Talk:Space Hulk (1993 video game)

message: Would it be inappropriate to say how hard that this game this game was. Carl 05:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a verifiable, reliable source for this statement, it would be appropriate (I can't imagine it would be too hard to find one, as I remember this being mentioned at the time). If you don't, it wouldn't. Cheers --Pak21 08:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Difficulty

message: It is written: "The game was one of the first person shooters". I suppose the author meant first first person shooters.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.214.34 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First FPS?

message: Hi, I am going to rewrite this article to conform to Wikipedia and Video Games Wikiproject guidelines in the coming few days.
The article will be changed to the following structure.
*Lead
*Gameplay
*Plot and settings
**Characters
**Story
*Development
*Reception
*References
*External links
Jappalang (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like an excellent idea, I look forward to seeing it. --Falcorian (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007 Rewrite

message: Another article? You never cease to amaze me...
Clyde's already re-assessed it to B-class, low-importance, a rating I agree with. When assessing your major re-writes, changes those values are half the work as the list of things that still need doing is so short! However, before pressing that GAC button you should expand the lead per WP:LS: there currently isn't any information there about the reception the game received. Also, the last portion of the Story section appears to be unsourced - you could just use in-game dialogue if nothing immediate jumps out from a Google search. Fix those problems and you should be good to go. Una LagunaTalk 09:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I have added a very summarized sentence to the lead for the Reception section. I have also added one of the game manual, which chronicles the campaign's story, as a reference for the Story section. Would that sufficiently address the concerns? Jappalang (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:VG]] assessment

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall:
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: </div>
An excellent article! Just a few concerns before I pass this as a Good Article:
#Every time I review a video game article I get into a differing argument about whether or not the Gameplay section should have citations or not and whether or not things that are inherent to the game need to be cited or not. I personally think that they should be, as I don't exactly see more citing references as inherently detrimental to Wikipedia's reputation, but I have heard reasonable arguments in the other direction. My new policy is to just go with whatever the author has chosen and let the good folks down at Featured Articles deal with it if it gets that far. I do insist, however, that one of these two methods be chosen and used uniformly throughout the Gameplay section. Since you've chosen to cite the Gameplay section, then I believe it should be fully cited, as it is more a question of style than citation. That's a lot of words to say that I think the second half of the second paragraph of Gameplay needs to be cited. The same logic goes for the "Story" section. An instruction manual, or even in-game dialog, however, is an acceptable way of citing this material.
#: The "Story" section was entirely referenced from pages 30-43 of the "The World of Space Hulk — Missions" manual (ref #10). I thought it would be unnecessary to inline-cite each following sentence. My usual style is to put the citation at the first instance where it is needed, so following exceptional sentences would be referring to the preceding cite. Is this acceptable? Jappalang (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! I will now be passing the article as a Good Article. Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 03:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: Cool article. A couple of suggestions: it'd be nice to know what the differences are between the Amiga and PC versions of this game. Also more info on the weapons and what monsters there are in the game would be good. Cheers. Ben 2082 (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for the inability to install the Amiga version onto the hard drive, there are no major differences that are documented between it and the PC version.  The article did mention a few of the weapons.  Listing them out is a tad over-detailed for what Wikipedia is about.  As for the monsters, there is only the Genestealer.  Jappalang (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I'm just wondering though, did one version have slightly more detailed graphics/ sound? It's a small detail but it's interesting, so that you know what is the definitive version. With the weapons, I don't think it would be too much detail to put a bit more about how they work eg some only have limited ammo, and the chances of each one making a successful kill. In other words, what are the significant differences between the weapons as far as they affect the gameplay. Anyway awesome job on the article. How's about a Space Hulk: VOTBA one? Ben 2082 (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, no reviewers touched upon differences between the versions (in those days, it will be rare for a reviewer to have both an Amiga and IBM PC to play on).  As you can see, the review section in this article is mainly on Amiga reviews; PC sources are almost impossible to locate (I am pretty sure Computer Gaming World has one, but I do not have the issue), and I do not know where to find a source for the White Dwarf review.  The assault cannon and flamethrower are the only weapons with limited ammunition.  If we do want to mention this (this being a minor detail since Storm Bolters are the primary weapons), we have to find reliable sources that mention this and work it into the article without disrupting the flow.  I have no experience with VOTBA (no PlayStation console) so there is a lack of inspiration on writing for it.  Jappalang (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Not quite, please read WP:V and WP:RS.  Those are pretty much what articles on Wikipedia are supposed to follow.  The core of Wikipedia is supposed to be on the basis of making articles out of what is reported by reliable sources.  However, since Wikipedia is said to be open for editing by anyone, there are many cases where contributions are made without regards to the rules.  With the overwhelming amount of articles, there will be articles that violate Wikipedia's policies.  In any case, the Featured Articles (and some Good Articles) are being maintained to better standards than regular ones (although it is also the later articles that are being checked more than the older ones).  One thing why Wikipedia articles should not go down into too much details is that they do not serve as guides.  Wikipedia is more like a summaries of reports from reliable sources.  Please check the links I have pointed out.  Reading the policies and guidelines can help in finding out why current Good and Featured Articles only welcome certain information.  Jappalang (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If "With the overwhelming amount of articles, there will be articles that violate Wikipedia's policies.", why doesn't someone just delete the articles that are like that? Also with the weapons it doesn't make it a game guide to add in the fundamental ways in which they differ. I understand what you mean by not making articles into game guides. The different weapon types have a significant impact on the gameplay. You may as well not mention that the marines can gain experience and fight better on their own in later campaign missions, because that has a similar impact on the gameplay, yet that is in the article. It's ultimately subjective as to deciding some of the things to include.Ben 2082 (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deletion is not the first course of action for bad articles.  Articles that are notable on their own but are going against policies are to be improved.  However, since Wikipedia has so much articles, there are too few people to ensure all of them are up to the standards.  These lack of "moderators" mean that most articles contents are "governed" by the interested editors, who if uninterested in policies would create "bad" articles.  Note that major cases of copy violations or flagrant made-up stories would be deleted, and articles that are not notable by Wikipedia standards have to go through a deletion process to ensure it is properly deleted.  Venture to WP:AFD if you would like to see how the deletion process goes.  Basically, it is going to take a long time for Wikipedia to sort out the junk and to ensure all articles comply to its standards.  For this article, it has already stated the weapons are split into melee and ranged weapons.  As the assault cannon and flamethrower are the only two weapons with limited ammunition, they are a small portion of the available weaponry and not really a huge impact on gameplay (i.e. the amount of times they are used in the game are few and in between); most of the time the marines are armed with Stormbolters and Power Gloves.  Jappalang (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison Between PC and Amiga Versions, Weapons, Monsters

message: Since 2007, I have become more familiar with WP:RS and as such, several sources used for my 2007 rewrite are unreliable.  I have removed them, and unfortunately can find no reliable source to qualify the information cited to the removed sources; hence they have to be removed as well.  On the other hand, I have found more reliable sources that focus on the PC version, and so used them.  The Gameplay section is rewritten to make it clearer to the non-gamer.  Furthermore, fluff is removed to make it more succinct to those not so interested in the Warhammer 40,000 universe.  The background of the game is moved to the top since I found that without first defining what a Space Marine or Genestealer is makes things difficult later.  The Reception is also reshaped to put a distinct focus in each paragraph, rather than jumping all over the place.  Ratings are removed as they rarely serve anything to the non-gamers.  Jappalang (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009 Rewrite