Talk:Theme Hospital

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hospitals (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Quirks section deleted[edit]

Why? good issues... important info

Corrections[edit]

A user incorrectly identified the staff's 'attention to detail' rating as being the same as the ability of staff member, whilst in fact it is a different characteristic. Added more gameplay info. Liquid121 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The game was originally published by Electronic Arts (like all the other Bullfrog games). It was later rereleased by Sold Out Software as a budget title (not in 1997)

Alternate cover[edit]

There's an alternate front cover where the 'green cross' is more like a six-sided asterisk. I am not sure why there are two versions, but there's a picture of it at fr:Image:Theme-hospital.jpg. I tried to add the picture to show the alternate cover but I am not sure how to link it to the English article Marky1981 13:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Mine is the same as the one on the French Wikipedia and I am in the UK. • Thorpe • 11:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen the asterisk-type one in the UK too, I just meant there's a picture of it in the French version of this article that I don't know how to get hold of! Marky1981 11:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Can't you just upload it to this Wikipedia? • Thorpe • 12:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The original version of Theme Hospital had the green gross. Later versions had the green "six sided asterisk". The later version was updated to include the latest patch and therefore had network play enabled by default. The different logos enabled savvy users to identify a patched version from an original. I don't know if there were any political reasons behind the change. I suspect that the Red Cross may have had something to do with it. They fiercely protect their trademark and it wouldn't suprise me if they threatened legal action against Bullfrog for feturing a trademark similar to theirs! 82.24.157.22 (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Copied?[edit]

Hasn't part of this article (well, most) been copied from this [1]. • Thorpe • 12:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion. I removed it. It's for the best anyway. The list was horribly long. I would hope that something like this (if similar information is readded) would be done so either in prose form or in a way in which the TOC or article itself isn't a mile long. K1Bond007 03:08, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I wrote the bit on Bloaty Head, in its own Wiki article actually, and was planning to do the same for every disease. Until I realised what a silly exercise that would be. Someone took down my Bloaty Head article and pasted the text here, which I applaud. If anything the disease descriptions should be simply snarfed from the TH manual, copyright notwithstanding. --Jquarry 06:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Choppy Mouse Issue[edit]

I added info about this issue that exists in the game on today's computers. • Blueguy20 • 3:42, 07 July 2006 (UTC)

Diseases Added[edit]

I added four diseases under Clinically-Treated Diseases. They are Hairyitis, Jellyitis, Alien DNA, and Serious Radiation. Blueguy20 05:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

For rooms that require machines, they seem to be only upgradeable to a certain point, then all upgrades stop for that room. Can anyone else verify this or is my game just wacky? Bio 22:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cast List?[edit]

is that cast list right, the peeps that done the voices, because the links are to child actors, they are kids of 5 and 6 at the time of the voice overs! That can't be right, surely! Govvy 18:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I got rid of that section as I think it was most likely some person having a joke...those three are 13- and 14-year-olds, all from the show 'Hannah Montana', who would have only been very young at that time, and there is no evidence elsewhere to suggest that this information has any basis on fact at all. User:Baberlp

site managers?[edit]

Is there a different version for different countries? My UK version cals them 'handymen' 82.13.83.244 23:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Same here, my UK version calls them handymen also. I think the French version has a different box cover also. Govvy 13:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 : I couldn't find any evidence to suggest voice clips would've been changed for other versions. Feel free to prove me wrong there.. Whilding87 19:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Quirky Names[edit]

Should something be added about the names of some of the doctors? For example, I have seen doctors with names that include 3 identical letters one after each other, as well as a janitor named Y. Cure. Since the sayings of the receptionist are in the article, should names be? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bio rules (talkcontribs) 22:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Trivia[edit]

