Talk:Over the Hedge (handheld game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Over the Hedge (handheld game) has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
December 10, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Requested merge

Since some commented here implying that proper consensus should occur, I say merge the page to Over the Hedge (video game) at this time. There's simply not enough content to warrant its own article and although it appears to be somewhat a sequel with a different storyline, it can still be referenced in the main article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Place  * '''Merge'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

[edit] Survey

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Merge, by my nomination. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a separate game with separate details, as pointed out explicitly in the IGN review quoted by SeizureDog. Current content is of far less importance than potential and in this case the potential is there for a much expanded article. Someone another 18:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - if there was significant out-of-universe information to support both the DS version and the other versions (assuming those are otherwise all the same), splitting the articles would be fine, but there's no suggestion, either currently or what I know from the gaming press, that this information will ever be available. However, the merge page needs to make every effort to indicate the DS is smilar in concept but had several different features. --19:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose Also mentioned, the game is functionally different from the other games under the same title and license. Saying that there's "not enough content" is not a good reason at this stage. Give it a couple of months to build itself into an article. If, with time, it is still just a little stub, then merging can be discussed again.--SeizureDog 06:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Might as well add my opinion since I was 'informed' about it. Ok, I've never played the game, or anything; never knew anything about it until it was mentioned. Now, IF the gameplay, reception, etc are different, then yes it certainly can stand on its own vs the others. As I mentioned on the VG project page, this kinda seems similar to cases like TMNT NES vs TMNT arcade -- two games that came out at similar times on the same subject, but were completely different games. Now granted, the renown is quite different, but both that and this are based on licenses, so saying that since it's a movie game it should all be merged isn't all that relevant. ON THE FLIP SIDE, we shouldn't have seperate pages just because we can -- IF it's possible to create a COHERENT and BETTER article by combining them all into an "Over the Hedge video game series" sort of article, then that should be done. The main question is, which would make for better WP articles. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see much difference: what is it that is specifically unique between the two? We can do somewhat like Resident Evil 4 has: one article that details the GC, PS2, etc., versions altogether (see the exclusive features section there). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
They're both different products built from the ground up by different developers. RE4 wii edition is RE4 with wiimote-induced flailing added on. They're apples and oranges.Someone another 20:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think a good solution here would be to agree that the DS article should be built to a solid Start class by February '08 or it is considered proven that there is no interest in expanding the article beyond what could be covered in one article for all formats. How does that sound?Someone another 20:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Request to close poll OK guys, I've started improving the article, I'm still a long way off done. By the time I've finished what I'm doing, asked one of the assessment team to give the article a quick look and worked on their recs, it's going to be start class. Everyone seems to have had their say and the necessary work is underway, so how about it? Someone another 09:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    While the DS side is getting a better treatment appropriate for most VGs, the issue is now the other OtH game article is looking pale; that needs to be improved as well, otherwise I'd argue that while the DS version got the most notable attention, the other console versions had little and thus should be grouped into this one. That may not be the case (that those games weren't notable) but at the article's present state, that's what I garner. I would strongly urge you to also work at improving that other one so that the case for separate articles can be made stronger. (Also suggestion: use hatnotes to direct people to either the comic/movie/other-systems-video game as appropriate, and make sure the distinction about being a different game altogether is stronger in the lead -- it would also be interesting if you could find a source for as to WHY the OtH DS game was done in this fashion (separate gameplay/plot for the others). --MASEM 12:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Points all taken. As far as the other article goes, I will make a quick clean-up, make sure that the gameplay section reflects the actual gameplay and cite a few reviews.Someone another 08:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Game's rating

I reverted this edit by A Link to the Past because I don't agree with his thought. What does he mean by "we already have an aggregate score"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The 73% from GR/GStats is the aggregate (or average) score that we need; stating the range of reviews that it has received is redundant, it's just giving a different version of what's already stated. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Wish you said that before, be more specific in your edit summaries next time. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

This is a response to the request for assessment left of my talk page by Someone another. This is definitely beyond Stub-Class. Refs are fine, fair use rationales are there, all the important sections are there. I'd say the main thing holding it back from getting a B is its length: the plot, lead and reception sections are all a little on the light side. You also might want to see if you could find a couple more links to flesh out the External Links section.

I hope this meets your expectations for a "quickie assessment"! Una LagunaTalk 16:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Helpful as always, I'll do my best to work on these items before finishing up here. Cheers Una. Someone another 18:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

A pretty good article so far, but some nitpicky things:

  • lead section needs expansion. Try a second paragraph dealing with a quick plot one-liner, how it was recieved, awards it got (IGN's 'game no one played' etc.) It's supposed to summarize the entire article; see Iridion 3D, Populous: The Beginning or any FA-class VG article to see examples.
  • Can you wikilink characters (like Verne in the image caption for gameplay) to Verne (Over the Hedge), et al? It just helps when it's before the plot section.

Personally, I'm not sure if the limited scope of this article will allow it to be FA-class (usually they want development sections) but what's written is certainly good for a GA. Drop me a line on my talk page when you're finished and I'll take another look. David Fuchs (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly nitpicky, I didn't think the article had much hope of hitting a 'B', let alone GA. Anything you're not happy with, name it, I'll try to everything possible. Someone another (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it looks much better. I think this article has a solid chance of making it to FA (I got Iridion there, and there was hardly anything about it either). A more thorough copyedit wouold prolly be good. In addition, it might take some digging, but scrounging around for 'preview' type articles on Gamespot and IGN might yield results; see this. Good luck! David Fuchs (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

I don't know if you got the memo, but disambigs exist to DISAMBIG. Putting it at Nintendo DS instead of handheld game would require there to be any other article that is about a handheld Over the Hedge game. The only handheld game called Over the Hedge is a terribly reviewed game with little coverage that does not even have an article about it. Can you provide any reason to disambig between this article and a nonexistent article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)