Talk:Monkey Island

Tales of Monkey Island is the latest release, not LeChuck's Revenge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.82 (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Where's the "Tri-Island Area" information coming from? It seems to be largely speculative and not correspond to the actual games (Paco's Map is not a useful source). I took "Tri-Island" to encompass Jambalaya, Lucre and Melee Islands, where do Phatt, Plunder etc fit in? That Elaine is governor of three different islands may be the cause of confusion here - Twilo 15:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do you think it will be fair use, if i take some screenshots of the games? -fonzy

Yep. Well, one or two at least. Philip Nilsson 23:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe the first paragraph needs some cleaning up... — Timwi 03:46, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

With regard to clean-up, I personally think that this article is becoming too cluttered with easter eggs, ways to die and whatever. If you had never heard of Monkey Island, would you find this article clear and concise? What are other people's views on this? Drw25 22:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I concur. A single link to some site that lists easter eggs and curiosities would suffice. Nandesuka 03:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

And this, in the second paragraph, sounds a bit contradictory: "while not actively engaged in the project, Gilbert was involved with the initial design of the game." How could he "design" the game without being "engaged"? -- Mecandes (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Regarding "those few things" - that's merely a curiosity.--Deadworm222 23:22, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

A few things:

• It is possible to get stuck or, in fact, die. Guybrush says he can hold his breath for ten minutes. At one point of the game he ends up submerged in water. If you do wait ten minutes...
• There are a load of other tiny items that are cross references to Indiana Jones and Loom etc.

--blades 22:25, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

There was a change now, but no comment. It makes no difference and is actually to the worse as the game does really stop permanently (at least in the scenario I mentioned) or the character becomes "stuck". The few points where this can happen could also be valuable little pieces of information about the game. On-topic in wikipedia? That is another matter.

--blades 10:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Maybe a disambiguation page should be made to deal with the "Notes" currently at the bottom? I'll do it sometime soon if no-one else does. Drw25 22:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think moving them to the top instead should be enough. Philip Nilsson 23:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The list of alternates is getting large. I am putting my vote for a disambiguation page--Will2k 17:25, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I heard a rumor some time ago that MI2 had such a bizarre conclusion because Ron Gilbert got word that he was fired shortly before finishing MI2, so he tried to write an ending that would make writing any sequels impossible. Has anyone else heard this, or can anyone find a source? It would be easy enough to disprove: compare MI2's release date to the date Gilbert left LucasArts. LizardWizard 04:29, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard that one before. I think it must be untrue - or a joke.--Deadworm222 19:23, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

In the segment on Monkey Island 2, the article reads "The second game, Monkey Island 2: LeChuck's Revenge, was the sixth to use the SCUMM engine. It involves Guybrush's attempt to find the mystical treasure of Big Whoop, and win back Elaine's love, and is often considered to be overall the best of the LucasArts adventure games. Although considered by many to be superior to its predecessor, it was criticised for its ambiguous and surrealistic ending."

I don't know if this is necessarily true. As someone who has been a lifelong Monkey Island fan, I have never heard anyone say this. Are there any sources to back up that Monkey Island 2 is considered the best of the Lucasarts adventure games?

I've also never heard this. In fact, I've often heard MI2 described as inferior to the first game. (On a personal level, I tend to agree.) Aerion//talk 07:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Most spanish sites and magazines agree that the best Lucasarts adventures are Monkey Island 2 and Day of the Tentacle (they usually include numerous poll votes), and that the best Sierra adventure is Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers. It should be pointed that those three games have always been in any spanish Top 10 I've seen (even the most recent ones). DrJones 19:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Guybrush drowning is mentioned under the footnote and in the trivia section, somebody might want to straighten this out (clemmy, not signed it) (80.122.23.238 13:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I would contest that this is not-notable. The long list of differences is definitly overkill. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that the list of differences is completely unnecessary. I'm undecided on the play itself. LizardWizard 20:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• I agree about the play. An off-Broadway production based on the game, yes. A high school production, no. -DynSkeet (talk) 14:51, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since we have a 3-person consensus against the list of differences, I've removed them. I've left in a bit about the play still, but unless anyone objects I think it should be removed within a few days. LizardWizard 20:12, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Let's not even wait that long. I've gone ahead and removed the rest. Aerion//talk 01:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The play has reappeared, albeit in a different form. Since the consensus seems to be that it is not notable, I have removed it again. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with complete removal, this is a high school play almost certainly unknown to anyone outside their locale. --Air 20:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the video has made it onto some Monkey Island Boards. So it is "worldwide". However, I don't think that makes it notable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would the fact that this is the FIRST time a computer-game has been adapted in to an off-broadway play make it notable? Seriously, I don't recall any game being made in to a play before. Also the creation process has been pretty well documented so what the heck?

It's not an "off broadway" play, it's a bunch of kids on a school stage. TR_Wolf

The fact that it's an off-broadway play is the very reason. It's because it's just a bunch of students that makes is non-notable. This may bw important for monkey island fans maybe; but this is not encyclopedic. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

--I actually heard about the play before reading this comment page. How did I hear about it? Monkey Island fan sites. It is notable in the same sense that "Star Wars Kid" is, and thus should be included.

"The player cannot permanently place the game in an unwinnable state or cause Guybrush to die (these traits are shared by other humor-oriented LucasArts adventure games such as Sam and Max Hit the Road and Day of the Tentacle, but not by "serious" games such as the Indiana Jones adventures)"

I'd say that these traits are just common for newer LucasArts games - for example Maniac Mansion and Zak McKraken could be "unwinnable", and the newest Indiana (Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis) actually couldn't.

• There is another situation in SMI that does put the game in an unwinnable state, although this is likely an oversite. If, after doing the cannon trick, you proceed to put all of your pieces of eight into the broken grog machine at Stan's, you effectively place the game in an unwinnable state. I'm not sure if this is notable or no, and it most likely was not intended. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 19:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • If I will recall correctly, the pirate with the peg-leg will give you a piece of eight for polishing his peg-leg, you can do this again and again. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
    • The polishing is availiable only in MI 2 Pictureuploader 01:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
      • Whoops, my mistake. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
        • BUT You can accept a PTA Minutes from him, which is so worthless he will pay you 2 coins to take it. Mark. 23:53 23 Oct 2007

• IIRC, you can put items that you would need later in the game (like the "How To Get A Head" brochure) into the stewpot in the ship. -Sean Curtin 01:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • The game wouldn't let you put any of Stan's brochures, or the "map", in the pot. As far as I recall, it's also impossible to toss the compass in there as well. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • I thought you could only put items that are no longer useful in the pot? I know you can put the other brochure in, but I thought he wouldn't let you do it with key items. Still, I was wrong above. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I groused about this topic at length earlier on another talk page, but this is a slightly different angle. The page now reads as follows, new additions bolded:

In the last two games, Guybrush has a deathly fear of porcelain. This is said by the developers to be a reference to a fight in the first game in which he gets hit in the head with a vase. However in that fight it is in fact Guybrush who hits his enemy over the head not vice versa.

Can someone please provide a reference for the developers claim? Also, since the fight in question takes place entirely offscreen, how can it be said with certainty whether Guybrush was the striker or the strikee? -DynSkeet (talk) July 6, 2005 17:02 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, this was the fight in the governor's mansion where the SCUMM interface line operated on its own, doing things like "pick up wax lips"? If so, it seems clear that Guybrush was the striker because the interface is for his actions - and he's the one who comes out of it with gopher repellant and wax lips. LizardWizard July 6, 2005 19:10 (UTC)

A link? Some of the many interviews at http://www.scummbar.com --Deadworm222 15:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I consider it a moot point now, but I was hoping for a specific reference rather than a link. Specifically, I was looking for whether the information came from "developers" of the original game or of one of the later ones, since the team changed drastically over the course of the series. -DynSkeet (talk) 11:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't played all the way through MI2, but I have completed MI3 several times. However, the last time I did that was about two years ago, so here's my question: is it certain that Sam and Max appeared in MI3 in the form mentioned in the article? I seem to recall Max appearing while playing with the spotlights in the theater (Speare)...and did they make an appearance in MI4 (I personally don't remember)? Thanks in advance. Cromag 17:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

