Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/SpongeBob SquarePants work group/Episode Improvement

Status

 * Per WP:EPISODE:

I Was Wondering
I was wondering who decides if one of these episode things is good enough to become an article

Trivia Removed
i have removed the trivia from the spongebob episodes shown in the project page. as for if it was suggested, im not 100% sure. if it was needed, then i apoligize. Stormy41992 13:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Stormy41992

PLEASE DON'T REMOVE THE TRIVIA, THEY ARE OF IMPORTANCE, especially since I didn't read them all yet please name one reason why they are not needed I can name 10 of the bat:

1. There are a lot of things such as reapearing background chracters barely being shown.

2. Goofs almost completely hidden.

3. Goofs that needs the information of other episodes to prove

4. Debut of new voice characters (since "SOMETIMES" they do a good job and since they are geting older and it's possible that there voices change from the last episode

5. Funny thing to notice such as: when spongebob's pants falls downn for the first thime, when spongebob laughs like a maniace, when spongebob goes to Texas and almost dies of lack of H2O (I know I couldn't think of anything else ultamately funny like theese

6. Debut of new characters.

7. Times spongebob reveals someting about his family

8. Times spongebob reveals a special secret

9. Times spongebob makes a reference to other cartoon shows (sorry for no examples I can't think of another show that still shows on Nick that I CAN ACTUALLY SPELL CORRETCTLY)

10. Cross overs to other shows (sorry for no examples I can't think of another show that still shows on Nick that I CAN ACTUALLY SPELL CORRETCTLY, AGAIN)

(AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH I typed this so fast, I, GOT, A, FRICTION, BURN AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH) Youknowme(youdon&#39;tknowme) 04:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are some things I would like to point out. WP:TRIV states that trivia sections should be avoided in articles. If a trivia section was added to an article, it would not help the article since it would be tagged with Template:Trivia. There is a difference between notability and importance. The last point I would like to make is that many of the things you listed in your comment sound like fancruft because thecontent is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. I hope that helps. Pants (T) 05:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

uhhhhh hello quote "AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH I typed this so fast, I, GOT, A, FRICTION, BURN AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH" sorry it's just that the trivia and goof (mostly the goofs and occasionally cultural reference if there is any which there's not) and with no trivia or goofs people like me who have watch almost all the shows atleast 50 times who already memorized the episode (yeah I memorized them) because I a what people would call a "super fan" of spongebob so all I can actually enjoy when watching a spongebob episode is seeing the kind of mistakes the makers of the show made and hopefully (if this ever comes true) when I become a cartoonist I won't make the mistake and sometimes I can't spot them all (sad how my 7 year old sister can spot the mistakes better than I can) and if theres anything I learned watching TV mistakes for a long time it's this:

1. make sure what one cartoon character says in one episode makes sense to another coment another character says in another episode

2. cartoon fans have eyes like hawks so make sure you carefully rewatch the episodes to make sense

3. Fans (especially superfans) can get disappionted if a great show ends(examples: Ed Edd n' Eddy, Yu- gi- oh, zatch bell, mike lu and og, and who could forget the ultamate show...................... NARUTO (which isn't ending and I hope it never does)

Plus I didn't know we had to avoid Trivia to make it better shesh

Youknowme(youdon&#39;tknowme) 12:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Reception for "Help Wanted?"
Should Yahoo TV be counted as a source if a reception section is created? According to the website, 80% out of the 39 voters liked this episode. Pants (T) 22:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen it used anywhere here, so I say no. TTN 22:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

How about using tv.com. I've seen that used in Wikipedia Lima bean of the north 00:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review status
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, A M K 1 5 2 (Talk • Contributions • Send message) 23:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

DVD

 * If anyone has a DVD that includes this episode, it would be helpful to this article. - A M K 1 5 2 (Talk • Contributions • Send message) 23:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Change of plans?
I have just thought of a new plan. Instead of attempting to improve the episodes one by one (in order), why not start improving the episodes that are most likely to have reliable sources, references, production details, and reception? Pilot (House) and Homer's Phobia are good examples of episode articles. Note that WP:WAF and WP:FICT apply to episode articles. Pants (T) 01:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Try whatever you would like. Encyclopedic information is always good, and as long as it is produced, the method really doesn't matter. TTN 02:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking that also. We can start with special episodes such as Best Day Ever and Dunces and Dragons. - A M K 1 5 2 (Talk • Contributions • Send message) 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm...? What was that? RoryReloaded (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Have You Seen This Snail update
I have made some changes to the episode. This includes adding some references (one of them is to a press release and the other one is to a Washington Post Tom Shales review). Pants (T) 07:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, don't comment on this yet because I think I found another source that contains another review. . I am going to add it later. Pants (T) 07:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now users can comment on this. I believe it is enough to at least assert some notability. Pants (T) 19:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why?
Why did you delete those episode articles so long ago? They were beautiful. Then, I come looking to see one... and I got a redirect! Now, the episode information is gone, and now we just see names of the episodes! I know you're trying to improve them, but when you deleted all of them Wikipedia lost so much data and articles! Why? RoryReloaded (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know! Pretty gay if you ask me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.38.225 (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)