Talk:Ermac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The Mortal Kombat WikiProject logo This article, template, or image is part of WikiProject Mortal Kombat, an attempt to structure and organize all Mortal Kombat-related information on Wikipedia, placing emphasis on canonicity. If you wish to help, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA This article has been rated as NA-Class on its quality.


This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Ermac's stats

We have no official height and weight for Ermac; stop changing it. These will remain blank.


Ermac's allies are ONLY Liu Kang and Kenshi, no-one else! Why and who keeps changing it adding Sonya and Johnny Cage? Also who is behind the image changes of his picture?

-* Pepsi440 *-

[edit] Ermac was not created by Shao Kahn.

For future reference, check his MK Trilogy biography. He came together on his own, and Shao Kahn took control of him. Shadaloo 13:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Question...

How come this page has nothing about how the idea of him started as a glitch in MK1?

-Good point. There we go. Shadaloo 03:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

How did the amalgamation of spirits that formed Ermac came about? Is he constantly evolving by adding/removing spirits?

It's said only that he's made up of the souls of those kiled in Outworld's wars - nothing is known as to whether he adds or loses more. Shadaloo 05:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The trivia about the supposed glitch in MK1 shouldn't be worded as a fact. Nobody has ever been able to prove any of that and anyone in the MK community knows it's one of the most controversial topics. Also I don't think it should go into any specifics about what happens during the glitch. There's a million different variations on what happens. Red Reptile, red Scorpion, Error Macro in lifebar, Ermac in lifebar, Ermac wins message, and so on. You could fill up an entire article just on that topic. If this is going to be brought up there should be more than just one take on it presented as known fact.

I don't know if I would be able to find the site anymore, but back in 98' I found a website with scans from the original magazine that first found out about the glitch. I think even once in an interview, a developer (can't remember who) said that the rumour was completely true. Anyway, what Ermac was, was a macro error in the game where it would say "Ermac Wins" after beating the game a certain way. Everything else is just rumours that get warped over time from getting passed on from person to person. SilentRage 02:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
After a brief Google search, I found this link on Gamespot: [1] I assume that's a good enough reference to settle the Machine/Macro debate? Virogtheconq 03:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


The "interview where Ed Boon confirmed the ermac glitch" is legendary. More people reference and cite it as proof Ermac is in MK1 than have ever actually read it. It's actually not that exciting and in usual Ed Boon style he talks a lot but doesn't say much at all. It's from a 1993 issue of Gamepro in an interview with Boon and Roger Sharpe. This is exactly what was said.


"Ed Boon: I can't tell you if it's in MKII. It's not necessarily a thing that you can get to this or that. It's associated with a...I can't say it's a bug, but it's an event that happens in the game that shouldn't happen. I called it Ermac, my program code, which stands for "Error Macro." When something happens that shouldn't happen it'll fix itself. Similarly, Smash TV had a thing where the game would lock up and would put you in a Warp Zone. It would basically recover the system and put you back in the game but the game creators called that glitch the Hidden Key Room or something like that. Ermac is similar to that. It's not a feature that can be accessed by doing any particular moves."

So very little is actually revealed. Absolutely nothing about "Ermac wins", "error macro" in the lifebar, a red scorpion, a red reptile, or any kind of red ninja at all. In fact he makes no mention of fighting or seeing a character and refers to this as "it" and "an event".

  • Nice find. If you have that copy of the magazine, summarize it and post it into an appropriate subsection (create one if there aren't any) in the article - just be sure to properly cite the magazine article. Virogtheconq 14:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] revised the trivia section

It needed just a little touching up. Hopefully no one's offended by this -Power Slave 18:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glitch

in this article it is stated he was only an error in one of the earlier games (ERMAC was short for ERror MAChine) can someone confirm this and inster in this article? 194.76.29.2

Read the Character development. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 20:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not accurate

"This is the only instance in the history of Mortal Kombat where a rumor led to the creation of an actual character."

I don't think that this is accuarate. That Flaming guy in the MK games was based off a rumour also. It can be argued that the Blaze guy wasn't rumour only because there was a sprite of a guy on fire in Pit 2. But then you could also argue that the Ermac rumour was tangible also, as the text for ERMAC could be found in game. Right next to the Reptile data. I deleted the line but it was readded, so I thought I'd bring it up before trying to delete it again.--Iamstillhiro1112 20:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Blaze was not a rumor, at least not in the same way that Ermac was. Blaze actually existed as a visually depicted figure in one of the level backgrounds. He didn't have any given name or purpose yet, but he was there. Ermac, who was described as being nothing more than a red ninja, never existed in any form at all prior to UMK3. The meaning of the "ERMAC" listing in the audit menu was not attached to any sort of character when Midway implemented it (In fact, it had its own entirely different meaning associated with entirely different game, as already described here in this article). However, Midway intentionally decided to animate some flaming dude and a guy wearing green pants for the sole reason of placing them in an arena background. Having no other purpose other than to mysteriously stand there, Midway obviously wanted to start some speculation here among the players. Blaze is comparable to Rain's appearance in UMK3's attract mode in this respect. But again, the idea of Ermac's existence had nothing to do with Midway themselves. The character began as a rumor made by the players, was brought up in an EGM issue, denied he ever existed in MKII's credits, and then finally was introduced as a real figure in UMK3, whose bio happens to acknowledge the fan history created behind him. MarphyBlack 22:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I have heard the rumours of those guys being playable back in the day. Of course they were never named Blaze or anything. Blaze the character didn't exist either until the last MK game. He wasn't meant to be a character, but for some reason Midway wanted to make him one. So pretty much, he qualifies also as being the only character created from fan myth,as Ermac does. He wasn't as popular as the Ermac concept, and he didn't have an official name either, but I think he's still on par with Ermac. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamstillhiro1112 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
Actually, Blaze was first made a character in Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Rumors of a visible figure seen in the background possibly being playable is different from the rumors of a character actually existing at all. While we may not know Midway's exact motive for placing two mysterious and unplayable figures in one of the game's stages, this is certainly a great hint that they wanted to intentionally stir up some controversy among the fans. But once again, they had nothing to do with the idea of Ermac. Midway was not the one who came up with the concept of a red ninja in the original MK, at least not initially anyway. The fans did that. However, Midway did, in fact, create and animate a flaming dude in MKII that they would eventually develop into a full-fledged character on their own. MarphyBlack 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Midway did insert the Ermac text in the game, which they didn't intend to be developed a rumour either. That's the same thing as Midway inserting background characters who were n't meant to become rumours.--Iamstillhiro1112 03:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Midway most likely did intend for rumors to surround the flaming guy, hence why they decided to include him as an unknown unplayable figure in the background to begin with. The Ermac text (Actually written as "ERMACS" in the audit menu), however, pertained to a programming function for another Midway game (Smash TV) that didn't happen to be used in the original MK. They did not intend for people to search for a meaning behind it, but fans came up with their own regardless. Anyway, you may want to read this thread, which was written by the same guy who originally included most of the "Character development" section in this article. He was the one who first wrote the "first rumor to be made into a character" statement and he even acknowledges Blaze in the same paragraph. He also does not consider Blaze's eventual introduction into a character the same as Ermac's rumor leading to his own character. MarphyBlack 03:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I doubt they were intended to become rumours. I mean, they didn't eventually devolop that audience behing Shang Tsungs thrown into characters, or guy trapped in the tree in the forest, or the monks in the tower, or the guys picking cotton in the wasteland. They were meant to be background characters and fans decided that some were hints for actual hidden characters, just like ninjas peeking out of trees were supposed to be characters. Those ones actually were tho.--Iamstillhiro1112 15:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Unlike all those you have brought up, Blaze was intentionally placed in a fighting stance in a manner that made it appear that he was fighting some other character on a bridge completely identical to the one where actual playable characters did fight. Of course people are going to wonder if the flaming guy back there would then be another playable fighter. Midway did all of that quite intentionally. However, the text "ERMACS" has no connotation on its own related to any sort of playable or unplayable character. As I mentioned before, the Ermac thing in the audit menu came from another Midway game, Smash TV. Why they left it in MK's audit menu, I don't know, but the name had absolutely no meaning whatsoever related to the game. That's where the fans came in with their own wild ideas and theories. The mention in EGM probably had a lot to do with (Or perhaps even originated) the spread of all the rumors. But again, and I can't stress this enough, Midway had nothing to do with this. They did not go out of there way to plant the seeds of the rumor of a mystical red ninja. What they did with Blaze, though, was the exact opposite; they intentionally wanted people to come up with rumors in this case.
To put it simply: there were rumors of Blaze possibly being playable, but there were never any rumors about him existing. He was undeniably seen right there in the Pit II. There was never any doubt that he existed. However, Ermac never existed in any form at all. None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. He was entirely created and conceived through rumors by the fans, and that's how he came to be. MarphyBlack 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Intentionally is the wrong word. They may have wanted to have something animated in the background, like how the forrest has animated faces in the trees. That is all they were shooting for. Not to start rumours. Content in the game which leads to rumours put in the game by Midway is all the same with both characters. Your comment may stick with someone like, that Numbeous Terrafaux. If he had ever been developed into a playable character anyway.--Iamstillhiro1112 04:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I see that you really wish to escalate the issue. I don't particularly appreciate being listed at the Administrators' noticeboard, but since you want official sources, I direct you to Blaze's Official Armageddon Bio Card. The developers clearly state that Blaze's first appearance was in the background of MKII and that they called him Torch at the time. I don't know how to make it any more obvious. Blaze was not created as a rumor. The deveopers themselves are confirming that they placed him there and that they eventually developed him into a full-fledged fighter later on.
If you want even more evidence, go check out Ermac's Official Armageddon Bio Card and pay close attention to series creator Ed Boon's comments. He directly reiterates how the Ermac rumor started in the original MK game. Also note what is listed as Ermac's first appearance: UMK3. Now, since UMK3 is not the original MK, and Ed Boon himself is saying that they decided to create this character solely because of the rumor, I think it's fair to say that Ermac was indeed a character created from a rumor. However, Midway, as per their own comments, had Torch/Blaze set in stone all along. This is not my opinion. It's an empirical fact. I really don't understand why you're pushing your own point of view so vehemently. MarphyBlack 03:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Blaze cannot be counted as a rumor as he physically existed prior to Deadly Alliance, whereas other than a mention on the debug screen of something completely unrelated in the first game, Ermac had literally no appearances before Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3. The S 20:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This shouldn't be an issue here. The statement in question is correct. Ermac was a rumour (as was stated in MKII - Ermac does not exist) before being developed as a fighting character; Blaze was developed as a background character (not a rumour, but an existing character that was the subject of rumours) before being developed as a fighting character. RobWill80 22:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I watched both videos and not one person mentioned that Ermac was the ONLY character created via rumour. I have played through Mortal Kombat 2 multiple times and have not seen any reference to a character called Blaze or torch. Although yes, you can actually see the name Ermac in the original MK. So both were tangible rumoured characters. There is the background image yes, but it's mythos of being a playable character was created by fans. If you want to change the wording in the sentence to "This is the first instance in the history of Mortal Kombat where a rumor led to the creation of an actual character" I would be agreeable on that.--Iamstillhiro1112 02:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ermac was not stated to be the only character to be created from a rumor because there was no need to. It's plainly obvious. However, the Midway developers clearly state that they created Blaze, they named him, and they stuck him in an MKII background. Blaze is clearly not a rumor by the developer's own admission. In a complete contrast, you cannot see Ermac in the original MK. You can see a listing in the audit menu called "ERMACS", but this is not a character. Ed Boon's own words confirm this. This is a game function that was used in another Midway game, Smash TV, as mentioned before.
