Talk:Eggman Nega

message: I've noticed that this hasn't shown up yet... This interview with Taylor Miller, the producer of both Rivals games, said:
"I have included SEGA's response: "Although there may have been some
differences in the story setting for both Sonic Rivals 1 and Sonic Rush, Eggman-
Nega is same character. He comes from another dimension, and the reference of
time was to place the mystery of the cards in context with the story. We really hadn't
effectively changed where Eggman-Nega comes from, just added another
dimension if you like to the overall storyline."
If this is correct, then Nega in the Rivals games is apparently NOT from the future... Or it may just confuse things even more. Should this be added to the article? --Cronosonic (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interview with Taylor Miller 

message: Sorry about this but this article needs to go back to minor villians section.
I'm going to request a merge for this one and the cream one as well for they look so slacked.Wolly da wanderer 23:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is shoddy! 

message: Just because it may not fit in well with other games dosn't mean it didn't happen. And just because Nega first appeared in Rush dosn't mean that games he was in after aren't canon. So do you think that Sonic still lives on mobius, even though new games have cleared up that he dosn't? Just because you like Rush better dosn't mean that it must be right. Anyway this can be explained:
-SONIC RIVALS-
Nega first comes to the present but Sonic thinks hes Eggman
-SONIC RIVALS 2-
Nega comes back for revenge. At the end of the game he is trapped under rubble in the other dimension explaining why he is from another dimension in Rush.
-SONIC RUSH-
He comes back from the other dimension where Blaze also lives. Sonic KNOWINGLY meets him for the 1st time. He's sent back there again at the end of the game. He puts his differences aside with the other Eggman so they team up.
-SONIC RUSH ADVENTURE-
Is shown living in the other dimension. Teams up with Eggman again.
^There i thought that had been explained.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.248.156 (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sonic Rivals 1 & 2 happened if you like it or not

message: Why is this article getting deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairfieldfencer (talk • contribs) 22:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is a witch hunt going on for minor video game characters, you should always comment on the deletion disscution page (in this case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eggman Nega) if you disagree with the nomination to delete!  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: In all honesty, the AfD result was contrary to the actual result of the AfD - about 60% of the people wanted to either delete or merge/redirect the content, and the 40% who wanted it to have its own article didn't give good arguments that validates it surviving a second AfD. It hasn't improved in notability since the first AfD, and surviving this AfD just shows that the closer wasn't paying attention to this fact. Because of this, the article should be merged. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was paying attention.  You list an "opinion" as "fact", which is problematic to assuming good faith.  I saw the discussion as not having a clear consensus for deletion, which matches your statistical analysis above.  AfD is not a vote, and as our policy requires, I leaned toward keep when there was no clear consensus for delete.  Collaboration includes discussion, and you could have established a dialog with me on my talk page before making an accusation against me here.  Please review your conduct and see how you can improve it.  Thank-you, Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 16:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I pointed out that the first AfD didn't result in any one single editor to make an attempt at improving the article's problems at all, which is a very good reason why consensus "rules" are overruled. The main problem with Eggman Nega was that the article didn't assert notability, and despite having so much time to improve it, nothing has been done. If it can't have its notability established, then that should have been taken into account with the closing decision. The first "keeper" only gave "was in three hugely popular games", and in fact said that it lacks sources. The second cited the previous discussion (which passed despite it having no sources asserting notability, and everyone saying "keep, but needs to be improved", which didn't exactly result in anything). The third was "he is a different character from Eggman", and the fourth said "major character in a notable series" (which is misleading, since he's a major character in three games out of dozens of others). First deleter mentioned its "cruftish nature" (and in fact, most of the content involves the three games' plot summary), Second deleter (me) cited that the content in the article is the same as that in Eggman's article, third deleter said that the first AfD failed because people insisted it was notable, but as we can see, no one ever established this. Simply put, the fact that the article had no improvement since the first AfD and has not had any references for reception or development at all since the second brings into question if anyone is actually ever going to establish that their claim of it being notable is legitimate. If no one is going to do it, it shouldn't be an article. If someone ends up doing it, they can unmerge it AFTER they put any effort into doing such a thing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree.  Actually wikipedia is a special project that has no deadlines.  It is okay if poorer quality articles never get imrpoved.  That just shows average readers that the little edit button at the top can be used by anyone.  No rush to finish the project and remove the edit button from the top.  Recommendations to delete on the basis that the article has not improved since the last time somebody listified their concerns with its quality are usually ignored when determining consensus at AfD.  It is also perfectly acceptable for several articles to have overlapping scope of coverage.  Just because the Star Wars article describes C3PO in some detail is not a valid reason to delete the C3PO article.  If the article truly made no assertion of notability, then it could have been speedy-deleted.  Surviving an AfD seems to disprove your statement.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 04:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that is a terrific idea.  Be bold. Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 22:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge.