Talk:Pat Evans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EastEnders Portal

This article is part of WikiProject EastEnders, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the popular BBC soap opera EastEnders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at this page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Complaint

It's not real! Pages like this make Wikipedia look like a joke. Can you imagine a real encyclopedia giving this much space to soap opera characters? 82.25.23.38 22:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Can anyone see the picture of Pat played by Emma Cooke? It doesn;t show up on my computer - is it just me? Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 15:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see it on my pc edit: I can only see the new one, the first u uploaded is a red block for some reason. Gungadin 17:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
No problems here. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Possible future name change...

Apparently according to a clause in Frank's will, she'll be changing her name back to Butcher - will this pose a problem with redirects etc. if we have to move the page? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

God, really? only just got used to calling her Pat Evans after all theis time. Shouldnt be a problem should it? so long as Pat Evans redirects to Pat Butcher.Gungadin 00:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Whereas I've known her as Pat Evans for as long as I can remember, seeing as she's been an Evans since I was six... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah bless, I forget your age sometimes :) Gungadin 00:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not that much younger than you... I don't think... I thought you were only a couple of years older than me... I thought AP was the pensioner! lol... He's still missing... I've sent him an offline message on MSN, but no reply yet... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 01:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll be 24 this year, getting old! but i've decided that i'm rounding down to the nearest 5, so that makes me 20!!! So in that case, i'm only a couple of years older than you :) Hopefully AP has just gone on his Hols. It's weird on wiki when people go missing, like when you went awol for ages, you get used to seeing people around even though you dont know them personally. And if they never come back, you never get to know the reasons why, which is kinda sad :( Gungadin 01:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
At least I let you lot know where I was - I moved house and didn't have the internet for 6 months, but I was still coming on at work! I really hope AP's ok... And 23?! I thought you were like 18/19! We'll just call it 20 ;) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 01:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Wicks - backstory

Regarding Pat's backstory, there is a lot of conflicting info about David etc. They've changed the story around so much that it's difficult to know what we should put here.

To recap, when Pat first arrived, it was claimed that Pete married Pat because she was pregnant. She wasnt, and Lou thought Pat lied on purpose to trap Pete. This was confirmed on-screen by an argument between Lou and Pat, possibly their first scene together. As you see from Pete's original character outline, Pete was supposed to believe that he was the father of two sons, one 19 and the other 20. Therefore we can assume that as Simon was supposedly born in 1965, David was supposedly born in 1964 (after Pat and Pete were married). One early mention of David was in April 1988, when Pat and Pete discuss how it's their eldest son David's birthday and how they neglect him and dont know where he is etc. So they establish David as Pete's here.

But from here on it gets complicated.

The infobox in this article is saying Pat married Pete in 1961. This is wrong, she supposedly married Pete when he was 18, which would be 1963. Various books say that too, as well as Pat's official profile [1].

This would have all correlated, if they hadn't of altered David's birthday. Instead of 1964, they last claimed that David was born in 1962, before Pat and Pete supposedly married. Therefore, Pat's false pregancy leading to her marriage to Pete, must have happened after the birth of David, and not before it. This has subsequently been explained in Hilary Kingsley's book (1990) published before David first appeared, where it says that Pat already had one bastard son when she married Pete (because she claimed to be pregnant and she wasnt). At that time they obviously intended for David not to be Pete's.

However, now they are saying that Pete married Pat because she was pregant with his child, but instead of it being a false alarm, the baby is now David."They wed in 1963 after Pat revealed that she was pregnant with his child (David)" This would have worked if David was born in 1964 like they originally suggested, but they seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that Pat had already given birth to David in 1962, a year prior to her supposed marriage to Pete, so it was hardly a shotgun wedding like they claim. They are also ignoring the on-screen mentions about a false pregnancy.

What I want to know is, what version of Pat's history should we put in this article? Gungadin 14:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Trampikey, seeing as it's only u who is likely to answer, can you let me know what you think please? Gungadin 23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose they altered David's brithday so he could be Bianca's dad, so it's probably just a case of SORAS so that David could have conveniently known Carol and got her pregnant - that's my two cents anyway - is that a good enough answer? If not, let me know and I'll have a proper think :) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Good thinking about SORAS, but what do you think we should say in Pat's article? Gungadin 23:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] S