Talk:Patrick Star/Archive 2

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

Peer Review[edit]

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, AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message) 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Article has no birthdate. —Preceding LM1998 comment added by LM1998 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Patrick's birthdate has never been mentioned in the show, and you can't just put one in. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed on spongepedia.user:SBLM1998 —Preceding comment was added at 22:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, but how do we know you didn't add it? There has to be a reliable source (i.e. SpongeBob's driver's licence shows his DOB, and that is acceptable). NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SBLMLM1998''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by LM1998 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arachniphobia?[edit]

Is it possible that Patrick has arachniphobia? In the episode entitled "Home Sweet Pineapple", he apparently has a dream where spiders are crawling around everywhere, and yells "SPIDERS! SPIDERS!" like he would die if didn't kill them. After that, he smashes his rock on what he thinks are spiders (it's actually Spongebob). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.224.109.21 (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That’s just straight up Original Research. GenZenny💖 (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that's a 15-year-old post... Meters (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Star? What is a Sea Star?[edit]

Is a sea star the name of a star fish in some foreign country? The show is made in America so I think we should change all references to Sea Star to "Starfish" since that is what Patrick is. Also it is stated he sleeps attached to the roof of a rock just like sea stars. What? Starfish lay flat on the bottom of the ocean. It should be pointed out that sleeping under a rock attached to the bottom of it is unusual and not the normal for a starfish. At least point out that how Patrick sleeps is not normal behavior for a starfish. It may be normal for a sea star but Patrick isn't one. MBCF 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think seastar is the "official" name used by scientists to describe starfish, but I agree that we should use starfish, since this is an article about a tv show character and should use a normal term.

Wow so nice :3 KindYeah (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

parents[edit]

i believe the on the main page, it says Partick Star's parents are margie and herb, which is wrong. in one episode, partick believes them to be his parents, but in fact they were not, they were stupid and relized they did not have childern. i do not know the exact names of the parents or the episode this took place in. yet i could be wrong and the picture on the main page is wrong. b/c the picture is the wrong one.

70.158.29.46 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC) ♠[reply]

You are correct, they just showed up to his house. His real parents came later. Ootmc Signme!Talktome

You are both incorrect. The names of Patrick's parents are revealed in another episode. Near the end of the episode you're talking about, the names of the people whom Patrick mistakes for his parents are "Janet" and "Marty." JEM 18:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Family?[edit]

Where'd the whole family tree come from? How is Patrick related to Gary? Where did it come from? Ootmc Signme!Talktome 22:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Episode when Patrick became the king of Bikini Bottom. Until Gary is reveiled to be the real heir.


RETARDED or SLOW MINDED[edit]

I have 2 conclusions of Patrick:

1.Mental Retardation 2.Slow Minded

If Patrick IS retarded he would always be like "duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhh..." and be a drooling dick head... WAIT, HE IS/DOES LIKE/LOOK THAT. I need support. Mannyjr95 19:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Live at El Paso = Genius[reply]

Like the article says, it depends on the episode. Sometimes he's smart enough to think for himself, and sometimes (like that episode where he tried to build a stable for that seahorse) he can barely function. Ma-Mutt 20:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein?[edit]

Why was his name was written who portrayed Patrick Star instead Bill Fagerbakke? Camille32 7:00 p.m., 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be spam. I reverted it. Feats-O-Strength 11:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality[edit]

The sexual orientation of the characters on Spongebob have not been confirmed on the show itself, nor by the authors of the show. There needs to be a citation for the statement, or it should go in a controversy section.Mgandhi2 17:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Stephen Hillenburg said no one on the show is gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.219.182 (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star, or Starr?[edit]

I could swear I saw his last name spelled "Starr" (like Kenneth Starr) somewhere. How positive is everyone that it's "S-T-A-R"? ~ Joseph Collins (U)(T)(C) 17:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat's ID was shown in Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy III. It was close enough to show his signature, which clearly read "Patrick Star". NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 18:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing[edit]

