Talk:Little Big Adventure

Alien9?

The article says: "The isometric view used in the game was inspired by an old game named Alien9." I wonder if you mean Alien 8? However, I don't know if it is worth mentioning as there were loads of isometric games in the same style. Unless the developers specifically mentioned that game somewhere, and if so maybe the source could be quoted? Pelago 14:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a large POV, and the use of the word "you", which is unencyclopedic. I'll fix it when I have more time. --207.54.102.45 17:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty to fiks the "you" references in the article and remove the NPOV tag. 85.166.222.157 13:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Source: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/help_to_succeed/exclusive/raynal/raynal.htm "With LBA, I wanted to create an isometric adventure game since I played Alien8 and Knight Lore, I was just waiting for 3D to come to have characters not limited with 8 directions or so."

You are correct with Alien8, however. 88.105.158.74 20:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

I have proposed merging the article Emerald moon into this article because it does not warrent its own article. It said to see more about this game, so it should be here. If there is no objections, I or someone can merge the article. -Royalguard11^Talk 18:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to merge it you should at least merge is with Little Big Adventure 2, it's more related to LBA2 than the first game. --elmuerte 19:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sabre most powerful attack

I've just finished LBA n-th time and I'm sure that the most powerful attack with sabre is in Agressive mode, NOT in athletic mode. In athletic mode Twinsen mostly jump backward and forward, in agressive mode he is mostly attacking enemies.
MichuNeo, 87.205.35.77 16:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Arcane and confusing interface"? (about autosave)

Quote from trivia: "The save system in LBA was much criticized for its arcane and confusing interface. Rather than a simple load and save, the autosave feature saves the game to the same save file/slot. In order to restore a previously saved game, player must first manually copy the saved game to the current save file/slot and reload the current game to continue."

Is it just me or does this not reflect very well how the autosave was meant to be used in the first place? It works quite well actually, and the copying trick is only necessary in case, say, you want to use a friend's savegame. Perhaps this portion should be edited? --Wacko 23:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten this part and integrated it into the main article, see this diff. --Wacko 09:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Quality of voice acting"

I understand that as a fan of this game, my opinion is probably considered a bit biased, but I can't help but disagree with the line "The quality of voice acting is generally regarded as being quite poor" I still own the game to this day, and I think the voice acting is fine, a little "cartoonish" but still good quality and well done. I'd like to propose a more neutral phrase to take the place of what I consider to be weasel words, something such as: "The voice acting, albeit cartoonish, was crisp, clear and impressed players"

Surely the phrase that you suggested in itself is full of Bias, A neutral phrase would be "Voice acting was still in its infancy when this game was created and as such may not compare in certain ways to modern games, it is open to interpretation." - But even that is wrong and shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article, ideally the whole line shouldn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.16.9 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio?

The section Background copies an entire quote from the game. Isn't this a copyright violation? (Not to mention that this quote isn't very helpful in the article...) Morshem (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalizm

Both LBA 1 and LBA 2 articles were recently vandalized by user Eik Corell. I reverted the changes and hope it won't happen again. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 05:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me he was cleaning up the articles in good faith? Removing the trivial and game guide information which has no place in an encyclopaedia. Rehevkor ✉ 14:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

He should've cleanedup the article - not DELETE sections that he didn't like. He destroyed more than half of our work and that's vandalizm to me. Check out his user talk page to see several people complaining about his behaviour. However, don't worry as I have this article on the list of my priorities and I'm going to clean it up within the next few weeks. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 23:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me, like Rehevkor is a sock-puppet of Eik Corell, which means his actions definitely stink of vandalism. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Agreeing with someone is sockpuppeting? Who knew. Rehevkor ✉ 19:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't have any sockpuppets. Eik Corell (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Eik beat me to the undo, but my original summary was "WP:3RR only applies within a 24 hour period. ;) This version cuts out all the trivial and game guide info, the "versions" table is totally unsourced and near trivial. Not encyclopaedic content." Rehevkor ✉ 15:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced? It doesn't need sources. Check the Magicball Network Forums, there's the discussion about the versions there. ;) - OBrasilo (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That is problematic, because discussion forums are not considered reliable sources.Eik Corell (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we please take this revert war to the talk page please? You've both violated the 3RR rule by now.. Rehevkor ✉ 16:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to, but the guy keeps reverting. I did post here, but he doesn't bother even to read. He keeps removing the table instead of just adding the fact (citation needed) template to it. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like user User:Eik Corell continues to vandalise this article, this time with the use of sock-puppets like User:Rehevkor. He's just violated 3 Revert Rule AGAIN. This game has an exceptionally active fanbase and I can assure you that we will not let this article be vandalised. Please leave us alone. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 00:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You're assuming bad faith here, Eik Corell's edits are in no way vandalism. If you really do think we're sockpuppets I suggest you go to the good people at sockpuppet investigations and waste their time. Oh, and OBrasilo violated the 3RR rule first. Rehevkor ✉ 00:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you violated the rule, not me. And anyway, at least 3 of us are for keeping the Versions table in the article. Only two of you are for removing it. Maybe you should stop taking your WP:OWN stance on the article, and grow up, and leave it alone. Neither you, nor Eik Corell, have posted the table here in the talk page, and broken it down, explaining version per version, why they must go. Instead, you two kept immaturely reverting my reverts, using a Wikipedia guideline as an excuse, and basically going "our way, or the highway". The article stood, as it did, for years, and now it won't change just because two people decided so, against consensus, at that. Actually, you people haven't even gotten a consensus first. The article stood one way for years, no-one changed them, then you changed them, and people revert your changes - this should be a clear sign, that people don't like your changes. So why not behave like mature men, and cease, and desist, rather, than insisting on your changes? - OBrasilo (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We have given you valid reasons for not including it, policy and guidelines, the only reason you have given is that it's "worth it". And yes, you reverted five time in a 24 hour period. I reverted twice. You have been given the chance to improve the article and table to Wikipedia's standards, but all you have done is argue semantics, cry vandalism and assume bad faith. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information, and if you want your contributions to stay they have to conform, when you submit anything here you submit it to the scrutiny of other editors (see that disclaimer below the edit window?) Rehevkor ✉ 16:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If I can't put the versions here, then where do I write them? I'm all ears, please tell me. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You could port them over to Encyclopedia Twinsunica. That wiki specializes in exactly this type of stuff, and it would be appropriate there. Eik Corell (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up is not vandalism, the table is mostly trivia. A genuine development section which focuses on how the game came into being, not an exhaustive release history of scant use to the average reader, is what the article needs. If there is a specific LBA wiki or similar fansite then such details would be far better off there as has been suggested. Someoneanother 01:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Windows

I don't think this is a Windows game. I'll remove it from the Windows games category. 2fort5r (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember having to boot into DOS to run it on Win 95, but it could have run on 3.1 I believe Rehevkor ✉ 12:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This was probably added in reference to something called LbaWin which allows the game to run in a Windows environment. Eik Corell 12:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Version table

I think this is inappropriate per WP:GAMECRUFT, #9 - Exhaustive version histories. Either it should be deleted, or changed to prose. Eik Corell (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The WP:GAMECRUFT page is referring to tables of versions, as in updates. Not to tables of international releases, such as the one in this article, which are a completely different matter. I do agree the update version, such as the 1994/1995 difference stuff, can be removed. But the various international editions (European, American, Russian, and Japanese), should be mentioned, since it's worth it.
As for sources, the European, and American, releases are known, as for Russian, and Japanese, I can easily provide sources. So yes, I'm all for shortening down the table, but I'm against its complete removal. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how it is "worth it"? But please go ahead and provide these, they need to be reliable and explain why these versions are notable, not just confirm that they exist. I'm also against it existing as a table, as a reduced version can easily exist as prose. Rehevkor ✉ 17:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A table is a far easier way to display this sort of information. To write it out grammatically would be far worse, IMO. The extra grammar adds nothing.

