Jump to content

Talk:The Longest Journey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Abnaxus)

Simple Puzzles?

[edit]

I know that Dreamfall was criticized for it's simple puzzles, but i don't recall this one being criticized. I've played the game myself (obviously if I were to write all that story), and I can't say the puzzles are simple. True the puzzles were more logical than most other adventure games, and because of that a bit simpler. But I had still spent hours on end on just some puzzles, and ended up looking up a walkthrough on some. --Nerox 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a rather unfounded statement and I suggest that it is removed unless the contributor, Finduilas 09 (talk • contribs), finds some sources to support it ASAP. --Koveras ☭ 08:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticized for dialouge?

[edit]

In the first paragraph it says TLJ was criticized for it's extensive cast and amount of dialouge. I don't remember hearing this anywhere, in fact, I had heard praise of that. Is there a reference to this, or was someone just talking their opinion?

I've seen this mentioned in quite a few on-line and magazine reviews of the game. It is also reflected in the user reviews on MobyGames.com. I'll try and find a definate instance to cite. Jay Firestorm 23:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translations

[edit]

translation from Norwegian to English: Although developed in Norway, English is the original language that TLJ was developed in. All other languages (Norwegian, Swedish, French, Spanish, Polish, Czech, Dutch, German) are based on the English version. This is particularly apparent in the games' outtakes, which are from the New York recording sessions. Enno

I replaced that bit. Several reviewers in different languages have praised the game for going to the effort of making a localized release, so I just put that instead and added some more information to the complaints about lengthy dialog (I counted the sound files. The number isn't the same for each release).
In case anyone cares, the ten localizations that I can remember were: French, English, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch, German, Italian, Czech, Polish, Spanish. Did I miss one? Enno 21:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is now also a Russian translation, so that makes it 11 (although only 9 have localized sound - we did Czech and Italian as localized subtitles only. Enno (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy POV

[edit]

This paragraph is just full of POV comments:

The long and complex plot, a cast of memorable NPCs, simple yet effective interface and stunning graphics all got wide critical acclaim. Even with some reviewers pointing out the low difficulty level, slow pacing - the feeling empowered by the huge amount of the in-game dialogue - and lack of real character development, it was one of the few almost unanimously praised adventure games in recent history (and one that attracted many mainstream gamers' attention as well).

For an example, I don't recal praise of TLJ's graphics ever got as far as calling them "stunning". I think a full rewrite of this part is needed. - The Merciful 10:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First four reviews that turn up after Googling The Longest Journey say as follows:
Two things that will almost immediately strike you about The Longest Journey are the absolutely gorgeous cutscenes and the sumptuously rendered backgrounds. Both are truly a wonder to behold, and represent some of the finest examples of visual excellence that can be seen on the market today. - Adrenaline Vault
The worlds are brought to life with rich, detailed graphics. - Gamespot
The graphics, video cut scenes, voice acting, music, and SFX, are all absolutely top-notch ... and more! - Quandary
The pre-rendered backgrounds, character designs, and CG movies are incredible, driving the story as successfully as the writing. - IGN
So there. You didn't even care to check it out, did you?
-- by user:62.179.48.184

That's all besides the point. Wikipedia has an official policy of using neutral point of view. For comparison, articles about Quake and Unreal don't mention how great the graphics of the said games were, while there undoubteldy is hundreds of reviews praising them as "stunning", "amazing" or "revolutionary". As for you snide comment, the talk pages are for discussing articles in order to improve them. I suggest you read these official policies too: no personal attacks, civility and avoid personal remarks. --The Merciful 14:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't see your point. You explicitly said that you don't recall reviewers praising TLJ graphics to that extent, so I brought up (easily found) examples that they did. To which your response is that "that's all besides the point"? I find articles you cite, especially the Quake one, hardly informative. How is the following passage more neutral?
Many believe that it kick-started the independent 3D graphics card revolution, "GLQuake" being the first application to truly demonstrate the capabilities of the 3DFX "Voodoo" chipset at the time. The impact of the Quake engine is still being felt to this day.
As for the "snide" comment, point taken. I'm genuinely sorry that you felt offended. -- by user:62.179.48.184
Apology accepted. I suppose my first comment wasn't well expressed, but that was because I was annoyed about what I saw, and still see, as marketing talk. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be factual encyclopedia, I think that is a discredit to both The Longest Journey and Wikipedia. It is better to descripe the plot, the gameplay, the character and the graphics, and perhaps upload a screenshot or two, than to just refer to reviews, even from prestigious sites or magazines. My graphics comment was mostly to point out that text of assertious nature doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article.
As for the Quake quote... Well, as I recall, it really was a "killer aplication" for 3D hardware at the time, and the quote doesn't make assertions about greatness or stunningness of the graphics. So the quote seems factual to me. Of course everything could be improved, and the Quake article in particular. --The Merciful 19:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

[edit]
  • Rewrote the article (the previous one read more like a review than a encyclopedia article) and added new information about the characters. --Antrophica

Story?

[edit]

There's detailed info on all the characters...but virtually nothing about the story and plotline! Burns flipper 07:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can summarize the entire story of TLJ, you are welcome to try. %) No offence, but I wouldn't dare it because the game is HUGE. --Koveras 10:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added all the story information. I have placed the Balance, Factions, and Locations before the Plot, as I feel it is helpful if the reader knows about the story universe first before reading about the Plot--Nerox 06:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, respect, Nerox! That's a lot of text to write at once. %) Do you mind me copyediting your contribs a bit later today or would you rather do it yourself? --Koveras ☭ 10:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. I have already proof read it twice. And there's not much else i can really add or change--Nerox 10:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Characters section

[edit]

I just removed the following as speculation from Lady Alvane: "Possibly, Lady Alvane actually is April from the future who has found means to travel in time."

There is no mention of time travel in TLJ, other than Brian Westhouse getting trapped in a Shift for 300 years - which isn't actually time travel. I propose to replace it with: "There are hints throughout her dialogue that suggest she may be April as an old woman, recounting the tale of her adventure."

Thoughts? Burns flipper 07:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I do not believe that Lady Alvane is April, since IMO it goes against the continuity of TLJ. But many of those who played the game consider this a serious possibility - may be they would like to comment your proposal. --Koveras 10:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it goes against the continuity? See Ragnar's thoughts here, and other gamer thoughts here. Burns flipper 11:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd say I trust Tornquist on this topic. Therefore I'd just leave Lady Alvane out of speculations, since until he himself fulfils his promise and tells us just who on Earth she is. :) Until then, however, I'd mention the speculations but not deal with them explicitely in the article. Though a link to that TLJ-wiki article could be useful, too. --Koveras 15:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good plan. I've added in the details and the links. Burns flipper 07:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 or 2 CD-ROMs

[edit]

It is for sure that this game also exists on only two cd roms? My copy has the normal four. Garion96 (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My version has 4 cds. Tartan 15:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2CD version has been released a couple of years after the 4CD one AFAIK. It contains an edition of the game that is better optimized for modern operating systems and hardware but the content is essentially the same. Some bugs are fixed, too. --Koveras 16:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be incredibly impossible to pack 4 CDs into 2 without loosing anything... I am very interested in what the differences are. Sb knows? (BTW: is there really a DVD version? I haven't seen that one) - m_gol 23:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about a 2CD version, but I know that in the UK, Xplosiv [1] have released a 'budget' DVD version - I am playing it now. Unlike the 4CD version, it is XP compatible. 217.134.115.179 23:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a 2-CD version for sure. Check out the official store: https://funcom.asknet.com/cgi-bin/show/P13386 I don't know what's different though. Mamen 07:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify this a litte: Initially and up to and including Version 143, the game was released on 4 CDs. At the time, it was required to encode the audio as PCM. The codec was chosen because it allowed streaming off a 4x speed CD and decode it with a Pentium 75 at the same time. It also had low-res versions of the videos for those types of low-end PCs. Several years later, in order to re-release the game as a budget title (and later to bundle it with Dreamfall), the low-res videos were dropped and all sounds re-coded to Ogg Vorbis format. In the process, the game received a new sound engine (the open-source Audiere) and a number of fixes to make it run on XP and Vista. Enno (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the releases the 2CD-release or 4CD-release is not entirely accurate - there were DVD releases of both versions, and different download offers (among them Steam). The version numbers are a more clear: The original releases have version numbers up to 143, the latest patch for the new releases is Version 161 - patches are not interchangeable between releases because of the significantly altered code and data files. Enno (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sales figures

[edit]

longestjourney.com said in July 2002 that there had been sales of 450,000. Anyone got any more recent sales figures? Also, there's not many references... better watch out or some wikinazi will AFD it... --Amaccormack 13:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Blade Runner reference?

