Monday's topical episode of SpongeBob SquarePants pulled some rather strong ratings among grownups as well. <

> The 14-year-old franchise brought in its biggest audience in two years with a whopping 5.2 million viewers. Besting Hostages (4.53 million) on broadcast, it managed to outperform every cable offering for the night -- with the notable exception of ESPN's Monday Night Football. <

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-a-lot-adults-655507

And this, from July 1, 2014? -

Nickelodeon Networks 2Q 2014 Ratings Highlights - July 1, 2014

> SpongeBob SquarePants was the top animated series across all of TV with Kids 2-11 (4.0/1.3M) for the quarter. The series also ranked as basic cable’s top animated kids’ show with total viewers, averaging 2.6M P2+. <

http://www.nickandmore.com/2014/07/01/nickelodeon-networks-2q-2014-ratings-highlights/

And this high point, from Febrary 24, 2015? -

> Dragon Ball Z: Kai & SpongeBob SquarePants tied as Saturday's top cable original with a 0.7 adults 18-49 rating. <

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/02/24/saturday-cable-ratings-dragon-ball-z-kai-tops-night-college-basketball-kill-la-kill-more/366689/

And how about a mention of the Spongebob cereals?

http://www.mrbreakfast.com/cereal_detail.asp?id=342

And the new one by Geneal Mills introduced in 2014, called Fruity Splash? -

http://www.mrbreakfast.com/cereal_detail.asp?id=1549

http://www.sbmania.net/forums/topic/38677-new-spongebob-cereal-im-pretty-sure/

$2.99 US here

http://www.target.com/p/general-mills-spongebob-square-pants-fruity-splash-cereal-10-7-oz/-/A-15341619

$27 US for 3 boxes here:

http://www.amazon.com/General-Mills-SpongeBob-SquarePants-Fruity/dp/B00MSJUJ1G

InternetUser25 (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian controversy

Toward the beginning of the year, a Ukrainian user, Volodymyr D-k, claimed that it was members of a "marginal sect", who wanted to see SpongeBob and the other shows banned. According to Volodymyr, the Ukrainian National Expert Commission for Protecting Public Morality held a "session" about the issue, but ruled against the sect. Looking at the two sources currently used for this part of the article reveals that the controversy did indeed originate with an outside group - a "fringe" Catholic website (as described by the Wall Street Journal), called Family Under the Protection of the Holy Virgin. However, there's a whole variety of other sources not currently being used in the article, that provide (seemingly) different takes on the issue. I'm going to add links to them all here, so that I can investigate further at a later time.

Articles that are currently being used as references

• The Wall Street Journal
• Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (CBLDF)

Other articles

• EITB
• The FW
• Gather
• Seattle Gay News
• Yahoo! News
• Daily Mail

--Jpcase (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. This is really confusing. Some of these other sources mention a "study" that was apparently released by the Commission, but this study is quoted as saying things that The Wall Street Journal has attributed to Family Under the Protection of the Holy Virgin. All of the criticism that the Commission has supposedly directed toward SpongeBob seems to have come from this study - however, the claim that the study comes from the Commission appears to me to be faulty. What to do, what to do...I'm inclined to give precedence to The Wall Street Journal and to treat the criticism of SpongeBob as stemming solely from the "fringe" Catholic group. For those who would like to see this researched in more depth though, the enigmatic "study" originally stemmed from the Ukrainian newspaper Ukraínskaya Pravda. I can't read Ukrainian, so that's a dead end for me. Hmm...there's probably a way to find editors who know Ukrainian................ --Jpcase (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hm, while I agree on using better sources, it should be noted that the article shouldn't give undue weight to it. In my opinion, one or two lines is enough coverage on it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries - the current version of the article only has three sentences on this, and I don't plan an expansion. I'll just rephrase things. By the way, I've opened a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Language to see if anyone can help in finding the Ukrainian newspaper article. Not sure if that's the best place to ask about this, but it's the only place that I can think of. --Jpcase (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so someone at the Language Reference Desk was able to dig up these articles: . No translation yet though - I'll see if I can find someone to help out. Unless anyone here can read Ukrainian? A full translation probably wouldn't be necessary; I basically just need to get the gist of what the articles say. --Jpcase (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I should have noted this much, much earlier (My apologies for letting this conversation die down, before seeing it through to completion) - back in late December, I asked for help at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ukraine and someone was able to give me a general overview on the content of the above articles. According to this editor, the Commission did in fact indict SpongeBob and the other shows, which unfortunately, just makes this whole matter seem even more muddled. The editor also said that none of the articles mention the Family Under the Protection of the Holy Virgin and that the Commission lacked the authority to ban the shows (so the Commission apparently urged the citizens of Ukraine to ask the president to take action).

