Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

• There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs.
• There is a lot of detail in this article that is too detailed or could be summarised more effectively. For this to meet the GA criteria some information will need to be spun out or summarised more effectively.

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Z1720, some information should indeed be spun out have more efficient summaries. While I've also requested a copyedit for this article at WP:GOCER, which sections should we consider splitting and which uncited statements should be looked at? Also, should we consider bringing it up for a peer review?

I've also posted neutral notices on the relevant WikiProjects for their thoughts how we should improve it. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Sjones23: I have added citation needed tags to the article at places where I think a citation is needed. Before copyediting the article, I suggest figuring out what can be spun out or removed. The sections that I think are too long right now are "Characters", "Development", "Voice actors", "Anniversaries", "Reception", "Films" and "Merchandise". I have also added a "duplicate citations" template to the article as there are a lot of those. If the article needs work, we should consider bringing it to WP:GAR: if the problems are resolved, this can go to WP:PR to get it ready for an FAC nom, if editors want. Z1720 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  For starters, since we have a character article at List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters, we can trim down this article's character section and move some of the relevant information there. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, the duplicate reference issues have been solved and some of the citation overkill has been dealt with. So now, while I've provided some sources such as TVGuide to the first sentence of the voice actors section, what should we do about the characters and voice actor sections? Also, should we bundle the relevant citations and add a note saying "Attributed to multiple sources/references"? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Here's a quick update: I've also asked an uninvolved user with experience in trimming down and copyediting articles, OrdinaryOtter (talk · contribs), to help look into this article. Hopefully, this will satisfy our article review concerns. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. I've started condensing a few sections with excessive detail and long block quotes. Feel free to give feedback on my edits. I will try to find citations for unsourced content as I go. I may be a poor judge of which sections could be spun out, as I don't have much experience with that. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@sjones23, Z1720: I've completed a thorough copyedit of roughly the first half of the page. I did a lot of rewriting, trimmed a lot of rambling summaries and long direct quotes, and overall sharpened up the prose and cut lots of excessive detail. I think it's miles better than it was, but this might be my stopping point—I've realized that when I'm working on an article about a show or movie, I enjoy editing the sections about creation (roughly the first half of the page) far more than I enjoy editing the sections about reception (the second half). I may return to do some work on the second half, but I'm not sure. I trimmed the page down from 13,000 words to 10,000, so we probably don't need to spin out any content into new pages, although there are some sections I barely touched—such as Merchandise—which almost certainly need trimming. I believe the sections I worked on are now fully sourced, or very close. Please feel free to get in touch with me with any questions or concerns. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• @OrdinaryOtter: Thanks for all of the work you have done. I think the Merchandising section does need to be copyedited and trimmed before I feel comfortable with this meeting the GA criteria. "PR Newswire" should also possibly be removed as a source, as it can be seen as promotional. "SB Nation" should also be removed. Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  Do you have any advice for determining what to keep and what to trim in the Merchadise section? I've been working on it here and there, but I'm pretty lost. I always have a hard time knowing what is notable and what's not notable in these kinds of sections, because they're basically just a list of SpongeBob-themed products that have been released. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• @OrdinaryOtter: If there is something notable about a specific piece of merchandise, it should be mentioned. Otherwise, just briefly mention that SB merchandising of a product was made. Z1720 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, that is helpful. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think I've done all I can do with the Merchadise section in terms of copyediting and trimming. Maybe you could take a quick look when you have a chance? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  You didn't even removed all unreliable sources for PR Newswire and Metro yet. Additionally, the franchise and cultural impact section are poorly written that it felt like it was rushed. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I understand your comment. Are you saying that I failed to edit parts of the article in ways I said I would? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Honestly didn't even realize PR Newswire was unreliable, as it's just the press release from Nickelodeon (WP:PRNEWSWIRE, for those curious). The same press release (this one) can be found here on Paramount Press Express, their official press site. Magitroopa (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

"Spaunchje barp" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Spaunchje barp has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 12 § shaunthesheep69420 stuff until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 19:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

"Freakbob" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Freakbob has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 20 § Freakbob until a consensus is reached. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 22:48, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

"Spaunchje barp" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Spaunchje barp has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 8 § Spaunchje barp until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

SpongeBob SquarePants

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: The issues raised originally, plus the constant edit-warring, make this ineligible for GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:39, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Promoted to GA status back in 2013, this article has severely decayed overtime. Towards the second half there are paragraphs that are really short that I don't think can stand on their own, plus with a reliable sources banner at the top of the page, along with six citation needed tags. I don't think this is a GA anymore unless the points I just mentioned can be addressed. Thank you. Gavetheman555 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Novem Linguae: This closure resulted in an error message. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Krusty Towers (location)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Krusty Towers (location) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 September 9 § Krusty Towers (location) until a consensus is reached. (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2026 (UTC)