Anyway, using your own definition, the rumors surrounding Blaze at the time of MKII stated that he might be playable. These rumors had nothing to do with the possibility of him existing since he clearly did exist, in a visually depicted and easily seen form, no less. You are contradicting yourself, and you're only backing up your own personal opinions and speculation with more of your own personal opinions and speculation. You have yet to provide one fact for any of your claims. I would not be out of my limits to remove the {{fact}} tag since it is misleading and completely unjustified, not to mention downright wrong. I will not agree to alter the sentence as it is perfectly valid and verifiable. MarphyBlack 03:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If Ed boon doesn't say it, then why does it have to be said here? The article doesn't lose so much if it only states that Ermac was originally a rumoured character that developed into a real one. I don't see how the real purpose behind Ermac's name appearing in MK1 would have any bearing in a rumour. The ones who created the rumour would likely forsake the logic because the rumour is more appealing. To them the appearence of the name Ermac is as good a confirmation as a background character. I am not out of place in adding a fact flag either. If there were no question to the fact you could just as easily add a tangible reference that states ""This is the only instance in the history of Mortal Kombat where a rumor led to the creation of an actual character"". If there isn't such a reference then I would call removing that flag vandalism. --Iamstillhiro1112 03:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Note that deliberately introducing false or misleading information and improperly using dispute tags is also considered vandalism.
If you can name one other MK character that was created from a rumor, than your addition of the {{fact}} would be justified. However, you have not been able to do so. Your only argument to keep it is with a concern as to Blaze's character being created from a rumor, which is a totally erroneous declaration as has been determined so far using official and verifiable sources coming straight from the developers themselves. Whatever other support you can bring to your argument is speculation and unsourced original research. Where are these supposed people claiming that Blaze was only a rumor at the time of MKII? Here's a tip: you won't find any because Blaze did exist in a perfectly visible form at the time (Look here if you really want ultimate verification of this fact). Stating that Ermac is the only character to be created from a fan rumor is akin to stating that Goro is the only Shokan/four-armed dude in the original MK game, or that Shang Tsung is the only guy who can morph in MKII. However, in this case, this statement is actually noteworthy of inclusion as it is directly relevant to Ermac's character development and, by definition of the statement itself, he is the only character in the series to have been created from a fan rumor. This is without a doubt significant enough to mention. You are disputing this factually and verifiably correct statement, but you have not given any sort of evidence to actually disprove it. MarphyBlack 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The blaze page right here on wikipedia lays out that the background image in Mortal Kombat 2 is a burning Liu Kang, that was later retconned into a playable character. I didn't have internet at the time Mortal Kombat 2 was released so I didn't find any websites mentioning this then, but I did see it mentioned in a Gamefan, or another game magazine at the time. A game magazine is also listed as one of the originators for the Ermac rumour. And that background image you just posted won't work as verification. For one it is a fan created site, and two, you can find the almost exact same image on this very page.--Iamstillhiro1112 05:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Reptile began as a combined green version of Sub-Zero and Scorpion. Jade began as a green and dark-skinned version of Kitana. Why does it matter that Blaze used edited Liu Kang sprites? Blaze's page here makes absolutely no mention of a retcon saying that he was turned into a playable character. In fact, there's no occurance whatsoever of the word "playable". There's no mention of the word "rumor" in his article either. I'm not sure what you're talking about in the second half of your rant, but EGM is a verifiable and reliable third party source that can be cited. Your original research, on the other hand, cannot. However, if you want third party confirmation of a third party source, read up news on old MK sites or even the MK bible, which covers the Ermac rumor and the EGM magazine as well. MarphyBlack 12:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The point is that they took such a shortcut cause they think of it significant when they placed him in. They could have easily drawn a sprite of a flaming figure if they had wanted. Look at any victim of Scorpions fatality. If they had decided from the beginning that it was a vision of things to would of went thru the trouble of creating the sprite. They did go the extra mile with the other hidden characters by recoloring a character that could easily be called a new character. Changing Jax to white wouldn't of been good enough to making a new character, but changing the color of a suit when the face is hidden will work. Anyhow the rumour may or may not say if they were meant to be playable or just combatable, not really relevent. As for the article not saying the word rumour, you are right, it doesn't. But it does say the name of the characters were created by fans. Which means he wasn't given a name originally. So it was a rumoured name. A rumoured name for a rumoured character. When you write your response look below the input box. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." The Ermac being the ONLY character to develop from a rumour needs to have a verifiable resource.--Iamstillhiro1112 16:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
A rumored name is different from a rumored character. Stop trying to sidestep the issue by introducing a bunch of clutter and nonsense. The only way you can refute the sentence, and thereby justifying what is currently an improper use of the {{fact}} tag, is if you find some evidence that Blaze was a rumored character at any point in time. Either he was or he wasn't, and clearly, through the use of a number of verifiable, reliable, and official sources, it has been determined without a doubt that Blaze was never a rumor. Your opinion is not fact. Either try to back up your argument with something other than your own speculation and original research or refrain from comprimising the integrity of the articles here. MarphyBlack 21:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Not different in this case. If it was originally meant to be a major character then the fans would not have to have named him, Midway would have. It's the fans who designated him a major character originally. He could have remained one but Midway decided later to canonize him. Adding official resources about a rumour is kinda a joke. Especially when you haven't found an official resource for what you say is common knowledge. If content is questionable then a fact tag can be added until a resource is found.
Read this paragraph "Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
So if you don't want to source the material I have the right to delete it. It isn't your right to add unsourced data, or revert edits of said data. So either add the source or expect the fact tag to stay, or possibly for the line to dissapear.--Iamstillhiro1112 22:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You're bringing up a lot about policy, but I'd like to remind you that you're the one who listed me at the Conflicts of Interest noticeboard (To the confusion of myself and others) and at the Administrators' noticeboard (Which sure did garner a lot of response). Since you evidently requested twice now for administrator action against me (Although for what, I'm not sure), I don't see any reason why I shouldn't interpret either of these listings by yourself as serious violations of WP:CIVIL (Specifically "Calling for bans or blocks").
Anyway, I see that again you are trying to add more clout to the situation and conveniently avoid the cited evidence. Here are the facts as simply as I can state them:
  • Ed Boon, co-creator of the entire MK series, states that Ermac was created from a rumor. Fact.
  • Steve Beran, an employee of Midway Games for over a decade, states that Blaze first appeared in MKII and that they, Midway, the developers of the games, called him Torch at the time. Fact.
  • Conclusion: Ermac was a character created from a rumor. Blaze was not. Fact.