However, another editor responded to a separate thread that I had opened on this topic. He/she posted a link to an article and recommended that I try using Google Translate; not the most accurate means of getting a translation, certainly, but I decided to give it a shot anyway. It was actually just a reprinting of one of the same articles that I had already found at the Language Reference Desk; one of the same articles that the other editor had been able to help me with - Following so far? ;) Interestingly enough, when I put the text into Google Translate, a reference to the Family Under the Protection of the Holy Virgin does show up. The article seems to be saying that this group really is the author of the aforementioned "study" and that they are the ones who urged citizens to contact the president. So, while it was great that the first person could help out, they might not have understood the article perfectly. I've left a message on their talk page, letting them know that I have a few follow-up questions, but since I've let so much time go by, I may not get a response. Either way, I'll try to get things sorted out. Thanks for being patient. --Jpcase (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Good News - our Ukrainian-fluent friend has been gracious enough to continue helping; Bad News - the deeper I delve into this matter, the murkier it becomes. This is starting to look like one of those things that would just keep me spinning and spinning, and I don't think that I would ever get anywhere with it. So I've decided to just go ahead and rewrite the information based on what I know. I chose to base everything on the Wall Street Journal, though I've rewritten the information in such a way that I believe is still essentially accurate, even when one takes all of the other references into account. We know that the Family Under the Protection of the Holy Virgin accused SpongeBob Squarepants of "promot homosexuality"; we know that the group wanted to get the show and others banned; and we know that the Commission reviewed the matter in August 2012. There's certainly more to the story; it would be nice to know for sure how the Commission responded to the controversy. But it doesn't seem likely to me that anything truly coherent about that aspect of the matter will ever turn up. I'm still waiting on another response from the other editor, so who knows? Maybe things will become a little clearer down the road. But what we have now should suffice. Please let me know if anyone thinks that it needs to be revised. Oh, and sorry for my weird edit summary when I did the rewrite - my computer was acting up a bit. --Jpcase (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

MiszaBot I

Is anyone attached to the automatic archiving for this page? I prefer archiving manually, so as to keep conversations around until we're definitely done with them. There are a few from earlier in the year that have been archived, even though they still contain relevant information. Let me know if anyone wants to keep the MiszaBot I. Otherwise, I'll disable it. --Jpcase (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Lowercase sigmabot III currently archives since MiszaBot is not active. You can use with OneClickArchiver to archive some of the previous discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 04:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for disappearing on you all again. My problem isn't that the automatic archiving is too slow. Rather, I feel that it's too fast. For example, I would like to take another look at the issue regarding the Ukraine, but that conversation has already been moved into the archives. We can keep the automatic archiving if you want, but I might have to move some old conversations back to the main talk page.