[edit]

Looking through the screenshots at MobyGames, I noticed that the one labeled "Hope Street" looks like straight out of Blade Runner. If someone who has actually played the game can verify this, it might make an interesting addition to the trivia. Not having played the game myself, I didn't want to add it just based on one screenshot. -- 213.47.127.75 21:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setting section

[edit]

The setting section is getting a bit out of hand. We might wanna consider moving its contents to corresponding Stark and Arcadia articles. --Koveras ☭ 12:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of Adventure Genre

[edit]

Misleading - adventure genre did not decline, more that there was significant mass-market growth in other genres. Edited accordingly! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scarybot (talk • contribs) 15:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Removed huge amounts on unencyclopaedic information, trivia and other frippery. Wikipedia is not a fan site

[edit]

I think this edit removed too much. For example most articles about fiction have a plot summary. --Lasttan 09:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This is Wikipedia after all, so feel free to edit back in what you think should be there. :) As it stands though, the article was almost ridiculously unencyclopaedic. Thanks for the feedback though! The Great Unwashed 13:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will restore the plot summary and I also think that the setting section should be restored, too. :) --Koveras ☭ 23:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the need for a plot summary, but this plot summary clearly to me meets the categories for being overly long. It needs to be *seriously* trimmed down as it basically details every single thing the character does during the story. It is not a summary, it's an explicit plot in and of itself... It needs to either go (again, sorry) or be hacked away at with a giant editing knife. The Great Unwashed (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have trimmed it down but I'm currently working on several other pages, so I won't be of any help. :( --Koveras ☭ 09:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just add a clean up tag if you don't have time for a copy edit instead of just delete information that may be still useful for that. --134.109.124.131 (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 2p is that the plot summary is far too long as it stands. I'd say 3-4 paragraphs would be about right; at the moment it has 18! People need to consider what that word "summary" means! 81.153.111.37 (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I thought we already agreed that trimming the summary is necessary. :) --Koveras ☭ 07:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Lee

[edit]

Is he really in Dreamfall? I can't recall seeing him. Where is he? Mamen (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone might have confused him with Marcus, who does have episodic roles in both The Longest Journey and Dreamfall. AFAIK Zack never appears nor is mentioned in the second game. --Koveras ☭ 13:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

[edit]

I moved some info from the article lead to the synopsis and rewrote the critics paragraph to mirror what the reviews I found were saying. This was the original text:

The game drew praise from critics[who?] for the quality of its localizations (having been translated from English into ten different languages), but was criticized[who?] for having what some regarded as an excessive amount of dialogue (the game features almost 8,300 individual voice samples)

If someone can find attributable sources for those claims, feel free to add it back in.

Also deleted some of the more blatant spoilers from the character descriptions. --Jopo (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Plot Summary section is too long and detailed.

[edit]

I added the appropriate tag, but this section needs some serious work. It is too long and detailed (which is against Wiki policy) and could probably be cut down by half. If someone more familiar with the game than I am could address this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's a serious issue here, not made any easier by the fact that TLJ easily has one of the longest storylines in a video game... Maybe if I had time, I would have written a briefer summary like I did for Dreamfall but alas, not at the moment. :( --Koveras ☭ 08:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

I'm wondering why the infobox says "Aspect ratio 4:3" but all the Scrennshots aren't.

The screenshots are cropped, as far as I understand, removing the unused bars on top and bottom of the screen. However, although they are not used in the backgrounds, they are used to place interface elements, such as the inventory "button". Therefore, the game is in aspect ratio 4:3 but the backgrounds are closer to 16:9. --Koveras ☭ 19:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TLJwiki

[edit]