Throwing trivia into pointless, unreferenced sections doesn't make it any less trivial. Any information in the article should be to support the notable features of the game, and at the very most one or two examples can be used to demonstrate the nature of the game. There's no point in retaining the entire list; it's not necessary to communicate any point in the article. --Scottie_theNerd 06:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a single reference in the article as it stands. Anywhere. And it's not clear that one could provide a reference for nearly anything in the article except to cite the game itself as the source. In that regard, you're applying a justification very selectively.
We do have a difference of opinion about the notability of the restored material. I'm not trying to do a blanket revert of your edits -- for instance, I do agree with your removal of the game-guide aspects of it, which didn't really tell me anything about the game. But the humor and popular references material does help to give me a sense of what the game is "like" -- and mind you, I've never played it, so I'm not arguing from a fanboy stance. I hope you can temper your outrage at the fact that I find that material useful -- even encyclopedic.--Father Goose 10:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain how it is encyclopedic? Basically, we've got one external reference to popular culture - the names of rival hospitals, which is trivia - had there been more emphasis on pop culture references, that would warrant its own section. We've got self-references to the developer, which is pointless. The game humour contains examples that are taken out of context and convey nothing meaningful - why should Theme Hospital have a section for humour when the WP:VG guidelines don't include it as a standard section? Most games have humour of some sort; there's little reason to provide examples unless the game's humour is specifically outlined as notable by a reliable source. Finally, just because you find it useful doesn't necessarily mean it belongs on Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 10:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The self-reference material is pretty weak. I'll delete that. Meanwhile, you keep citing guidelines which don't support your assertions. "Not a standard section'" -- claiming that as grounds for deletion is inventing policy out of thin air. WP:VG has two things to say about trivia: avoid "an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia" and "Such information should be integrated into appropriate areas of the article". We differ on what's excessive -- though you seem to be taking the point of view that any trivia is excessive -- and whether the sections I added are "appropriate areas". You should note that I edited the material to try to improve its presentation within the article; I didn't just say, "Hah, it has a different heading now, it's no longer trivia."
By comparison, you didn't make an attempt to integrate the trivia section, just deleted it outright, which puts you at odds with the WP:TRIV guideline ("Don't simply remove it, but seek to minimize it."). And, oh, yes, I uttered the dread word "useful", which triggered your referring me to the page which states, "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged". You're trying to resolve this difference of opinion we have by citing one guideline after another, none of which fully support your views.--Father Goose 07:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not my practice to remove trivia sections outright. However, there was nothing in the trivia section that I could salvage for my aforementioned reasons. By integrating into the article, the policies suggest incorporating anything notable into the main text rather than creating sections that do little more than list those interesting points. If you are able to incorporate the trivia into the main gameplay descriptions, please do.
In regards to current content, I don't see why the humour section should stay. As I said above, no other game section has a humour section despite most games having some form of humour. The diseases bit can be added to the description already in the article, whereas the cheating comments and receptionist are barely notable. These should be described as part of the game as a whole rather than picking out individual one-liners. The rival hospitals, on the other hand, may be included as its own section - but if the article comes under closer scrutiny, I doubt it'll last. --Scottie_theNerd 13:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If you can move the diseases bits, please do. Closer scrutiny might see the removal of what remains, although I don't have a crystal ball.--Father Goose 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, your edit summary regarding the "integration" was a bit disingenuous, but at least you met me an eighth of the way. I'll settle for that.--Father Goose 04:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There isn't anything more I can integrate. The points are mostly out-of-context examples that aren't notable or self-explanatory enough to keep, or have already been mentioned in the main gameplay paragraphs. There's still plenty of room to improve the article, so please feel free to add what you feel needs to be added.--Scottie_theNerd 05:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Theme Hospital Clinic Fanpage WP:EL[edit]

A few days ago I added a new link to this page that was promptly deleted because of the WP:FANSITE rule. I agree that there have to be rules here but in this case following the rule without thinking twice is, well..., hardly a sensible thing.