Oh, and while I don't actually understand the difference between MiszaBot I and Lowercase sigmabot III, I assume that as long as we're using the latter, the note in the Archives box (to the left) that reads, "Threads older than 90 days may be archived by MiszaBot I", should be changed, no? --Jpcase (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jj98: @Mediran: @Cyphoidbomb: Thoughts? I'd make the change myself, but since I've never done anything at all with bots before, I'm a little concerned that I might mess something up. I'm right in assuming that everything on the page about MizzaBot I should be changed to refer to Lowercase sigmabot III though, right? --Jpcase (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jj98. I think keeping the autoarchive up is preferable. If the auto archiving is too slow, I'm fine with changing the threshold from 90 days to 30 days (or whatever you think is suitable). It's just a matter of changing |algo=old(90d) to |algo=old(30d). Hope that helps! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Hey - it was actually me (Jpcase) who left the above message; though I pinged a lot of names, so I can see how you might have misread. :) The auto archiving isn't too slow. If anything, it's too fast. If you and JJ both want to keep it, then I have no problem with that, but let's not make it any faster than it already is. My most recent question was actually about whether we should change the text about MizzaBot I on this page to instead refer to Lowercase sigmabot III - since JJ says that MizzaBot is no longer active. --Jpcase (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Whoops! I'm an idiot all around! Must've had sleep in my eyes or something. Yeah, that's the ticket. The bot works fine. It's confusing, but I think there used to be a bot called MiszaBot that was discontinued. The lowercase sigmabot III replaced that bot, but still operates out of the same account, presumably as a seamless transition for everyone who relied on the old bot. If you read this user page it'll make sense. I use lowercase sigma on my talk page. You can see the setup in the source, and the successful archives in my talk page history. If the archiving is too fast, switch it to 180 days or whatever you prefer. Hopefully I understood everything this time around. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Haha, no problem Cy. Thanks for the explanation. :) While it probably isn't super important, if I wanted to change the note at the bottom of the archive box, without messing anything up with how the bot functions, could I just change MiszaBot I to Lowercase sigmabot III in the line that currently reads, {{Archive box|auto=long |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |units=days |index=/Archive index}}? As long as I leave -

{{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{aan}} |maxarchivesize = 150K |counter = 7 |minthreadsleft = 4 |algo = old(90d) |archive = Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants/Archive %(counter)d }}

- alone, everything would still work properly, right? --Jpcase (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I took care of it. I just copy/pasted the stuff at WP:ARCHIVE and extended the time to 120 days. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! 120 days should be enough time. As for changing the note at the bottom of the archive box, I was referring to the text that reads, "Threads older than 90 days may be archived by MiszaBot I." This wouldn't change anything in the functioning, so like I said, it's probably not super important. But I just want to make sure that everything is in order. I went ahead and changed it myself, but you might want to double check that I didn't mess anything up. --Jpcase (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ratings question

@Cyphoidbomb: Question for you - do you think it would be appropriate to use this article from Newsweek (via HighBeam) to say that the series had an audience of around 2 million by September '99? In case you don't have a HighBeam subscription, the relevant part of the article says, "Hillenburg ruled out jellyfish because they sting, and sharks because--well, they're so five minutes ago. He decided that sponges were the future. Two million kids--the biggest Nickelodeon audience since "Rugrats"--couldn't agree more. Every Saturday, they go deep-sea diving." I remember you were hesitant about using a press release for ratings information, and while this is an independent news article, the phrasing is a little bit vague. It doesn't offer any "official" ratings info, and this article from the Rocky Mountain News (also via HighBeam) suggests that by 2001 the show's entire audience (children and adults) totaled around 2 million - so if the Newsweek article was correct in saying that 2 million children were watching the show in '99, then that would mean that lots of them had stopped watching by '01, which is highly unlikely. That said, common sense would lead one to believe that Newsweek was drawing from real figures when it said that the series had an audience of 2 million in '99, and that the author was simply generalizing SpongeBob's entire audience as children, since this the show was still new at the time and its popularity with adults wasn't particularly well known yet. What do you think? --Jpcase (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to quibble over that. Go ahead and use it. If it gets pushback, then it gets pushback. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. I'm glad that you've been able to help me sort some of these issues. :) --Jpcase (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you know what? I don't even need to bother with it. I saw that the viewership was 1 million something by the end of SpongeBob's first month on air and inattentively assumed that it had more or less doubled by '99. But it was 1.9 million, and by '01, the audience was only 2.2 million. So yeah, not much of an increase. --Jpcase (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

So many "the series"

In the lead, please use other terms like "it", "the show", "SpongeBob SquarePants", etc. to refer to the show. The phrase "the series" has been used many times like in every sentence. 125.212.121.3 (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Second Quarter of 2002 - ratings info

(NOTE: IF YOU HAVEN'T READ ANY OF THIS YET, FEEL FREE TO START AT THE OUTDENT)

Hey there everyone! How's it going? I really can't say how long I'll be around this time, or whether I'll ever get the chance to finish all of the things that I'd like to do here. As cool as it would be to stick around until the article reaches FA, I've already spent a lot more time on it than I had ever intended. Real life is just too busy these days.