If you can name one, just one, other character that was created from a rumor, then your entire argument would instantaneously be made valid. Here's a list if you need help choosing. However, I sincerely doubt you'll be able to find one. Ermac was the only character created from a rumor. Perhaps Nimbus or Skarlett/Scarlett/whatever will appear in MK8, but until then, the statement is factually and verifiably correct. MarphyBlack 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
So are you saying you want this line as a revenge thing? Why bring up that page AGAIN? The line is questionable and if you can't get a resource for the flag then we have nothing more to talk about. You keep trying to use Torches retconned storyline as a source but thats the same thing as saying Greedo shot first. It didn't originally start that way, but that is how it was later envisioned by Lucas.--Iamstillhiro1112 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You haven't answered Marphy's point - except Ermac, can you name any other character that was created from a rumour? The rumour of Ermac existed before his character was created. The character of Blaze was created before any rumours about him existed. There is nothing to suggest that any other character was developed in the same manner that Ermac was. RobWill80 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any official data predating the previous MK game that says that that background sprite was a major character either. Any thing saying that was just rumour, just as Ermac was until he was canonized years after his rumour originally surfaced.--Iamstillhiro1112 23:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why you continue to cling to the idea that Blaze was a ever a rumor at any point in history. You're going to have to provide a source for your unfounded claims. MarphyBlack 00:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." See : Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Iamstillhiro1112 04:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Plenty of concrete evidence has been provided. Read the discussion. I believe it is yourself who has yet to give even one sort of source to back up any of your unsupported claims, in addition to your attacks and OR-pushing. MarphyBlack 12:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
We've argued in circles enough. Get the resource that says Ermac is the ONLY character to be created from rumour if you want the line to stay.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." See : Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Iamstillhiro1112 13:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not the editor who added the sentence (Although I did provide several sources to prove it's undeniable factuality). However, since you're the one who insists on adding on adding false and misleading information through the use of an improper {{fact}} tag and even going as far as to blank the sentence itself, a fair amount of burden rests on your shoulders to actually provide a reason to justify your actions. So far you have not. Not one single reason. Your challenge to this sentence apparently has to do with the idea that Ermac is not the only character to be created from a rumor. Once more, I invite you to simply pick out one name that can counter this fact. It is an obscenely simply request, and your refusal to ever comply with it is not helping your argument.
You also claim that somehow I've violated WP:CIVIL, but again, I remind you that so far I have not tried to get you blocked and banned through administrator intervention using two separate manners. You, on the other hand, are not quite so innocent of this. Your edits are starting to become very disruptive, so I suggest you consider your actions more appropriately in the future. MarphyBlack 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if wikipedia asks us to track down who wrote the original sentence. But we are encouraged to keep articles as factual as we can. I have a feeling wikipedia didn't create a fact tag to confuse, but to clarify. If people somehow did get confused for the reason it was added, then it will become pretty apparent once they view the talk page. And I don't think I tried to get you banned, or blocked. Perhaps given a warning which is usually what I think would happen on the first offense. Following guidelines I even took it to the talk page before doing so, and so far it has been fruitless. As for renaming Blaze for the umpteenth time as the other character created from rumor, I don't think I need to. The guidelines even lay down trying to find a comprimise, which I tried to, but you proposed none. Please feel free to contact an administrator if you want to settle this once and for all, and quit with the reverts. Or even just find the resource asked for and I'll let the sentence sit and will challenge it no further.--Iamstillhiro1112 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
So far your efforts have not been so successful because you refuse to accept any ideas except for your own (However, claiming that your efforts have been "fruitless" is a complete fallacy, as the article currently contains the {{fact}} tag that you added and has now been reworded by yourself to become factually inaccurate). You're still asking me or whoever to provide yet another source, apparently because the many that have already been provided aren't satisfactory enough for you. Your only compromise has been to A) Delete the sentence, which is pretty unacceptable as, by the definition of the sentence itself, Ermac is the only character to have been created from a rumor, which is more than notable enough to mention, or B) Add a mention of Blaze, which would be untrue as Blaze was never a rumor.
Once again you don't seem to have provided an answer to my excruciatingly simple request to name one other character that was created from a rumor, unless your mention of "Blaze" was supposed to suffice as a response. However, it has already been determined beyond a shadow of a doubt that Blaze was not created from a rumor. This information came straight from the developers' mouths. You could, of course, try to provide a source to refute this fact, but you haven't, and I'm beginning to doubt that you ever will. The entire crux of your argument against this one sentence relies on the possibility that another character besides Ermac was created from a rumor. Besides using your own unverifiable opinions and speculation, you have yet to substantiate this point in the slightest. MarphyBlack 05:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking for a reliable source for the challenged lines content. Remember that line "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source"? Stop proving to me that Ermac was created by rumour, I already know that. But you need that resource that says he is the ONLY character created from rumour. Talking me to death and repeating the same irrelevant things isn't the same as providing the resource. And again, Blaze was a rumour, the background image was named Torch by fans who wished that it was an actual character. Then Midway responded to that rumour by actually retconning it into one, like they did with the Sub-zero turning into a polar bear rumour, and Ermac also. "Once again you don't seem to have provided an answer to my excruciatingly simple request to name one other character that was created from a rumor" I have again and again, it's not my fault if you don't want to accept the answer, so just move on with a question cause there are no other characters thus far who have been created by rumour. "However, it has already been determined beyond a shadow of a doubt that Blaze was not created from a rumor" In your mind yes, but we didn't need to change your mind. Remember, if you want to keep your favorite line intact ""The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." See : Wikipedia:Verifiability." If you want to hear someone else acknowledge the Torch in MK2 rumour read here : "http://www.mortalkombatonline.com/content/forum/showmessage.cds?id=596&page=3"--Iamstillhiro1112 You will hear from someone else back in 2004 saying how the rumor isn't true. Although it has been retconned since. 13:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement is not likely to be challenged because it is beyond obvious. Your interpretation of "likely to be challenged" is invalid as you are the only one challenging it. Several other editors have commented here aside from myself. You are the only one that supports this incorrect idea. No other character aside from Ermac was created from a rumor. Verifiable and relaible third-party sources have confirmed this over and over. You keep claiming that Blaze was a rumor, but this is false. He was never a rumor. You are the one who hasn't been able to accept this fact. This has been the only counter-argument you can bring to the sentence.
Let's look at your claims one by one:
  • Blaze was created from a rumor – False
    The developer state that they placed him in the Pit II background in MKII. [2]
  • Blaze was only called Torch by the fans – False
    The developers clearly state that they originally called the flaming figure "Torch". They later changed this name to Blaze for legal reasons. [3][4]
Also, a forum post is not a reliable source. However, the guy in the thread states that Blaze was a rumored "hidden character". Note the word "hidden". There was never any question as to whether Blaze existed or not. He clearly did. However, people came up with the idea that he might be playable. Once again your interpretation of the situation is not correct, as the type of rumors that surrounded Ermac and Blaze are completely different, but you don't seem to be able to comprehend that. MarphyBlack 20:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The resource I provided was about as reliable as yours has been thus far. Fan created websites are about the same as a fan comments. I watched those youtube videos the first time you linked them. Relinking them don't change anything. I have shown another person heard the rumour of Torch.

