Talk:LeChuck/Archive 1

Vagaries of death

Died outside her window? I've never seen THAT before. I've always seen it in MI1 as dying at sea in a shipwreck.

Gateway to heck / gateway to hell dilemma

I have recently edited the "gateway to heck" part to "gateway to hell", because it seems more likely to me and also the Italian translations of the third game named it a "portale per l'inferno" (literally, "gateway to hell"). However I have found "gateway to heck" also on the Dinky_Island page, and so I am unsure about which of them is correct. Can anybody enlighten me, and perhaps revert the page to its previous version if I was wrong in editing the page?

• Well, during the "Manditory villainous explanation" near the end of Curse, LeChuck claims that there are catacombs that run under the sea-floor between Dinky and Monkey Island. Although Guybrush started looking for Big Whoop on Dinky, he unbeknownstly (is that even a word?) went through the catacombs and ended up on Monkey Island. Simple and convenient. - Nepharski June 26, 2:21 PM

brother

are lechuck and guybrush brothers or not?!

That's the thing. In the article it states definitively that LeChuck is not Guybrush's brother and that Guybrush's parents in the Carnival were skeletons. While this is the most plausible explaination, it's still ambiguous whether or not they're related. Hmmm... --Onias 14:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

after the second game they never mention it agen so it could be true or a trick Sailor cuteness 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Personality

This section is absolutely loaded with POV ("without a doubt...one of the most evil, sick, and wicked villains ever," etc.), and more or less unnecessary - the descriptions of LeChuck's roles in the four games illustrate his evil, romantic and gullible nature well enough. I can't see any reason to keep it.--ShaleZero 05:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes

Alright, I made alot of changes since the inaccurate information drove me crazy. LeChuck did not try to impress Elaine by finding Big Whoop. He was trying to find out the secret of monkey island to impress her. Also there is absolutly no proof that he enlisted Ozzie's help,I believe that LeChuck murdered Elaine's great grandfather while Ozzie attempted to murder her grandfather. Horatio never tried to find Big Whoop and Captain Marley was the one looking for it (also the display of them on the roller coaster ride at the end of the third game shows them as seperate people and they look NOTHING alike.) This fixes that HUGE continuation problem and is the only explanation that makes sense and gets the timeline and story back on track. LeChuck was also the only one who went through Big Whoop, not him and his crew. It is stated in the first game by Bob that he captured a ship and murdered all the crew members aboard and then reanimated them as ghosts. His original crew, besides Largo, were killed in that storm when he was searching for the secret of monkey island. I also included alot more information on his background, such as how he murdered captain marley and his crew and how he came to be such a threat to the carribean. I elaborated alot more on his role in the games, his plans, history, and statements. I think LeChuck is a great villain and all the information on his past plans and schemes should be included. As for the personality section, that was included to tell how evil LeChuck is. Is he funny, yes, but nonetheless he is pure evil to the core with some laughter in it. I agree that the games perfectly illusrate all his aspects but for people who have never played these games and are looking for a game with a great villain, that section should be very helpful. The other sections show no underlined suggestion of his evil, so this section works out to give some feedback to his characterization. I think the section elaborates on his thoaghts on other characters. So, I just think of this as giving LeChuck the praise he deserves for being such a great villain.

The changes you made are okay, but require more citations. For example, the first sentence in personality says that LeChuck is widely recognized as one of the greatest video game villians, you need a citation for an article made by one or more video gaming websites or magazines which support this. Likewise, a lot of the revised history part seems a bit odd: Where does it say that LeChuck ever killed children in Big Whoop? Children weren't allowed ride the rollercoaster into Big Whoop. A lot the "Terror" that he put the Carribean through seems to have come from nowhere too, it was never mentioned in any of the games. With the exception of MI2, his primary goal has been making Elaine love him and that is all he would be doing. There was never anything about him sadictically burning down towns and murdering hundreds of thouands of people. You also say that he has fortresses throughout the Carribean, when we only ever see one and no more are ever mentioned. The pirates were scared of him, but the genocide you are proposing is way over the top! Also, there's never any mention of him Kidnapping people to build the carnival whatsoever. It's just there, the fact that it apparantly came from nowhere is supposed to be a joke.

I'm going to remove the entire "Terror throughout the Carribean" paragraph, the references to him killing Children and the phrase caliming that he is recognized as one of the best video game villians(unless supplied with an actual citation rather than "I think he's great"). I'm also gonna scour the rest of the article and remove any POV or any exploits not mentioned in the games. I think he's cool too, but a lot of the stuff you put in seems to be made up rather than from official sources.