If nothing else, I'd love to at least finish the work that I've already started on the Ratings section. A few months ago, I had been going through all of the HighBeam articles, trying to get everything sorted out. In the time since, I've unfortunately lost track of much of what I had been doing.

So I'm not entirely confident in how to proceed. I know that I had been looking at the third-to-last sentence in the first paragraph, which reads, "In the second quarter of 2002, the series had a 6.7 rating and a viewership of 2.2 million kids aged 2 to 11, up 22% over 2001". This is referenced with two HighBeam articles, "The Stretch" from the Rocky Mountain News and "Is 'SpongeBob' close to being washed up?" from the Chicago Sun-Times, as well as a 2009 Advertising Age article called "How Spongebob Became an $8 Billion Franchise".

The first reference was written before 2002, so it could only be used to show what the ratings had been previous to the purported 22% increase. The second reference was written in May 2002, which I assume would fall into the "Second quarter" time frame. However, this article takes all of it's ratings information from February of that year, which I assume would not belong to the second quarter - I really don't know anything about television quarters though, haha.

This second reference doesn't say anything at all about Nielsen ratings, and while it does give a total number of viewers for the month of February, I'm not sure whether this figure is relevant. The reference mentions the show having "56 million sets of eyes over the entire month". Our article says that the show had 2.2 million viewers the previous year - I'm pretty sure that's an average nightly figure though (if so, then the text of our article should be revised to clarify this point). So even if February counts as the "Second Quarter" (and again, I don't think that it does), no correlation could be made with 2001 figures, since it doesn't seem that we have monthly figures for that year (correct me if I'm wrong about any of this).

I've noticed nothing in the third reference about 2001 or 2002 ratings info.

Unless my my math is wrong (totally possible), a 22% increase over 2001's 2-11 demographic wouldn't even yield 2.2 million viewers. And of course, even if it did, we would still need a reference to show that the 22% increase happened at all.

I'll try to take a look through the edit history and see how this information originated. If anyone has something to add, then as always, please chime in! And if anyone is available to just double check those three references, and make sure that I haven't missed anything, then that might be a good idea. Thanks! --Jpcase (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Just realized that the focus of this sentence used to be on the moment when SpongeBob became "the highest rated children's show on cable". As some may remember, there was a talk page discussion nearly a year ago - see Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants/Archive 6#When SpongeBob became #1 - examining this sentence. It was pointed out at the time, that none of these three references supported the claim about SpongeBob achieving the #1 spot for it's demographic in the second quarter of 2002. A new reference was found (from nickandmore.com) to show that SpongeBob actually achieved this status in 2001, and the 2002 ratings info was then split off into it's own separate sentence (apparently, no one realized that the original three references failed to support this information as well). Down the road, Nickandmore was shown to be a poor source - see Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants/Archive 7#When SpongeBob Became #1 (continued) for more info - and so everything about SpongeBob reaching #1 for its demo has been removed from the article, leaving the sentence about 2002 ratings info to stand alone.

I have no idea whether the Nickandmore reference could have corroborated any of the 2002 ratings info, since the url is down and the page isn't archived in the Way Back Machine. But it doesn't even matter, since again, the source wasn't any good. Seeing as though we aren't providing in-depth ratings info for every single year of the show, the sentence in question doesn't serve much of a purpose anymore. The ratings for SpongeBob at the moment it became #1 is relevant information - the ratings for the show during a random quarter, not so much.

I'm still interested in seeing how all of this originated, so I'll dig a little deeper into the edit history before removing the sentence. --Jpcase (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay - the sentence was originally added by Mediran in a massive December 2013 edit. Tons of information was added and revised at once, so its rather doubtful that Mediran could remember why he used those three references or where he originally saw the 2002 ratings info. The size of his edit would suggest that he might have copied/pasted the information from another Wiki article - Mediran, do you have any recollection of this edit? While the ratings info isn't relevant on its own, it would certainly be worth knowing the moment when SpongeBob became the top show for its demographic.