A section of Common features talks about the so-called "secret" of Monkey Island. I have always thought that the whole debate is quite ridiculous especially given the nature of the games themselves. I think that the current canon (retcons and all) dictates that the giant, monkey robot at the end of EfMI, regardless of how ridiculous fans consider it, is the secret of monkey island and seems quite bizarre that there is no mention of it in the article. Also, while many fans still insist that Ron Gilbert knows the "true secret" (not counting the end of MI2) it is more likely the Gilbert hasn't got the faintest idea either.

How about giving to each game its own article? It will clean the page a bit, and also we can add more details to each one. Pictureuploader 22:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I agree with this one. Each game should have it's own page, and the article summing them all up could be named 'Monkey Island series' or so. On the other hand, this requires quite a lot of work as all the reference links 'round Wikipedia should be converted to match this new architecture. My personal opinion would be that we'd better start early - the more we hesitate, the more work there'll be. For starters, we should create those articles about each game. Sylph 08:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good. As soon as a third person agrees, I will begin the separation Pictureuploader 12:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why can't more details be added to the article now? Will this separation include an additional write-up? Because, as I see it, Monkey Island 2 will just become three lines of intro, 7-8 lines of (existing) text and a portion of trivia/eastereggs. I would suggest re-writing the existing article to a healthy size (maybe with inspiration from the organization in similar game series Baldur's Gate series) instead of 4 small-medium sized articles one thoroughly-written article might be worth of consideration? But I agree the page needs some cleanup. Poulsen 12:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's a bit silly to have separate articles about the MI islands with trivia and all, and hesitate to do so about the games. The keyword you said was existing: the existing sections haven't been expanded so far (if pasted would make indeed small articles) because they would make the main article more heavy; but once we separate them, they will begin expanding freely. Pictureuploader 12:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

"It's a bit silly to have separate articles about the MI islands with trivia and all, and hesitate to do so about the games." I don't see how this compares, as I've had no say on the islands, so you can't really call me on that, can you? As I see it, the islands might as well be merged into the hub Tri-Island Area article as they are all equally short. I use "existing" in the context of the opposite of making new articles, while you use "existing" as describing the current way the article is organized which I agree is constraining. Of course you can always go ahead and make the new articles, but that they will start to grow all of a sudden would be equally true (if true at all) if this article was re-organized. As I see it, this would pretty much be like having 4 lesser articles and just stacking them into one big. I think the big problem is so much info that could be written into each game section is just hacked up into 5 seperate trivia sections. Poulsen 13:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just found an argument for your point of view that I can't counter - each game (unlike my darling Baldur's Gate series) was released for different consoles each (Amiga->PS2), and for the most accurate categorizing I would agree to the seperation, sorry for slowing down the process! Poulsen 13:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the opening credits we see the text In Memory of Bret Barret. I know that Barret was a programmer on the SMI and MI2 staffs, but why was the third game dedicated to him? Had he passed away before the game was released or something?

"A fifth is planned, though it has not yet been announced to be in production".

Is this still valid? I thought after the cancellation of Full Throttle 2 and Sam & Max 2 it seemed obvious that LucasArts wasn't going to make anymore adventure games. I wouldn't mind if it were true though. Garion96 01:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The status of the fifth game is ambiguous to say the least. LucasArts have not hinted are they either planning a new game or to kill off the series altogether. The status of the game is in constant discussion at many forums (I myself have endulged on it). LucasArts has recently been so preoccupied with their Star Wars titles that they have not had time to discuss the future of their other series (with the exception of Indiana Jones which is due to make a return on the next (I think it's 7th) generation consoles). There were hintings of a fifth game being planned a few years back. At this point it seems LucasArts has forgotten it completely (in a similar fashion Capcom has forgotten the Mega Man Legends series). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.216.199.6 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 16 October 2005.

