# Talk:SpongeBob's Truth or Square

This article has no point to be on its own. It's a special episode, not a movie. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

SpongeBob's Atlantis SquarePantis is also a one-hour TV-Movie, which promotionaly, is not considered to an episode. Many ads and promotions say straightly "The all-new SpongeBob Movie". Plus, there is no point re-directing it until everybody agrees with it. I'll try to write an improvment of the article in my Sandbox, but in the meantime, my vote is a Strong, Speedy Keep. Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 14:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It's an episode under an hour long, excluding commercials. Just like how the iCarly episodes of the same length don't get their own articles, neither does this. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The iCarly episode most likely did not have enough information to keep it.65.43.176.59 (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We shouldn't compare articles to others, we should treat them as separate entities. There is enough information and notablility for this article to exist. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
We should keep this. It's not like we have to make a standard on articles about TV specials and movies. We have the freedom to write everything about this TV special for future generations.--Ieph (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It'd have the same amount of info as this.  We should compare articles when they're of the same type - That was an extended episode, as was this. This deserves no special treatment. There's not really a whole lot of content anyway - just short plot summaries, unneeded sections regarding celebrity cameos and a new intro, trivia, and something about a book. This really doesn't warrant its own article.
You do not have the freedom to write anything on here. Wikipedia has rules and such, some of which are about notability. This article is not notable enough to not be merged into the list of episodes. And "future generations"? Who's to say Wikipedia will exist? I mean, it's not positive thinking, but you're going overboard. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It meets notability guidelines. It was covered in the Chicago Tribune and also marks the 10th Anniversary of the show. The quality of the article should not qualify it for redirect; if it's bad quality, then make it better. The Shelby Marx episode of iCarly wasn't that notable from my memory. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 05:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
No, it does not - an article in a newspaper doesn't make it notable. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest reading the guideline? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I have. This is nothing more than an extended episode. This deserves no special treatment because it was written about in a newspaper. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, which of the general notability guidelines does it not satisfy. We are not giving it "special" treatment, its an article and it could probably be a good one if someone worked on it. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thewtfchronicles, your personal opinion does not make a consensus. If most Wikipedians agree with you, then it can be redirected. Until then, There is no use for your campaigning. If this continues, further action may occur. Dalekusa (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You are insisting that this be given special treatment. Look at the following articles that are just like this episode: Testing True, Abra Catastrophe, iDate a Bad Boy. Note what they all have in common: they're all extra-long episodes, and they're all redirects. Why? An extended-length episode is not notable on its own. 
This is not an "opinion" - It's a cold hard fact that this deserves no special treatment. A bunch of fanboys protesting its redirect doesn't mean exceptions should be made. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

iCarly is no excuse for this article to be redirected. I was told by Ktr, the person who adopted me, that "as long as it's noble and cited, the article shouldn't face deletetion". iFight Shelby Marx probly wasn't cited nor noble (noble as in "didn't have much of a production history") while this page does. Thewtfchronicles, You really need to read the notability guidelines. Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 15:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just iCarly, if you paid any attention you'd see it's also SEVERAL other shows, included in my examples were Fairly OddParents and True Jackson VP. It being notable (which it isn't at all, not for its own article) and cited doesn't matter. I could go create an article about some small restaurant or market in a small town somewhere in Idaho, and it could be INCREDIBLY cited, and it would still face deletion because it isn't notable. Neither is this. Truth or Square does NOT warrant its own article. It is an extended episode, other extended episode articles have had redirects as well, this does not warrant an exception. The fact that this has gone on so long is ridiculous. Face the facts. This is not a movie, this is a EXTENDED EPISODE. 
(Apologies if I come off as incivil, this is just getting irritating) Thewtfchronicles (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thewtfchronicles, I really doubt if you're listening to any of us, but I'll give several good reasons this article should stay:
1. It's been promoted "movie" over 10 millon times on TV and internet.
2. It has a video game (Now I would like to ask, did iFight Shelby Marx have a video game?
3. The Movie was made in order to celebrate SpongeBob's 10th aniverssary.
4. There are many articles on Wikipedia that have TV Movies just like this one. E.g. School's Out! The Musical
-Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 16:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay I looked at the iCarly episode. the page was not even made correct to fit the guide lines. I Might fix it if I have time. Like I said there are other episodes that have seperate pages. So I say leave it as it is.Toughdude (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I doubt if any of you give a crap about any of the valid points I'm bringing up because you're not looking past your fandom onto reality.