Also, documenting releases of stuff is quite important for collectors, or those wishing to preserve games. (or those wishing to know if a version is authentic).
As for notability, I'm talking above about Japanese, and Russian, releases, official ones basically, and played by millions of people, and mentioned on a lot of sites. Not about releases played by only 50 people, of which notability is doubtful. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OBrasilo (talk • contribs) 18:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not cater for collectors needs, it caters for encyclopaedic content. There needs to be enough coverage on these different versions before their inclusion here can be considered important enough to be mentioned here. How many people have played the versions is unimportant, coverage through reliable sources is. Also, there appears to be something wrong with your eye, you might want to get it looked at. Rehevkor ✉ 19:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia does not cater for collectors' needs, then whose needs does it caters for? That of the average Joe? If yes, then the articles can go entirely, since the average Joe of 2009 couldn't care less for a game from 12+ years ago. Fact it, most of the people reading these games' articles are fans. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether an article comes or goes is defined by the Wikipedia notability guidelines, which this article does indeed have a problem with - It's missing references, and the ones it does have are of questionable relevance, and unreliable. Unreliable specifically meaning the link to the thread on the Magicball forums - That is not a reliable source. When an article is not properly sourced, it usually indicates that an article might not meet the notability guidelines. Bottomline: If a topic doesn't hasn't received adequate coverage by reliable, third-party sources, that would indicate that it is not an important article. Eik Corell (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an Admin at Magic Ball Network, I am quite disappointed by this little discussion. While LBA is an old, now obscure, game, it got much coverage and praise in its day, and deserves to be recorded. I'm also quite supprised that a list of release data isnt considered encyclopaedic content. Its highly useful to preserve information about creative works, and their various (major) release's. This dosnt seem outside wikipedias scope to me. We could write all the versions out as a big paragraph (like the MarioBros articals do), but wouldnt this take up a lot more space? I do, however, agree the need for referencing and that a link to a forum thread wouldn't count for that. However, there isnt any lists for release's of the game I know of (and if there was, a list wouldnt be needed here). There's evidence for the various release's existing independently (ie, different boxart on different countrys gaming websites, different screenshots etc). There's plenty of evidence to support them existing, but not a neat list to link too. What would be your suggestion? - ThomasWrobel, aka Darkflame of MagicBallNetwork forums. 22:15, 16 December 2009 (GMT+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.17.125 (talk)

I see that OBrasilo has now resorted to off-site canvassing[1]. That is against the rules, too. I'm done with this now, because nothing but bad faith has been shown here. When the rules linked to are actually read, it turns into a debate about how the rules destroy Wikipedia. No wonder you were able to claim the false lack of "consensus"; you brought the other editors here yourself.

As to Thomas' question, the problem has been explained: The lists are speculative, they serve little to no use for the average reader, and none of it is sourced, so theoretically, it might as well be someone having a laugh at Wikipedia's expense. There's a policy that deals specifically with information like this, and it's called WP:OR; Original research. It deals with information that is not sourced, and is speculative in nature. If information like this is not reliably sourced, it is classified as original research. As for the notability of the article itself, the LBA series was indeed popular. One of the first I intend to do after this article is unlocked is to add, under the Reception section, some reliable third-party reviews for both of the articles. As for the lists, they will go, too unless reliable sources can be found for them, too. Even then, they should be cut down and rewritten in prose. Eik Corell (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not against the rules to ask for help on another forum. It's not Wikipedia's business to control what's done outside Wikipedia. Also, bad faith? Look at yourself, you have no knowledge on either games, yet you classify stuff you don't know as Original Research. This is immature reasonong - "oh, I don't know it, so it must be Original Research, and speculative". How are the lists speculative? I have all the versions of the game, which are listed in these articles, bar for the LBA 2 Japanese version (which, however, is reliably sourced, so not a problem at all), so how is something, which can be verified by installing the versions themselves, speculative? It's also assuming bad faith to assume it's speculative, without doing some proper research first, since you assume the table is speculative, based on no knowledge, just because you personally never heard of anything inside it.

Also, I didn't bring OutOfTimer here, neight has he brought me here. So this is two people for keeping the versions table, against two people against keeping the versions table. So, please, don't try to establish lack of consensus, based on your personal belief. You're the one going here, "I never heard of it, so it's automatically non-notable, and OR, so it's deleted, and forbidden". Seriously, Wikipedia doesn't cater for your personal needs, so maybe you should stop re-writing articles to only contain information you personally know about - personal knowledge is NOT the threshold for notability. Also, you don't WP:OWN the articles, neither do we, but you're the one behaving, like your edits are the only ones allowed, here, and instantly reverting all edits you don't like on sights. Sorry, this isn't a mature way to deal with stuff.

And about the policies, again, the policies are ruining Wikipedia. Go read some discussion on the talk page of the danah boyd article, at how policies are preventing the use of her legal, self-preferred, lowercase name, just because it's not used in print. Danah herself replied to the talk page at least once, stating the facts, but alas, people like you, ignored her, and told her she's not the top expert about herself, basically, and that print has precedence over how she prefers to name herself, even though the MOS says it's the subject's personal preference, that has to be used in such cases.

And here it's not much different. Again, we have two people with no knowledge on the subject, judging what's notable, and what's not, and telling us, the experts, to prove it's notable. No, YOU should prove that it's NOT notable, and that it's irrelevant use-less stuff. And you won't prove that to us, by constantly referring to the Wikipedia policies. Have some proper discussion with us here to establish first, what's actually notable, and what's not, and then edit the article based on that, rather than judging notability and usefulness of information with no knowledge on the subject. - OBrasilo (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It IS against the rules, and I'm done with you. Eik Corell (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Listen, again, how can you judge, whether the Versions table is notable, or not, whether it's OR, or not, and whether it's use-ful, important, and relevant, or not, when you know nothing about the article's subject? What you're doing is like an average Joe going to the article about Tyrannosaurus rex, and deleting all the scientific discussion, because they deem it speculative, and irrelevant to the average readers. - OBrasilo (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Formal apology for my bad behavior

Hereby, I formally apologize to Eik Corell, and Rehevkor, for my bad behavior until now. I promise I'll stop pushing my Versions table into this aritcle. I have decided to copy it onto my personal website about these games, The Island CX, and leave it there. It has more relevance there, than it has here. - OBrasilo (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Magicball Network

Iohannes Animosus deleted the external link to the Magicball Network (magicball.net) because it's "advertising or promotion". It's not (and it's not my site anyway). That site is the largest and the most (maybe even the only) active and updated site about the games. All other external links in this article (with exception of Twinsunica which is a wiki site) are for long abandoned sites - it's absurd for the most useful link to be removed. If no one shows objection I will add it again. ChaosFish (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He removed it, referring specifically to WP:ELNO. #11 is the one that applies here, it states: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority.". The Magicball Network is definitely a fansite. Eik Corell (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a fansite, but it's also the only source of news and articles for this game, since there is no official site whatsoever. Don't you think it's notable enough? ChaosFish (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to make an exception here. A fansite is a fansite. Rehevkor ✉ 04:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Readers can still find Magicball Network from the open directory project link, along with other fansites if that's what they're looking for. Someoneanother 02:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think its appropriate to point readers to the most valid source of further information relating to this game, and in this instance, Magicball Network is the most appropriate. Isn't that the point of wikipedia, to provision information to others with an interest in the subject matter. There should be a reference at least that there is a large active community supporting this game for fans none the wiser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.139.23 (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, perhaps Wikipedia does fall over a bit there as I agree with you, Wikipedia should be a source of recent news and knowledge rather than a few outdated articles, far be it from me to discourage the powers that be but News comes first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.16.9 (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say the Magicball Network is semi-official, since of the original Adeline Software International, at least Frédérick Raynal (the main head behind the games) and Sébastien Viannay (the main programmer) have accounts there, not to mention the site frequently posts official LBA news there. So I think the "fansite" argument is fallacious, to say the least. Not to mention, the Wikipedia guidelines do allow a larger fan community to be linked to, and the Magicball Network is by far the largest, and I repeat, semi-official.

Let me just quote Eik Corell, WP:ELNO. #11 is the one that applies here, it states: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." Now, if the largest fansite around, where one of the news posters knows the main head between the games (Frédérick Raynal) personally, and where he and Sébastien Viannay both posted at least once, and which even has mirrors of the official LBA 2 websites, does not classify as "being written by a recognized authority"... then I don't know what does.

It looks to me, like Eik Corell just has a personal dislike for the Magicball Network because Darkflame from there dared come here and defend me back then. Because it can't be a conicidence that after people from that site came here and did that, links to that site becomes the main target of Eik Corell's removal. Note that Eik Corell was one of the main parts involved in the versions table dispute in which the Magicball Network participated.

Not to even mention, the Magicball Network has existed since the year 2000, so I'd dare say it's older than Wikipedia itself. And yet, according to Eik Corell, it should just be relegated down there along with other fan-sites? I wonder why... - OBrasilo (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A spade is a spade and a fan site is a fan site. I don't think we're going to reach a consensus here, specially if you're going to make accusations of personal bias. #11 applies to sites by individuals who are recognised authorities, not anonymous fan(s) (even those that "know a guy") on a private website. This issue is resolved as far as I'm concerned. Rehevkor ✉ 11:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So Frédérick Raynal and Sébastien Viannay from Adeline Software International are anonymous fans? And the owner of the site is hardly anonymous either, considering it's public knowledge that his real name is Michiel Hendriks and he has graduated at the University of Twente in the Netherlands. And the guy who personally knows Raynal is not anonymous either, his real name is Ahmad Ghourab, and he has finished Bournemouth University in the United Kingdom and is at the moment employed in Saudi Arabia.

So please check your facts before assuming. And I repeat, Magicball Network has mirrors of both official sites of Little Big Adventure 2. And please read all I'm saying accurately instead of only reading half of it. - OBrasilo (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Developers having accounts is irrelevant. And okay then, they have names, great, this does not make them a "recognized authority," their position in making the website is just as fans, so their University credentials are totally irrelevant. Maybe if they had a few years experience in game development or game journalism with respected and recognised authorities in the gaming industry. Internet Archive, a neutral website, will likely host mirrors of these sites that can be used. Anyhoo, my risotto is burning, so I'll chime out here. If you're not satisfied with my explanation (I have no reason to believe you will be tbh) then feel free to ask for further input at WP:3O and/or WP:RFC. Rehevkor ✉ 13:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Developers that made the Little Big Adventure games themselves, having accounts there, is irrelevant? Great, if you say so. Not to mention, Wikipedia policy clearly says exception can be given to fansites if there's no other, more official, communities/sites, and I challenge you to find any other sources here, since you're the one rejecting the Magicball Network here. - OBrasilo (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Link to Magicball Network

User Rehevkor is rejecting it due to a policy that disallows fansites, but from what I know, there is an exception given in cases no better source exists, and I personallly believe this being the case here, as the Magicball Network is the only active site left on the Internet that deals with those games, and it even has input from people who worked on the games, such as Frédérick Raynal and Sébastien Viannay, as well as a long history of publishing interviews etc. with them and other people from Adeline Software International (the company that made the games), much more so than any "neutral" source has done.

So I personally see no reason to reject that link, as there is no better site than link to than that. - OBrasilo (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the "only active site left" criteria holds up. A google search reveals another website[www.lbahq.com], its last update being about a week ago. Its forums are less active, but activity on both of these forums is already low due to the nature of the sites; that of tending to old games that the general gaming population has long since moved on from, so the activity argument is moot at best. Eik Corell (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Too bad www.lbahq.com includes illegal downloads such as a No CD patch, so it does NOT fulfill the criteria for inclusion. And that's by far less official than the Magicball Network is, and unlike the Magicball Network, LbaHQ never had any input from the original LBA developers. - OBrasilo (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose There is a link already to Magicball Network and several other sites via the open directory project, readers can make up their own minds about which site they prefer. Someoneanother 23:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So? There is no better source than the Magicball Network Forums about these games, and don't bring me lbahq.com - it doesn't have half the content the Magicball Network Forums have. So, the link qualifies for inclusion according to the Wikipedia guidelines.

Also, to correct past allegations from 3 years ago that my insistence for inclusion of the version tables here and in the Little Big Adventure 2 article was because I wanted to pimp certain illegal fan-translations I was involved in, etc... the tables only listed official versions. OK, yes, some should indeed have been removed, but the rest were official. The Hebrew translations would never have been included in my tables because they aren't official and thus outside the scope.

As regards the legality of the fan-translations, though, none of them is distributed with original game files, and the Hebrew ones especially took every stop to avoid that. Also, reading past discussions on the forum, it becomes evident the game developers themselves supported the making of fan-translations, to the point that Mr. Viannay, the main programmer of the games, even wished to improve support for eg. Hebrew in his LBAWin port of LBA 1, for example.

But all that is irrelevant here anyway as noone wanted to even remotely mention fan-translations. I absolutely agree the tables neededed editing - the Russian versions should have been removed, and unconfirmed rumors, such as the "floppy version" allegedly found in Romania, too should have been removed. But the altogether removal of the tables was counter-productive. And yes, I agree that the table wasn't really the best form to present the data, but to remove it was not the best solution and was not in the least cooperative.

And the accusations of me wanting to pimp fan-translations I was involved in, was assuming bad faith, as was of course, my accusing some editors of vandalism. And me canvassing for off-site support was very immature and childish, I now realize that.

All in all, sorry for these long paragraphs, I just felt I needed to clarify the whole deal. And I heartily apologizre for my own bad actions from 3 years ago. - 212.235.186.230 (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Just so it's clear who I am, I just logged in and am signing this with my username too (the IP is my University's IP). - OBrasilo (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Little Big Adventure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071110004816/http://www.rpgtown.com/index.php?page=music_vachey to http://www.rpgtown.com/index.php?page=music_vachey

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Source

• http://archive.is/Y4tJa
• https://archive.org/details/Pcmania26/page/n25
• https://archive.org/details/UneditedPCGamer_marktrade/page/n139/mode/2up