Talk:De inferno

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the De inferno article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination: no consensus, 10 July 2006, see discussion. no consensus to delete, 19 May 2006, see discussion.

Contents 1 Cleanup 2 condition zero 3 Why this page doesn't need a rewrite 4 Overview

[edit] Cleanup

I'm putting this request here for someone to clean up this article, and make it conform to the CS Article format (See the CS map category (Category:Counter-Strike maps)). I'll get around to it eventually, but I'm not sure how long it will be. --Varco 05:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] condition zero

note: the screenshot of the CZ map does not appear to come from de_inferno_cz.

the map has a nighttime - feel - when played in condition zero. (i.e. it is rendered to look like night)

[edit] Why this page doesn't need a rewrite

It's a good article on a counter-strike map for one. It does not fit in with Varco's CS map template, but that isn't exactly law. I don't want to dismiss Varco's work on Counter-Strike maps, without him we probably wouldn't have any articles on them at all. But I do prefer the layout of de_inferno to some of his. And here are some reasons why:

• It's full of facts. These facts can be easily verified in game, unlike unsourced criticisms.
• I'm not too happy about the "uniqueness" section header in Varco's articles. Maybe name it "features", but the uniqueness section normally covers different things in each article. ie some mention gameplay, other mention easter eggs or map design.
• It has something of the revision history of the map, although I'm not sure how correct it is. I know an entirely new route was added later to the map (I think it was the side corridor), I didn't think there was a jump of over 3 years between intial map debut till the change. I'm not even sure what the change that took place in 2003 was, was it the retexturing?
• I like the list of changes in CS:Source.

The article may be lacking in some areas in comparison to other CS maps, but I also feel it has advantages over them as well. And that's why it doesn't need a total rewrite. - Hahnchen 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually did not come up with the section naming scheme, someone else did. I was just following it to make all of the articles have consistency. I think changing "Uniqueness" to "features" would be a good idea too. I'm thinking maybe the format needs a complete rewrite. Any suggestions on how it could be laid out? -Varco 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, this page is mainly my work. My opinion is that it is important to give a history of the map's development from 1.6 (and before) through CS:CZ to Source. I think in this case screenshots showing the different versions are much more descriptive than reams of text, the cs_office page is a good comparison. Keeping a succinct list of changes is important too. Monchberter 15.00 19th May 2006 GMT

[edit] Overview

Perhaps a note explaining that the overview is from the Source version, as is it much different from the old ones? -brendan