Talk:Jimmy Patterson

message: This article was prodded (pending deletion) on 28 November with the reason that "Wikipedia is not a game guide". Please, let us vote and see whether this page should really be deleted. I personally think it should not, since this article is not in any way like a game guide, but more like a biography. -- 0612 06:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Will someone stop moving "Attack on Fort Schmerzen" to the spot above "Needle in a Haystack?" In the actual chronology of the game, Frontline takes place in June, August, and SEPTEMBER of 44 while Schmerzen takes place in NOVEMBER, after "The Horten's Nest." Pay attention, people. Knight45 20:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fort Schmerzen 

message: Can someone fill in the information from Medal of Honor Heroes, besides the fact that Patterson proposed to Manon ESommers 17:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info From Heroes

message: Aren't Missions 2 and 3 in June 1944, not July? ESommers 17:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question of Dates

message: Information from the secret mission (#8) from Medal of Honor Underground should be here as well, since it is Jimmy's mission. ESommers 17:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panzerknacker Unleashed 

message: Some of the content in this article needs to be moved to the particular game it relates to. I know what should be moved to Medal of Honor: Frontline, however I need help as to to where the rest goes. This entire article should probably be structured more like Link, but I can't take that all on right now.--Clyde (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That brings an interesting problem though. Are we trying to "move" content so that all the relevant game articles get the necessary plot section and therefore delete this article, or are we cleaning up both this article and the game articles? --Scottie_theNerd 02:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's written here appears to be the entire story for every single game combined together. In this article, the appearances Jimmy makes in a game should be a summary about that game's plot, not it's word for word story. I think it would be best to transfer the plot into the correct game's story (possibly cleaning it up in the process), and then re-add a summary of Jimmy's appearance in that game (or as an alternative cut down then current content). Hopefully, that would end with well written plot summaries for each game, as well as a correctly structured and possibly new "Appearances" section in this article. In other words "move" the content so that all the relevant game articles get the necessary plot section but don't delete the article.--Clyde (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's problem attached to that though: what makes Jimmy Patterson notable? Apart from being the protagonist of many Medal of Honor games, is there anything that makes him worthy of an article according to Wikipedia guidelines? --Scottie_theNerd 04:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Few articles exist about characters, but I feel a little like a sloth saying let's delete it simply because I don't feel like looking. I find that many things here can be proved notable if you put in the time. Also there's good content that still needs to be transfered, so I don't want to endorse deletion until that's taken care of.--Clyde (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The point I was making was that there aren't any sources that prove Patterson's notability; everything is in-universe. --Scottie_theNerd 05:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most characters have to be referenced by articles about the games they appear in, but I don't know to what extent that can be used (I.E. "You take on the role of Jimmy Patterson, an American Army Private.." blah blah blah). I think the most that can be created from that is a stub or start type article, but the possibility is there.--Clyde (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Content 

message: He's in the 101st Airborne? I'd imagine he'd be in the 1st or 29th infantry divisions since he landed on Omaha Beach, and not air-dropped into Normandy. Can someone confirm his unit? ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 04:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the original Medal of Honor, he was a C-47 pilot, presumably with the 101st. According to the MOH: Frontline manual, his leadership skills resulted in him being shipped back to England to land with the troops at Normandy - the exact division slips my mind. The anomaly is that his back story was retconned due to Pvt Barnes (the original playable character in MOH:F at Normandy) being made an unplayable character, thus requiring Patterson to fill in the Normandy role. --Scottie_theNerd 09:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The manual says that he lands at Normandy with the 116th Regiment, which is part of the 29th Infantry Division. I do know that the soldiers' uniforms in-game are not marked in the D-Day level for some reason.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwing55543 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  101st Airborne? 

message: Did Patterson ever win the Congressional Medal of Honor? Or is that more of an... easter egg/100% thing for the gamer? 74.75.59.121 (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medal of Honor? 

message: A redirect is proposed. I must agree; it is largely fluff, and the reception/creation sections are not very well-developed, not enough to sustain itself.
And A Nobody, stop throwing around accusations of people "merging because they don't like it". I've never seen anyone simply "not like an article" and as such want it deleted. Every single person you accuse of it clearly doesn't just "not like it", they don't like it because the subject doesn't satisfy the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia to exist as a subject. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose as there does not appear to be any valid reason to redirect due to the well-developed reception and creation sections that are more than sufficient to sustain the article.  I fully support further improvements, however, but it clearly satisfies the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean well-developed? There's two lines of development and a single piece of reception. I mean, I assure you, if the standards for an article were this low, I could have a couple dozen character articles made up. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I support your efforts to create those articles.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You support an article existing on one person's opinion? It doesn't show real world notability, it shows one person's opinion on the character. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If, as in this case, it concerns a main character verified through multiple reliable sources, I support an article existing.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling this multiple is silly. The creation info is of secondary importance - it's strongly preferred to have a creation section, but a reception section is preferred in all situations. Without a strong reception section, an article should not exist. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, This is silly...  But anyway, thousands of hits is indeed multiple sources.  And in my opinion and in that of the thousands of other editors who create and contribute to such articles and millions of readers who come here for them, such articles are essentially spinoff or sub-articles of the main game articles for which more elaborate reception sections can exist.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And tell me which of those 6,000 hits = sources. Not the first 10 hits, certainly not. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones added to the article for example.  Please note, although I like to keep an open-mind, it is unlikely to impossible that I can be convinced this article should be redirected.  In this instance, I already know it concerns a main character from a notable franchise, that it is not a hoax, libelous, nor a copy vio.  I will gladly help to improve the article further, but I am not going to see a need to scrap it altogether per the aforementioned reasons.  The only reasons that could have convinced me have already been discounted.  Thus, I am pointing that out to you so that this discussion is not going to just go back and forth needlessly and so that neither of us are therefore distracted from our efforts to improve content.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

text: (ident fix) And I'm elaborating that it's your responsibility to show why this subject needs to exist. Your logic of "not a copy vio, libelous, or a hoax" basically requires that an article have "in-universe notability", which is never appropriate for an article to exist. It needs real-world notability to exist, and if all you can do is show is how many web sites, notable or not, mention Medal of Honor and Jimmy Patterson, not even necessarily about the character but usually just mentioning him as "the main character of the game". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already shown why it needs to exist.  Even though "notability" is an absurd criteria for inclusion on the paperless encyclopedia anybody can have it, by being a main character from a major franchise familiar to millions of people in the real world as verified in multiple sources, it meets the common sense standard of notability as well as the ever changing and subjective Wikipedic definition as well.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You've shown that one person in the entire world finds the character worth discussing, and that he is the main character of a popular game series. And absurd? Funny that Wikipedia's inclusion criteria is based on such an absurd concept. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One person?  I am not having a discussion with myself after all, nor in the above threads either...  Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 21:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One person being the reviewer. What we think has nothing to do with the article; I'm only going on what I see, and that's only importance to the game, not to the real world. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone who lives in the real world and lived Jimmy's life through playing his scenarios as well as all the reviewers who mention him, fansites, etc. are all people in the real world who deem this character important, just as would those who brought him "to life" in a sense on the screen.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying that your reliable sources include random, unreliable, unciteable sources who might not even hold an opinion of the character? A Google search that shows a Medal of Honor fansite talking about how he's cool beans is not a source, and it cannot be cited. Someone coming here should not be told "look at this fansite/wiki/forum/etc." as to why the article exists. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IGN et al count as reliable sources, and yes, they devote specific articles to precisely Jimmy and other characters as found at Juan Castro, "Medal of Honor Heroes: Heroic Cast: A look at the game's three American heroes," IGN (October 6, 2006).  The characters have therefore themselves attracted coverage in reliable sources.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect