Talk:Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS video game)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested merge 

message: * Merge, by my nomination. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Wish you said that before, be more specific in your edit summaries next time. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game's rating 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Title