TH is a classic game, about 10 years old, so the official Bullfrog site is no longer existing. To find info and patches you have to use alternative ways. There used to about half a dozen fanpages, one better than the other, but these have all disappeared, with the exception of (nearly) one, that was the most complete, detailed and accurate anyway. This situation makes Theme Hospital Clinica virtual official page. It has a complete description of all functions, people, diseases, scenarios in the game, has a very detailed walkthrough and a still active forum. But you can't link to the page as it is fan-based.

The kind of linking that is apparently allowed on this item is to GameSpot and MobyGames. These are the kind of sites that bombard you with adds, pop-ups, tracking and publicity cookies and if you want to download a file you have to pass via a myriad of new windows just to read at the end you have to login to get the file anyway.

I just wrote that there is only one TH fanpage left. This is not entirely true. A second one can be found at alt-tab.net. It could be a re-hash of one of those 'old' original fanpages that were on the web. Strange enough there is a link to the download section of that site on the TH Wikipedia entry. Following the WP:FANSITE rules it should be immediately deleted as well.

The alt-tab.net game is however rightly mentioned for containing the so-called prenancy patch. The whereabouts of the original programmer of this patch are lost in time and can't be traced back. But the patch that can be downloaded is an enhanced 'pregnancy patch' version anyway, altered by a certain Ian Jefferies. And that man is the person who has created and still maintains the Theme Hospital Clinic website and forum.

(I want to add that I am not affiliated to Theme Hospital, nor to any of the fanpages that exist on the subject). Felix Atagong 10:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything about fansites on Wikipedia:External links so I don't understand this removal of a link. Samulili 11:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a new one -- treating the name of a shortcut link (WP:FANSITE) as a rule itself. "No fan sites" would be a reasonable rule -- provided it actually were a rule -- if it meant "don't add your fansite which has absolutely nothing to add about the subject". I checked out each of the external links, though, and the Theme Hospital Clinic is clearly a better resource than Mobygames and the others. I'd be willing to bet it was deleted reflexively because it was labeled as a "fansite". I've restored the link.--Father Goose 16:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Linking to Mobygames, GameSpot, GameFAQs or other game sites doesn't seem to be widely approved. I faintly recall a debate over th deletion of the Mobygames template for something along those lines, and the consensus on WP:VG seems to be that "resource" sites should only be provided in External links if their content is not appropriate to the article. In this case, I think leaving the link is fair. --Scottie_theNerd 16:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I think the "original programmer" was actually me - my site (made around 1997 - apologies for the design and writing style...) has the original version of the patch, which (if I remember correctly) was purely my work and was the first time that the existence of the 'pregnancy' disease was publicised. I believe I found it when looking through some file that listed all the diseases, while trying to write a badly-written FAQ. I have absolutely no idea how I actually patched the level files, though. Philip Taylor 14:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

psp[edit]

hey their should be a link 2 the site to download the game 4 psp and ps3 and also wat is the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.58.191 (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Future[edit]

Anyone know or think that they should produce the game again with a better format for the future? I think it would be successful and would love to play this old treasure again! It could be significantly updated and could be played over xbox 360 and PS3 etc would be fantastic!Bankhallbretherton (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As it says in the box at the top of the page "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.". Have a look at Wikipedia talk page guidelines for acceptable use, thanks Fraggle81 (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Android Theft[edit]

I'm guessing the thief on the Play Store is the one who added the entry about a "uk based developer" getting Theme Hospital to work on Android and selling it on the playstation store. The version he stole is from AngryPineapple.com.

The author stated: "Please note that the paid version on the Google Play is based off my code but has absolutely nothing to do with me. I can’t offer any support for it whatsoever. I have no idea what changes he has made to the code, if any, so my advice is to always download versions from here or compile your own. I will NEVER charge for this port as I think it discredits the work done by Corsix and the CorsixTH team to develop this amazing clone." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.112.10 (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Theme Hospital/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


A classic! Happy to take a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Do "A patch was released that added multiplayer support with up to four players." and especially "Many ideas were considered, but not implemented due to time constraints." belong in the lead?
    • The multilayer and the scrapped ideas are important, no? Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
      • My thought is that many games will have patches, and virtually any game will have a lot of ideas bounced around early in the design process. If you're attached to the information about the patch remaining, I can let that drop, but something's going to have to be done about the other line. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
        • I moved the bit about the patch to after the bit about ideas being dropped. Makes more sense for it to be there. I've also changed "considered" to "intended". Adam9007 (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • You should really mention the format of the game in the first sentence; it was originally a PC game?
  • I am not sure that you approach the gameplay section in the best way. I feel like you should begin by talking about the basic gameplay before describing details of the campaign mode. Perhaps you could open by saying that the player builds rooms, decorates rooms and corridors, hires staff and researches rooms/diseases/whatever; that gives some context for the reader when you go on to explain other aspects.
  • Similarly, I think you need to explain that there are different kinds of rooms which do different things before talking about building them; an early mention that the game is a top-down view of an initially empty hospital space would be good!
  • "Patients see a GP in his office, and if he cannot make a diagnosis," Are all GPs male? If not, could we switch to gender-neutral language?
    • Only doctors can act as GPs, and all doctors are male. Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe the stuff about the GP can be shifted up in the gameplay section, too?
  • "and he, along with artist Gary Carr" Who's the he, here?
  • "It was decided the graphics should be like those of cartoons, and the game also deviated from the NHS model" What do these have to do with each other?
  • What is a "sprite drawer"?
    • I'm not sure how I can explain what a sprite drawer is, so simply linked sprite. Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
      • That doesn't really solve the problem, though; while "sprite" is now defined, we're still none-the-wiser as to what a "sprite drawer" is. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Sprite-drawing program is the best I could come up with. Adam9007 (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Many game ideas, such as decision-making, and the complex diagnosis procedure were implemented, but despite this, there were not many meetings, and Webley took the team to the pub weekly with a list of things to be done. Webley explained that the way the team worked gave members ownership of their parts, as they wouldn't have got done if they didn't do them. The disease called King Complex was to be called Elvis Impersonator, but Elvis's estate owned the rights Bloaty Head was based on an allergic reaction Molyneux had, when his face became an "alarming size"." This is very difficult to follow; it is an example of weak prose.
  • "great game" is a little colloquial to say in Wikipedia's voice; could you quote the specific word he used?
  • Could you give the date of the original PS1 release in the port/rerelease section?
  • Has it ever appeared on Steam? Also, why do you list the open source remakes separately from the other releases? And you have a mention of a rerelease in the lead not mentioned in the rerelease section. Also, wasn't this rereleased through Sold Out Software? Does that deserve a mention?
    • The budget releases are difficult if not impossible to source, so the only place they can go is the lead. I have no idea about Steam. Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
      • References are not necessary in leads (for non-controversial information) precisely because it is assumed that all information is going to be sourced in the main body of the article. Leads can't be used to bury uncited information- that's exactly the opposite of what they're for! Josh Milburn (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
        • In which case, I've deleted that info. Adam9007 (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "73 per cent on GameRankings based on two reviews" Is that worth quoting?
    • You'd have to ask FosterHaven, as he put it in. Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
      • @FosterHaven: You're welcome to chime in if you like! Adam: I'm reviewing the article as I find it; it doesn't really matter at this stage who added what. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