Here's a resource that plainly states that Torch wasn't always torch.

http://www.gamepro.com/gamepro/domestic/games/features/30667.shtml

And from a reliable resource, accredited press. There it states that Fanatics named a character Torch, although he was non existant, and existed in rumour form at the time. Thus another character was created from rumour.--Iamstillhiro1112 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Forums are not reliable sources. My sources, on the other hand, stem from official comments made by the developers themselves or have been published by verifiable and credible third-party websites. Even if forums could be used as a reference, your source doesn't actually back up your claim. In fact, it actually works to disprove your claim since the user specified that Blaze was rumored as being playable, not that his existence began as a rumor. Also, your GamePro link confirms that Blaze, still called Torch at the time, is visible in the Pit II's background, and that he was thought to have been playable ("In the background of The Pit II, two small fighters can be seen squaring off-and one of them is on fire"). Hence, Blaze himself was not a rumor. His status as being playable was, but the character itself did exist. This very unlike Ermac, however, in that Ermac never existed in any form at all prior to his introduction. Ermac was a rumor. Blaze was not. Your inability to comprehend these two simple facts is absolutely astounding. MarphyBlack 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The very title of the paragraph where torch is referenced is "Fact:False". The paragraph is dedicated to rumours. Your interpretation of the content sounds like selective reading, and spin. Especially your use of other resources. No link, other than to the guy who wrote the line in question has stated that Ermac is the only character created from rumor. To keep the line in question you need a resource that says something along those lines. Resources that state that Ermac was originally a rumour, or that a background image has been given signifiance in recent years aren't that.--Iamstillhiro1112 23:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The head of the section reads "Fact: False" because the rumor stated that Blaze was a hidden playable character. This was not true. However, Blaze did exist as a figure in the Pit II's background, which GamePro does confirm (Again, I quote the article, "In the background of The Pit II, two small fighters can be seen squaring off-and one of them is on fire"). So far you have provided two sources, one of which is a forum post, that both contradict your actual point in this issue. I have provided several sources that confirm, reconfirm, and confirm once more just for good measure that not only was Ermac created from a rumor, but that Blaze was made by Midway and called "Torch" by even themselves (I could even use the two sources that you have given to back my argument). You have not provided any doubt as to the factuality of the sentence whatsoever. MarphyBlack 23:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Found my way here via WP:3O. Looks to me like all of you folks are running around in original research circles, and that's generally not so good. Per verifiability policy, is there a reliable source which says Ermac is the only character created from rumor? I don't want synthesis of existing data, that's clearly original research. It's abundantly clear we can say he was created from rumor; as far as I can see, though, the much stronger statement that he's the "only" such character hasn't been mentioned by what I would consider a reliable and/or independently published source. Is it really so bad to just say he was created from a rumor, and leave it at that? Luna Santin 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me put this as simple as possible, Blaze was in the game, he was there, he couldn't be played as, but he was there. Ermac never existed in the first MK game, Ermac only existed in the minds of players, and that one fake photo from EGM, Ermac never made an in-game apperance, the first time he appeared in-game was UMK3, he was playable, he was there, he had a story, he had an ending, his ending was actually making fun of the belief that he could be found in MK1, where it is stated Ermac used the tournament to prove he existed, Ermac was created from a rumor, Blaze was not created from a rumor, you can clearly see him in the background of "the pit II", he was not born from the words of players, he was created completly from scratch by Midway, Ermac is the only character that was born from a rumor. BassxForte 23:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That is mighty fine original research, but original research nevertheless. Do you have a reliable source, independently published, which makes the same argument? Luna Santin 23:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Changing or removing the sentence would radically alter the overall meaning. It would then imply that other characters have been created from rumors, which is patently false and deliberately misleading to the reader. Ermac is notable for being the only character to have been created from a fan rumor. Other fan rumors have existed, but those were never developed upon. Iamstillhiro1112 is attempting to dispute the sentence by claiming another character, Blaze, was created from a rumor, which is false (And I believe this has been made exceedingly clear so far). Considering all the information that these many sources have provided on Ermac, having to provide a citation in order to find one source that uses this exact wording is overly excessive and fairly absurd. It would be like requiring a source to claim that Ermac's name begins with the letter "e" (I hope it's obvious that his name does does in fact begin with an "e", but you're unlikely going to find a source that states this in these exact words, hence the absurdity of the request).
As for your comment to BassxForte, which part would you like a source to? This entire discussion has been restating known facts with different sources again and again. MarphyBlack 23:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone but MarphyBlack would notice the sentence is missing. Since we can't come up with a comprimise on what the sentence should say I think that is the only option. That removes the need for a fact flag also.--Iamstillhiro1112 23:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You have not given any comprimises that didn't either blank the sentence or intentionally introduce false and spurious information. If you could create a compromise that would be absent of both the above quandaries, then perhaps it could actually be agreed upon. MarphyBlack 00:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm mainly concerned with the word "only." Luna Santin 00:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me try this again, Blaze could be seen in "the pit II", I'm not sure if Midway thought of him as an actual character, and since I became a fan of the series around the release of MKD I don't know if their were any rumors surronding him, however, Blaze was there in the background, however Ermac never really existed in the series until UMK3, he only existed in the form of rumors, that all spawned from the EGM issue, now Ermac exists as a character, but he never existed outside of rumors until UMK3, Blaze was there (I seem to be repeating myself) in MK2, he probably wasn't a real character at the time, but nevertheless he was there. BassxForte 00:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, but you're still not an independently published, reliable source. That's original research. Having watched some of the videos linked above, I'm inclined to agree that Blaze existed beforehand; that doesn't really concern me, either way -- I still haven't seen a reliable source which says Ermac is the only character based on a rumor. About halfway through the Ermac video linked above, "...a lot of the ideas that we like to create are ones that were based on rumors from previous games." He doesn't specify a character, or even if these other creations are characters. Luna Santin 00:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ermac Never existed beyond the minds of the players until UMK3
  • Blaze Was there in "the pit II in MK2 although he probably wasn't a real character at the time

