Template talk:Mortal Kombat

Logo
Do we really need the HUGE logo? Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 10:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I lied, I guess I need to discuss here as well. :P Does this look better to you? --


 * Horizontal logo instead of vertical. The upshot of it being wider is that the game listing now takes up one less line. -Locke Cole 19:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to change it to this for now, it will make it smaller for the time being. -Locke Cole 03:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed the category from the above code, no need for it on this page. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 09:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat new here, but does the category code being on this page make a difference? I didn't think it did. -Locke Cole 22:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why the red background though? If anything, it should be black to match how it's usually displayed, right? Too much pure red is just painful to look at anyway. -- Striker 21:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure, but I'll change it to black for now. The logo is transparent, so whatever background color is chosen for the section it's in will filter through appropriately. -Locke Cole 22:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

New layout
I've stolen the design from the yoga template and copied it here. Let me know if you have any objections to the design. =) --Locke Cole 09:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Italics in titles discussion
There is currently a discussion re: italics in titles at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (titles). Anyone with an interest in this should participate in the discussion there. Thanks! — Locke Cole ( talk )  (e-mail) 06:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Current version
Right now, it's a godawful eyesore. Atrocious. Way too vertical and space-inefficient and too much white space within the box. At the vid game wikiproject page there doesn't seem to be any consensus on infoboxes for anything. I am going to improve on make this thing not cause my eyes to bleed. dfg 10:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's my edit:

(to avoid confusion, see template main page for current version) [edited by dfg 18:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)]

it fits better at the bottom of the page, much less white space, and even the colors are more MKish. Anybody feel free to tweak the colors, or category names. dfg 11:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Include [hide]/[show] (as the current template does) and you'll get my vote. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 11:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly good with graphic design or anything, but I think we should really try to restrict the header background/font colors to just two. Also, since Wikipedia tends to use blue and white as its primary colors, my first inclination would be to keep the header colors somewhere along those lines (most templates seem to use either blue or light green background headers), as the red and yellow colors are really hard on the eyes relative to the default Wikipedia colors. Otherwise, I really like this slimmed-down organization. Virogtheconq 19:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Added the hide/show feature, but I don't understand the code, so if someone can clean it up, please do so. Also, anyone who wants a less jarring color scheme can alter it, but I kinda like it. I'm also going to replace the template since there hasn't been any objection for 4 or 5 days. dfg 19:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone add the Character Rankings? I would myself, but I'm not sure what to call it in the link. Kid Drac 22:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I could, but I agree with the comment on that article's [|talk page], that it looks like original research and should be a wikibook instead. In a related issue, I don't know if templates like this are supposed to refer to other wikis or not. Anyone? dfg 22:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd hate to sound rude, but note the date. That comment was made before the total revamp. | Before revamp. Kid Drac 23:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't see much of a difference. To me the whole article seems to be a completely subjective list of which characters are better. But, whatever, this is fan stuff. I'll put it in the other articles section. dfg 03:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Question
Regarding character names in the list - right now they're all listed as name, which seems to be double the necessary code for most of them - is there a specific reason for having them like this, or is it just a carryover from the previous templates that's not necessary? Virogtheconq 00:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ideally the display names would have non-breaking spaces for full names ("Liu Kang" for example would have an  between "Liu" and "Kang") to keep them from splitting across multiple lines. In the past I made an effort to keep certain templates formatted like that, but invariably people will come along and remove them (or add new entries and not maintain the formatting) and I just gave up. :P I don't think this template currently exploits this and the doubling up is probably unnecessary (unless the article name isn't an exact match to the character name, of course; like for   (that's a fake example just to give everyone an idea what I mean)). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when the new template is less a new version than a reformatting. I just changed how it appeared and didn't touch (almost) any of the content from the previous version. I just went in and got rid of the double code. I forgot to implement what Locke Cole was talking about with the non-breaking spaces. Maybe another time or someone else? I also removed the original revision from this page to eliminate confusion. dfg 18:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Coding help
I just copied and pasted the code for the template from a pre-existing one. I'm no good at it. I noticed that for some reason there is no space in between the last line of text in entries and the start of the template. It looks bad. Help? dfg 18:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I looks like there just needs to be an extra space added to the entry, but I can't tell if that's a sloppy, stop-gap solution or not. dfg 18:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Previous version, "archived"
Here it is:

 Mortal Kombat Universe

TfD nomination of Template:Mortal Kombat characters
Template:Mortal Kombat characters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 21. Thank you.


 * Template was deleted, thanks to everyone who "voted". dfg 18:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor change
I changed the Minor Characters link to the List of Mortal Kombat characters, since the Minor Mortal Kombat characters page is linked in the list, and the list otherwise was nowhere on the template.Virogtheconq 00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Epic Battles
Should a link under "Other" be added for this collectible card game since Mortal Kombat is featured heavily? I think so, but I thought I better ask here before just changing it. Seth0708 22:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I'm also not sure of what sort of licensing deal was struck with Midway to allow for the inclusion of the MK characters, but it's likely not an "official" MK product - rather, just a game that happens to include several MK characters. VirogIt's notmy fault! 01:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The other Mortal Kombat card game is included in the template. I'm not sure how that is more "official" than the newer card game as both needed liscensing from Midway. Regardless though, I would be inclined to think that so long as it was commerically released and liscensed thta it would be an official product. For instance, many of the comics are not "official" in the sense that they are canon, but they're still liscensed products. Seth0708 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but those titles were released under the Mortal Kombat name. Epic Battles is not. VirogIt's notmy fault! 08:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Seth0708 19:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

layout is not clear enough.
I changed the layout to be more clear, but ‎Niemti seems to be claiming ownership of the template. And hasn't provided any valid answer to reversion. Standard layouts of these templates across other games, with film, television are seperated as I have done. But Niemti seems to reject what appears to be across projects as a default standard. Govvy (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It is "clear enough", it's adapatations (listed in chronological order). While you falsely claimed the only adaptations was the comic series, which was "unclear enough" - as in, totally misleading. --Niemti (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

maybe it's clear enough for you, but it might not be clear enough for other people, sometimes too simple isn't simple enough, it was divided to be specific for each gene, where as producing information for those readers who require ease of navigation. So are you going to change it back to what I did? Or are you going to keep the more, (General user says "wait, whats all these now I need to click on each article because I was looking for the second or third film.." Then they try to work out which one is the internet show! It's all for ease of navigation! Govvy (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody had ever a problem. And no. There's also no "third film". --Niemti (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Bet you never asked if anyone has a problem with it, I have a problem with it as it is. I was following standard template style when I changed that. You are one stubborn individual! :/ Govvy (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Nobody ever had a problem" doesn't strike me as a valid argument; it seems rather clear at the very least Govvy had a problem with it. I can't attest to the inaccuracies that Niemti speaks of - I'm not especially knowledgable in the MK extended universe type stuff - but I do think that at the very least the cluttered "Adaptations" should be split out some, considering it seems to cover several different mediums. Sergecross73   msg me   17:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've created a mixed version that should both eliminate confusion and retain all the new subcat information. Hope that satisfies everyone. —Torchiest talkedits 18:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And I think that's perfect. I fully support Torchiest's mixed/compromise version. Sergecross73   msg me   18:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know how do the template that way with the sub categories, but that's pretty much what I wanted in the first place. Govvy (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved user, I also support Torchiest's mixed/compromise version. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe
Should it really be in the spinoff section since the most recent game is sometimes referred to as "Mortal Kombat 9" implying that DC Universe is the 8th main installment? --Mika1h (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really, the actual "MK8" project was canceled in favor of vsDCU and was never released. --Niemti (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense to me, as it's not technically a "spin-off" in terms of gameplay. It's still very much a fighting game. 85.210.179.215 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's an uncanoncial crossover side game, something like Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter. --Niemti (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So why are Mythologies and Special Forces listed in the "spin-offs"? They're technically part of the main story. 85.210.179.215 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, looks like we've come to some sort of compromise, at least. "Spin-offs" just wasn't working. 85.210.179.215 (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Need to mention Injustice in the template?
I honestly don't see it. It is only tangentially related to MK9, and that's a single game in the series of 15+ games. --uKER (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Characters
Removed a host of improper additions that redirected to the main MK character article. As a reminder, characters must have their own articles before they can be added into the template. sixty nine  • speak up •  01:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2017
Sub-Zero in Injustice 2. please edit the template on Mortal Kombat's involvement with this Injustice sequel like this: "Injustice (Gods Among Us ・2)" 139.193.136.31 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  JTP (talk • contribs) 15:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * https://www.eventhubs.com/news/2017/may/05/red-hood-starfire-and-sub-zero-revealed-first-dlc-characters-injustice-2/ 139.193.136.31 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

list of characters
Seems incomplete, where did Tanya go? Why do people keep removing some of the characters? Trying to find them on wiki at times can be a pain at times if you keep removing them. Govvy (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In order for characters to have their own articles, they need to pass WP:Notability: basically recognition of these by third party sources. See Ermac as an example. The article has a big reception section where publications for gaming talk about him. If you don't like this guidelines I suggest you moving to the Mortal Kombat wikia where all characters have articles for themselves. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Injustice and War Gods
A couple threads up someone questions the inclusion of Injustice: Gods Among Us in the template. I'd actually been wondering if the template shouldn't include War Gods (video game). The basic rationale for including Injustice would seem to be the same as that for including War Gods: same developer as Mortal Kombat, and frequently described in the press as being an unofficial follow-up to the latest Mortal Kombat game. I'm not sure whether Injustice and War Gods should be included in the navbox or not, but it seems a bit odd to have one but not the other.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the reason why Injustice is linked here is because some Mortal Kombat characters appear as DLCs. Don't know about War Gods though.Tintor2 (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I didn't know about the DLC characters.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

2D and 3D
is there really a need for splitting the games into 2D and 3D? QuestFour (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Please explain? sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  05:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * An IP user split the "fighting games" grouping into 2D and 3D subgroups; is that necessary? QuestFour (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that now and yeah, I don't think it's necessary. Subsection removed. I had reverted your edit only to reverse the shortening of some wikilinks and was completely unaware you were also removing the subsection. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  16:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I reinserted the previous linking format as it is much more compact. QuestFour (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)