One other weird thing that I've just noticed - according to the Rocky Mountain News article "The Stretch" , SpongeBob was only the second highest rated series on Nick after two years on the air. However, according to the AdvertisingAge article "How Spongebob Became an $8 Billion Franchise" , the series "soared past "Rugrats" as the network's highest-rated show of all time within a year." The current version of our article goes with "second highest after two years", an earlier version of our article went with "highest within a year" (the change was made during Mediran's above-mentioned edit). Both statements can be sourced with what I believe are quality publications, but only one statement can be true.

So there are three different possibilities for the time when SpongeBob became Nick's highest rated show:

• Possibility #1: It happened in "the second quarter of 2002" as Mediran's edit would suggest. This information may not have been properly sourced, but it had to come from somewhere.

• Possibility #2: It happened in 2001, as the Nickandmore source had said. If this is true, then a better source would still have to be found.

• Possibility #3: It happened after a single year of the show being on air (so around 2000 probably). We have a source for this, but it directly contradicts one of our other sources.

I'm not really sure which reference deserves precedence, although I'm leaning toward the Rocky Mountain News article, mainly since it was written in 2002, whereas the AdvertisingAge article wasn't written until 2009. But it's definitely weird that these don't match up. Mediran - let me know if you can remember anything at all about your December 2013 edit! :)

I'll go ahead and remove the sentence about the Second Quarter of 2002 ratings info, at least for the time being. --Jpcase (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Huh...the next sentence in that section, "Forbes called the series "a $1 billion honeypot," and said that the series was 'almost single-handedly responsible for making Viacom's Nickelodeon the most-watched cable channel during the day and the second most popular during prime time'", is also sourced with the Rocky Mountain News article "The Stretch". However, none of that information can be found in the article. This sentence also originates in Mediran's massive December 2013 edit. If I can hunt down a proper source, or if Mediran remembers anything, then this could possibly be a simple fix. But otherwise, this whole sentence might have to be removed as well. --Jpcase (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've found where this information came from. In a weird twist, the article is actually about Rugrats (!) and SpongeBob is only mentioned in passing. See here Elisa Williams (September 16, 2002) "Attack of the Rugrats" Forbes I have no idea how this information got attributed to SpongeBob. Hopefully Mediran can shine some light on the issue. I'll go ahead and remove the sentence. --Jpcase (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

According to these 2002 articles - "Grown-ups embrace a wacky, square sponge" from the from the Lancaster New Era and "'SpongeBob' rises from sea to peak of ratings" from the Charleston Daily Mail - SpongeBob had only recently become the #1 kid's show at the time of their publication. The Charleston article is from October and says that the series had "recently completed a year as the top- rated show on broadcast or cable among youngsters 2 to 11." Depending on how you count "a year", that could mean that SpongeBob became number 1 in early 2002 or late 2001, so we still can't make a clear ruling between Possibility #1 and Possibility #2. But I feel like we can now safely discredit Possibility #3. The AdvertisingAge source is still being used in another section of the article, and I suppose that I'm okay with that, unless anyone else has an objection. It's strange that the source would be off by more than a year, but considering that it was written so long after the fact, I feel that we can accept that AdvertisingAge made a mistake here, without discrediting the publication as a whole. So now we just need to hear from Mediran, if he can recall anything about his December 2013 edit. --Jpcase (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I've done a rewrite on the first paragraph of the Ratings section, so as to incorporate the general time frame (by 2002) that SpongeBob became the highest rated children's series. It might still be nice to know the exact date for this, but I think that we can work around it. Sorry that this whole discourse (with myself, haha) is so long (and probably confusing). If anyone hasn't read through all of the above yet, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SKIP DOWN TO HERE. Especially seeing as though the problem has been 90% fixed. Mediran - if you have any recollection at all of what was going on in this December 2013 edit, then that would still be helpful to know, though it's hardly crucial at this point. And if you or Cyphoidbomb or anyone else who's watching this page could just leave some brief feedback on how that first paragraph of the Ratings section looks, I could really use a fresh pair of eyes - I've made so many changes to that section, spaced out over such a long period of time, that I want to make sure everything still reads smoothly. --Jpcase (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

After some digging around on HighBeam, I managed to find this article, which helps to pinpoint a more exact date for when SpongeBob became #1 in the ratings. It says that "according to Nielsen Media Research, SpongeBob has, for five months running, been the top-rated cable show for children." The article was written on February 12, 2002, which would suggest that SpongeBob became #1 sometime around September 2001. Although I suppose that, depending on how one counts those five months, there's a slight possibility that the milestone was reached in late August or sometime in October. I'll make sure that this doesn't conflict with anything else that I've seen, before incorporating it into the article. --Jpcase (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just finished reviewing all of HighBeam's articles on SpongeBob from August 2001 through the February 12, 2002 article that I linked to above. There were only three articles within that time frame that discuss SpongeBob's ratings, aside from some weekly charts. Strangely, all three of them refer to the series as having been No. 2 at the time. This one was published on September 15, almost exactly five months prior to the February 12 article. If we were to assume that SpongeBob became No. 1 right around that time, then it would make sense that the September article could have either overlooked the most recent data or even preceded the change in SpongeBob's position by a few days/weeks. So no problem there really. This one is from November 19, which would be worrisome, except that it's providing an average for the entire year. So even though SpongeBob is ranked second, behind Rugrats, that's certainly in line with the date that's being presented, seeing as though Rugrats would have held the top position for the majority of 2001. The only article that's giving me pause is this one from October 5. If Nielsen and/or the author of the February 12 article was being somewhat loose in their definition of five months, then it's possible that SpongeBob took the No. 1 position in October. Basically, you'd just have to count the twelve days of February as the fifth month. It's also entirely possible that the milestone was reached in September, and that the information simply hadn't become common knowledge yet. So yeah, while we can't pinpoint any specific month, I feel pretty confident that SpongeBob reached the No. 1 spot sometime in late 2001. --Jpcase (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Aha! Things are starting to come together now! Somehow, two separate references wound up with the same "ref name", which caused things to get out of wack. All of the unique information (including the url link) for the second reference got preempted with information from the first reference - so "The Stretch" showed up in place of "Are Kids Tuned In?" I've heard of the curse regarding the use of question marks in movie titles, but maybe the same is true for news articles as well, haha. The "Tuned In" article is where all of the "Second Quarter of 2002" ratings info came from. It also quotes the Forbes article in such a way that someone who was skimming through could have conceivably misread that information as being pertinent to SpongeBob, rather than Rugrats. So mystery solved! : ) --Jpcase (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and while the article doesn't say anything about SpongeBob becoming the #1 kids show in early 2002, it does say that the series was "by far the highest rated kids show on cable" at the time. Assuming that Mediran had never seen the February 12 source that I just added, then "Tuned In" presumably would have been the first article that he saw to refer to SpongeBob as being #1 in the ratings. So it's understandable how he might have gotten the timeline confused. --Jpcase (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Some more thoughts on the Ratings section

I'll try to keep things a little more concise this time around, haha.

• Nickelodeon makes smart moves with 'Boy Genius' mentions that SpongeBob lost it's #1 spot during the premiere week of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius. I've all of a sudden found myself with a lot of time on my hands (not sure how long this will last though) and have skimmed through all of the HighBeam articles on SpongeBob through October 2002. Although I haven't paid too much attention to the weekly ratings charts, this is the only instance that I've noticed (other than what we already have in the article about Fairly Odd Parents) of a show surpassing SpongeBob's ratings. It's possible that another show had done this at some point, but that the feat didn't fit into any larger narrative, and so no one bothered to write an article about it. But it's also possible that these were the only two instances that SpongBob got knocked from the top (up through Oct. 2002 that is). If indeed, SpongeBob was only so rarely surpassed, then the Neutron premiere might be noteworthy enough for inclusion. But I'm not sure where it would fit in with the current version of our Ratings section. We certainly aren't trying to cover everything that could be said about the show's ratings, nor should we. OddParents was a big enough deal that a whole paragraph could be written about it. Neutron would probably wind up as a lone sentence, untethered to any related points. If anyone has an idea on how to work this into the article though, let me know. :) --Jpcase (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a rough idea of how the paragraph could be reworked:

Although SpongeBob SquarePants would essentially maintain its reign over children’s television throughout the following decade, it faced in-house competition early on. In Fall, 2002, the series was briefly surpassed by two other Nicktoons. Aided by the antecedent release of an Oscar-nominated feature film, The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius saw the highest ratings for its demographic, during the week of its September premiere. The Fairly Odd Parents would prove to be a more long-lasting challenger. In the time since its March 2001 debut, the series had already eclipsed Nickelodeon’s former ratings champion, Rugrats and settled into the network's No. 2 position. The Fairly OddParents was then nearly able to match the average of 2.2 million viewers per episode that SpongeBob SquarePants enjoyed at the time. For a single week in October, the two programs swapped positions. Nickelodeon "recognized" The Fairly Odd Parents for its climbing ratings and installed it in the 8 PM time slot previously occupied by SpongeBob SquarePants. In an interview, Cyma Zarghami, then-general manager and executive vice president of Nickelodeon, said, "Are we banking on the fact that Fairly OddParents will be the next SpongeBob? ... We are hoping. But SpongeBob is so unique, it's hard to say if it will ever be repeated."

Let me know if anyone feels that there are problems with the tone. The term "Nicktoons" would certainly have to be explained at some earlier point in the article, but I'm actually quite surprised that it isn't already. I'm still on the fence myself as to whether the Jimmy Neutron information is even relevant, so I'm not at all sure yet how to proceed. --Jpcase (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Opinions? Any thoughts at all would be really helpful, since I don't want to tear up the article if the current version of this paragraph is the best. But it would certainly be worth using something along the lines of what I wrote above, if others feel that the Neutron information is notable enough. --Jpcase (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so Cyphoidbomb Mediran - no opinions then? Anyone's more than welcome to throw their voice into the conversation at a later date, but as long as I'm having to make the decision on my own, I guess I'll just leave the paragraph as it is. I'd rather be cautious. Some new development could always change my mind, but there's no need to make the change right now. --Jpcase (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• `SPONGEBOB' MAKES IT HIP TO BE SQUARE and 'SPONGEBOB' SOAKS UP TV VIEWERS' LOVE both draw a clear correlation between SpongeBob's move to prime time and the series reaching the #1 spot in the ratings. Although we present this information side-by-side in our article, we don't say that one was the cause for the other. I can't think of a good rewrite at the moment, but may change this later. Again, ideas are welcome. --Jpcase (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Boosted by original series, cable sets Q2 share mark.(Brief Article)(Statistical Data Included), Miner Rescue Bolsters News Ratings, and July cable share passes 50.(Brief Article) all credit SpongeBob as a prime factor in Nickelodeon having it's highest daily ratings in the month of July 2002. Like with the Neutron information, this would probably meet the basic standard for notability, but it's a question as to whether we actually want to say anything about it in the article. We've mentioned Nick taking the "Saturday-morning ratings crown", which is fairly comparable, but that was directly tied to the decision behind SpongeBob moving to prime-time, which in turn (as mentioned above) was directly tied to SpongeBob becoming Nick's #1 show. --Jpcase (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the second film be cited as a return to form for SpongeBob?

An editor recently added a sentence to the "Criticism of declining quality" section, suggesting that the second feature film marked a return to form for the series. This was backed up with Rotten Tomatoes (which is fine to show that the film got good reviews, but can't really be used to comment on how it was viewed in relation to the series) and a single critical review (which hardly carries enough weight to back up the claim). Something along these lines might be worth saying in the article, if a strong source can be found as evidence that a majority of critics did indeed prefer the second feature to later seasons of the show. But in the absence of such as source, I've removed the statement. --Jpcase (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2015

This edit request to SpongeBob SquarePants has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add something about Squidward's Suicide Ihatehelping (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)