There... I'm done, I've made my point, unless I see a good reason I'm leaving this discussion, I don't want to waste time hearing people call my facts "orginal research", which is an insult by my logic, all I wanted to do with my first post in this discussion was drop the truth down, I didn't expect you to respond like this... BassxForte 00:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Other situations where rumors led to stuff actually ending up in the games are non-character related. For example, animalities were rumored in MKII, which eventually led to their debut in MK3 (This is mentioned in the "Behind the Scenes of Mortal Kombat 3 The Game" video, which I don't have a link to offhand). Also, it was heavily rumored that the trees could be fed in the "Living Forest" stage and that players could be knocked onto the hanging chains in the "Dead Pool" arena. Both of these features later appeared in the adventure game Shaolin Monks (The "these were rumors that we implemented" thing is directly mentioned at the official Shaolin Monks site in the "Environment Movie" video). However, Ermac is the only character to have been taken from a fan rumor. MarphyBlack 00:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You might want to look at this tho "http://www.gamepro.com/gamepro/domestic/games/features/30667.shtml". This article is about debunking rumours of games, and it mentions the [Blaze] Character, he is a Mortal Kombat Character who was also a rumor originally. He was originally called torch, as you can see in Blaze's wikipedia page. I think gamepro would be a reliable source cause they publish a nationally distributed magazine.
I don't want to be the only one introducing comprimises, Marphyblack has already stated that there will be no compromise so introducing one would be futile.--Iamstillhiro1112 01:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, I don't know if you're doing it deliberately, but you continue to misconstrue the information from your own source. GamePro states that the myth that was debunked was that Blaze was playable. Of course he wasn't. But GamePro does confirm that he was visible in the Pit II's background. Hence, Blaze was not a rumor. He existed as a visible figure in the Pit II's background. If you would like me to state this again and again in simpler terms, I could try, but it seems that you will not accept this idea. MarphyBlack 01:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
To use a bit of an outside example, I once heard of a bitter dispute over a Star Trek episode where Kirk winds up on trial. A number of editors wanted to use the various happenings of the episode as sourcing for any number of statements regarding the inner workings of Starfleet's judicial system. The problem, though, was that we can't really judge an entire system based on one isolated example -- we don't have any way of knowing whether that single trial truly represented and could stand in for every trial that had ever or would ever happen in the Star Trek universe. Quotes from the episode could certainly be allowed as sources regarding the particular trial featured in the episode, but when we got down to it, we couldn't reliably say that the single incident represented all incidents. It's not that anybody was being evil or pushing a POV, just that we couldn't reliably verify some the statements being made, with the sourcing that was available at the time. That's sort of the same thing I'm seeing, here, if that makes sense. We can source that Ermac came out of a rumor; we can source that Blaze/Torch existed in MK2; these two examples are good, but do they stand for every MK character which ever was or ever will be? That's the sort of logical trap that comes with using a word like "only" -- it's making a much bolder statement than usually comes to mind. I have no problem saying Ermac came from rumors, and likewise have no problem if his is the only article making mention of that (the readers will figure it out). That's more my angle, I guess. Luna Santin 01:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no wacky bending of information here. Ermac being the one and only character to have been created due to a fan rumor is an empirical fact. No reading between the lines, no point of view, no far-reaching speculation, no requiring one to come up with their own conclusions based on the known facts. It is fact. You're asking for the citation for the exact use of one specific word, which I feel is totally excessive and ridiculous. What if I reworded the sentence to say, "Ermac is the sole character to have been created from a rumor"? I'm willing to bet that I would then be asked to find a source that used the word "sole". MarphyBlack 01:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Sole has the same meaning as only, so yes it would be contested just the same. But you knew that, so you didn't need to ask really.--Iamstillhiro1112 02:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
No, you're missing my point -- we have sourced that Ermac is based on rumor, we have not sourced that no other rumor-based character exists. The word "only" refers not to Ermac's status, but to the status of every other character in the MK universe, ever. It's a very powerful word, which is why I'd like some sort of sourcing for the claim. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Right now when reading the [[[Rain (Mortal Kombat)]] Bio page I'm starting to think that Rain too was a rumoured character later later developed into an actual character. This is a quote from the page "Rain was originally a red herring inserted by the game developers; a character shown in the game's intro sequence who did not actually exist within the game itself." I guess I can't source wikipedia articles, but it shows that someone else had the notion that Ermac wasn't the only character created from rumour cause I don't think I ever edited that article.--Iamstillhiro1112 03:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I know I said I was leaving this argument but their is something I feel I have to say, the entire concept of Ermac was born from rumors, his apperance, how to find him, all rumors, the only rumors surronding Blaze (and possibly Rain) was that it was possible to play as/against them, Blaze and Rain may have become playable characters due to rumors, but they existed beforehand, even if they did not have a storyline, identity, etc. Ermac however, was created from scratch by fans, and never existed in-game in any form, shape, or way until UMK3. BassxForte 06:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Rain was not a rumor. He was a purple ninja specifically labelled with the name "Rain" that the developers had added into the attract mode of UMK3. Ed Boon confirms this in the character's official Armageddon card.[5] You can see this particular appearance of Rain, clearly named "Rain", in all his purple glory in the game for yourself. Unless you're totally blind, it's fairly obvious to see that Rain is right there. Iamstillhiro1112, please refrain from adding nonsense and clout to this (albeit almost lame) discussion. Your overtly false claims of other characters being rumors are starting to become disruptive, and it's obvious that you're continuing to do this intentionally at this point. MarphyBlack 20:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It takes two to have a lame) discussion. And I'm only reporting what I see. The Rain page does state that Rain was originally a red herring not meant to be developed into a real character. So thus far it is two pages that will need rewrites for your favorite line to stay on the Ermac page. BTW, you can stop throwing out policy violation accusations anytime now. Anyhow, the Ermac rumor wasn't totally unfounded either. http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v612/iamstillhiro1112/?action=view&current=mkla1.png That is the diagnostics test from the first revision of MK1. The reason why that is there is irrelevant to the ones who created the first rumours of the guys existance. It was to them a good enough reason to create a rumor.--Iamstillhiro1112 22:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that Rain wasn't supposed to be developed into a character? Where does it say that fans came up with the idea of a purple ninja named Rain? I believe I just asked you to refrain from adding complete and utter nonsense to this discussion, a simple request which would make everything easier for everyone. Anyhow, Ed Boon's own words confirm that Rain is in the game.[6] A purple ninja very clearly specified as being "Rain" is seen in UMK3's attract mode (Unless you're going to claim that this image was photoshopped, which I imagine you're not far from doing). Point simply stated: Rain was not a rumor. He's a purple ninja that appeared in UMK3 (Source: Rain's Official Armageddon Bio Card). This is similar to Blaze's situation in that Blaze first appeared as a flaming figure in a MKII background (Source: Blaze's Official Armageddon Bio Card). So, Blaze was not a rumor. However, Ermac did not exist before UMK3. Ermac was only a rumor. (Source: Ermac's Official Armageddon Bio Card). Continually trying to pass off lies as facts will not suddenly make them truth. So what's next? Are you going to claim that Scorpion was a rumor who was eventually developed into a character in MK1? MarphyBlack 23:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That isn't how Rain started is what I am saying, and it don't need clarification and I know you understand what I was saying. It's just more fun for you to call it nonsense I guess. The first revision of UMK3 had Rain in the intro, but he was not programmed in the game as far as I know. And the later revisions of the arcade game did not contain said footage. It wasn't until the home release that he was implemented in the game. And his ever being included in a game wasn't a sure thing. Tremor may well have been the new ninja implemented rather than rain.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Mk_tremormanual.jpg

That image was from the first version of Mortal Kombat Trilogy. It is believed that originally Tremor was gonna be added to the game, but the story was rewritten a bit to accomidate rain instead. Notice the brown color of the suit, which isn't rains color. You can read more about it in the wikipedia article about him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_Mortal_Kombat_characters#Tremor

Ed Boon said in the Rain Bio vid that it was later decided to make him playable. "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2S84jG0xgo" So it wasn't always planned for him to play a role in UMK3.

The diagnostic screen I just linked doesn't serve as confirmation that Ermac was there, I never said that. But it served as a base for a rumor. Thus the rumor had backing and wasn't created totally out of thin air. Just as the Rain rumor had backing, although much stronger. And the torch rumour has some sorta backing, in that there are background characters that make the level look cool. But they were originally only rumours. They have been canonized only recently.--Iamstillhiro1112 00:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

--Iamstillhiro1112 00:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break for easy editing

