Talk:Liu Kang/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fictional mass murderer?

Would Liu Kang qualify as being as Fictional mass murderer due to his corpse's actions in Deception? User:OmegaFouad —Preceding comment was added at 07:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

MK Champion benefits

The first trivia bit states:
Since Liu Kang is the current Mortal Kombat Undisputed Champion, this means he cannot age and is somewhat immortal.
Is there a canon source for this? I've never heard of it. Virogtheconq 02:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like bulldust to me, Liu Kang certainly isn't immortal. In Mortal Kombat: Conquest, however, the Champion of Mortal Kombat is granted immortality until the following tournament... not that that means anything here. Goroliath

It's his MK4 storyline (or bio). It states he is the current (by then), immortal MK champion. Run to your local store and grab your copy of MK4 ASAP. Well, when you get the chance.--196.40.49.166 06:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That last comment belongs to me, thank you.--Kim Kusanagi 06:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The MK universe states that the champion of the tournament is suspended in age until the next tournament. So basically, he kept winning and kept staying the same age. Hope that clears some things up.--72.65.214.118 (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to mention the obvious in my last post. The winner is suspended in age until the next tournament, however, he/she is not invincible, so if they, say, have their neck snapped at a 90 degree angle, they will die like anyone else.--72.65.222.29 (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

I think we should have a picture of Liu Kang in his human form and not just his zombie form.

I've tried several times, but someone keeps on reverting it back.Virogtheconq 02:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I seriously hope they stop that.

"Zombie" Liu Kang is his most recent and current costume in terms of timeline, hence I believe it is what he should be predominantly referenced as. He was human once and may more than likely return as such, though that doesn't justify leaving people in the past by displaying an old MK4 render as the primary image of the page, basically insinuating that it is his present appearance. It's still Liu Kang, after all. If there isn't enough support for this fact, I'll be more than comfortable with leaving the order of these images the way they were, being that of the "Zombie" Liu Kang version displayed further below. I'm only proposing this in the interests of people seeking updated information, not annoyance.

Well to me, it's just that people recognize Liu Kang more as a human than a zombie and would probably expect to see his human picture first. So far, he's only appeared in just one game (and later, two) as a zombie, while other times he's always been human. If you're not satisfied with the old Mortal Kombat 4 picture of Liu Kang in human form, then we got the recent Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks character pictures to use, but it doesn't matter to me.

It should be also noted that, in his zombie form in the recent games his alternate form is his normal look. So though he may be a zombie the creators still give him his alive look to thoses that would like him not as a zombie.

Also, what could be considered canon might be the alternate costume. I remember back in MKDA, Subzero’s ending showed him carrying Frost away with is alternate costume on. Which the story was later proven to be true in the canon, that Frost was frozen by taking his medallion. So though Liu Kang might have his zombie form first, it really doesn't prove that it's canon; especially if his second alternate self is the normal looking Liu Kang.

Trivia problems

This stated twice

• He's often compared to Bruce Lee's character, Lee, from Enter the Dragon, the movie on which Mortal Kombat was based as well.

MKA ending

In Liu Kangs MKA ending it states he becomes the new protector of earthrealm but is ruled out in the article because raiden was never protector since MK4 but if you recall in MKDA he relinquished his position as elder god in order to become the protector of earthrealm to stop the Deadly Alliance thus probably relieving fujin of his duties so raiden was rightfully the protector of earthrealm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.208.232 (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Protagonist?

Are we completely sure that Liu Kang is the protagonist of MK? In MK-MK3, is clearly obvious that Liu Kang is the main character. However, later games seem to ignore Liu Kang to focus in other characters:

• Mortal Kombat 4/Mortal Kombat Gold focuses on Raiden and his battle against Shinnok.
• Deadly Alliance is about the group of Earthrealm's chosen heroes (in which Liu Kang is not included) trying to defeat the Deadly Alliance of Quan Chi and Shang Tsung.
• Deception centers on Shujinko, his journey to find the Kamidogu, and his battle against Onaga.
• Armageddon focuses on Taven and his competition with Daegon to save the realms from Armageddon.

We should revise this with more detail. Leader Vladimir

Yeah it does also focus on Raiden and his battles against Shinnok, but he said the war can only be won by mortals, Liu Kang was the one who defeated Shinnok and saved the planet and is still once again the grand champion of Mortal Kombat, Liu Kang is actually the main character of Mortal Kombat 4 aswell. Till MKDA. Milos Warrior

Liu Kang like the game's creator stated is the Luke Skywalker of the games. He is without a doubt the main protagonist but recently he is part of an ensamble cast of heroes. That is an element that is not very well pulled off in any form of literature and story telling. It is refreshing to see a focused perspective on more than one character in this universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.148.57 (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

MK V DC

I'm terrible at editing so I just leave these comments in the hopes someone more skilled will ad this info. I'm wondering why there is zero reference to Mortal Kombat VS DC's storyline here. Especially Liu Kang recieving the power of the elder gods at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.28.70 (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Liu Kang/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• Reviewer: Cteung (talk · contribs) 09:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is written well a looks to be original work. The layout of the categories are clear and make sense. There are no obvious major improvements that can be made to the layout.

There are a large quantity of verifiable third party sources. All opinions were backed by inline citations and quoted well to emphasized that they are third party opinions. There are a few citations pointing to other wiki articles. Those should be pointed to other third party sources. Other than that point, the sources are great.

The basics of the character are explained well in the article. No sub topic is focused on too hard. Overall is stays quite broad in explain facts about the character. Some possible extra subjects to touch on is his game play style and in game history.

Overall the article remains neutral having all opinions pointing to third party sources and sometimes even quoted. The article has been quite stable for sometime now. There have not been any major changes in quite sometime.

For the most part this article meet the criteria outline in Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria. Cteung (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Which are the faulty citations? --Niemti (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• There are few citations that point to other Wikipedia pages. It will be better if those points can go directly to the original sources.Cteung (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It's sourcing to the games. What it might possibly lack is to include direct quotes, though.I'll get some. --Niemti (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• That defiantly helps. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cteung (talk • contribs) 22:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Reviewer: Waij (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't really done this before, so I'll just go through the list:

1.Well-written: While I may not like the big paragraphs, I gotta say they are written fairly well. The sentences don't run on, and they summarize each point very well without going into too much detail!

2.Verifiable with no original research: lots of direct quotations from many different gaming sources. Solid all around research here.

3.Broad in its coverage: again, fantastic how every point is brought up but not given too much emphasis in comparison to everything else.

4.Neutral: The huge number of quotations and citations really make this a neutral piece, since the writer isn't sharing any opinions; he's only citing others who do, and from both perspectives!

5.Stable: Given that this is a gaming page, I'm a bit hesitant to say it will be stable in the future. However, if nobody has yet decried the information on this page in a huge way, there isn't a problem.

6.Illustrated, if possible, by images: A few images that make sense - the character in two incarnations. While it'd be nice to maybe have one more that showcases some gameplay or maybe his signature moves, it's enough to keep interest.

So all in all, it's a good article! While I'd like to see a little more formatting to make it easier to read, the content is solid. Waij (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There's now an additional image, also I'm just one of the authors here. :) --Niemti (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Bump. --Niemti (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, you guys. --Niemti (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Both reviewers haven't edited since the first so I'll just close this myself. Wizardman 16:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)