        • @J Milburn: I was going to include Metacritic, but they don't list any publications at all, contrary to what Adam has found. I stated in my edit's summary, "If GameRankings has too little of a review count to be included, it's okay to remove it." For GA status, it probably wouldn't help its case, and I definitely wouldn't argue in favour of keeping it. FosterHaven (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Critics noted the strong gameplay, detailed graphics, satisfying comedic tone, and a great voice acting performance, but fell conflicted on music, repetition, the game's artificial intelligence, and the user interface." Source? Also, "great"?
    • @J Milburn: It was intended to summarise the various points that publications covered; for each one, the paragraph below provides the adequate explanation. As stated above, this is modelled from other articles. If it leans too much on informality, I take responsibility for that. FosterHaven (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Is Coming Soon Magazine reliable? Surely there are better sources for a game this significant. If you are using it, should it be italicised?
    • I've had other articles citing Coming Soon Magazine promoted to GA, so I guess it's reliable. It appears to be an online source, so I don't know if it should be italicised. Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that really answers the question, though. Looking through the website, it seems to have gotten some recognition, so even if it's way out of date now, it may not be too bad. I'd go with italicising on the basis that they seem to release by issue, so it's an online magazine rather than an ezine. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Can I ask why you choose to attribute opinions to publications rather than critics writing for those publications? This strikes me as journalese.
    • You think I should put the reviewers names in the reviews? Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
      • So "John Smith, who reviewed the game for Magazine, felt that the" rather than "Magazine felt that the". Josh Milburn (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
        • I put the names I could find. Adam9007 (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The reception section is a little "Reviewer 1 said abc, reviewer 2 said def, reviewer 3..."- have a think about organising it thematically.
    • Hmm.. That may mess up the current organisation by platforms. Adam9007 (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Is Jeuxvideo.com reliable?
  • "a fresh attempt at cloning the game" Informal
  • "In February 2013, OpenTH developers addressed the state of the project,[52] as another named CorsixTH forked from OpenTH that launched in July 2009 under the MIT License." This is not easy to follow.
  • In fact, the whole section on the open source remakes seems to be sourced to blogs and the like. Do you have any reliable sources discussing it? If not, it should probably all go; there are lots of teams making lots of software, but it doesn't all need to be on Wikipedia.
    • I think I've found some reliable sources (they need to be checked) on CorsixTH, and got rid of the info about OpenTH as it's extremely difficult if not impossible to reliably source. Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm yet to look in detail at the article's sources, but I am not sure it is where it needs to be for GA status at this time. I'm happy to leave this review open to give you/others a chance to respond. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: The multilayer and the scrapped ideas are important, no? Only doctors can act as GPs, and all doctors are male. I'm not sure how I can explain what a sprite drawer is, so simply linked sprite. The budget releases are difficult if not impossible to source, so the only place they can go is the lead. I have no idea about Steam. As for GameRankings, you'd have to ask @FosterHaven:, as he put it in. I don't know if it's relevant or not. I've had other articles citing Coming Soon Magazine promoted to GA, so I guess it's reliable. It appears to be an online source, so I don't know if it should be italicised. You think I should put the reviewers names in the reviews? Jeuxvideo.com is reliable according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources. I think I've found some reliable sources (they need to be checked) on CorsixTH, and got rid of the info about OpenTH as it's extremely difficult if not impossible to reliably source. EDIT: I've put the comments above per below. Adam9007 (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply; I don't have time to look into this in detail right now, but feel free to reply to the points in question above so we can keep track of what has/has not been changed and where we may have disagreements about the approach. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:11, 17 Octodesiber 2016 (UTC)
@J Milburn: I've moved the comments above. Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@J Milburn: I apologise for not returning sooner, but before Adam arrived, I copy-edited a good portion of the article (history can verify that), and kept it on my watchlist since. Thank you for reviewing the article regardless; it may not be ready now, but your input helps us for later. FosterHaven (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Second read through[edit]

