Talk:Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS video game)

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 ~~~~.

Survey

The following discussion is closed. 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)
  • Sounds fair to me.--SeizureDog 00:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Seconded Someone another. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:18, 15 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)

• Comment, before you use hats, please read about when to use them and when to not use them. Close the poll. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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 Laguna^Talk 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)

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)

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)

The accepted format seems to be "(Nintendo DS)", not "(handheld game)". Are there precedents for this title? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's the precedence that "handheld game" is more helpful than Nintendo DS. It should be called "handheld video game", however, on the basis that it's more descriptive. We don't say "PC" instead of computer game, so we shouldn't say DS instead of "handheld video game". - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There's more discussion about this on the WP:VG talk page. Replacing the (handheld game) suffix is certainly a popular option with some editors there, myself included. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Over the Hedge (DS game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The GA for this article was back in 2007, since then, a lot of GA standards, as well as general standards for video game articles have changed, and this article currently fails many of those. Among the major concerns: there should be more of a development section (failing #3a of GAC), and some of the sources like GirlGamer are really not considered reliable nowadays (failing 2b). I don't think it can easily be fixed back into a GA at this type, and would recommending delisting. --Masem (t) 18:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delist. I'd like to put the time in to improve it, but as it were, I have far too many projects on my plate. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Delist. FWIW I don't think this is a million miles off (I'd say it's aged better than other articles, like Half-Life), but the issues mentioned above are not something I'd expect from a GA. JOEBRO64 19:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Lots of the sources used are unreliable and not acceptable for a Good Article. Namcokid47 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Let me see what I can do. I’m a bit busy right now, but I might be able to do some much needed cleanup tonight. I’m not promising anything, but the article doesn’t look “too” bad. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Courtesy pings to editors involved in the original GA: @Remurmur, Someone another, and David Fuchs. Lordtobi (✉) 13:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: Okay so I did my best with the development section. Truth be told, there's not a lot of info out there about this game, so I wrote what I found. The use of unreliable sources in the reception section will probably require a rewrite, but for now that's not too big of a deal. BTW, do you happen to know anyone who has access to old Nintendo Power magazines? I'd ask the people on the Reference library, but the three users listed for Nintendo Power magazines have retired and are no longer active. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

{@Famous Hobo: i recommend changing it into "Development and release" to fill more information.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so about two months passed after this GAR was made, with three votes to delist and next to no activity on the article. Should we just close this discussion? Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 19:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delist This doesn't strike me as a "Good Article", just a stock standard video game article that is decently fleshed out._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: Looks ready to be closed. AIRcorn (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: This discussion has been open for six months, and there's been barely anything done to improve the page. I think we should close the discussion and delist the article. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 22:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have gone ahead and delisted this per above. --Masem (t) 19:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)