1. Odd, because I didn't see any ads for it on the internet. They promote the crap out of Har Har Tharsdays on Cartoon Network, so by your logic, that block deserves its own article.
2.  And a video game is relevant how? The video game is notable for its own article, but not the episode it was based off of.
3. Their 10th Anniversary stuff happened back in July.
4. Listen to me. I've said this SEVERAL times, and I'm getting sick of repeating myself: TRUTH OR SQUARE IS NOT A TV MOVIE. IT IS AN EXTENDED. EPISODE. Just like all those ones I gave to you. Nick calls them that for promotional reasons to get higher ratings. The vast majority have redirects, hence why this one should as well, because this is no different than any of those (Abra Catastrophe was actually a TV movie if I recall correctly) In reality - Testing True: Extended episode. 6teen: Dude of the Living Dead: Extended episode. Truth or Square: Extended episode.
Hm. i don't see this as exactly a wonderfully made article- Tiny plot section, Trivia, useless sections, etc.
Neither this nor the extended iCarly episodes deserve their own articles. The majority are redirects. If I don't get any valid reasons why this shouldn't be redirected, I'll figure the talk page is useless now and go redirect it like it should be. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

First off, you aren't sopposed to redirect this page unless anyone agrees with you on the redirect. Secondy, I've looked at your talk page, and it seems you've been redirecting stub pages and other things. Thewtfchronicles, you really need to read the deletion guidlines of Wikipedia before you start all this random redirecting. Like Bovineboy said, We shouldn't compare articles when they're not of the same type. Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 21:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
If consensus is not met here, you might consider either filing a WP:RfC or WP:AfD. It seems doubtful that a consensus will be reached here, and an outside opinion will probably be helpful. Just a suggestion. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It's clear nobody will agree, because they're being too stuck up to look past their fandom onto the facts: This is not a TV movie. It is an extended episode - get that through your head. An extended episode does not warrant its own article. Don't give me a bunch of crap about it being "the tenth anniversary special!!!". 
And they ARE of the same type. They're all extended episodes. Pay attention for once. I'm going to go ahead and redirect, as there's been no good reasons to not. I'm getting oppositions, sure, but it's clear they're fanboys latching onto it and not listening to what I'm trying to tell them. Further reverts will lead to reports. You've given me NO good reasons to not redirect to the List of episodes. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you link to Abra Catastrophe above and claim it's a redirect. This is true. However, what it redirects to is The Fairly OddParents: Abra-Catastrophe! -- a standalone article on the movie. (Granted, when you linked to it, it pointed to the wrong article -- the standalone has been around for a couple of years, though.) So, I'd say this probably has an equally-good claim to its own episode. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Truth or Square is under an hour - Abra-Catastrophe is 90 minutes, therefore would qualify as a TV movie. This getting special treatment is absolutely ridiculous. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I've seen plenty of SpongeBob special episodes with a length of 30 minutes that have articles on their own. (like Pest of the West, WhoBob WhatPants, and To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants) Why should "Truth or Square" not have an article of its very own? It's already been notable because it celebrates the 10th anneversary of SpongeBob SquarePants(which in fact would consist of the enitre year of 2009, actually). Plus, many people support keeping this article, including me.--Ieph (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I also forgot that Atlantis SquarePantis is also 1-hr (an "extended episode" by your standards, Thewtfchronicles) movie that has its own article. You think that since it's an "extended episode", we should redirect this article to the List of SpongeBob Episodes. But many people support keeping this article, which include people like SarekOfVulcan, RowdyTheAnt, Dalekusa, Bovineboy2008, Toughdude, and me. Therefore, this is a good article and it should be kept.
In fact I'll even give you the list on why this article should be kept:
-Many people support keeping this article
-This celebrates SpongeBob's 10th anneversary
-There is a video game for the episode
-It's been called a movie several times
-I've seen articles about other TV movies and SpongeBob "extended episodes" and other TV specials
So it's basically pointless to continue saying that Truth or Square should be redirected, as there many reasons not to. So the best chance is to just give up the fight and support this article. Because for me, my opinion is that we so have to keep this.--Ieph (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to make sure, I'm about to open an official RfC on this issue. Dalekusa (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As requested by me and enacted by Beeblebrox, This page has been fully protected for a period of 3 days due to the recent edit war. Dalekusa (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean the redirect edit war? o_0 Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 01:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Dalekusa (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
You could have extended the period of protection until 21 December, 2009 or until the edit warfare ends.--Ieph (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

First off, I'm not a sysop. I used Twinkle to request the protection. Second, The two editor in the war have been blocked for 31 hrs. from last night. Dalekusa (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This special is indeed notable for its own WP article. See, for instance:

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/200911101516PR_NEWS_USPR_____NY08921.htm
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-200911031303mctnewsservbc-tv-spongebob-preview,0,280785.story
--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. It getting large ratings and a Chicago newspaper writing about an episode don't warrant notability. I'm getting sick of repeating myself. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Spongebob sings "O Krabby Patty" a spoof of "O Christmas Tree"  if we list Pinks song about scurvy why not Spongbob's?--Cooly123 00:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)  

I have concerns that this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically, WP:PLOT, WP:EPISODE, and WP:NF. Wikipedia's guidelines state that:

Wikipedia articles should not be plot-only description of fictional works. (WP:PLOT)
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources — this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate. (WP:EPISODE and WP:NF) This excludes:
Media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film. (WP:NF)
Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database. (WP:NF)
This article currently fails at establishing notability with these guidelines. Please improve the article so it meets these guidelines; if they do not meet the guidelines, the article might be merged or deleted should it comes up for a review. Thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Check out my sandbox, I'm improment of the artcle right now. I'm like 30% done with it. If anyone would like to help, just head over to my sandbox and start digging! :D Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 22:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The question over the notability of this article has led me to create this RfC to confirm the consensus. Here are the different sides:

User:Thewtfchronicles thinks that this is an, and I quote, "extended episode" (end quote), and shouldn't have its own article.
I think that, as it is the 10th anniversary special, should be kept.
Again, just to make sure, who is right? Dalekusa (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it should be kept or not, but it doesn't matter what it is, only what kind of sources exist for it.  There are probably a number of Spongebob episodes that are notable, and could have their own articles.  This may or may not be one of them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thewtfchronicles was indef-blocked for block evasion, so he no longer gets a vote on this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
IMO whether it's an extended episode or whatever is totally irrelevant, the only thing that matters is whether or not it has enough reviews etc. to sustain an article (WP:N). Currently there's nothing but viewing figures (nice, but not enough on their own) and a random Joe-generated number from a website, which is no more reliable or relevant than a random WP user's own review. It's been released on DVD, are there no other reviews? Someoneanother 16:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of the plot description seems like it was written by a young child.  The grammar is poor, and one sentence has over ten commas, and is multiple rows long.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.222.67 (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:SpongeBob's Truth or Square/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 01:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so I'll bite at this one. Before I read through, I'll note that there was a Burger King kids toy series for this special.  --  Zanimum (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Zanimum for once again taking time to review an article that I'd nominated. I'll look for some sources on this BK toy series. I saw that before. Thanks! :) Mediran (t • c) 12:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay.
Production

"it's so great on its own way", is this "in its own way"? Currently, the grammar isn't there.
 Fixed
"Brown Johnson laud" --> lauded,
 Fixed
Release:

I'm really not crazy about the use of Amazon for a reference. That said, I can't find any press releases at the time, so...
Now what? There are no available online sources or press releases that are about this matter. Is Amazon acceptable?
Well, the Fast Food Toys website seems to be the only option, even though it's a sales page, so technically it's just the same as Amazon.
There are these:
http://irrelevanttomfoolery.blogspot.ca/2009/10/spongebob-truth-or-square-at-burger.html
http://www.superpunch.net/2009/10/new-spongebob-toys-from-burger-king.html
 Added I've also omitted the previous sources.
The Great Escape!: Why can't the GoodReads reference work for both sentences? You never should use sales webpages (SamsClub, Amazon) as references. Similarly, try and change up the Good Times! references. WorldCat might be of help, it's a good non-commercial book site.
 Done I've removed the Amazon and samsclub refs. I've also added links to WorldCat.
Ref 42, re: Wii isn't properly formatted.
 Done? I actually don't know what I should do. I just added the publisher at the ref.
Yes, that's it. All of its neighbours had IGN mentioned, it didn't.
That link doesn't mention that the book is based on Truth. Is there any website that does?

Changed to "tie-in" as one source said "Celebrate SpongeBob's 10th Anniversary with this special 8 x 8 tie-in to the television movie event.."
Reception: Pretty much everything's clean here. I'd suggest using the quote= feature of the reference tag to excerpt the source, for ref 20, since Brown Johnson doesn't actually mention the production by name.

 Done
Okay, everything seems to check out now, so pass!  --  Zanimum (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Zanimum for the pass! Cheers! :D Mediran (t • c) 10:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect SpongeBob's Truth or Square (flim). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)