We seem to be going in circles, and I don't think we're going to stop any time soon. Personally, I'm not sure how I can "give" any more towards a compromise than I already have, without undermining my position. As I've said above, the word "only" implies that the statement refers to every MK character, ever, and with that in mind, I think we ned a reliable source, free of original research or other data-synthesis, to support such a bold statement. Without such a reliable source (which still hasn't been provided), I honestly don't see why it would be such a crying shame to just omit that single word, "only." Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a crying shame, since the statement in question is irrefutable, whether the research is considered original or not. There is no evidence that any other current MK character was a rumour before they were developed for the games. If there were, then it would've been reported, and evidence of that would exist in some form today.
I'm puzzled as to why the editor who raised the dispute thinks that Blaze and Rain were rumours before they were characters. Puzzled, mainly because I'm wondering what the editor believes an "actual character" is (referring to the term used in the disputed statement and the editor's own comments). Combining dictionary definitions of the two words would give something similar to this: "an existing (actual) representation of a person in a work of fiction (character)". It's blatantly obvious that when their respective titles were released, Blaze was "an existing representation of a person in a work of fiction" (an actual character in MKII), and the same goes for Rain (an actual character in Ultimate MK3). They were not glitches or fan-made characters before they were first seen in the games, so they could never have been rumours. RobWill80 20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
If the statement is irrefutable, why is no one able to source it? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I think that some news sources would need further developments to happen before a statement is necessary or relevant enough to make (For example, if another game character was created following rumours, then Ermac's status could be mentioned in the past tense). I'd also note that any "MK history" features that I've seen don't go into enough detail to discuss this subject. RobWill80 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, I've been playing Mortal Kombat from the first game was released. And to have missed the torch rumours you had to either not read game magazines or not played the games in arcades, and possibly not have friends who would make the jesture. Blaze's story is retconning. Basically Ed boon rewrote the history of the character, which happens sometimes in video games. One example is the frequently changing heights of some street fighter video game characters. I read about that in the lame wars listings. Capcom listed their heights differently over the years and so there were multiple verifiable resources. In the end they just left the stats of charachters off the pages.
As for a comprimised sentence, I was thinking somewhere along the lines "This is the only instance in the history of Mortal Kombat where a rumored character description was actually implemented in the creation of an actual character."
It could probably use a slight rewrite, but since the Ermac rumour was not comppletely baseless I think it's good. While the name Ermac does appear in some versions of MK 1 it doesn't give a description of how he looks. So it gives credit to the fans for the characters look.--Iamstillhiro1112 01:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've also played these games since the beginning, so I was well aware of the rumours. However, the retcon of Blaze's story was only to give additional information - no part of his (or the series) existing storyline was rewritten. In MKII, a character was on fire, and he was standing next to another character on a bridge. Nothing more was known. In MK: Deadly Alliance, the character on fire is identified as Blaze, he is on fire because he is an elemental, and the character who was next to him is a holy man who was attempting to capture him.
Next, your compromise would probably need the same type of sources that is being requested for the disputed statement (the key word you used - "only"). However, I think that the disputed statement and your compromise are both accurate. You have to keep in mind what the original rumours were. Blaze, Rain and Ermac have all shared one rumour in particular - "Is this someone who could be controlled or fought?" Ermac is the only one that didn't exist as an actual character when this question was first asked of them. RobWill80 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, then since my comment, and the previous comment can't be resourced I guess the only option is to delete the comment. Because we just can't keep arguing about this. There should be some kinda rule about this. There is the rule that Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, but MarphyBlack seems to think that it's wrong to ask for that verification.--Iamstillhiro1112 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • sigh* Look, Ermac never existed in any form, shape, or way in the first MK game, Blaze did exist in MKII, he was not a "character" proper but he was there, therefore saying Blaze was born from rumors would be inaccurate, to say he was eventually introduced as a playable character due to rumors might be true, but he was not made from scratch by fans. BassxForte 05:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Any form is incorrect, the diagnostic screen did include the text "Ermacs". Yes, it wasn't intended as a reference to him, but it did birth the rumours that led to his creation. So Ermac didn't come entirely from imagination, his apperence did, but not the name.--Iamstillhiro1112 14:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The error macro text is not Ermac, nor is "error macro" Ermac's name. Ermac is supposed to be a red ninja who goes by the name of "Ermac". There are no red ninjas in the original MK, which is why Ermac character has been the only character to have been developed from a fan rumor. Nothing of him existed before UMK3. However, I can very easily find pictures of Blaze in MKII. He's the only guy that's standing in a background on fire. The developers made him a fighter in Deadly Alliance, but the character itself did not come from fan ideas. MarphyBlack 16:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Blaze did not come from the fans, their might have been rumors that he was playable, but never any rumors that he existed, like ermac. BassxForte 17:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Error Macro, is shown as Ermacs. And the screen doesn't even say anything about Error Macros. As said before, Ermacs rumour is the only thing that has been created completely from scratch. The name was taken from the diagnostic screen. Completely the opposite. The background image that later represented Blaze was there, but the name was fan created.--Iamstillhiro1112 20:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Although Blaze and Rain appeared in-game prior to becoming selectable players, Ermac did not, the fact his name appeared in the screen did not mean he had a presence, someone just came to the conclusion that it referanced another character and the rumor spread like wildfire, the name was never meant to signify another character, although Ermac has been introduced as a red ninja, he never existed in any form in the first MK game. BassxForte 20:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with your Ermac argument, it wasn't meant to hint at another character. But I also argue that Torch was not meant to signify another character as well. It was just cool background art that has been retconned to become another character.--Iamstillhiro1112 21:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the screen does say "error macros". That's what "ERMACS" stands for. The developers have stated this. "ERMACS" is not a name for anything. "Ermac" is the name that fans came up with for a red ninja character that did not exist. You're going to have to provide a citation for your unfounded claim that Blaze's name was fan created, because the developers state otherwise. You're also going to need a citation to prove that Blaze was retconned, because the developers state that he's the same guy who appeared in MKII. MarphyBlack 22:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


I don't have to provide a citation, cause I'm not trying to keep Blazes biography together. Feel free to delete that line, and revert it whenever someone else re-adds it. In the end, that line only effects one character, as previously stated by the third opinion, the Ermac line effects all MK characters.
The screen says ermacs, what it stands for is info provided out of game.--Iamstillhiro1112 01:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Hold on a minute. You know the point where you said that "Torch was not meant to signify another character"? I don't want to be patronizing, but don't you get why I defined an "actual character" to you before? "An existing representation of a person in a work of fiction" would be every playable character, boss character, secret character and background character in these games. Anything that's supposed to be a person is meant to signify another character.
Also, the only retcons here are the additions made to Blaze's story, which included giving him a proper name. Despite being called "Torch" by developers and fans alike, that name couldn't be used to officially identify the character. "Torch" and Blaze are the same character, not two separate characters. RobWill80 04:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not following all your paragraph. This mostly "Anything that's supposed to be a person is meant to signify another character." Cause just cause there are person in the background doesn't mean they are meant to be significant. Like that guy stuck in the weeds in the Lost woods levels, and the guys hanging in the spikes in the pit levels. Those don't signify any character known at the time. I suppose in a couple years Ed Boon could say they are actual characters and then you'll say it was always meant that way, but deep down you'll know that wasn't always how it was. Street Fighter games are allowed to have people in the background, and not have to be major characters.
I know they are the same character. But it was the fans who spawned the Torch name, not the developers, I don't see anything that says the developers created the name, just that they used it.

"http://www.gamepro.com/gamepro/domestic/games/features/30667.shtml"

Fanatics dubbed him torch. This was written before MK Deception was available.

"http://www.mortalkombatonline.com/content/forum/showmessage.cds?id=596&page=3"

Retro fan who heard of the original Torch rumor.

"http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=931479&topic=33555073"