Based on the discussion above and the remaining problems with the article, I'm going to close the review at this time. I do, however, note the following for consideration going forward; hopefully this will be ready for renomination in the coming months.

  • "The game is the thematic successor to Theme Park, also produced by Bullfrog, and the second instalment in their Theme series, and part of their Designer Series." and... and.... Also, the Designer Series is mentioned nowhere else in the article.
  • "Many ideas were intended, but not implemented due to time constraint" Again- this is exceedingly vague, and doesn't really tell us anything of note. All projects, whether video games, books, albums, websites... go through this kind of design phase.
  • The gameplay section still feels very out-of-order. It seems like just about everything's there, it just needs to be smoothed out. For example, why are you telling us that "The player is given time to build the hospital at the start of each level before patients start coming" in paragraph 5/6?
  • Same with the development section. There seems to be little discernible order to the prose.
  • "Webley explained that the way the team worked gave members ownership of their development areas, as only they would perform their assigned duties otherwise they would not get done" This is not good writing
  • "In 1998, a PlayStation port of Theme Hospital was developed by Krisalis Software.[" Presumably it was released then? The current text suggests it was developed in 1998 but not released until 2008.
  • "A Sega Saturn version (titled Sim Hospital as of October 1995) was in development and due for release in mid-1996.[36]" This was cancelled? Also, what about the Sold Out version?
  • "An open-source remake, CorsixTH, enhances the game" enhances isn't very neutral.
  • "eulogised the humour" eulogised?!
  • Are you italicising "Absolute Playstation" or not?

Hope this is useful. Good luck going forward. 16:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Posting this here as I'm not sure I should edit the GA review page now it's been formally closed.
  • ""The game is the thematic successor to Theme Park, also produced by Bullfrog, and the second instalment in their Theme series, and part of their Designer Series." and... and.... Also, the Designer Series is mentioned nowhere else in the article."
You think the Designer series is not worth mentioning then? There's not much that I can find out there after all. The only info I have about it is that the games use Theme Park's simulation engine and were supposed to have 3 simulation levels (this reminds me: I should probably put this in Theme Park (video game)).
I'm just saying that it should be included, with a source and preferably a description/wikilink, in the main body of the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • ""Many ideas were intended, but not implemented due to time constraint" Again- this is exceedingly vague, and doesn't really tell us anything of note. All projects, whether video games, books, albums, websites... go through this kind of design phase."
The 4 time zones is a pretty major feature that didn't make it. How else should I have summarised it?
You could just say something like "Designers originally planned to include four distinct gameplay modes corresponding to four historical time periods, but this feature was dropped due to time pressures on the team." Josh Milburn (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "The gameplay section still feels very out-of-order. It seems like just about everything's there, it just needs to be smoothed out. For example, why are you telling us that "The player is given time to build the hospital at the start of each level before patients start coming" in paragraph 5/6?

Same with the development section. There seems to be little discernible order to the prose."

I think I wrote the development section info in pretty much the same order the source gives it, though I may need to double check it.
Ok, but there's no reason to assume that the sources approached it in the most logical order, especially if they are works of a very different genre to a Wikipedia article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • ""A Sega Saturn version (titled Sim Hospital as of October 1995) was in development and due for release in mid-1996.[36]" This was cancelled? Also, what about the Sold Out version?"
Yes, as there's no Saturn version. I have no idea about the Sold-Out version, but it can't be that important or there'd be something good about it out there.
  • ""eulogised the humour" eulogised?!"
What's wrong with it? Have I totally misunderstood its meaning?
It's a little hyperbolic. Is it seriously a word you'd use? It smacks of "plucked out of a thesaurus" to me. "praised", "commended", "complimented" or perhaps "lauded" could work.
  • "Are you italicising "Absolute Playstation" or not?"
It's a web source isn't it?
Ok- I've no strong opinion either way, but there's some inconsistency in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Adam9007 (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't see any harm in editing the GA page, but I'll reply to you here anyway! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@J Milburn: I think I've fixed most of these issues. Have I missed anything? How soon can this be ready for renomination? Should I move this to the GA review page? Adam9007 (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm so sorry about the delay; I saw this comment when I was just checking in and then completely forgot about it. I personally have no objection to you moving these comments to the GA review page (for history purposes, it may be worth preserving them there) and you are free to renominate as soon as you feel that you have dealt with the issues I have raised. Perhaps the input of someone else (i.e., another reviewer) would be valuable; I do think that the article has been much improved since I first saw it. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@J Milburn: I've listed it for peer review. After all, there's no deadline. Adam9007 (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Theme Hospital/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Manfred von Karma (talk · contribs) 08:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! My name is Manfred von Karma, and I will be reviewing the article Theme Hospital. To clarify, the version of Theme Hospital I am reviewing is the revision as of April 4th, 2017 at 11:01 by Shaddim. This review is a criteria-by-criteria evaluation of the article.

Also, a shout-out is deserved to every single positive contributor to this page. Special thanks here to Adam9007.

Immediate failures test[edit]

From what I can see here, the article does not immediately fail. It is feasibly nominated, does not contain copyrighted material, does not have outstanding editor's notes that need to be fulfilled and the article lacks constant vandalism.

Theme Hospital Vs. Stature of writing (Cr1)[edit]

Here are some gripes I have with the writing's grammar and prose and things of the like:

  • The idea of the reputation mechanic in ->Gameplay is not introduced properly
  • The idea of the loan mechanic in ->Gameplay is introduced in a small, singular sentence and clogs up the general flow
  • The third paragraph of ->Gameplay has a lot of information but is presented in a fashion where there are a series of short sentences in which are unrelated to each other -- clogs general flow

Although these issues are pretty minor, I'm still going to consider this Criteria a failure until it's fixed.

Theme Hospital Vs. Verifiability of writing (Cr2)[edit]

All ideas presented here are fact. There is no evidence of original research here. My reference test passed for no unreliable or made-up sources. This criteria is passed with flying colours.

Theme Hospital Vs. Coverage of writing (Cr3)[edit]

The article covers all the integral mechanics of Theme Hospital we know and love, without being overly complicated about things. Development, reception sections are great. The inclusion of Molyneux was good. Pass.

Theme Hospital Vs. Position of writing (Cr4)[edit]

The position of the article is 100% neutral. Pass.

Theme Hospital Vs. Stability of writing (Cr5)[edit]

There is zero evidence of any vandalism and I don't foresee any future vandalism occurring on an article such as this.

Theme Hospital Vs. Visual components of writing (Cr6)[edit]

More than a measly two images are required. Some image suggestions are:

  • Pictures of developers or early/demo screenshots in ->Development
  • Another gameplay screenshot in ->Gameplay

If such images are unfindable, contact me and I will try to retrieve them myself. The existing images are satisfactory. The box art provided is the most widespread and therefore the most exceptional example.

Issue summary[edit]

Small issues with Gameplay section's prose and sentence flow. More image components are required.

At a glance[edit]

Final verdict[edit]

There are few issues with this article, and thus, this article will be put on hold for seven-ish days. On the next Saturday/Sunday, the article will get a short re-evaluation. If no changes are made, the article will be swiftly denied of GA status.

If you wish to discuss this, request me to go into more detail, or just have a general inquiry, please put your concerns on my talk page. You'll probably get a response within a day or two.

Manfred (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Re-evalutaion: The issues I had with Cr1 have been fixed and the issues I had with Cr6 have been made redundant. I see no reason why not to give this article the status of a Good Article. The GA process usually takes between five to ten minutes. Manfred (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I found a template of interest.[edit]

@Adam9007: I know you're using "Manual, page x" for many of the citations, but do you know about the Rp template?

The template allows you to do

Rooms include GP's Offices, Psychiatric rooms, Operating Theatres and Pharmacies,<ref name=manual>Manual.</ref>{{rp|7-11}} and are built by placing down a blueprint, assigning the location of doors and windows, and then placing down required and optional pieces of furniture.<ref name=manual />{{rp|7}}

so that it would display as:

Rooms include GP's Offices, Psychiatric rooms, Operating Theatres and Pharmacies,[1]:7-11 and are built by placing down a blueprint, assigning the location of doors and windows, and then placing down required and optional pieces of furniture.[1]:7
  1. ^ a b Manual.

Let me know if it's viable for the article. FosterHaven (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@FosterHaven: I used to do it that way, but was told that's not the best way to do it because all those page numbers in the body adversely affect readability. It was a major concern on this FAC of Ridge Racer (video game). Adam9007 (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theme Hospital. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)