How come the Nascar dude won't let me edit anything in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pediagoof (talk • contribs) 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not preventing you from editing the article. Saying "Patrick is a goofball" is against Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, so I reverted it. So far, that's the only edit of yours that I've reverted (I think), so I'm not affecting your ability to edit the article in any way. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 20:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


And I don't get why I can't post about Wumbology. It is a very big deal. And it does help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.195.230 (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because the quote seemed to come out of nowhere and appeared to be randomly placed in the article. Also, I didn't feel it had any need to be anywhere in the article. If you can give an explanation of why its a "very big deal", why it helps, and thoughtfully place it in the article in a context where it would make sense, then I would probably be fine with such an edit of yours.--Racerx11 (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

This article should be merged and redirected if better sources aren't found. The sources indicate notability of the TV show but not individual notability of Patrick Star. I've had a good hunt around for sources and info, but there's not really anything that would help this article meet the Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Can anyone provide such sources? Bill (talk|contribs) 11:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, a significant number of people prefer to leave the notability tag up for a few months before accepting that nonnotable characters are nonnotable. I agree that this article should be redirected to the character list, but the best I would achieve is to participate in edit-warring. Since letting time work against keeping nonnotable articles around is successful 95 percent of the time, I am confident it will work here as well. – sgeureka t•c 11:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. I think the character should have his own article. Dil Pickles from Rugrats does. And Rugrats is NOT more important of a show than SpongeBob SquarePants. Marcus2 (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albeit[edit]

I think that the word "albeit" is very overused in this article, does anyone else think this too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.30.59 (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: ThatKongregateGuy (talk · contribs) 15:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This reviewer has been indefinitely blocked. I have placed this article back into its same place in the queue. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 09:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reviewing this now. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Infobox[edit]

  • Non-free use rationale is fine.
  • |alt parameters aren't required by GA criteria, but I think it would nice to include it anyway (e.g. |alt=A smiling pink starfish wearing green trunks).
    • Done.
  • Template:Infobox character says "Any significant relationships that are essential to understanding the character" should be included in the "relationships" parameters, which I assume includes |relatives. I'm not sure any of the relatives listed in the infobox are essential to understanding Patrick; I suppose one could make a case for Herb and Margie, but the others all seem to be collections of trivia (or fancruft, to put it harshly) from various episodes. In my opinion, the only important relationship to understanding Patrick is his relationship with Spongebob, and maybe Squidward. If they don't get a place in the infobox, neither should Patar. Possibly, these characters could be mentioned in the "Role in Spongebob Squarepants" or "Reception" section if they've got significant coverage anywhere.
    • It seems that the relationships parameter is not working. I've tried to add it but it didn't appear.
      • There are custom parameters for the infobox (e.g. |lbl21 and |data21), which could be used to put a "Friends" heading and "SpongeBob" in there, but I'm not sure it should. Either way, I still don't think that Patrick's relatives should be listed there.
        • Okay, removed relatives as they are somewhat trivial.

Role in Spongebob Squarepants[edit]

  • "Squidward [has] no patience for Patrick's stupidity, and [does] not pay him much regard." — I disagree with the second half of the sentence. Patrick's behaviour constantly irritates Squidward, who is often forced to confront him and attempt to fix problems he has caused; this, to me, does not fit the concept of not paying someone much regard. It seems to me like an accurate description for Mr. Krabs, but not for Squidward.
  • He holds no form of occupation except for several very brief stints... — There are two episodes sourced for this. "Several", to me, indicates at least four or five. If there are more episodes where he has held these positions (which strikes me as reasonably likely), they need to be mentioned here as well (you could perhaps include a bullet pointed list of every relevant episode inside a reference, to save space).
    • Done

Creation and design[edit]

  • Reference #24 ([1]) says that production of Rocko's Modern Life ended in 1996.
    • Yes, it does.
      • Okay, but my point was that "Rocko's Modern Life ended in 1996" sounds (to me) like it's talking about the last airing of the series, rather than production. Just adding "Production of" to the start of the sentence would fix this.
        • Fixed
  • "Described by the show creator..." — It strikes me as slightly odd to describe Hillenburg as "the show creator" when he has already been mentioned by name in the same paragraph. I think "Described by Hillenburg", although a bit repetitive, is best. I would also tag the word "later" onto the start of the sentence, because the quote seems to come from 2003 but in context, the quote might appear to be from some initial designing stages.
    • Done.
  • "starfish look "dumb and slow", but in reality, they are "very active and aggressive", like Patrick." — I know this includes sourced quotes, but I think it still sounds like an opinion. Maybe try adding "according to Hillenburg" before/after.
    • Done.
  • After the above two changes, you might want to shuffle around a few clauses or replace "Hillenburg" with "he" somewhere; this is how I would phrase the whole thing: For the show's characters, Hillenburg started to draw and used character designs from his comic book——including starfish, crab, and sponge.[16] He described Patrick as "probably the dumbest guy in town".[25] Patrick was conceived as a starfish to embody the animal's nature: according to Hillenburg, starfish look "dumb and slow", but they are "very active and aggressive" in reality, like Patrick.[26]
    • Done
  • I think in the quote "They're whipping themselves up into situations...", it would be better to use the original "they" and "themselves"; "he" just sounds odd when you've used the phrase "along with SpongeBob".
    • Fixed
  • "Every main character in the show has its own unique footstep sound." — This seems like an abrupt change from discussing Patrick's tantrums; I think a new paragraph starting here is necessary.
    • Fixed.
  • I think File:Patrick Star by Stephen Hillenburg (bible).jpg can just about qualify as fair use, but I'd like to improve the caption. What year is this picture from? Are there any sources or interviews with Hillenburg which say how Patrick changed since the early designs, or even that he has remained essentially the same? Is there any way we can include more "critical commentary on the work in question".
    • I can't seem to find sources that detail that.
  • ...writing its pilot episode in 1997... — I think "its" should be outside the link.
    • Fixed
  • I don't think reference #33 ([2]) is relevant; the following reference ([3]) covers the fact that Fagerbakke played Dauber on Coach and also shows that the nickname "AquaDauber" was a reference to that.
    • Fixed
  • The cast members record as a whole cast, which Fagerbakke describes, "It works so much better." — The grammar here doesn't quite make sense.
    • Fixed?

I'll carry on with the review soon. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

  • "Critical reception for the character from both professionals and fans has been positive." — The section does not discuss positive reception from fans, or provide a source for that claim.
    • Will the information on the character's win at the Kids' Choice Awards do?
      • Ah, that's a good point. Yes, I think that's good enough.
  • "The episodes included [sic] are hilarious..." — I could be missing something obvious, but what's the point of the "[sic]" here?
    • Fixed.
  • "She cited her favorite scene from the episode where..." — It took me a few seconds before I understood what this meant; a comma before "where" would have helped.
    • Fixed
  • As with the pilot episode, I don't think "its" should be included in the link to 2014 Kids' Choice Awards (its 2014 ceremony).
    • Fixed
  • "a recent article that pointed up the show's popularity" — surely this should be "pointed out".
    • Fixed
  • Hillenburg responded about the SpongeBob's sexual orientation, saying SpongeBob is "[a] cheerful character [but] is not gay." — This seems like it would fit in SpongeBob SquarePants (character), but not here.
    • Fixed
  • "...was criticized by a Christian evangelical group in the United States..." — Is this Christian evangelical group Focus on the Family? If so, this needs to be mentioned and linked.
    • Done.
  • SpongeBob SquarePants (character) says "Dobson later stated that his comments were taken out of context and that his original complaints were not with SpongeBob or any of the characters in the video but with the organization that sponsored the video, the We Are Family Foundation. Dobson noted that the foundation had posted pro-homosexual material on its website, but later removed it.[53]" This seems to be relevant in this article, too.
    • Done
  • "Criticism and controversy" seems like a bit of a vague, euphemistic or even weasel-ish section heading; would something more descriptive, like "Sexuality" or "Alleged homosexuality", be better?
    • I don't know; it's fine to me.
      • Fair enough; we'll stick with that, then.
  • This isn't required by GA criteria, but [4] is a dead link; an archive link to [5] would be nice.
    • The link is not dead.
      • How odd. It does work for me now but I'm sure it didn't before.