Eccentricned 03:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, just saw the phrase "isn't shown or told" in reference to part of Monkey island 2 while editing. If it isn't shown or told, then it can't be mentioned on a wikipedia article. Seriously, I'm not trying to make fun of you here, but alot of what you wrote seemed to be an over the top fan fiction rather than a summary of his exploits in the games. For future reference, unless it's mentioned in game or by a citable article by a game creator, don't put it in. Trying to make him out to be as cool as possible and actually reporting on is exploits are two completely different things. Eccentricned 03:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I agree with you, but the whole not shown or told thing was put there because the second game is the only possible chance that LeChuck had to make that carnival. The first game did not have it and it was on Monkey Island at the end of the second game. He also states that he had to commit murders, intimadation, and kidnapping when you ask him how he came to make an amusment park on a deserted island in the third game. He say that he rounded up creative people to build the park and hundreds of them died in the process. Also, the whole thing of him burning villages and towns, that came from my intruction booklet for the PS2 version of the game. It basically states that he burned villages and ships while pillaging, murdering, and lootin the Carribean and that he wanted to consume every living soul in the Caribbean. That's what it exactly says. Most of it, I have from books or other sources. I just didn't make it up, I'm not that upsessed. I will agree that him killing thousands of people and children was over the top. It could be true but I didn't have enough evidence for that so that can be removed.

swering

is he sticking his midle finger up in that pictor lol

Heh, never noticed that. I think that's his ring finger. Well, that was one of the more menacing picture I could find of him.

"Killed" Pirates?

I quote this sentence under his appearance in MI1. Thinking Guybrush to be dead, LeChuck raids the island, kills all remaining pirates and kidnaps Elaine. I don't recall him killing the pirates. If you ask the cook in the SCUMM Bar where the pirates went, he ignores your question and goes off on his "Elaine has been kidnapped!" spiel. I believe the majority of the pirates either went into hiding when LeChuck came, or are off looting Elaine's mansion. What do you think? -70.111.9.100 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was the one who put that there, but now that I think of it, there was no evidence of what happened to them. When you ask the cook, he gives no clear explanation. In my opinion, I think all these occurances could've of happened. LeChuck could've killed some, or they simply went into hiding or looted the mansion. No evidence presented in the game though, so I really don't know what to make of it.

if you try to go to the mansion the bouncer wont let you in because evreyones looting it and you make a apontment Sailor cuteness 20:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Personality section

I think the personality section needs a bit of a clean-up as it is quite poorly written. It stresses the fact that LeChuck is intelligent but gullible twice and at one point says "intelligent and clever" which both mean exactly the same thing. Also the tense appears to keep changing. Just something I thought I should point out.

Anon

Picture Controversy

Alright, someone apparently has a great dislike to the picture of LeChuck in the mansion. This person, Prince of Darkness, seems to like this one picture of LeChuck where he is standing up. His only reason for the change is that he likes it better. That is purly opinion based and opinions without valid reasons do not make it alright to change a picture. The one I like is the first one mentioned. That picture has been up for over a year and no one has had any objections to it till now. The latter picture is horrible in my opinion for the simple fact that it's not really a picture of all. It's a shot of LeChuck that was ripped out of a custscene. Basically, it's a graphic ripped from a background. This person has no valid reasons for this change, so I want other users to give their thoughts. Tell which picture you like better and why. If a lot of people favor the other picture and have valid reasons, then I have no problem in changing it. It's just really fucking pissing me off that Prince of Darkness keeps changing the picture just because he likes the other one better; pure bullshit.-Darknessofheart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darknessofhearts (talk • contribs) 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Before mentioning all this, you should have provided the image with a fair use rationale. It can be deleted at any moment. The Prince of Darkness 09:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree; original image is far superior. Fair use rationale can easily be added; and I would question its validity attached to the latter which is an *edit* of copywrited material. Shantih1 16:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Look at Tidus for instance; the image portraying him has a white background. This looks a lot neater, and the other image only displays LeChuck's upper body. Besides, an unsourced article must contain an unreferenced tag. The Prince of Darkness 22:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. I first came to this discussion, by Prince's request, thinking it was a fair use debate, but it's really a debate about which image looks better. They are both fine. If we must have two images from the same scene, my suggestion is that Prince's image be the infobox image, and that Darkness' image replace the "LeChuck and Ozzie ambush Guybrush." You don't need an image showing Ozzie and LeChuck ambushing someone, the term is quite clear. If you do, then I guess Darkness' infobox image will have to go. Now, to my reasoning. I prefer Prince's image because you get a full body shot, as opposed to Darkness' where it's just a profile. Also, Prince's image fits the FU criteria of "low resolution" better than Darkness'. But, seeing as this is an opinionated debate, there's no reason other than personal preference why either should be there over the other. So, good luck in determining a consensus, and Darkness, try not to take things so personally. I know it can get annoying to when there is a difference of opinions among editors, but you have to remember, we'll ALL stubborn headed here on Wikipedia. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to apologise for reverting so much without discussing it first. It's amazing that I haven't been blocked for 3RR yet, so i'll remember to discuss from now on before a consensus is reached. The Prince of Darkness 00:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the big deal with seeing a full shot of LeChuck? I don't think his legs are important enough to remove a clean-cut picture. I don't see how the full shot of LeChuck is neater because it's very apparent that it was ripped out of a background. It was ripped from the cut-scene where Ozzie's amplification tower fails and then LeChuck starts leaving. This graphic is from that scene right when LeChuck turns around and is walking away. How is that neat? Also, I think a picture of LeChuck and Ozzie is sort of needed. Each picture is to depict different and essential events. Ozzie was a major villain and an accomplice of LeChuck. The whole Escape of Monkey Island portion of the article deals with LeChuck and Ozzie working together and making plans to kill Guybrush. The image of them ambushing Guybrush perfectly illustrates them working together and Ozzie is a major accomplice as stated before. So, a picture of him with LeChuck serves the article well since Ozzie was essential towards LeChuck's goals in the fourth game and is in the section of the article where he is spoken of much. If you want a full shot of LeChuck, please try to find one with an actual background. Putting the picture of LeChuck in the mansion at the Escape from Monkey Island article is pointless. It's not essential down there while the Ozzie picture sort of is because it's a major plot point in the game. The picture is better at the top because it's the most used form of LeChuck and is more clean cut. I don't think we need to revert all these images just to see LeChuck's whole body.-Darknessofhearts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no point in having images illustrating a minor character such as Ozzie. The image is not ripped out of a background, it is taken from www.worldofmi.com. On Wikipedia it is prefered that an image in an infobox like this has a white background. And it does look a lot neater with a full body shot of the character. The Prince of Darkness 16:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that a good image on a white background would be an improvement. However, this is a tremendously poor effort and a bad composite. (The image from Tidus is excellent in this regard) It doesn't matter where it originally came from; the problem for me is that it just looks plain bad. At the moment; the original image is a much better representation of the character and art of the game. Now if an improved version on the white background could be found... Shantih1 14:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Same crap, different pictures

Okay, now we're having problems with the rest of the pictures. Prince of darkness keeps reverting the pictures to the same type as the latter lead picture; LeChuck with the white background. He claims this has been discussed, but I don't think it has. We has it been discussed if at all? So, anyone who watches this article, just put your thoughts as to which type of pictures you prefer. I prefer the pictures where LeChuck is shown with background; it's neat and not cheap looking. The other type is the one with LeChuck in white background. Just vote and give valid reasons. This needs to be dicussed before changes like this are done.-Darknessofhearts

Your images don't display LeChuck himself, but images from the game. This is not neat. I will keep on reverting you till you give up. The Prince of Darkness 13:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fucking mature buddy. How old are you anyway? I've been on this atricle for a while and a typed up almost every goddanm section from general information, to the summaries of games, to the personality section, which has been rewritten by others. Just saying that I know what makes the article good. Fine, have it your way. I'm through with this crap. Somebody else will soon have a problem. If you like so much, keep them. I have better things to do than have a revert war with you. Pictures have been up for almost two years and everyone liked them. But, whatever I'm anrgy enough as it is. I don't need this crap to deal with.-Darknessofheart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.32.159 (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you know they liked them. Bignole, who is a much more experienced user than both you and me, agrees with me. The Prince of Darkness 13:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that the images from in-game are less appropriate than those featuring only the character in question. However, I'd ask you both to be civil. Darknessofhearts, please refrain from assuming bad faith and being (extraordinarily) uncivil. Prince of Darkness, please don't edit war - if your changes to the pictures are reverted, discuss it here, don't continue to make your changes. You've been reverting reverts for a long time now, and that's strongly discouraged because it makes it hard to establish consensus There seems to be no consensus to include the new images, so we must stick with the old ones. Sorry that you want them in there, but so do I - the fact remains that we haven't agreed yet. I would ask the other editors though why a screenshot is being used when other pictures of only the character in question would seem more suitable (and have a more justifiable fair-use rationale)? --Cheeser1 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, the truth is that I really, REALLY get pissed off at this kind of crap. This guy, Prince of Darkness, just comes out of nowhere and starts a revert war. "I will keep on reverting you till you give up." That's not how you get things done here. That sentence make you sound like an immature punk who doesn't know how to do things unless you piss people off till they had enough of your bullshit. You have to grow up and DISCUSS, like every freaken person on this board has been trying to tell you. It doesn’t matter which images are nice, you can't just start changing the whole article without discussing. Cheeser1, I see what your saying, but I can't take this revert crap anymore. Like I said before, I'm done here. If I stay here any longer, I'm just going to start to write things that will get me banned, not that it matters anymore. Anyway, thanks for saying your opinion in a civil way. Hopefully Prince of Darkness will learn to do that before staring a revert war and angering people into a murderous rage-Darknessofhearts

You've already said things that could get you banned - you've crossed the civility line and sped right past it. Swearing and yelling and being in a "murderous rage" are not the way to deal with things. Someone could be a big gigantic edit-warring jerk - responding in kind makes you just as culpable for the problems on this page. I appreciate that you have decided to take a break, but be sure that if you want him to discuss things that you will discuss them too, not just curse and criticize. If you can't contribute without being "pissed off at this kind of crap" then I'd suggest you rethink whether you contribute. Any Wikipedia article is subject to merciless editing (even bad editing), and one must be able to deal with it. I honestly believe that the new images do actually contribute, and that the other editor is trying to contribute positively. The fact that he isn't good at discussing and working towards consensus is a hurdle we need to get over in order to achieve consensus. It's not a reason to fly into a rage. I will try, at some point, to rekindle this discussion in a positive way, displaying each set of images to try to get a better idea of which images may be preferable, and why. --Cheeser1 01:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed this in a civilized manner before. Look at the other posts. The person kept on reverting all these images even after I was asking for a reason and for other to vote on which images they like better; nothing was getting through to him. That's why I went crazy. That's why I'm no longer to be on wikipedia. I have contributed to this article immensly. I have written many of the sections and have watched the article weekly since the summer of 2006. Just to let you know that I'm not just some nut who hasn't done anything for this article. I'm done with wikipedia now. Hey, guess Prince of Darkness's tactics worked. I gave up.-Darknessofheart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not accuse someone of chasing you away from Wikipedia, and keep in mind that you do not own your contributions. Any user is allowed to edit the article, even to remove all of your contributions. That's how Wikipedia works. It sounds like you've moved on, and that's fine if Wikipedia isn't working for you, but keep in mind that this is how Wikipedia works. The edit-warring, of course, is not supposed to happen, but he's allowed to make changes. Your first comment, as far as I can tell, was outright accusatory and critical, and the discussion only spiraled downwards from there. It doesn't matter if you're a "nut" or if you've "done [nothing] for this article" - we are working towards consensus. Keep that in mind, because you can't simply vote away a different opinion. Consensus and compromise are how things get done. If you'd like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest you keep that in mind - if not, you don't have to come back here. If you have left Wikipedia, don't think I'm obligating you to respond. --Cheeser1 02:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

All right, I need to respond to this since you took my last post in kind of the wrong way. I was making no claim that I own my contributions. I was merely stating that I care about the overall quality of this article and worked on it for a while. I understand how that might be taken as "I own it since I worked hard on it." But, I wasn't saying that I was just pointing out that I want this article to be as good as possible. Also, I know wikipedia is all about constant edits, I've seen it done to many articles. That doesn't bother me. What bothered me is that Prince of Darkness was making changes without even first bring them up for discussion. This first happened to the lead picture where I had to start a topic on this page to get an agreement. The lead image stayed since that user saw other's points. That's fine, but then he does the same exact thing to the other picture without any discussion. If he brought it up as opposed to reverting over and over again, I wouldn’t care. What really got me angry was he asked for me to be blocked? For what? He made changes to the articles without discussion, kept reverting them without discussion, and he wants me block for reverting them because he never brought them up. That's what really got me. Alright, I just want to make sure that people have the right perspective here. I'm normally very civilized on wikipedia, but the whole reverts thing and asking for me to be blocked just got to me. I'm making no claim that I own my contributions, just stating that I care for the article and that I got angry not because of edits, but because of edits done without discussion and then reverted numerous times. Hope that clears things up-Darknessofhearts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to discuss the pictures

I've been attracted to this article from the Etiquette alert board. There has been alot of hostility and incivility due to disputes over which pictures to use. Instead of fighting and arguing, we should work to find consensus. In an attempt to do so, I will now post each set of images, which can be discussed below. Please do not continue to argue about who reverted who, or who's a jerk, or whatever. If you really want to, do it in the other sections full of that stuff. Below are the images (in a particular order: infobox, and then images 1 through 4 in order of appearance in the article).

Status Quo Images

This set of images, except the infobox image (which is the same in both versions), has been deleted. For reference, they were:

Image:LeChuck.jpg, Image:Full11.gif, Image:LeChuckreturns2.jpg, Image:Screen010.jpg, Image:Villains.jpg

New Images

This set of images has not been deleted, but they should appear only as links on this talk page (due to WP:FU):

infobox new image 1 new image 2 new image 3 new image 4

Discussion

I'll throw out my opinion. The first set contains screenshots - entire images, with full backgrounds. This is distracting, unnecessary, and in the first one, makes it a bit difficult to even see the character in question. It's also possibly a problem, for the sake of fair use, to illustrate a single character using entire screenshots. Reducing which part of the image we use is actually important, especially when the screenshots are such high-resolution shots. I'd be concerned about their fair-usability.

What about the second set? They illustrate virtually identical shots of each version of this character. They are relatively low resolution. They do not contain extra background or other characters. One of them is slightly pixelated (then again, it's from a fairly old game). I think their addition would definitely be constructive, and would give a better illustration of each version of this character (esp. 1 and 2).

I'm a bit curious about the infobox image - shouldn't that one definitely have a white background? In any event, I believe a fair compromise is this: crop and/or reduce the resolution of the third old image. Keep it. Use the new 1st and 2nd images - they're much clearer illustrations of the character in question (and only that character). Make the new 4th image the infobox image - it's the character's most recent incarnation, is a full-body shot, and has white background. Use the current infobox image in place of the 4th image. I feel like this compromise makes sense. I would strongly urge you not to make any changes until we reach an agreement. Ongoing edit warring is really making this discussion hard. Please take the time to contribute your opinion here, and then wait until consensus/compromise is reached. --Cheeser1 02:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's my opinion; I think the second set of images are generally an improvement. This article has a lot of flab and perhaps having these images will encourage some judicious editing to get this article into the shape it should be.

That said; I think the current infobox should stay simply because that 4th image looks awful. Really, really amateur composite and awfully pixellated. Perhaps somebody can do a better job on it in the future but I'm from the school which believes the infobox should have the best image avaliable in it. So, my vote is to stick with the current set of images in the article, including the infobox as it's the best choice of the ones we currently have. Cheers! --Shantih1 06:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedits

This article seriously needs copy-editing, as has been noted several times. I intend to copy-edit this article. In my first attempt, User: The Prince of Darkness immediately reverted my rather innocuous change of removing the headers for sections that don't exist. If you think that's questionable, I'm confident you're going to loathe the major cuts I plan to make here.

Sections that contain no text do not require a header, because they don't exist. If you intend them as "placeholders" for future content, the proper place for that is here on the talk page, and not in the article itself. The article is for readers; the talk page is for editors. Eaglizard 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The article needs real world information like concept and creation and reception, in addition to references. This article basically consists of OR, and is barely surviving, due to the characters' notability. The Prince 15:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, it could benefit from that information. However, it does not benefit from empty sections. I will remove them again, unless you present a reason they should stay. Eaglizard 15:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right, Prince. But the way to improve this article is with some big re-writes; not by leaving in well intentioned but redundant errors. The game and character summaries on this article are much too long; but looking through the edit history I suspect there will be conflicts if attempt is made to reduce them unless there is more appropriate 'background' detail to argue for a redirection in the article's style. Some research is in order... Shantih1 18:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Charles L. Chuck

I've seen the history of the page, and it seems this supposed "real name" of LeChuck was kept in every edit since the third of september, even though (and I'm very sure about it) this name never appear in any of the games (nor did any other "real name"). For now I put the "needs a cite" tag, but if no source is found to support it (even specifying the game and the part where this is revealed would help), I'm going to cancel it. --213.140.18.131 (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)