Should we still make an article concerning the possible fifth Monkey Island game, though it isn't certain whether it will be published or not? After all, there is an article about Pirates of the Caribbean 3, although the second film isn't even ready yet. Sylph 10:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so. Wikipedia is not a crystal bal [1]. At least Pirates of the Caribbean 3 is already partly made. Monkey Island 5 is basically nothing more than a rumor. Albeit a much discussed one. :) Garion96 (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you all know, you can now place a userbox on your User page with the text "This user knows all the Monkey Island Insults by heart!". Simply put the following on your User page:

{{User Monkey Island Insults}}

See Wikipedia:Userboxes#Funny boxes (or below) for an example.

—gorgan_almighty 11:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

As it is now, the "Islands" section is just a (lesser) copy of the Tri-Island Area "Game appearences" section. With the recent split-off of the different games, there's plenty of head-room to fill in new stuff, and with Tri-Island Area article being really small as it is, it would be more appropriate to have it describe the setting of the games in the main Monkey Island article. Poulsen 12:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Some three weeks later - with no complaints, I'll just go ahead then. Poulsen 09:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

-- Added Grog...

Mentioning the fact that there have been parallels drawn between MI and the Pirates of the Caribbean movie is fine, because Ron Gilbert has said that he drew his inspiration from the ride. However, listing every occurrence of something resembling Monkey Island, coincidence or not, is highly unencyclopedic and does not need to be on this page. If you think that this information is important, then feel free to add a link to an authoritative article on the subject, but please realize that unless these specific instances have been verified in an interview with the creators of Pirates, they are nothing but speculation and do not belong here. --Chrismith 15:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's not unencyclopedic to point to similarities. And it's not necessary to be an online citation about it somewhere. Mentioning possible similarity is accceptable to me. This mentioning no way was beginning to evolve into a list of 'every occurence'. Pictureuploader 20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Online citation is definitely necessary. I think otherwise it would be too close to original research. If no reliable source mentions it, than wikipedia doesn't has to mention it either. Garion96 ^(talk) 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Pointing similarities is not original research, it's just pre-existing similarities (and important if you ask me and others). And pointing at similarities between a fantasy movie and a comedy game is not THAT important a point to exhaust all wikipedia rules and limitations on. It's not a historical article nor a biography of a real person nor discussion about religion or ideologies. Pictureuploader 23:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do not point to similarities between PotC and MI. If verifiable, reliable sources have talked about those similarities, point to those. This is an encyclopedia that does not permit original research. Hope that helps. Have a nice day. Nandesuka 00:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

See my response above Pictureuploader 01:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

When no one else has mentioned it before (in a reliable source) then pointing similarities is definitely original research. The fact that it's a (perhaps) not so important article about a game doesn't make a difference there. Garion96 ^(talk) 02:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Letter of the Law vs. spirit of the Law. Calling a comparison of few points between a fantasy movie and a ludicrous game a 'research' you are just degrading the meaning of the word research and everything else serious that depends on research. Looking at the WP:NOR while thinking of 'Monkey Island' you can see that: the article of MI doesn't introduce a theory or method of solution, no original ideas, no new definitions of new terms, doesnt refute or supports theories or arguments, and of course i see no "people with personal theories, such as cranks and trolls, who would attempt to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas and to themselves." Why exhausting the rules of Wikipedia on MI article and leaving whole lists about movie cliches etc unharmed? Anyone who is interested only in serious information, research, theories and ideas, then has little interest in such articles. Pictureuploader 08:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

(Indent sanity)

If you have any good points to make about why this belongs in the article instead of just telling us how the rules don't apply to you, we'd be glad to hear them. You say it doesn't matter because this is just a video game page. What would Wikipedia be like if people only monitored pages about historical events and biographies? Every page is important, and that's what makes this site such a popular source of information: people maintain all articles, about every topic, and ensure that they are of high quality. In fact, forget about original research rules for the moment: you have three of this article's editors telling you that something is not notable enough to include here. What more do you want? If you have a link, include it in the article, and people who are interested will follow it and read about your similarities. If you don't have a link, then it's obviously not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Chrismith 14:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

For starters, I didn't say how the rules don't apply to 'me'. First of all, I was saying why it should be not considered research, and most of all, because it was not my input, it was another user's (which btw makes us 2 vs 3). I found this similarity very interesting, unlike you, and since i am not into viewing trailers or looking online for gossips and theories, it was the first time I was pointed to those similarities, and since I am a wikipedia reader, the only possible source for this knowledge was that ambiguous paragraph. This is the reason I felt shame for having to be removed. these were my 'points' you just requested Pictureuploader 20:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here's some links about PotC and MI that could be worked into the article at some point.