TLJwiki has a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors, so I'd argue that the documented exception to WP:ELNO#EL12 applies in this case. Moreover, the link is not provided to promote the wiki (WP:ELNO#EL4), since it's already well established, and the wiki offers a lot of additional information about the setting, characters, and plot of the game that may be of interest to readers but has no place on Wikipedia (WP:ELNO#EL1). Additionally, the creators of the TLJ series have praised the TLJwiki themselves. I therefore maintain that the link to the TLJwiki is useful in this article and does not violate the Wikipedia guidelines. --Koveras ☭ 19:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reference for the creators praising the wiki. It's in Norwegian, but you can put it into Google Translate and just search for "wiki" on the page to find Ragnar Tørnquist's comment on the topic. --Koveras ☭ 16:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Koveras, look at the page that's actually being linked to here: it consists, in its entirety, of "This page needs content. You can help by adding a sentence or a photo!". How is that a helpful external link? Furthermore, the wiki as a whole has been edited by only 48 people, ever. That doesn't constitute a substantial number of editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. The parameter for the template was set wrong, which is why it didn't link correctly. I will fix it on other TLJ-related pages, as well. As for 48 editors, the TLJWiki was migrated to Wikia from a private hosting in 2008, during which time most of the editing records have been lost. --Koveras ☭ 17:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it's 48 editors since 2008? That still doesn't qualify as a "substantial number", I'm afraid. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments still haven't convinced me, so I've requested a third opinion on the topic before it degrades into an edit war. --Koveras ☭ 12:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this brought up at WP:3O. My opinion is that 48 editors, especially over 4-5 years, does not constitute a substantial number of editors and that the wiki would therefore fall afoul of WP:ELNO. If anyone would like to pursue this further, you are welcome to engage in other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, but just how many would be a "substantial" number? It's a wiki for a static adventure game. Not a TV-show or an MMO that still changes around. I seem to remember there is/was even a complete transcript of what every character in the game says (might have been deleted, or moved out, not sure). So it's not like people go and correct or update stuff all the time.
Also, as per Koveras' link above, that wiki is considered stable and reliable enough to be used by the game's devs for reference, but not reliable enough to be used simply as External link here on WP? That seems a bit too stickler for rules in my opinion. So basically, am I to understand we're not allowed to put up more fleshy texts here on WP because it makes the articles too long and too confusing for people that are not familiar with the game, new articles get deleted or merged for not having enough relevance on their own, and we're not allowed to put up links to a wiki that actually gives a proper description of the game's backstory and characters. *rolls eyes* Guess that is why I generally can't be bothered to spend more time on WP. --Hekseuret (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would take the time to write an in-depth response to this, but you blew it with your final sentence, where it seems you're not seeking a serious discussion. As I noted, if you're unhappy with my opinion then you have other options you can pursue. DonIago (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

48 unique editors contributing after 2008 to a static adventure game that came out in 1999 with a squeal from 2006 is actually an incredibly high number, considering most content is right after a game is released. --Khhlevir (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a matter of opinion rather than fact and may be worth discussing at the EL noticeboard given that "substantial" is obviously a term that can be subject to interpretation. In the meantime please don't reinsert the link while discussion is ongoing and a consensus has not been reached. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As both Hekseuret and Khhlevir pointed out, the current argument against the inclusion of this external link rides on the "48 editors" and on how substantial that number is. I have read the WP:ELNO and didn't find any passage saying that "substantial is 49 or more", from which I conclude that the exact meaning of "substantial" is decided in each case separately. In this particular case, we have a wiki dedicated to a fifteen year-old video game series updated roughly once a decade, whose last installment was released in 2006—that is, two years before the wiki migration wiped the old editing records clean. In this light, an argument based on a number of editors after the vast majority of the encyclopedic content available from both released games has already been written down appears a bit shaky to me.
On the other hand, it is safe to assume that the TLJwiki is currently the largest and most complete resource of in-universe information on this video game series, as supported by the series original creator's public endorsement of it. It is thus the most helpful external website for readers who want more detail on the plot, characters, and fictional universe of the series, and it seems rather petty to me to remove the link to it simply because the number 48 doesn't look "substantial" outside of this context. --Koveras ☭ 18:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I only got involved with this because a third opinion was requested and I offered mine. It appears that there are differing opinions as to whether that number of editors qualifies as substantial, which is why I recommended asking at the EL talk page, since it's then a matter of policy clarification.
I have very little familiarity with the actual subject matter of this article and am unqualified to comment on whether or not the wiki might be a useful reference, but policy is what it is with regards to external links, and if the wiki is to be included then it should either be established that the wiki meets the conditions established at EL or that we're willing to waive them, and why this site is so exceptional that the conditions should be waived. In fact, perhaps if the site is so exceptional then a sourced statement should be included in the article text itself establishing this exceptionalism.
I presume I don't need to point out that opting to ignore a policy simply because editors believe it's "petty" would establish a dangerous precedent.
In terms of how to proceed, I think I've offered all of the possibilities I have to offer. Bluntly, I think a wider range of opinions is needed here to form a consensus. DonIago (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will try asking about it on Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. --Koveras ☭ 16:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Honestly, I think that's the best idea. Language such as "substantial" is really horrible when writing policies because it's so non-objective. Thaks for letting us know and I'll try to keep tabs on that conversation as well. DonIago (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, the discussion on the noticeboard got archived with zero input from outside parties. Any ideas what to do next? --Koveras ☭ 13:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate, moreso because I've seen other topics have received commentary in the meantime. All things being equal I'd argue that this is bad form, but you could raise the subject there again if you'd like, and I would support you. Otherwise it might be worth creating an WP:RFC for this to get additional thoughts on the subject. DonIago (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we should go to WP:RFC next, but I am so tired of explaining this debate again and again, I just can't do it at the moment. I will start a thread there once I have the spiritual strength to do this again. --Koveras ☭ 08:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and opened the RFC. Hope it works for you! DonIago (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this matter has not been resolved. It is inappropriate to restore the link per WP:STATUSQUO, which is an essay in any case. It is neither policy nor a guideline and should not be used to justify reinserting the link in the absence of a consensus. That said, those wishing to move this along are encouraged to review dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why is it that the article has to be in the state that caused the discussion and arguing in the first place while waiting for enough people to be interested in the matter for it to be resolved? –Hekseuret (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that when there's a question as to whether material is appropriate for inclusion, the best course of action is to leave it out of the article until a consensus for inclusion has been reached. If there's a policy that says otherwise, you're welcome to point it out to me. DonIago (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because per WP:ELBURDEN disputed links are left out by default unless there is an active consensus that they should be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]
Non-Admin Closure: The policy-backed consensus is that the TLJwiki fails multiple critera of WP:ELNO and therefore should not be included in the external links of the article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As evidenced from the prior section of this page, some editors feel that TLJwiki meets the criteria to be included in the "External links" section of this article, while others are uncertain that it does. We attempted to get a ruling on this matter at WP:ELN but it did not receive comment. We felt that an RFC was the next best step. Thank you for your assistance! DonIago (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No: This site fails WP:ELNO. A sampling of pages shows few if any citations (fails criterion #2, unverifiable research). It has 48 total editors since 2008, only 23 of whom have made more than 5 edits and only 4 of whom have edited in the last month (fails criterion #12, does not have a substantial number of editors). It also fails WP:ELNEVER (uses non-free images for screen background and other decorative uses, which do not fall under fair use; no evidence of site-wide licensing, and even in some cases no indication of copyright status or creator). Finally, it does not meet either WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include That it fails WP:ELNO is simply a matter of opinion. As asked in the discussion above, how many people are necessary to make it a "substantial number" for a Wiki about a static adventure game? Per Koveras' link in the above discussion the contents on the Wiki are also considered good enough for the game devs themselves to use as reference. And most of the stuff can be verified if you play the game series. If this link fails WP:ELNEVER then you might as well remove almost every single external link (including MobyGames) on any article about any game, TV-show or film. (Besides, the background image was given out as a promo during the Kickstarter campaign.) I would claim it actually fits WP:ELYES because it expands and fills out all the empty holes about the game that through various edits and standalone articles that have been removed from WP. Hekseuret (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most uses of screenshots/logos can be justified by fair-use guidelines and so do not fail ELNEVER. In this particular case, though, the use is decorative, which means it does not fall under fair use and so fails. As to ELNO, #12 have been previously held to support wikis with an edit base in the high hundreds or thousands, or at least a highly active core user base. This wiki has neither. ELYES requires "neutral and accurate" and "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude I was asked by 'bot to comment on the RFC and one of the issues that does crop up from time to time is what constitutes Fair Use and what constitutes Pay For Access Internet servers, both issues of which seem to be relevant here to different degrees.
In other Wikipedia pages, when articles have had external links to The Wall Street Journal which are provided as citations, often those links had to be disallowed since The Wall Street Journal site requires subscription fees -- which violates one of the Wikipedia rules.
When it comes to external links which are not used in citations, the guideline disallowing links to Pay For Access web servers is somewhat less strict however the guideline still remains: linking to or retrieving content from external servers which are Pay For Access is generally disallowed though like all Wikipeida rules it's up to Editors to decide what is allowed and what is not.
My opinion is that including the content is Fair Use so the editors don't need to worry about violating ELNEVER dictates. At the same time I feel that linking to a Pay For Access server does in fact violate the guideline disallowing such links and the proposed link should not be allowed.
I will also note that the link provided is broken anyway. :) Damotclese (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Proposed merge with List of The Longest Journey characters

[edit]

This character list is almost entirely sourced to primary sources—it doesn't have enough coverage to warrant standing on its own. The characters are sufficiently covered in the related section of the main article. czar 14:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see an issue with this in that the character list details events and characters from all three games released so far, so just merging all of it into the first game's article would cause confusion. --Koveras ☭ 15:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In lieu of a series article, the idea is to redirect the list to this page and merge any content to the respective plot/character sections in each game's articles as appropriate. All in all, there aren't sources to support a dedicated, separate character list article. czar 18:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the splitting has occurred to me as a possible solution, as well, but as the current maintainer of the Dreamfall Chapters article, I must honestly admit that the current contents of the corresponding section in the characters list would contribute little to that article. The character list goes into much detail that is better suited for a dedicated wiki, and I don't think preserving it at all costs would be worth the trouble. --Koveras ☭ 20:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me czar 20:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Longest_Journey&oldid=1205593034"