In other media[edit]

  • I fail to see how a search result (ref #55; bullet point 1) is a valid source. Either some official list of SpongeBob merchandise including Patrick or an individual bullet point for each piece of merchandise mentioned (key chain, plush toy etc.) is needed.
    • I know. Fixed it.
  • How does The Sponge Who Could Fly fall under the category "other media"? That information belongs somewhere under "Critical response". Also, the paragraph describes the episode as "the musical" twice, which I think is slightly misleading for readers skimming through; use "the episode", "the musical episode" or something similar. And the passage "win the biggest costume contest.".[60][60] includes both two periods and two of the same reference; remove one of each.
    • It's the 2009 musical adaptation of "The Sponge Who Could Fly", not the episode. Fixed ref dups.
  • Why are andPOP, BiteTV, Mashable and Smosh reliable sources? Funny or Die definitely isn't one, as it says ([6]) "Funny Or Die is a comedy video website that combines user-generated content with original, exclusive content." (emphasis added)
    • I think BiteTV, Mashable and Smosh are passable. What do you think?
      • BiteTV is good enough and Mashable is just about okay. I'm not sure about the Smosh article; I think it might be just about good enough.
        • Right. Removed andpop and funnyordie.

Lead[edit]

  • I think fictional character is a bit of an excessive link.
    • Why?
      • [From WP:OVERLINK:] "the following are not usually linked: everyday words understood by most readers in context..." I suppose it's relevant enough to the context of the article; leave it in if you want.
        • Haha. Yes, you're right. Removed link.
  • "his lack of common sense ... sometimes makes him a negative influence on ... SpongeBob" — This "negative influence" implication isn't mentioned under "Role on SpongeBob SquarePants"; the closest bit to this is "[he] spends his time ... clowning around with SpongeBob". I think the fact he eggs SpongeBob on, or is a bad influence, or clouds SpongeBob's judgement needs to be mentioned there, too.
  • "Patrick is unemployed, but on some occasions he can be seen working at the Krusty Krab, a local fast food restaurant, or at its rival, the Chum Bucket, in a variety of positions." — Too much detail for the lead. At most, say Patrick is unemployed and a self-proclaimed expert in the "art of doing nothing"[1].
  • "however, he has been involved in several public controversies, including one centered on speculation over his relationship with SpongeBob." — Several? I can see one. Additionally, controversy should not be linked.
    • Fixed
  • Again, the "its" in its 2015 sequel should not be linked.
    • Fixed.
  • A brief summary of the "AquaDauber" nickname or "Fagerbakke has been compared to Patrick's character..." paragraph might be nice.
    • I don't think AquaDauber should be mentioned in the lead. As Fagerbakke's resemblance to the character.
      • Okay.

Okay, I'm putting this article on hold for seven days. As it stands, the article has some prose issues, doesn't fully follow MOS:LEAD, contains some irrelevant detail [about SpongeBob] and utilises potentially unreliable sources. I cannot pass the article for GA until these issues are fixed. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bilorv for reviewing this article. Hope it passed. — Mediran [talk] 12:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly done. Just a couple of minor points and the meme section left to fix. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 12:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks again Bilorv. I've fixed the link in the lead and also removed other inadequate sources in the 'In other media' section. Also, any thoughts about the lead? Do you think it's good enough? — Mediran [talk] 02:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the lead is good enough. Everything's been addressed — thanks for responding so quickly. Pass for GA. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Bilorv. Thank you so much for promoting this article to GA-class. And for this review! — Mediran [talk] 11:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patrick_Star/Archive_2&oldid=1212794463"