# Talk:Theme Hospital

Why? good issues... important info

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

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)

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)

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) 

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)

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) 

@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, 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.

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)

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161009101644/https://www.pixeldynamo.com/news/gaming/2014/09/11/29006/theme-hospital-free-eu-psn/ to https://www.pixeldynamo.com/news/gaming/2014/09/11/29006/theme-hospital-free-eu-psn/
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20160322194410/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg056.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20160322193639/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg057.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20160322200358/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg058.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20160322203114/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg061.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20160322205923/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg062.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20160322205716/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg063.jpg

No separate page for this project (yet)? There is enough material for a spin-off and a better description.
This would mean to change the redirect page.. I'm not sure if this must be agreed upon, or just started it. Camp0s (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)