• Ron Gilbert's blog post on PotC
• Eurogamer comment
• PotC DVD review connecting it to SoMI (reliable?)
• Kotaku.com comment (reliable?)
• Review mentioning MI (weak, only 1 line)
• Compared to MI in another DVD review (reliable?)
• source for the walt-jail scene
• Voodoo lady similarity source
• review suggesting LeChuck similarity (reliable?)

●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:59, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

As a Monkey island fan, I can say this article is not written by a person that know those games. You DO NOT see Monkey island in the second game, and the Tri-island area name is useable only in this same second game. Just have a look at the provided map, and you understand why : more than 3 islands! Map's name is wrong then. Also, there are strong connections between Monkey island and the TV show LOST. For instance, in the pilot, after the crash, you can see Jack's face, looking at the sea, and behing him people talking. And you can clearly hear someone say "It's Monkey island!" ;)

• I think it's getting painfully obvious that keeping consistency with these pages is a little difficult since MI has one of the most eccentric fan-bases I've ever encountered (albeit a small one). I was the anon championing the Monkey Island play a while back and I can now see that people adding redundant stuff (like PotC comparisons) is non-helpful. I've authored quite a few of the island-pages and done so hoping to bring forth relevant info (though I admit to being something of a manic Trivia-author as well). I see that this is may get ugly when a fan discovers that this place has actual info on the games. (user:HannuMakinen)

Quote: "the Tri-island area name is useable only in this same second game". Actually the phrase is used is CMI to desrcibe Plunder, Booty and Melee: you can see these three names on the Verb Coin. EamonnPKeane 13:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

As part of a major editing, I removed Largo from the list of recurring characters. I do not recall him appearing in any game other than MI2, but if this is wrong, please feel free to restore him to the list. - DynSkeet * Talk 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

"The team behind Escape from Monkey Island named the final act of their game, in which the Giant Monkey Robot is revealed, "The Real Secret of Monkey Island". This only served to confuse the matter even more."

I recall Act 3 as being "Escape From Monkey Island" and Act 3+ was "Guybrush Kicks Unusually Large Butt". Was the U.S. version different to my U.K./Ireland edition? EamonnPKeane 13:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• The Real Secret of Monkey Island was the name of the cutscene.--HannuMakinen 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
• Reworded the paragraph. It was looking, rather Gilbertist. I'd rather accept that for the time being the Robot is the secret than debate over a sequel to MI by Gilbert that will never happen.--HannuMakinen 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Now that we have a general article 'list of MI topics' maybe we should move some sections like 'the secret', 'settings', 'minigames' etc to that. I made the start with the 'grog'. What do you say? Pictureuploader 13:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oddly, nobody has noticed that the MAIN characters are completely missing from the page. Why? byeee 16:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

All the characters have their separate pages (see template at the bottom of the article). -TheHande 05:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Monkey Island II section is basically a sum up of the plot... that's ridiculous. At least there could be a spoiler tag. 80.28.202.37 23:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No. Kariteh 07:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It seems a spoiler to me:

"...As Guybrush concludes his story, his rope breaks and he finds himself facing LeChuck, who he finally defeats using voodoo. The ending is very surrealistic and is open to a number of interpretations; though in the manual of The Curse of Monkey Island, it is stated that Guybrush falls victim to hex implemented by LeChuck."