Of course the last two links can't be used as verification, but it shows that my argument isn't original. The first link is pretty valid I would say, as it is official gaming press.--Iamstillhiro1112 06:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You're missing my point here. To "signify" something is to suggest or indicate something (i.e. Anything that's supposed to be a person is another character). This should be obvious in the term used to describe "Torch" in MKII - a background character. The fact that he looks like a piece of artwork isn't relevant, the fact that he isn't a piece of artwork in the fictional universe is. Background characters themselves don't have to be important (or "significant").
Say if you were watching something on TV, the people in the background are characters, not artwork. They're not important, but they could be seen as templates that could be given expanded roles in the story, if the writers so wished. This is what happened to Blaze.
As for the name "Torch", again I'd emphasise the fact that it isn't used officially. Besides, if the fans created the name "Torch" for "that burning guy in the background", and if Midway could later use that as the character's official name, then this rumour didn't lead to the creation of an actual character (the sentence originally disputed), since the character was created before the name. RobWill80 17:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
What is relevant is resourcing. And I do have the resource that states fans gave him the name. Although it should be obvious, because why would the programmers give a character a non-copywritable name? And why did they not try to copyright the name until near the release of MK Deception? Fans wouldn't care about the copyright status however, they'll just call him what they want. One good example is how "Mr X" in double dragon was called Machine Gun Kelly by me and my friends for years, because we heard others use that name. It wasn't an official name, but we felt it fit at the time.--Iamstillhiro1112 19:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
GamePro doesn't state that fans created the name "Torch". They only say that this is what they called the figure. However, the developers do clearly state that they used the name "Torch" for the character at the time of MKII (Additionally, the cited Ed Boon interview chat in which he identifies the character as "Torch" predates the GamePro article by over two years). Also, Midway had to change the character's name to Blaze for Deadly Alliance, not Deception. MarphyBlack 20:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
That still leaves the question, if the develepers had the grand scheme of this character being a trademarked character, it was not trademarked till several years later.
I'm curious why you asked here for a sitation about Torches origins? Why not ask in the torch talk page where you might get a response? Or even add the fact flag, which is the curteous thing to do. In fact you didn't state what you edited in your edits perhaps to not call attention to yourself.
I think that Ed Boon interview also provides ground that the Hornbuckle article needs to state that he was originally named Liu Kang.--Iamstillhiro1112 20:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. You're the one who originally and so vehemently introduced Blaze to this talk page (See Not accurate). I also have no clue what you're talking about when you say that I didn't provide an edit summary (At least that's what I think you might be saying). I'm not even sure what edits to what article you're referring to, but since you're probably talking about Blaze again, I have left an edit summary for every single one of my edits. The only reason I don't make them longer is that there is a character limit in the edit summary box. MarphyBlack 20:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
"Cleanup" is pretty vague. Especially when you actually are removing content that don't suit your agenda. --Iamstillhiro1112 22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
And you would have rather preferred that I do what instead? There is a 200 character limit for the edit summary box. While I would love to give word-by-word rationale for every single letter I altered, that wouldn't seem very fruitful since you can see all the changes made with a single click. You are welcome, though, to read Wikipedia:Cleanup resources to see what cleanup can entail. To be specific, I altered some sections to eliminate the in-universe perspective, reworded some sentences so that they didn't appear to be verbatim copyvio copies, removed uncited information, tweaked the poor image placement, standardized formatting to comply with the rest of the pages, and I added references and sources (And I believe I did mention the fact that I added sources in my edit summary). And no, that would have not fit into the edit summary box. You're welcome to dispute any of the changes I made, but I don't see any particular usefulness in stating, "Blaze is the only boss in the Mortal Kombat series to not be inherently evil." If that's my agenda, to remove unnecessary and false information from articles, then I can live with that. MarphyBlack 23:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess you can call that line irrelevant. Knowing Blaze is the only character to "blah blah blah". Similiar to the Ermac line situation. It's unverifiable, and Ermac is still created from rumors without it.--Iamstillhiro1112 18:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not unverifiable. It's just not important. It has nothing significant to do with his character from either an in-universe or out-of-universe perspective. However, Ermac being the one and only character in the entire MK series to have been derived entirely and solely from a fan rumor, from name to appearance, is indeed notable and worthy of mention. MarphyBlack 21:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Explain why it is not notable. You would think that "Blaze being the one and only boss in the entire MK series to be entirely and solely neutral would indeed notable and worthy of mention". At least it should be to people who wanna know what is unique about each character. You should judge each article in the same manner.--Iamstillhiro1112 21:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement in question is irrefutable, MarphyBlack has provided sources out of which the statement can be deduced by common sense. In the case of Ermac, the rumour was there first, then the developers reacted by turning the rumour into an actual character. In Blaze's case, the character was there first, created by the developers, though not playable at first. THEN there were rumours about him, until Blaze became available as a playable character. These are facts, sources have been provided. I also consider this to be a very significant information, as it shows something about the relation between the developers and the MK fan community that is not to be taken for granted. It should be put back into the article. Zarkumo 16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Deduction by common sense still means personal interpretation. Somewhat on topic, I find alot of these Mortal Kombat pages are guarded heavily by people who are more interested in pushing their views rather than writing a non-bias article. It took a long time to get people to stop posting their"MK Shaolin Monks canonization views" on the MK Shaolin Monks page. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place to post personal views, thats what geocities websites are for.--Iamstillhiro1112 18:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, deduction by common sense means exactly the opposite (common <-> personal ?). All facts are based on interpretation. Interpretation does not equal "opinion" or "(point of) view". The statement "This is the only instance in the history of Mortal Kombat where a rumor led to the creation of an actual character." states a fact. In order for it not to state a fact, there would have to be another rumour out of which a character was created. No evidence has been provided yet that this was the case. Evidence has been provided (in the YouTube video about Ermac) in which the MK developers explicitly state that they did not conceive of a character named "Ermac" prior to the rumours, and Ed Boon explicitly states that they picked up ideas from the rumours in creating Ermac. The MK developers seem to consider that significant information when they put it into an official video about one of their characters. Evidence has also been provided (the other video) that the developers had conceived of Blaze as a character when putting him into MK2, even though not a playable one, who went by the name Torch at the time. There is no reference to fan rumours. You are the only person in this discussion who does not deduce from this that the statement in question is true. Now, no logic in the world can force you to accept that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles). In any case, instead of leaving out the statement entirely, it could be changed into "the only known instance". The fact that the developers are reacting at all to rumours and fan ideas is significant. Now, that, of course, is an opinion. But there is no neutral solution to that, or you'd have to deleted large portions of the Wikipedia database. Zarkumo 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's actually up to the person who adds material to provide proof. Thus far the only sites that say Ermac is the only fan created character would be that one forum, and that's the same guy who wrote that line here. While I didn't find a link where they talk about Blaze as a rumor, I did, but they put that material up way too late. I think I had that issue of Gamepro that this came from, and it was actually published much earlier than 2003.

I'm not interested in deleting large portions of the database, just what I myself find questionable. Notice that the character development section needed help in the first place. Click the edit button and you'll see this "Someone should really rewrite all this!". I didn't write that, someone else did. --Iamstillhiro1112 05:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ermac abbreviation

I had always been under the impression that Ermac stood for "error macro" but when I googled to find a reference for it, one of the the first results i found was :

http://www.digitpress.com/eastereggs/arcademortalkombat.htm

There it states that Ermac was a shortening of the term "ERror in the MAChine". We should find that reference so that this won't come up again.--Iamstillhiro1112 13:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A hidden reversed message in Mortal Kombat: Deception's Konquest mode states that Ermac stands for Error Macro. The full message is, and I quote, "It is a little known fact that Ermac is short for Error Macro." I would hold the developers as being a more reliable source since they're the ones who actually implemented the term. MarphyBlack 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I would also, not sure how you a reference like that would be noted, but if the edit happens again they can always turn to the talk page.--Iamstillhiro1112 15:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
We can source the game text directly in the same method that has been done in the Metal Gear Solid 3 and the Final Fantasy X articles, both of which have featured status. I'm actually already doing this for the Mortal Kombat articles, but I haven't gotten to this article yet. MarphyBlack 00:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/r/m/Talk%7EErmac_6ed3.html"