Talk:Stephen Hillenburg/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Recent edits

In this edit, Phil A. Fry added a whole lot of text that was straight copy/pasted from the Spongebob article. I've removed it for a number of reasons, mostly due to it somewhat being a replication of what was here before (e.g. search for the word 'Wormholes'), and also because it's off topic. What does one deleted scene from a Spongebob episode have to do with Hillenburg at all? I don't mind copying over some of the text, but a great deal more care could have been used to merge it with this article rather than just a quick copy-paste. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Other names

The other_names section of the {{Infobox actor}} template is not for typos. It is for other notable names for a person. Typos are trivial and generally don't belong here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Stephen Hillenburg

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Stephen Hillenburg's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "OralHistory":

  • From SpongeBob SquarePants (season 5): Pittenger, Kenny (September 21, 2013). "The Oral History of SpongeBob SquarePants". Hogan's Alley#17. Bull Moose Publishing Corporation. Retrieved September 23, 2013.
  • From The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie: Heintjes, Tom (September 21, 2012). "The Oral History of SpongeBob SquarePants". Hogan's Alley. Retrieved August 23, 2013.
  • From Rock Bottom (SpongeBob SquarePants): Heintjes, Tom (September 21, 2012). "The Oral History of SpongeBob SquarePants". Hogan's Alley. Retrieved September 1, 2013.
  • From Pest of the West: Heintjes, Tom (September 21, 2013). "The Oral History of SpongeBob SquarePants". Hogan's Alley #17. Bull Moose Publishing Corporation. Retrieved September 23, 2013.
  • From Graveyard Shift (SpongeBob SquarePants): Heintjes, Tom (September 21, 2012). "The Oral History of SpongeBob SquarePants". Hogan's Alley. Retrieved September 1, 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Stephen Hillenburg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 19:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

A long, well-cited article, will take me some time to complete the review. Please be patient.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Regarding a: Here are the issues I see with the prose/grammar. Lead: 2015 sequel - need to be clear it's a sequel to the film. Drop the "the" in front of Heal the Bay. Early life, education and career: August 21, 1961 - needs a comma after 1961 (per MOS:DATEFORMAT). I'd get rid of his little brother becoming a draftsman, does not seem to have any relevance to Hillenburg, and therefore is simple trivia. Third paragraph: he held various jobs — when? Not necessarily specific years, but like "after graduating college". Last paragraph, I'd get rid of "pursue his dream", just say he became an animator, and was it really a return to the arts? He never worked in the arts before. Rocko's Modern Life - the line "saw The Intertidal zone is awkward, "saw" should be changed to "read" or something like that. You don't "see" a comic book (I mean, you do, but that's not how you experience it, know what I mean?). Also, the Kenny quote at the end is awkward there. Seems misplaced. Not sure how to fix it, other than to simply delete it. SpongeBob SquarePants - There seems to be an extra period after the ! in Spongeboy Ahoy! In the 3rd paragraph, there's an awkwardness in two back to back sentences which deal with 2.2 million. In the first, it talks about an overall audience of 2.2 million, of which 40% are adults, and in the second it talks about 2.2 million children. It's a tad confusing. And then at the end of the paragraph it talks about 40% of the audience being adult again, which is redundant. In the 4th paragraph, I think the released in 2004 should be a simple clause, rather than a parenthetical expression. The sentence about Tibbet voicing the character needs to be re-worked, it's a bit awkward. At the end of the 5th paragraph, a "the" is needed before the name of the foundation. The final sentence of the section is unclear. Never knew he left SpongeBob... does it mean to the series? Other pursuits - second sentence - do they no longer fund the Humboldt lab? 3rd sentence, should read "based on the cartoon", as it is now is a bit redundant. 3rd sentence - first time he authored his own book? What about The Intertidal Zone? Final sentence of the first paragraph - met with... ...to contribute - doesn't flow right. They met with the writers and asked them to contribute, to get them to contribute? 2nd paragraph: animated and painted are in the wrong tense, he's still working on it... or else the rest of the paragraph is in the wrong tense. Also, drop the "by" before "himself". Also not sure why "people walking" is in quotes. The last two sentences, and how they incorporate the quotes, are rather awkward and need reworking. Personal life - To me this is the weakest section. It starts off with two very short sections, followed by an awkwardly constructed sentence. The seascape sentence is also awkward ("something happened" - "something personal"); also not sure the trivia about his fandom is appropriate in a "good quality" article. The last paragraph in this section is also awkward, it uses Hillenburg way too often. Don't say previous work, tell us what previous work. Lawsuit - first sentence, ending is awkward: stole his ideas from his 1991... perhaps it could read: "stole the idea for SpongeBob from Walker's 1991 comic strip, ..." (but if you do that, you should drop the SpongeBob reference in the next sentence). 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, get rid of the had before demanded, then get rid of the and after the , and simply say alleging. That sentence should be combined with the next short sentence, starting with "and saying they...". Awards - end of first paragraph needs to be reworked, "winning six times, as well as winning two BAFTA Children's Awards, out of four nominations. Regarding b: The lead does not mirror the article - no discussion of his personal life and lawsuit. Some of the details regarding his family could be excised from the lead, as they probably don't belong there, but absolutely keep in the body of the article. The layout is fine. In Lists, the filmography is well formatted, but do we know the year of Hollywood Blvd., USA? That should be in there. imdb has it listed as 2014, if there is no better source, use that.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Contains a reference section (although #55 is bolded and italicized for some reason), with no original research and no copyright violations. However, there's an unreliable reference in the lawsuit section which needs to be addressed. There's also #54, which is a twitter post, would like to see a better source that he's given writer credit.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Contains sections on the different major aspects of his life, and is focused within those categories.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No POV issues.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    While there has been healthy discussion on some issues, none devolved into an edit war.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All but one of the images has the appropriate CC license. The only fair use image has an appropriate rationale.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    <-- people are weird -->

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stephen Hillenburg/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

5 images, 71 citations, not close to GA, references improperly formatted. JJ98 (Talk) 02:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 07:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Stephen Hillenburg/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 13:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

You've been waiting on this one for a while, huh?

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Lead
    • no concern
    Early life
    • no concern
    Early career
    • no concern
    Animation career
    • no concern
    Personal life
    • no concern
    Filmography
    • no concern
    Awards
    • no concern
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    no concern
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    no concern
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    no concern
    C. It contains no original research:
    no concern
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig turns up a strong result, but this poorly written document was uploaded in April 2015 and appears to have plagiarized from this article. The other strong result was an interview with common phrases and attributed quotes.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    no concern
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    no concern
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    no concern
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    There was a dispute over infobox content back in early April that was never discussed on the talk page, but the initiating editor was banned April 7 and there has been no further issue.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    no concern
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    no concern
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    There's an excessive amount of wikilinks to pages that won't really help readers - two standout examples are a link to Drawing in Early Works and Television program creators in Rocko's Modern Life. They won't prevent a GA pass, but I encourage you to review MOS:OVERLINK and edit accordingly. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, @Argento Surfer:, for reviewing this article and promoting it to GA status — Mediran [talk] 02:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stephen Hillenburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested edit: He was never a marine biologist

Hillenburg has only a bachelor's degree in "natural-resource planning and interpretation, with an emphasis on marine resources", and worked in marine science education. As far as I can see, he never did research in the field of marine biology, never was an author on a peer-reviewed paper in the field, etc. He was a science educator, not a marine biologist, and this article should reflect that. I do not have an account and cannot edit this protected page, so request that a registered user make the correction. 73.32.38.72 (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've changed the description here to read "former marine biology teacher", but if anyone has any objections, they might revert and hopefully you can discuss the matter with them here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! 73.32.38.72 (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2018

Remove the awful and disgusting photo currently on there. 148.88.244.42 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Offending user has also been permenently blocked. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 19:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In the first paragraph, change "which he also directed, produced, and written." to "which he also directed, produced, and wrote."

Duplicate request. See below. RudolfRed (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2018

Please change "He was the creator of the Nickelodeon television series SpongeBob SquarePants (1999-2018), which he also directed, produced, and written" to "He was the creator of the Nickelodeon television series SpongeBob SquarePants (1999-2018), which he also directed, produced, and wrote" because the latter is grammatically correct. 143.195.111.113 (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing it out. RudolfRed (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2018

His photo is currently a picture of a penis, please change it back 38.103.38.200 (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It has been resolved and the offending editor blocked. StrikerforceTalk 19:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-Protected edit request on 27 November 2018

He died on the 27th of November, not the 26th. Please correct that on the page. Dankmemeslol (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Why was the intro changed to list him as a marine biologist?

This was dealt with over a month ago:

Hillenburg has only a bachelor's degree in "natural-resource planning and interpretation, with an emphasis on marine resources", and worked in marine science education. As far as I can see, he never did research in the field of marine biology, never was an author on a peer-reviewed paper in the field, etc. He was a science educator, not a marine biologist, and this article should reflect that. I do not have an account and cannot edit this protected page, so request that a registered user make the correction. 73.32.38.72 (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've changed the description here to read "former marine biology teacher", but if anyone has any objections, they might revert and hopefully you can discuss the matter with them here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! 73.32.38.72 (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


Why was this change reverted? I can't see the reference that was posted because it is behind a paywall, but if it says that he was a marine biologist, it is wrong. Hillenburg has only a bachelor's degree in "natural-resource planning and interpretation, with an emphasis on marine resources", and worked in marine science education. As far as I can see, he never did research in the field of marine biology, never was an author on a peer-reviewed paper in the field, etc. He was a science educator, not a marine biologist. When the facts clearly indicate that a source is wrong, WP:COMMON applies here. Also, there are sources that list him as a marine biology teacher, not a marine biologist:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/obituaries/stephen-hillenburg-spongebob-squarepants-creator-dies-at-57.html

Since this issue had been discussed on the Talk page only a month before it was changed back to "marine biologist", it would have been really nice if it had been discussed there before being reverted back. Spitzberg80 (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Longest-running?

 Not done: please first establish consensus. I'd say it's on the list, so it counts, but if consensus says otherwise reactivate the template and myself or another editor will implement the change. ProgrammingGeek talktome 04:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC

  1. Is it appropriate to describe Spongebob Squarepants as "one of the longest-running American television series",
  2. Is this description appropriate for the lede section of this BLP?
  3. Should it be repeated somewhere in the body?
  4. Should it replace the prose which describes it instead as "longest-running series on Nickelodeon"?
  5. At 19 years in production, "Spongebob" is #213 out of approximately 400 "longest-running American television series" according to the list article, which includes every series that has lasted at least ten years on air.
  6. A germane question to ask is whether Smallville would also qualify for this description: it is in the article, dead last.
  7. Proposal: describe "Spongebob" as "the longest-running series on Nickelodeon" which matches what is said in the article body, and allows us to conform to WP:LEDE, which says it is a summary of the article - we can't just make up fake exciting stuff to impress people. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm removing the RFC tag; it's not necessary and there's enough other editing. The lead now says "fifth longest-running American animated series", which appears accurate. I agree that at <20 years it's not "one of the longest-running American television series". power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

notable_works

@SNUGGUMS: firstly, "notable_works" is a standard parameter for {{Infobox person}}. It is not POV; in fact "notable" is a standard term throughout Wikipedia for works which enjoy substantial coverage in WP:RS.

  • If you dislike it being called "notable" then you can follow the documentation: "| notable_works = <!-- produces label "Notable work"; may be overridden by |credits=, which produces label "Notable credit(s)"; or by |works=, which produces label "Works"; or by |label_name=, which produces label "Label(s)" -->
  • Also, surely you cannot be serious in asserting that "Spongebob" is not an order of magnitude more memorable than Hillenburg's other work, whatever that might be - I have no idea what else he did, and I barely know anything about "Spongebob". If there were ever a candidate for one single work to identify this creator, this would be it. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:EDITORIALIZING would beg to differ and says we should avoid using terms like that in order to maintain an impartial tone. Calling it "standard" is definitely a stretch. Not an appropriate term to have within infoboxes or article prose as it's a personal opinion. I also didn't like how solely listing one item in such a parameter incorrectly implied that nothing else he did was important to his career when he also was known for marine biology endeavors and working on the series Rocko's Modern Life. Furthermore, it's better to discuss one's works within article prose in the first place rather than overfill an infobox. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

in the first section of the article it mentions controversies surrounding spongebob's sexuality. This is not relevant biographical information for the beginning of the article, is never properly cited and doesn't come up again. Bmountfo (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done, although it may have relevance elsewhere in the article, if properly expanded. You are correct, though, that it doesn't seem appropriate for a lede. StrikerforceTalk 14:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone put innapropriate picture on article

Right when I enter I see a nake picture please remove. BrendanEicher (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, some vandal has been trying their best to put a giant picture of a penis on the page for quite a while now. It will be over when an admin protects the page, since now their account is indeffed. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants section strays from topic

I think the section Stephen_Hillenburg#SpongeBob_SquarePants is overblown, strays too far from a biography, and has relatively trivial content better discussed at the article for the cartoon itself. It should be judiciously condensed. Particularly, the "Broadcast" and "Controversy" subsections seem particularly tacked on and extraneous: the fact that they are padded with quotes from Hillenburg does not make them any more essential to his biography. Thoughts? --Animalparty! (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

I would like to edit the Spongebob TV Show line to say "1999-his death 2018". 173.18.38.180 (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It's unclear exactly which part you are asking us to change. If you could be more specific, that would be helpful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Should the upcoming Super Bowl performance be added to the article?

Either its own section or it could be added to his legacy section or something. If you guys don't know what I am talking about, there is an episode of the show that is one of the more popular ones and in it Squidward assembles a band with all the recurring characters in the show and they get booked to play in the "Bubble Bowl" which is their version of the Super Bowl and for their performance they sing a song called Sweet Victory.

Anyway, with the creators death a couple months ago, people started petitions to get the NFL to play this song during the halftime show. Eventually from there, it spread in popularity and people even got in touch with actors who worked on the show as well as Maroon 5 and convinced them to do the song. Since then, the guy who does the voice of Patrick has confirmed on his Twitter or Facebook that there will be a SpongeBob appearance in halftime, Maroon 5 hinted at it on their Instagram page, and reporters at the Mercedes Benz stadium have confirmed they've seen and heard the song playing and the band rehearsing it along with providing photo/video footage as proof.

Anyway, the Super Bowl is in just 1 day now so we don't need to post all the speculation because we will be able to see if they did indeed do this SpongeBob performance or not but I do think this should be added to the article once the show has taken place. TheSameGuy (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You should add the NHL Dallas Stars Halftime Show Save 

The Mysterious Man 42 (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Why was the intro changed to list him as a marine biologist?

This was dealt with back in October 2018:

Hillenburg has only a bachelor's degree in "natural-resource planning and interpretation, with an emphasis on marine resources", and worked in marine science education. As far as I can see, he never did research in the field of marine biology, never was an author on a peer-reviewed paper in the field, etc. He was a science educator, not a marine biologist, and this article should reflect that. I do not have an account and cannot edit this protected page, so request that a registered user make the correction. 73.32.38.72 (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've changed the description here to read "former marine biology teacher", but if anyone has any objections, they might revert and hopefully you can discuss the matter with them here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! 73.32.38.72 (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


Why was this change reverted? I can't see the reference that was posted because it is behind a paywall, but if it says that he was a marine biologist, it is wrong. Hillenburg has only a bachelor's degree in "natural-resource planning and interpretation, with an emphasis on marine resources", and worked in marine science education. As far as I can see, he never did research in the field of marine biology, never was an author on a peer-reviewed paper in the field, etc. He was a science educator, not a marine biologist. When the facts clearly indicate that a source is wrong, WP:COMMON applies here. Also, there are sources that list him as a marine biology teacher, not a marine biologist:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/obituaries/stephen-hillenburg-spongebob-squarepants-creator-dies-at-57.html

Since this issue had been discussed on the Talk page only a month before it was changed back to "marine biologist", it would have been really nice if it had been discussed there before being reverted back. Spitzberg80 (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Corrected. 73.32.38.72 (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Hillenburg/Archive_1&oldid=1217007654"