There is no need to explain that the rope breaks or to descrive the last part of the game, right?80.28.202.37 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Did you read the link I gave you? If not, do. Kariteh 14:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't realize that the "No" was a link, sorry. But I keep thinking there is no need to enter in the end details when the section is just trying (I think) to tell what the game is about. The Escape from Monkey Island entry seems more appropiate to me. 80.28.202.37 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

In addition, technically Melee Island is visited in this game: The service elevator takes Guybrush up to the back alley from the first game. If we're including Monkey Island, shouldn't this be mentioned as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.249.99.194 (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

As much as Gilbert has done for the series I don't believe that Tim Schafer or Dave Grossman should be forgotten as they did all write roughly 1/3 of the whole plot of the first game. -TheHande 18:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Seeing as a merge was suggested (insult sword fighting and MI Topics) and nobody started a discussion here, I think I'll start one by saying I support the merge suggestion. Currently it's in unencyclopaedic form and could do with merge and cleanup. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Support; Articles with no real-world context or notability should be merged per WP:FICT. Masaruemoto 19:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose; support a different merge—see comments below -BaronGrackle 19:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Support this merge, or another: several of these, particularly insult sword fighting, have no real-world context or notability. Randomran (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Support the proposed merge, or a merge of fiction-based articles into a single Universe of Monkey Island article. Playclever Playclever (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The reason I oppose this specific merge is that this article seems to be (or should be) more about the series itself in the context of real life and its design, as opposed to about the subjects within it. I would much rather merge Insult swordfighting with List of Monkey Island topics, since the former is clearly an example of the latter, while the two together arguably have enough material to be their own article. If it's not too massive, we might even put the "topics" group along with Tri-Island Area, in the same way that there is an article on Kingdom Hearts (series) as well as Universe of Kingdom Hearts, or an article on Halo (series) as well as Halo universe, both of which contain locations as well as universe topics (e.g. the Keyblade, the Human-Covenant War). -BaronGrackle 19:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have merged the Insult Swordfighting page into the List of Monkey Island topics page. I think topics from that page additionally either need to come here or be worked into a new Universe of Monkey Island page as suggested above. The proposal to merge the list page remains for now Playclever (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have been bold and (a) renamed the List of Monkey Island topics page and (b) merged both the Minor characters in Monkey Island and Tri-Island Area articles into that page. Having played around with the change, I believe that it works. The article is large, but no larger than, say, the Southampton article that I have worked on -- I believe the merge will enable us to keep a coherent view of the fictional Monkey Island topics, and to ideally reduce them down to a more streamlined and encyclopedia-like form. If you want to discuss the change, please do so on the talk page at Talk:World of Monkey Island -- Playclever (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It sounds suspiciously like the classical sailors tune of "Lowlands Low", aka "The Island Lass". Does anyone know for sure if that played some part in inspiration for the music? Dave420 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Escape from monkey island mac cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter if the information is sourced, since TellTale games is/has made Tales of Monkey Island, all the info is obsolete and no longer relevant (i.e. there is no point referencing every single interview rumor or joke about a return to the series pre the Tales announcement). In fact that whole section can be removed and covered in an encyclopedic sentence stating "After Escape from Monkey Island the franchise went on hiatus frequented with numerous rumors about a revival until the announcement of Tales of Monkey Island by TellTale games" fitted into the main section of the article. Thanks.24.190.34.219 (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Should we have here somewhere mentioned about the whole mess up with the argentinian news reporter thinking the grog Monkey Island recipe is real? I can't seem to find info on it but here's a video link of the report that was made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdgJfHDS4YE --Victory93 (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The reports I've read (that is, gaming sites reporting on a foreign broadcast) hint that the show it appeared on was a comical news one akin to the Onion. Unless there's more to it, I'd avoid including it. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well searching in google Grog XD pops up hundreds of links to whole fiasco and not just gaming sites. Maybe somewhere include this in like impact in the world or something? --Victory93 (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article for Launch of the Screaming Narwhal is still up. Are we going to be creating articles for each episode or what? --Victory93 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Plunder Island is mentioned as governed by Elaine and also as not governed by Elaine.

The main islands of the Tri-Island Area are Mêlée Island, Booty Island, and Plunder Island governed by Elaine Marley [...]

Other islands in the region are considered under the umbrella of Tri-Island Area as well, even though not directly governed by Elaine include: Lucre Island, Jambalaya Island, Scabb Island, Phatt Island, Plunder Island, [...] S!lver NL (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why this is being removed. Yes, the info is duplicating what is in the text but at the same time it provides a visual idea of when the games were released, which can help emphasis how much the series sat on LA's backburners. It's not against any other policy or guideline to have this here. If the issue is the amount of whitespace due to the blanks or how large it appears , those can be fixed, but outright removal is not needed. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've been off of Wikipedia for a long time (note: I'm not the IP that originally took the picture down), but I thought I remembered some policy/guideline saying that pictures should only be there to show things that couldn't be shown in text. While yes, it could be made smaller, I also feel that it doesn't have anything of worth at all. Lots of things have sat on lots of companies' backburners. Are we going to put this timeline onto the Duke Nukem pages? I, personally, feel that anything necessary can be adequately explained through text. The timeline also has no reference that I can see explaining it's purpose, that it's showing how long the series was ignored. It's just there. So, again, I'd say text is preferable. To me, it looks a lot neater as well. --86.138.93.210 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Does Talltale own it or Disney? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.167.21 (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Above quote comes from creator Ron Gilbert on his Twitter account. [2] I don't know enough about Monkey Island to do this, but maybe someone who does can go through the series' pages and check for accuracy. GameLegend (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

"In 2007, fan site World of Monkey Island was contacted by an anonymous source who told them that Ted Elliot had written the script for the film who before then remained unknown to the project. Elliot would later go on to write the Pirates of the Caribbean film series."

He would later (than in 2007) go on to write the Pirates_of_the_Caribbean_(film_series)? That series that was started by a 2003 film? (And a 2006 and 2007 film.) 2A02:120B:C3EC:8C20:1DD6:FEC5:7126:4982 (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that the script was written pre-2003, and the "later" bit was relative to that and not the year 2007, which was when the fansite was told about it. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Monkey Island (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080303103517/http://grumpygamer.com:80/8123463 to http://grumpygamer.com/8123463

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Monkey Island (series). 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/20101030004924/http://www.next-gen.biz/features/interview-ron-gilbert to http://www.next-gen.biz/features/interview-ron-gilbert
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930013105/http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6153188/p-2.html to http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6153188/p-2.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The first game doesnt use dance instructions to guide through the forest. You just follow the store keeper after asking him about the sword master. KhlavKhalash (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, it does. It's an alternative event flag that allows you to enter the forest. You buy the instructions from the shifty-eyed street vendor who tells you it is a map. The directions on it are a guide to the treasure.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's amazing! I've played the game 50+ time and didnt know. I always followed the storekeeper thinking it was the only way. Thanks for the enlightenment! KhlavKhalash (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

For whoever tagged that snippet with "relevance," let me remind them that the inclusion of this content was the first time the franchise had been officially acknowledged since the Disney acquisition in 2012. There were 9 years of silence before this update, and anyone who hadn't given up on the franchise finally had confirmation that Disney were at least willing to reference its existence. As for the Original Research tag, there is an in game commendation for discovering/interacting with the content called "The Crew of the Headless Monkey," so it is essentially self evident; it doesn't require conjecture or research anymore than saying "Woody is a protagonist in the Toy Story films." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.210.46 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

She says she's back as well. I'd put it in but I don't know if twitter is a source we can use even if she said it. (safter to put here and let ppl decide I just joined lol) Return to Monkey Island (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

https://twitter.com/AlexActWrDir/status/1511377797431758853

The problem is that her tweet does not explicitly say she's back though it strongly implies it. We have to be careful around that language. --Masem (t) 03:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ah yh glad I checked first. Though the not encyclopedia part of us knows she wouldn't do this if she wasn't in and how exciting is this!! :P. Return to Monkey Island (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's absolutely something to watch for to include if other sources confirm it. And it absolutely makes sense. --Masem (t) 03:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply