Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Deadliest Warrior. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Deadliest Warrior at the Reference desk. |
Frequently asked questions
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
SERIOUSLY, WHAT THE HECK?!!! It's one of the main things to this article. It's a show, therefore it needs its EPISODES. 209.213.17.28 ( talk) 17:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The obvious disadvantage of seeing a linked number/impossible once again. 209.213.17.28 ( talk) 13:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Serious question, no judgement, real curiosity. What is the appeal of paying attention to a silly show? Once you realize, after 30 seconds, that it's fluff, why continue watching? After you've seen one episode, or two, and can confirm your initial reaction, that it's just fluff, why continue watching? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 ( talk) 14:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
It would make sence if someone would make little note in article. Basically none of the weapons have got right name in series. For example AKs-47 as AK-74 Carbine, Chinese Type 67 RPG under name RPG-7 or MAC-10.. as Mini-uzi!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.49.215 ( talk) 07:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it is ashame they named them as they did. 209.213.17.28 ( talk) 17:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
How do they come up with these numbers? Look at the weapon selections they give certain teams. They are wrong half of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.213.113 ( talk) 03:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The actual simulations are done with numbers and done 1000 times. The acted "simulation" is just actors portraying a scripted scenario showing some ways that the weapons could theoretically be used. I think the article would be improved by removing the summaries of what the actors and letting the numbers generated by the actual simulations speak for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.182.31 ( talk) 18:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
is this a legit source of criticism "BS historian"? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 22:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The show has been critized for favoring the west; specifically caucasians. Many have claimed the show is often racist in its approaches to its fictional choices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersmokescreen ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
THIS IS A FICTATIONAL SHOW!!!!! its like doing a battle between Jesus and Moses
Jesus uses heal saves 10
Moses parts sea saves 100...
unless it happened in real life there is no point speculating, its completely fictational
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.18.15 ( talk) 14:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned before (I really don't want to read through all that text), but are these guys really experts? For example, Sala Baker doesn't seem to be a Maori Weapons Specialist; his wikipedia page says otherwise and there's no mention of him being an expert in such a field. An explanation would be nice. Expo377 ( talk) 22:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
BSHistorian here. I'd rather not get too involved in this, and I appreciate you don't want to link to my article, and even that for some reason 'original research' is frowned upon on wiki - but for confirmation that these guys are not experts, just follow my links and post those in the article. Or Google some up yourself and post those. They aren't hiding their true identities. They are all martial artists at best, actors and radio DJs at worst (by worst, I mean 'least qualified to comment on historical matters'. Not one credentialled historian.
I don't want to make an account to write my own talk section, but whoever edited this article definitely changed the results on purpose. The Apache warrior wins not the gladiator, and the Spetsnaz wins not the Green Beret. I hope someone reads this and changes it, since I am too lazy.
The Maori guy was Sauron!?!? That's awesome!
How exactly you do become a Maori Warrior specialist? Last time I checked the Maori stopped fighting like that a long time ago. Same goes for pretty much every ancient warrior. The closest you are going to get is with people who train with these weapons and become good with them, non of the will ever be as good as the original warriors. Remember there is no degree in ancient Celtic fighting techniques so you are going to have to you hobbyist. Which doesn't necessarily discredit them some hobbyists are incredibly dedicated. TrueMetis ( talk) 08:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Why is "David Wenham" credited as the announcer in the side panel? I understand that he is rumored to be the announcer, but the page says that the show credits him (the announcer, not necessarily David Wenham) as "Drew Skye", and so does the rest of this page, it also talks about this rumor on David Wenham's page, which means that there is more than enough places to learn about this rumor, and this way we will have more accurate information, so shouldn't "Drew Skye" be what it says there? I just wanted to check before I changed it. -- Parad0x130 ( talk) 00:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like Drew Skye is a psuedonym according to: http://twitter.com/geoffdesmoulin/statuses/13284431900 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.58.100 ( talk) 04:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Its definently him to me everytime i watch
300 (film) and the persian immortals come on screen the narrator
David Wenham describes them and i get deadliest warrior de ja vu when ever i hear it. lol
--
Moviemaster1993 (
talk) 07:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this have a page for itself? 24.147.157.5 ( talk) 20:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The show is unrealistic,all the experts are actually movie stuntmen and not actually trained,try googling any of their names and you will see that none of them are martial arts experts.
After all,where can you take a course in IRA weaponry and where can you practice using those guns?
61.8.202.103 ( talk) 06:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It was interesting at the beginning but afterwards.......example Knight vs pirate....the pirate gets hit on head with a iron mace....his pistol in tests misfires three times..yet he's declared the winner??????????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.142.38 ( talk) 18:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC) I was disapointed they never had equals vs equals..a Japanese Ninja vs Chinese Shoalin/Kung Fu Monk.....
I keep seeing people place wrong info in the Season 2 section like reamtches, info on the game, and new warriors without any legit sources. I think something needs to be done. Maildiver ( talk) 03:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Is the zulu spit venom adenia gummifera ?
On the schedule on Spike TV's website it says all the winners from season 1 will be facing each other again. 71.63.25.240 ( talk) 19:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I want to dispute the sentence "This also one of the most disputed fights because of the debatable conventionalism of some of the weapons... the naginata was and is considered a womans weapon, used by the wife of the samurai for selfdefense and never used by the samurai..." in the section "Episode 2: Viking vs Samurai." While the naginata is now considered a woman's weapon, Wikipedia's own entry for the naginata describes it as "a pole weapon that was traditionally used in Japan by members of the samurai" and shows many, many historical examples of men using it. Did the hosts of the show dispute the conventionalism of the naginata, or is this sentence just saying that some unnamed fans have done so? Redguardian ( talk) 02:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
As per the official site of Spike( http://www.spike.com/blog/new-season-new-blood/93847) and an article by By Derrik J. Lang for The Associated Press( http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=209283) The episode is named as INDIA'S RAJPUT WARRIOR. 115.252.47.240 ( talk) 10:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
How does that make sense? The list on WP page consists of name of episodes, which i have edited. 115.118.84.23 ( talk) 13:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the Historical inaccuracies section, it appears as though this information was collected by someone expressing their own opinion of the show. While I completely agree with that opinion, especially since it appears as though that editor did their homework, it's still an editors opinion. According to WP:NPOV, the content on Wikipedia should be compiled with neutrality in mind. Significant opinions can only be included if they're presented fairly as expressed by a reliable third party resource. That does not appear to be what's going on here.
Unless someone can produce a reliable source for this opinion, the section needs to be removed. - Hooliganb ( talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
What I don't get is if it's a documented historic fact, and the show says otherwise , for example the crossbow being ued by knights, even though it's a proven fact it can't stay unless someone repuatble says for themselves the show is wrong? -- Swg66 ( talk) 22:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
also when the show itself uses actors for it's "experts" and doesn't have any reputable sources itself, besides the "experts" they say are experts who don't show up outside the show or are only stuntmen.-- Swg66 ( talk) 22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
But their are no real credibel people supporting the show, and actual historians who say things that contridict what the show says, Real historians vs Actors who pretended to experts, not a hard call-- Swg66 ( talk) 23:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
no they provided at least for the knight, a historian stating somthing that directly contridics what the show say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swg66 ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
you're not going to find a historian to do so becasue they dismiss it, but some of the shows facts are wrong-- Swg66 ( talk) 00:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
ok i'm just going to say you're wrong. Deadliest Warrior doesn't have a leg to stand on in this case, they lack any real experts, just actors, The show Warriors on the History channel actuuly intervies real historians and even moderen day warriors like Zulus still living in africa, and the historians say things that directly contridic what the actors say. These aren't opinions on why the show is wrong they are fact, that show it's wrong. The show isn't a documentary, it has documentary qualities, but it's largly only for entirtainment purposues. Their not directly say the show is wrong, but their are facts show it. The whole thing about required someone to say it's innacurate is flawed, just becasue some hasn't made an artical about why it's inaccurate doesn't mean it's not true. Isn't the point of wikipedia to put facts on the sight and give people the truth-- 67.247.147.56 ( talk) 02:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
ok just tell me this, how is not important to point out somthing with thw is wrong, when it's a well known fact, these are oringinal opions on wether what the show is doing is wrong, the a document historic facts that prove what is said on the show is historiaclly incorrect, Wrong is wrong is wrong, no matter if a reputable source has pointed it out or not.-- 67.247.147.56 ( talk) 06:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
these aren't opinions, they are documented facts.-- Mr.2 Bon Clay ( talk) 21:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hoologanb,I see where you are coming from about the weasel word "supposedly" and how it may imply a bias. However, I was recalling the statement by the doctor in when he said that "an apache knife could probably penetrate chainmail." They didn't test any mail with the apache knife but they eliminated wallace based on what the apache knife could supposedly do. I get that we can't put opinions on this page but frankly its frustrating that this show pushes bullcrap like that unriveted chainmail was used in the middle ages, which was clearly not the case. How is a reference site like wikipedia supposed to tolerate misinformation like this? If someone looked up wikipedia as a citable source and saw the untruths DW claims as fact undisputed anywhere in an encyclopedia article then I believe the integrity of wikipedia suffers. There should at least be a disclaimer saying that the information covered by DW is stated by it only and is by no means embraced by wikipedia or its users. I respect article neutrality but people researching have a right to tell accuracy from the bs. I like this other user tried to set up an inconsistencies page but agreed to abandon the issue for neutrality but this show flies in the face of logic so much that IMHO readers of this article need to know that the viewpoints of DW are not endorsed by wikipedia. - JHanson712
According to WP:TABLES, tables are used on Wikipedia to best present information compared in a vertical/horizontal format (for example, mathematical information, as is the case in this article), but some information is best included as a list instead. In previous versions of this article, the content was cluttered by multiple tables that were better presented as lists detailing information about the separate tests conducted in each episode, making it difficult to navigate. That being said, adding information about which weapon the commentators gave the "edge" to in the table isn't necessary because: (a) it becomes more cluttered visually and less helpful as a presentation of mathematical data, (b) is redundant as the bullets beneath the table contain this information, and (c) the weapons the commentators prefer score higher anyway.
If there's a reason an editor feels the commentator edge needs to be included in the table, perhaps they could explain why, and we could find a solution that doesn't result in a visual degradation of the data. - Hooliganb ( talk) 17:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The narrator is credited as Drew Skye, stop chaning it-- Jaws8492 ( talk) 23:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I forget how, so could somebody use this to back up why I said the Yari would have been a more realistic choice than the Naginata or Kanabo for testing ^ a b c d e Deal, William E (2007). Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press. pp. 432. ISBN 978-0195331264. It is from the Wiki's very own mentioning of the Yari and I myself have read the book. It clearly outlines that the Naginata was mainly a calvary weapon and saw far less use as a foot soldier weapon either for the Samurai or the ashigaru. It has been proven to go through samurai armor of all types historically, thus its constant use. The citation should be easy enough to list as their are several. Wiggalama ( talk) 19:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
unfortunlty it doesn't matter, apparently unless it the source specifically says Deadliest warrior is wrong you can't put it up, it's a stupid rule but some people won't let you put up facts.The Kanabo ad Naginata aren't historically accurate weapons but because some retarded rule you canput it up. The Histoical inacuaracies section is repatedly deleted becasue even the inforamtion is 100% true. Also apparently the Samurai armour shouldn't of handeled the Spartan spear either, that armor style can't stop a strong spear thrust.-- Mr.2 Bon Clay ( talk) 01:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The show discusses the Samurai, and claims accuracy which is proven false. A thrust is far more powerful for piercing armor as it concentrates the force on a specific area. Almost any sword can penetrate light to medium armor if it has a sharp tip and is thrust at least one handed. The Yari, like many spears, focuses on the thrust and historically penetrated samurai armor, mongolian, korean, korean shields, many different types of Chinese armor, Ainu armor, etc... Slashing is mostly useless against armor(especially medium like the Spartans had or Heavy like the later Knights of Europe(circa 1300s-early 1500s) as it is incredibly easy to resist in almost any design. Now, if you say slashed with the force of a horse galloping with a tachi, katana, naginata, etc... then things change. The Spartans viewed shields as honorable but not calvary, archery, or the combination; the opposite of the Samurai. Further, the Spartans where defeated ultimately by larger manuverability, calavary, and advanced archery by the forces of Alexander the Great and later once and for all by the Romans which the Samurai had in spades throughout their history. I did not go into detail on that one out of mercy :D Wiggalama ( talk) 02:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Well in one-one scenario those things wouldn't make that much a difference.Calvery is actully highlly useless agains spartan formatons ans so is archery, they didn't fall do to military tech or tatics, there fall was becasue their our mentality of no surrended casue high casualitys and eventlly to make for the lost troops they began useing helots, who weren't nearly as skill as a trained spartan. You're not telling me anything I don't know, but it doesn't matter, Unless a credable source says the show itself is wrong you can't up it up on wikipedia, besided the word superior being used to describe the spear is a bais. Besisded pirceing samurai armor isn't the same as a solid picec of metal, the Yari could pirece samuria armor because it wasn't a solid picec of metal. It was iron scales held together with leather or silk, the narrow Yari blade could piece that but a solid plate of bronze is another story.-- Mr.2 Bon Clay ( talk) 02:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what sources you put up, unless the reputable source actully says it wrong specifically about DW, thenit can't do on Wikipedia.Wiggalama I suggest you read above discussion before you eve try to make an argument. On the other note Sparta was never militarily conqured by either Phillp or Alexander. It doesn't matter what you think is right or wrong, whether you practice somthing or just read about it,If it doesn't comply with wikipedia's rules it can't go up. Also you're "owning" of "Mr. 2 Bon Clay" is essentially no exsistance,especially if you're suggesting Kenjutsu with a Yari, when you have no idea how it would interact with another fighting style. I suggest you stop sounding so preachy.-- Jaws8492 ( talk) 05:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
1. Spartans defeated by more manuevarable infantry of the later Greeks, Alexander the Great, and finally the Romans. Calvary was essential in the Spartan downfall as the romans had excellent heavy calvary. Sparta was subservant to Alexander and then conquered by Rome. They fell because they couldn't adapt. 2. Kenjutus means "art of the sword". I study Kukkishin Ryu Kenpo, a form of Kenjutsu among other things. I never said don't study the way of the yari, I said try actually practing such things as I listed. 3. You dumb ass. Samurai armor was a combination of laquered leather, plates, and light metal plating(particular metal content in the Kabuto) and is overall toughfer than the bronze armor of the Spartans and others. There is a reason why steel beats bronze and is also lighter per square inch. The only down side is the rust factor is not looked into properly enough. I would also go so far as to say that the Yari or any decent spear in general could penetrate the spartans shield, not that it would get that close with the calvary archer and such of the Samurai. The real test would be Samurai vs. Knight and which period; which region.
Removing simulation plots from each and every episode degrades details drastically, thus leaving NPOV (No Point Of View) after what happened in the simulation battle from this show. JMBZ-12 ( talk) 03:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this section really needed,I mean it only highlights some minor quips, plus it's poorly written. Deus257 ( talk) 03:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree; also I think this "In IRA vs Spetsnaz the AK-47 and AR-15 were declared equel, in IRA vs Taliban the AR-15 was given the advantage." is wrong. Because, before they compared the ak-47 vs ar-15, with IRA vs Taliban. But this time it is the ak-74 vs ar-15. And then they were declared equal. Also equal is spelled wrong. I am changing this. Pseudoanonymous ( talk) 04:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
A single spelling error doesn't justify deleting a whole section, just fix it, also thinking somthing is wrong and knowing somthing is wrong are two completly different things, make sure before you remove. The section has valid points, these types of sections area a good thing.-- 67.247.147.56 ( talk) 06:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to give an informal third opinion here (though in the future you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Third opinion and get those who watch over there a chance to provide another opinion). The two sentences which I believe are causing problems are the following:
The big problem is that these statements need to be verifiable by a reliable secondary source. When adding information, one must be careful not to draw conclusions themselves, as this goes against our no original research policy. I would prefer to remove the entire section for now until it can be reliably sourced; we have documentation of the discussion here, so if sources can be found to back these "inconsistency" claims up, then they can be added back in. – MuZemike 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
Remove the section. You are quite right in pointing out that this fails WP:NOR and therefore WP:VERIFY. It is also nothing more than a WP:TRIVIA section which are discouraged.— Welshleprechaun 08:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
The fact that the Naginata(a calvary weapon that gradually fell out of favor) was chosen over the yari(the main infantry weapon for the samurai, especially from the late 1200s til the edo period(roughly early 1600s; officially 1603)) is clear BS. Basically, the samurai got screwed by not getting their naginata, but ah well....and where to begin on the advantages of the samurai's full on infatantry combat :D Wiggalama ( talk) 01:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm fairly new to editing things on this site, so I don't want to do this myself and risk messing the format of the page up, but in the box at the top of the screen that details format and the like, there is a section for 'Executive Producer(s)', and the information listed is 'chinese guy'. This seems both inaccurate, crude, and slightly racist, in my opinion. Just wanted to see if anyone could fix this.
{{editsemiprotected}}
provide the number of kills caused by the Colt Revolvers
98.80.136.187 (
talk) 20:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Welcome and thanks for the suggestion. The editsemiprotected template is meant to be used for more detailed requests, so you need to either leave the suggestion without the template for some interested editor to possibly pick up, or provide the text you would like to have inserted, along with reliable sources for any factual information. Thanks again, Celestra ( talk) 21:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism is at an all-time high everytime a new episode airs. I say we semi-protect the article before an episode actually airs on the airdate itself, since some anons like to swarm the article with vandalism around that time. Who's with me on this? ( Iuio ( talk) 03:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC))
This opinion is indeed correct. After the episode, Aztec Jaguar vs. Zande Warrior, the vandalism skyrocketed. Multiple users, mostly not logged in or not a member, are making cruel vandalisms.
Coolsprings (
talk) 03:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course. It took me 3 minutes to get my stat updates for that episode in because of edit conflicts over so many people (mostly vandals) editing the article at the same time. So I say we protect the article on the day a new episode airs as a preventative measure against such disruption. ( Iuio ( talk) 05:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC))
I'm sure you people have already talked about this, but I'm concerned with the length of this article. Once this article has completed posting the results of Season 2, this article is just going to be WAY too long. Is there anything we can omit from the article? WaninokoZ =3 05:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
In the Spetsnaz vs. IRA, back for blood special. The LPO-50 Flamethrower actually got eleven kills. I have added up all the kills without the correction and it's only 357 kills. The Flamethrower got ten more, making it equal it's actual amount to 367. Can this small mistake and inaccuracy please be fixed. The evidence for this is clearly shown in the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.60.244 ( talk) 05:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
As seen in the intro to the show, Katar will be a Rajput weapon, though it will have more than one blade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gesza ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Generally, the weapons are not posted until they are shown on the website or used in the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.171.144 ( talk) 03:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
But they posted the RPG-7 for the pirates, even though I don't see any sources saying they will have an RPG-7.
Gmboystupidfish (
talk) 03:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Then that should be taken out, as there is no evidence for it being true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.171.144 ( talk) 22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You should add to the "Format of the Show" section, that the episodes seem to go from before gunpowder age, to after, then back to before, then after, etc. You can clearly see they developed the pattern from season 2 that they go from ancient/medieval warriors (swords, crossbows, etc.), to modern/gunpowder type troops (automatic weapons, explosives etc) Gmboystupidfish ( talk) 03:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
"Aara" mentioned as one of the weapons of Rajput, is actualy another name for Urumi. So i think we should add Urumi's link in Aara's place. Mdmday ( talk) 17:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
"The Mauser C96's automatic fire capability was then demonstrated, emptying a full clip in less than a second"
Someone fix that please.
It seems you listed the Samolie (Spelling?) pirates weapon, even though there is no source of where the weapon (RPG-7) came from. It should therefore be taken out until proven it is an RPG-7 that they will use. Gmboystupidfish ( talk) 05:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
In the second bullet for Jesse James/Al Capone, the word "target" is spelled as "taget."
Where is the information on the weapons coming from? The official website has not posted the weapons for either of them, so is this weapon information coming from an unlinked source, or is it mere guessing?
A recent video shows that the article is right about the Somali Pirates having the AK-47 and the Medellin Cartel having the Uzi. However, the AK-47 only recently replaced the AKM for being incorrect, and the RPG-7 seems to be inferred, which I don't think is Wikipedia policy. And there is no evidence to support the other weapons. I'd change it myself, but the article's locked.
Just my input, I have the scores for the Cartel for each weapon, can someone put them up?
Car Bomb - 140 M-60 - 96 Mini Uzi - 188 Machete - 54
I am certain these figures are correct (hit the freeze button on my tv so I could take down the scores). If these scores are not correct (I'm 99% sure they're right) then please ignore this. I am asking because I never edit on Wikipedia and would rather not mess it up. I also don't have an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.50.247 ( talk) 03:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not think the Sukhwinder Singh link in this article points to the expert that was brought in for the episode. The link on this page is for the musical director/singer. It should be unlinked, as with the other experts, if this is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.33.26 ( talk) 14:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It's obvious several of the episodes suffer from anachronisms, questionable weapon selection for the warriors, questionable experts, and a questionable computer program. But a lot of you are taking it way too seriously. First off the majority of those warriors of antiquity had no "standard issue" equipment or any central governing bodies that handed out licenses and to this day still don't. Secondly the "versions" of the warriors they discuss reflect how they appear in popular culture more than history. I believe one of the backgrounds to the show is two drunks arguing in a bar about which warrior in history is the strongest. When they say ninja of course they're referring to the Hollywood kind and not some fat oaf from the Bujinkan who thinks he knows dim mak or taijutsu. 71.215.119.92 ( talk) 09:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The link for the Celt's club weapon currently points to the club as an organization. It should point to something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_%28weapon%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmrahi ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit odd that someone involved with the show won his match up, considering the very obvious disadvantage his opponent was given. What I am speaking of is the pairing of a lethal "special" weapon (targe/dirk) with an absolutely non-lethal special weapon (poison spit). It is especially fishy due to the fact that the match was basically a draw, with the exception of the 200+ kills with the targe/dirk as opposed to the 0 kills with the poison. It's actually a bit shameful they had to resort to such tactics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.143.59 ( talk) 07:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Flaming will NOT be tolerated.
Does anyone know anything about where this show can be seen outside the US? I know that's it has aired in the UK. Skyrocket ( talk) 13:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is the Centurion listed as a playable character in the upcoming video game? The citation it references does not identify the Centurion as playable, only one warrior from season 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.199.219 ( talk) 18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Vlad gets a hand cannon, and they give Sun Tzu a back scratcher. I have never even heard of such a ridiculous looking thing - and I can find nothing on google that even supports its existence. From what I've heard, there are a few hypothesis out there that it's not even a weapon that was used on a battlefield - it was a nonlethal tool used to restrain prisoners.
Why the hell did they not give Sun Tzu a dagger axe?
I'd like to know how they justified this... Intranetusa ( talk) 04:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone put their own opinion into the Vlad the Impaler vs Sun Tzu section, Im prtty sure its a wiki standard that you don't put personal opinions into the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.105.52.159 ( talk) 17:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
You are correct. That's what the discussion section is for. However, technically those aren't his opinions either. The iron-claw is a fictional weapon never used by Sun Tzu. It is common historical knowledge that Sun Tzu would indeed have used a dagger axe or spear, and not a fictional back scratcher. And if you check the edit-history of the article page, I believe the person named "Q-sector" is responsible for editing those lines.
Intranetusa ( talk) 17:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whose opinions those are! Nerd raging should NOT be on the main page! I don't care how accurate the rant is, that's not the point of this site! Someone take it off IMMEDIATELY! I would do it myself, but the article's still locked. 74.101.104.190 ( talk) 18:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
@74.101.104.190, the edit has already been reverted. Why don't you make an account and help revert these edits instead of whining?
@24.14.34.208, the weapons have been revealed on the weapons-preview on spike's website.
Intranetusa (
talk) 19:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Can someone post the current weapon edges here seeing as some tard got the article locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.46.55 ( talk) 02:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
When I watched the episode of Vlad the Impaler against Sun Tzu (season 2 episode 19) the first thing I thought was, 'why in the world is Sun Tzu even fighting this battle?'. Is Sun Tzu really a warrior who went into the line of battle and fought??? Maybe he did, but Sun Tzu was a strategist, who gave orders behind the lines of battle, similar to another famous Chinese strategist, Zhuge Liang. So why did Deadliest Warrior pick out Sun Tzu who was not actually famous for his fighting prowess to fight Vlad the Impaler, a fighter and clearly a warrior? -- Virusguy5611 ( talk) 03:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
A video game adaptation of the TV series has now been released and is available on the Xbox Live marketplace. Might want to put that in the introduction. -- 92.12.34.61 ( talk) 15:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it's later in the article. And the game is an arcade downloadable game for XBOX 360, not sure that merrits entry into the intro. 98.198.83.12 ( talk) 04:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The Mongols who had the largest empire ever and defeated hundreds of different armies all who had hundreds of different weapons and strategies lose to some small Native American guerrilla force? This show is biased and a criticism section is definitely needed. 184.96.233.193 ( talk) 03:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This is one of the BEST places to critique the show, mind you boy. 209.213.17.28 ( talk) 17:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
In the "Format of the show" section, it states, "The data collected from the weapons tests is fed into a computer simulation based on an unreleased commercial game engine developed by Slitherine Strategies to determine the average winner of one thousand battles." However, I've seen every episode of the show, besides "Navy SEAL vs. Israeli Commando" which airs tonight, and I have never heard them say the simulation program is "based on an unreleased commercial game engine." Could someone please fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.112.224 ( talk) 17:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I just watched this show for the first time today and as some people here have said it has absolutely no basis in reality. You could roll dice and get better results. However, none of this means much here. Since I am a newcomer to this show, I dont really know much about criticism of it, but there certainly has to be a lot out there. There simply is no way this has much semblance of reality. Thus, we need to have a criticism section that addresses this. I dont know where to look though. Metallurgist ( talk) 07:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been watching the show for a while now and I think it's quite entertaining as long as you don't take it too serious. It's great because it's one of those "who would win in a fight: Batman or Superman" type shows except with real figures. The results are too speculative to be accurate, if you take into account that every fight/combat,etc is very subjective in the sense that any battle can always go ethier way no matter the advantages of both sides, becuase of to many "other x-factors" to count. The things that really bug me about this show is the way the "experts" always act like big d-bags to each ethier. It seems to have gotten better in the 2nd season, but it always feels that they are on the verge of a fist fight in every episode which is a big turn off i think. Also that computer guy Max...it always bugs me when he gives his 2 cents, cause it's like "what made you an expert all of a sudden?". Maybe I'm the only one, but thats just my opinion. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
140.175.214.35 (
talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} remove the sentence that is saying americans always win, a troll edited that in
Trey44 ( talk) 19:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
Please remove these sentences from the Deadliest Warrior page as they are biased and inaccurate. The quotes appear in order, starting from the end of the first paragraph.
"However, most of the tests appear to be rigged in the American's favor. Even in outcomes totally illogical, the Americans seem to pull it off"
" However, even superior weapons seem to lose if it doesn't belong to an American against an American."
"And once again, the Americans always win. It's pretty ridiculous, the odds. But somehow, the SWAT beat the GSG-9, the KGB lost to the CIA. Jesse James beat Al Capone."
"However, once again, the Americans always win, so it doesn't matter what the guests say, if you are American, you win. Most of the American wins are due to extremely rigged odds. For example, most of the Capones were Italian, so they sent the Capones in with one gun, a close-quarters gun, and in close-quarters, they lost to Jesse James because they had loaded Revolvers and Winchesters that they had just stolen from the museum."
76.23.129.210 ( talk) 20:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
In the third paragraph of the article, it states that "Season two . . . the last episode airing on August 27, 2010". The last episode actually aired on July 27, 2010.
Additionally, I am unsure why there is a citation on this sentence that leads to an article about equipment used in Season 1. (Citation #4, "Tekscan, Inc. Featured on Spike TV's Hit series, Deadliest Warrior") It seems this may have been accidentally misplaced in an earlier edit?
Cltarr ( talk) 06:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
...is Drew Skye. So STOP PUTTING DAVID WENHAM. It may sound just like Wenham in 300, but in the end credits, it says the narrator is Drew Skye. Right now, it says David Wenham. It needs to be changed. Drew Skye is who they say narrates it, not David Wenham. -Mike R. from Ogdensburg, NY 10/16/10
- I just changed it back to Drew Skye. Spike TV credits Drew Skye as the narrator, not David Wenham. It doesn't matter who people think the narrator sounds like; Drew Skye is the credited Narrator. jjh295 10/24/10
Exactly what I was getting at. I was saying that, despite any resemblence between the narrator and David Wenham, the show clearly states that the narrator is Drew Skye, so people need to leave it as Drew Skye, as opposed to David Wenham. -Mike R. from Ogdenburg, NY 12/15/10
Is there some source for the historical accuracy, or the fact that the decisions usually fuel debate than settle it? 71.194.44.209 ( talk) 21:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed all of the complaints about the show's accuracy in the Response section. It was all unsourced information. Like the FAQ says, if you can find a reliable source that says that kind of stuff, you can put it in the article. Otherwise, keep it out. Cond256 ( talk) 20:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
this is going to seem incredulous, but I've heard that Jeff Daniels played George Washington in the season 3 premiere! is there any truth to this??-- 99.101.160.159 ( talk) 23:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
"Joining Elliot was show regulars" --> should be "were" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.191.59 ( talk) 22:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Geoff Desmoulin confirmed in a podcast that the show was cancelled due to the cost involved in producing each episode. It's the "Jay and Kirby Deadliest Podcast", google it and you'll find them ( http://www.jayandkirbyproductions.com/). Is that enough to be considered a reliable source? It's just two guys that record a podcast, but they interview the actual guys from the show; in my mind, Geoff confirming that the show isn't coming back when he's asked is pretty reliable. Even if it's only a podcast by two unknown guys and most of them are about silly stupid stuff now.
They interviewed Nick Hughes, the Foreign Legion guy, and he gives some interesting background to the episode. Is any of this notable enough for inclusion? Oaktree b ( talk) 02:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
So, in the reactions section, what exactly is the justification for having random celebrities comment on which fictional character would win in a fight? There doesn't seem to be any connection to the show, and even if there is, they are not cited, so I can't check. While the show is about people fighting, first the show focuses on real types of warriors and secondly the show focuses on archetypes of warriors, not singular characters. Even if this is relevant, I fail to see why it should be in the reactions segment, as it has no relation to the actual broadcast show. Unless someone can explain why this is relevant, I think it would be better to delete the aforementioned part of the reactions segment. 66.57.77.154 ( talk) 07:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Deadliest Warrior. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Deadliest Warrior. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
What happened to the announcement of the film adaptation to be directed by Shawn Levy?
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Deadliest Warrior. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Deadliest Warrior at the Reference desk. |
Frequently asked questions
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
SERIOUSLY, WHAT THE HECK?!!! It's one of the main things to this article. It's a show, therefore it needs its EPISODES. 209.213.17.28 ( talk) 17:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The obvious disadvantage of seeing a linked number/impossible once again. 209.213.17.28 ( talk) 13:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Serious question, no judgement, real curiosity. What is the appeal of paying attention to a silly show? Once you realize, after 30 seconds, that it's fluff, why continue watching? After you've seen one episode, or two, and can confirm your initial reaction, that it's just fluff, why continue watching? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 ( talk) 14:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
It would make sence if someone would make little note in article. Basically none of the weapons have got right name in series. For example AKs-47 as AK-74 Carbine, Chinese Type 67 RPG under name RPG-7 or MAC-10.. as Mini-uzi!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.49.215 ( talk) 07:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it is ashame they named them as they did. 209.213.17.28 ( talk) 17:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
How do they come up with these numbers? Look at the weapon selections they give certain teams. They are wrong half of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.213.113 ( talk) 03:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The actual simulations are done with numbers and done 1000 times. The acted "simulation" is just actors portraying a scripted scenario showing some ways that the weapons could theoretically be used. I think the article would be improved by removing the summaries of what the actors and letting the numbers generated by the actual simulations speak for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.182.31 ( talk) 18:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
is this a legit source of criticism "BS historian"? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 22:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The show has been critized for favoring the west; specifically caucasians. Many have claimed the show is often racist in its approaches to its fictional choices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersmokescreen ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
THIS IS A FICTATIONAL SHOW!!!!! its like doing a battle between Jesus and Moses
Jesus uses heal saves 10
Moses parts sea saves 100...
unless it happened in real life there is no point speculating, its completely fictational
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.18.15 ( talk) 14:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned before (I really don't want to read through all that text), but are these guys really experts? For example, Sala Baker doesn't seem to be a Maori Weapons Specialist; his wikipedia page says otherwise and there's no mention of him being an expert in such a field. An explanation would be nice. Expo377 ( talk) 22:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
BSHistorian here. I'd rather not get too involved in this, and I appreciate you don't want to link to my article, and even that for some reason 'original research' is frowned upon on wiki - but for confirmation that these guys are not experts, just follow my links and post those in the article. Or Google some up yourself and post those. They aren't hiding their true identities. They are all martial artists at best, actors and radio DJs at worst (by worst, I mean 'least qualified to comment on historical matters'. Not one credentialled historian.
I don't want to make an account to write my own talk section, but whoever edited this article definitely changed the results on purpose. The Apache warrior wins not the gladiator, and the Spetsnaz wins not the Green Beret. I hope someone reads this and changes it, since I am too lazy.
The Maori guy was Sauron!?!? That's awesome!
How exactly you do become a Maori Warrior specialist? Last time I checked the Maori stopped fighting like that a long time ago. Same goes for pretty much every ancient warrior. The closest you are going to get is with people who train with these weapons and become good with them, non of the will ever be as good as the original warriors. Remember there is no degree in ancient Celtic fighting techniques so you are going to have to you hobbyist. Which doesn't necessarily discredit them some hobbyists are incredibly dedicated. TrueMetis ( talk) 08:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Why is "David Wenham" credited as the announcer in the side panel? I understand that he is rumored to be the announcer, but the page says that the show credits him (the announcer, not necessarily David Wenham) as "Drew Skye", and so does the rest of this page, it also talks about this rumor on David Wenham's page, which means that there is more than enough places to learn about this rumor, and this way we will have more accurate information, so shouldn't "Drew Skye" be what it says there? I just wanted to check before I changed it. -- Parad0x130 ( talk) 00:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like Drew Skye is a psuedonym according to: http://twitter.com/geoffdesmoulin/statuses/13284431900 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.58.100 ( talk) 04:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Its definently him to me everytime i watch
300 (film) and the persian immortals come on screen the narrator
David Wenham describes them and i get deadliest warrior de ja vu when ever i hear it. lol
--
Moviemaster1993 (
talk) 07:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this have a page for itself? 24.147.157.5 ( talk) 20:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The show is unrealistic,all the experts are actually movie stuntmen and not actually trained,try googling any of their names and you will see that none of them are martial arts experts.
After all,where can you take a course in IRA weaponry and where can you practice using those guns?
61.8.202.103 ( talk) 06:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It was interesting at the beginning but afterwards.......example Knight vs pirate....the pirate gets hit on head with a iron mace....his pistol in tests misfires three times..yet he's declared the winner??????????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.142.38 ( talk) 18:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC) I was disapointed they never had equals vs equals..a Japanese Ninja vs Chinese Shoalin/Kung Fu Monk.....
I keep seeing people place wrong info in the Season 2 section like reamtches, info on the game, and new warriors without any legit sources. I think something needs to be done. Maildiver ( talk) 03:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Is the zulu spit venom adenia gummifera ?
On the schedule on Spike TV's website it says all the winners from season 1 will be facing each other again. 71.63.25.240 ( talk) 19:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I want to dispute the sentence "This also one of the most disputed fights because of the debatable conventionalism of some of the weapons... the naginata was and is considered a womans weapon, used by the wife of the samurai for selfdefense and never used by the samurai..." in the section "Episode 2: Viking vs Samurai." While the naginata is now considered a woman's weapon, Wikipedia's own entry for the naginata describes it as "a pole weapon that was traditionally used in Japan by members of the samurai" and shows many, many historical examples of men using it. Did the hosts of the show dispute the conventionalism of the naginata, or is this sentence just saying that some unnamed fans have done so? Redguardian ( talk) 02:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
As per the official site of Spike( http://www.spike.com/blog/new-season-new-blood/93847) and an article by By Derrik J. Lang for The Associated Press( http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=209283) The episode is named as INDIA'S RAJPUT WARRIOR. 115.252.47.240 ( talk) 10:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
How does that make sense? The list on WP page consists of name of episodes, which i have edited. 115.118.84.23 ( talk) 13:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the Historical inaccuracies section, it appears as though this information was collected by someone expressing their own opinion of the show. While I completely agree with that opinion, especially since it appears as though that editor did their homework, it's still an editors opinion. According to WP:NPOV, the content on Wikipedia should be compiled with neutrality in mind. Significant opinions can only be included if they're presented fairly as expressed by a reliable third party resource. That does not appear to be what's going on here.
Unless someone can produce a reliable source for this opinion, the section needs to be removed. - Hooliganb ( talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
What I don't get is if it's a documented historic fact, and the show says otherwise , for example the crossbow being ued by knights, even though it's a proven fact it can't stay unless someone repuatble says for themselves the show is wrong? -- Swg66 ( talk) 22:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
also when the show itself uses actors for it's "experts" and doesn't have any reputable sources itself, besides the "experts" they say are experts who don't show up outside the show or are only stuntmen.-- Swg66 ( talk) 22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
But their are no real credibel people supporting the show, and actual historians who say things that contridict what the show says, Real historians vs Actors who pretended to experts, not a hard call-- Swg66 ( talk) 23:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
no they provided at least for the knight, a historian stating somthing that directly contridics what the show say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swg66 ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
you're not going to find a historian to do so becasue they dismiss it, but some of the shows facts are wrong-- Swg66 ( talk) 00:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
ok i'm just going to say you're wrong. Deadliest Warrior doesn't have a leg to stand on in this case, they lack any real experts, just actors, The show Warriors on the History channel actuuly intervies real historians and even moderen day warriors like Zulus still living in africa, and the historians say things that directly contridic what the actors say. These aren't opinions on why the show is wrong they are fact, that show it's wrong. The show isn't a documentary, it has documentary qualities, but it's largly only for entirtainment purposues. Their not directly say the show is wrong, but their are facts show it. The whole thing about required someone to say it's innacurate is flawed, just becasue some hasn't made an artical about why it's inaccurate doesn't mean it's not true. Isn't the point of wikipedia to put facts on the sight and give people the truth-- 67.247.147.56 ( talk) 02:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
ok just tell me this, how is not important to point out somthing with thw is wrong, when it's a well known fact, these are oringinal opions on wether what the show is doing is wrong, the a document historic facts that prove what is said on the show is historiaclly incorrect, Wrong is wrong is wrong, no matter if a reputable source has pointed it out or not.-- 67.247.147.56 ( talk) 06:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
these aren't opinions, they are documented facts.-- Mr.2 Bon Clay ( talk) 21:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hoologanb,I see where you are coming from about the weasel word "supposedly" and how it may imply a bias. However, I was recalling the statement by the doctor in when he said that "an apache knife could probably penetrate chainmail." They didn't test any mail with the apache knife but they eliminated wallace based on what the apache knife could supposedly do. I get that we can't put opinions on this page but frankly its frustrating that this show pushes bullcrap like that unriveted chainmail was used in the middle ages, which was clearly not the case. How is a reference site like wikipedia supposed to tolerate misinformation like this? If someone looked up wikipedia as a citable source and saw the untruths DW claims as fact undisputed anywhere in an encyclopedia article then I believe the integrity of wikipedia suffers. There should at least be a disclaimer saying that the information covered by DW is stated by it only and is by no means embraced by wikipedia or its users. I respect article neutrality but people researching have a right to tell accuracy from the bs. I like this other user tried to set up an inconsistencies page but agreed to abandon the issue for neutrality but this show flies in the face of logic so much that IMHO readers of this article need to know that the viewpoints of DW are not endorsed by wikipedia. - JHanson712
According to WP:TABLES, tables are used on Wikipedia to best present information compared in a vertical/horizontal format (for example, mathematical information, as is the case in this article), but some information is best included as a list instead. In previous versions of this article, the content was cluttered by multiple tables that were better presented as lists detailing information about the separate tests conducted in each episode, making it difficult to navigate. That being said, adding information about which weapon the commentators gave the "edge" to in the table isn't necessary because: (a) it becomes more cluttered visually and less helpful as a presentation of mathematical data, (b) is redundant as the bullets beneath the table contain this information, and (c) the weapons the commentators prefer score higher anyway.
If there's a reason an editor feels the commentator edge needs to be included in the table, perhaps they could explain why, and we could find a solution that doesn't result in a visual degradation of the data. - Hooliganb ( talk) 17:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The narrator is credited as Drew Skye, stop chaning it-- Jaws8492 ( talk) 23:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I forget how, so could somebody use this to back up why I said the Yari would have been a more realistic choice than the Naginata or Kanabo for testing ^ a b c d e Deal, William E (2007). Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press. pp. 432. ISBN 978-0195331264. It is from the Wiki's very own mentioning of the Yari and I myself have read the book. It clearly outlines that the Naginata was mainly a calvary weapon and saw far less use as a foot soldier weapon either for the Samurai or the ashigaru. It has been proven to go through samurai armor of all types historically, thus its constant use. The citation should be easy enough to list as their are several. Wiggalama ( talk) 19:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
unfortunlty it doesn't matter, apparently unless it the source specifically says Deadliest warrior is wrong you can't put it up, it's a stupid rule but some people won't let you put up facts.The Kanabo ad Naginata aren't historically accurate weapons but because some retarded rule you canput it up. The Histoical inacuaracies section is repatedly deleted becasue even the inforamtion is 100% true. Also apparently the Samurai armour shouldn't of handeled the Spartan spear either, that armor style can't stop a strong spear thrust.-- Mr.2 Bon Clay ( talk) 01:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The show discusses the Samurai, and claims accuracy which is proven false. A thrust is far more powerful for piercing armor as it concentrates the force on a specific area. Almost any sword can penetrate light to medium armor if it has a sharp tip and is thrust at least one handed. The Yari, like many spears, focuses on the thrust and historically penetrated samurai armor, mongolian, korean, korean shields, many different types of Chinese armor, Ainu armor, etc... Slashing is mostly useless against armor(especially medium like the Spartans had or Heavy like the later Knights of Europe(circa 1300s-early 1500s) as it is incredibly easy to resist in almost any design. Now, if you say slashed with the force of a horse galloping with a tachi, katana, naginata, etc... then things change. The Spartans viewed shields as honorable but not calvary, archery, or the combination; the opposite of the Samurai. Further, the Spartans where defeated ultimately by larger manuverability, calavary, and advanced archery by the forces of Alexander the Great and later once and for all by the Romans which the Samurai had in spades throughout their history. I did not go into detail on that one out of mercy :D Wiggalama ( talk) 02:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Well in one-one scenario those things wouldn't make that much a difference.Calvery is actully highlly useless agains spartan formatons ans so is archery, they didn't fall do to military tech or tatics, there fall was becasue their our mentality of no surrended casue high casualitys and eventlly to make for the lost troops they began useing helots, who weren't nearly as skill as a trained spartan. You're not telling me anything I don't know, but it doesn't matter, Unless a credable source says the show itself is wrong you can't up it up on wikipedia, besided the word superior being used to describe the spear is a bais. Besisded pirceing samurai armor isn't the same as a solid picec of metal, the Yari could pirece samuria armor because it wasn't a solid picec of metal. It was iron scales held together with leather or silk, the narrow Yari blade could piece that but a solid plate of bronze is another story.-- Mr.2 Bon Clay ( talk) 02:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what sources you put up, unless the reputable source actully says it wrong specifically about DW, thenit can't do on Wikipedia.Wiggalama I suggest you read above discussion before you eve try to make an argument. On the other note Sparta was never militarily conqured by either Phillp or Alexander. It doesn't matter what you think is right or wrong, whether you practice somthing or just read about it,If it doesn't comply with wikipedia's rules it can't go up. Also you're "owning" of "Mr. 2 Bon Clay" is essentially no exsistance,especially if you're suggesting Kenjutsu with a Yari, when you have no idea how it would interact with another fighting style. I suggest you stop sounding so preachy.-- Jaws8492 ( talk) 05:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
1. Spartans defeated by more manuevarable infantry of the later Greeks, Alexander the Great, and finally the Romans. Calvary was essential in the Spartan downfall as the romans had excellent heavy calvary. Sparta was subservant to Alexander and then conquered by Rome. They fell because they couldn't adapt. 2. Kenjutus means "art of the sword". I study Kukkishin Ryu Kenpo, a form of Kenjutsu among other things. I never said don't study the way of the yari, I said try actually practing such things as I listed. 3. You dumb ass. Samurai armor was a combination of laquered leather, plates, and light metal plating(particular metal content in the Kabuto) and is overall toughfer than the bronze armor of the Spartans and others. There is a reason why steel beats bronze and is also lighter per square inch. The only down side is the rust factor is not looked into properly enough. I would also go so far as to say that the Yari or any decent spear in general could penetrate the spartans shield, not that it would get that close with the calvary archer and such of the Samurai. The real test would be Samurai vs. Knight and which period; which region.
Removing simulation plots from each and every episode degrades details drastically, thus leaving NPOV (No Point Of View) after what happened in the simulation battle from this show. JMBZ-12 ( talk) 03:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this section really needed,I mean it only highlights some minor quips, plus it's poorly written. Deus257 ( talk) 03:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree; also I think this "In IRA vs Spetsnaz the AK-47 and AR-15 were declared equel, in IRA vs Taliban the AR-15 was given the advantage." is wrong. Because, before they compared the ak-47 vs ar-15, with IRA vs Taliban. But this time it is the ak-74 vs ar-15. And then they were declared equal. Also equal is spelled wrong. I am changing this. Pseudoanonymous ( talk) 04:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
A single spelling error doesn't justify deleting a whole section, just fix it, also thinking somthing is wrong and knowing somthing is wrong are two completly different things, make sure before you remove. The section has valid points, these types of sections area a good thing.-- 67.247.147.56 ( talk) 06:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to give an informal third opinion here (though in the future you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Third opinion and get those who watch over there a chance to provide another opinion). The two sentences which I believe are causing problems are the following:
The big problem is that these statements need to be verifiable by a reliable secondary source. When adding information, one must be careful not to draw conclusions themselves, as this goes against our no original research policy. I would prefer to remove the entire section for now until it can be reliably sourced; we have documentation of the discussion here, so if sources can be found to back these "inconsistency" claims up, then they can be added back in. – MuZemike 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
Remove the section. You are quite right in pointing out that this fails WP:NOR and therefore WP:VERIFY. It is also nothing more than a WP:TRIVIA section which are discouraged.— Welshleprechaun 08:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
The fact that the Naginata(a calvary weapon that gradually fell out of favor) was chosen over the yari(the main infantry weapon for the samurai, especially from the late 1200s til the edo period(roughly early 1600s; officially 1603)) is clear BS. Basically, the samurai got screwed by not getting their naginata, but ah well....and where to begin on the advantages of the samurai's full on infatantry combat :D Wiggalama ( talk) 01:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm fairly new to editing things on this site, so I don't want to do this myself and risk messing the format of the page up, but in the box at the top of the screen that details format and the like, there is a section for 'Executive Producer(s)', and the information listed is 'chinese guy'. This seems both inaccurate, crude, and slightly racist, in my opinion. Just wanted to see if anyone could fix this.
{{editsemiprotected}}
provide the number of kills caused by the Colt Revolvers
98.80.136.187 (
talk) 20:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Welcome and thanks for the suggestion. The editsemiprotected template is meant to be used for more detailed requests, so you need to either leave the suggestion without the template for some interested editor to possibly pick up, or provide the text you would like to have inserted, along with reliable sources for any factual information. Thanks again, Celestra ( talk) 21:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism is at an all-time high everytime a new episode airs. I say we semi-protect the article before an episode actually airs on the airdate itself, since some anons like to swarm the article with vandalism around that time. Who's with me on this? ( Iuio ( talk) 03:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC))
This opinion is indeed correct. After the episode, Aztec Jaguar vs. Zande Warrior, the vandalism skyrocketed. Multiple users, mostly not logged in or not a member, are making cruel vandalisms.
Coolsprings (
talk) 03:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course. It took me 3 minutes to get my stat updates for that episode in because of edit conflicts over so many people (mostly vandals) editing the article at the same time. So I say we protect the article on the day a new episode airs as a preventative measure against such disruption. ( Iuio ( talk) 05:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC))
I'm sure you people have already talked about this, but I'm concerned with the length of this article. Once this article has completed posting the results of Season 2, this article is just going to be WAY too long. Is there anything we can omit from the article? WaninokoZ =3 05:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
In the Spetsnaz vs. IRA, back for blood special. The LPO-50 Flamethrower actually got eleven kills. I have added up all the kills without the correction and it's only 357 kills. The Flamethrower got ten more, making it equal it's actual amount to 367. Can this small mistake and inaccuracy please be fixed. The evidence for this is clearly shown in the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.60.244 ( talk) 05:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
As seen in the intro to the show, Katar will be a Rajput weapon, though it will have more than one blade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gesza ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Generally, the weapons are not posted until they are shown on the website or used in the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.171.144 ( talk) 03:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
But they posted the RPG-7 for the pirates, even though I don't see any sources saying they will have an RPG-7.
Gmboystupidfish (
talk) 03:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Then that should be taken out, as there is no evidence for it being true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.171.144 ( talk) 22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You should add to the "Format of the Show" section, that the episodes seem to go from before gunpowder age, to after, then back to before, then after, etc. You can clearly see they developed the pattern from season 2 that they go from ancient/medieval warriors (swords, crossbows, etc.), to modern/gunpowder type troops (automatic weapons, explosives etc) Gmboystupidfish ( talk) 03:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
"Aara" mentioned as one of the weapons of Rajput, is actualy another name for Urumi. So i think we should add Urumi's link in Aara's place. Mdmday ( talk) 17:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
"The Mauser C96's automatic fire capability was then demonstrated, emptying a full clip in less than a second"
Someone fix that please.
It seems you listed the Samolie (Spelling?) pirates weapon, even though there is no source of where the weapon (RPG-7) came from. It should therefore be taken out until proven it is an RPG-7 that they will use. Gmboystupidfish ( talk) 05:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
In the second bullet for Jesse James/Al Capone, the word "target" is spelled as "taget."
Where is the information on the weapons coming from? The official website has not posted the weapons for either of them, so is this weapon information coming from an unlinked source, or is it mere guessing?
A recent video shows that the article is right about the Somali Pirates having the AK-47 and the Medellin Cartel having the Uzi. However, the AK-47 only recently replaced the AKM for being incorrect, and the RPG-7 seems to be inferred, which I don't think is Wikipedia policy. And there is no evidence to support the other weapons. I'd change it myself, but the article's locked.
Just my input, I have the scores for the Cartel for each weapon, can someone put them up?
Car Bomb - 140 M-60 - 96 Mini Uzi - 188 Machete - 54
I am certain these figures are correct (hit the freeze button on my tv so I could take down the scores). If these scores are not correct (I'm 99% sure they're right) then please ignore this. I am asking because I never edit on Wikipedia and would rather not mess it up. I also don't have an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.50.247 ( talk) 03:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not think the Sukhwinder Singh link in this article points to the expert that was brought in for the episode. The link on this page is for the musical director/singer. It should be unlinked, as with the other experts, if this is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.33.26 ( talk) 14:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It's obvious several of the episodes suffer from anachronisms, questionable weapon selection for the warriors, questionable experts, and a questionable computer program. But a lot of you are taking it way too seriously. First off the majority of those warriors of antiquity had no "standard issue" equipment or any central governing bodies that handed out licenses and to this day still don't. Secondly the "versions" of the warriors they discuss reflect how they appear in popular culture more than history. I believe one of the backgrounds to the show is two drunks arguing in a bar about which warrior in history is the strongest. When they say ninja of course they're referring to the Hollywood kind and not some fat oaf from the Bujinkan who thinks he knows dim mak or taijutsu. 71.215.119.92 ( talk) 09:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The link for the Celt's club weapon currently points to the club as an organization. It should point to something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_%28weapon%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmrahi ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit odd that someone involved with the show won his match up, considering the very obvious disadvantage his opponent was given. What I am speaking of is the pairing of a lethal "special" weapon (targe/dirk) with an absolutely non-lethal special weapon (poison spit). It is especially fishy due to the fact that the match was basically a draw, with the exception of the 200+ kills with the targe/dirk as opposed to the 0 kills with the poison. It's actually a bit shameful they had to resort to such tactics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.143.59 ( talk) 07:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Flaming will NOT be tolerated.
Does anyone know anything about where this show can be seen outside the US? I know that's it has aired in the UK. Skyrocket ( talk) 13:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is the Centurion listed as a playable character in the upcoming video game? The citation it references does not identify the Centurion as playable, only one warrior from season 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.199.219 ( talk) 18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Vlad gets a hand cannon, and they give Sun Tzu a back scratcher. I have never even heard of such a ridiculous looking thing - and I can find nothing on google that even supports its existence. From what I've heard, there are a few hypothesis out there that it's not even a weapon that was used on a battlefield - it was a nonlethal tool used to restrain prisoners.
Why the hell did they not give Sun Tzu a dagger axe?
I'd like to know how they justified this... Intranetusa ( talk) 04:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone put their own opinion into the Vlad the Impaler vs Sun Tzu section, Im prtty sure its a wiki standard that you don't put personal opinions into the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.105.52.159 ( talk) 17:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
You are correct. That's what the discussion section is for. However, technically those aren't his opinions either. The iron-claw is a fictional weapon never used by Sun Tzu. It is common historical knowledge that Sun Tzu would indeed have used a dagger axe or spear, and not a fictional back scratcher. And if you check the edit-history of the article page, I believe the person named "Q-sector" is responsible for editing those lines.
Intranetusa ( talk) 17:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whose opinions those are! Nerd raging should NOT be on the main page! I don't care how accurate the rant is, that's not the point of this site! Someone take it off IMMEDIATELY! I would do it myself, but the article's still locked. 74.101.104.190 ( talk) 18:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
@74.101.104.190, the edit has already been reverted. Why don't you make an account and help revert these edits instead of whining?
@24.14.34.208, the weapons have been revealed on the weapons-preview on spike's website.
Intranetusa (
talk) 19:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Can someone post the current weapon edges here seeing as some tard got the article locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.46.55 ( talk) 02:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
When I watched the episode of Vlad the Impaler against Sun Tzu (season 2 episode 19) the first thing I thought was, 'why in the world is Sun Tzu even fighting this battle?'. Is Sun Tzu really a warrior who went into the line of battle and fought??? Maybe he did, but Sun Tzu was a strategist, who gave orders behind the lines of battle, similar to another famous Chinese strategist, Zhuge Liang. So why did Deadliest Warrior pick out Sun Tzu who was not actually famous for his fighting prowess to fight Vlad the Impaler, a fighter and clearly a warrior? -- Virusguy5611 ( talk) 03:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
A video game adaptation of the TV series has now been released and is available on the Xbox Live marketplace. Might want to put that in the introduction. -- 92.12.34.61 ( talk) 15:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it's later in the article. And the game is an arcade downloadable game for XBOX 360, not sure that merrits entry into the intro. 98.198.83.12 ( talk) 04:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The Mongols who had the largest empire ever and defeated hundreds of different armies all who had hundreds of different weapons and strategies lose to some small Native American guerrilla force? This show is biased and a criticism section is definitely needed. 184.96.233.193 ( talk) 03:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This is one of the BEST places to critique the show, mind you boy. 209.213.17.28 ( talk) 17:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
In the "Format of the show" section, it states, "The data collected from the weapons tests is fed into a computer simulation based on an unreleased commercial game engine developed by Slitherine Strategies to determine the average winner of one thousand battles." However, I've seen every episode of the show, besides "Navy SEAL vs. Israeli Commando" which airs tonight, and I have never heard them say the simulation program is "based on an unreleased commercial game engine." Could someone please fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.112.224 ( talk) 17:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I just watched this show for the first time today and as some people here have said it has absolutely no basis in reality. You could roll dice and get better results. However, none of this means much here. Since I am a newcomer to this show, I dont really know much about criticism of it, but there certainly has to be a lot out there. There simply is no way this has much semblance of reality. Thus, we need to have a criticism section that addresses this. I dont know where to look though. Metallurgist ( talk) 07:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been watching the show for a while now and I think it's quite entertaining as long as you don't take it too serious. It's great because it's one of those "who would win in a fight: Batman or Superman" type shows except with real figures. The results are too speculative to be accurate, if you take into account that every fight/combat,etc is very subjective in the sense that any battle can always go ethier way no matter the advantages of both sides, becuase of to many "other x-factors" to count. The things that really bug me about this show is the way the "experts" always act like big d-bags to each ethier. It seems to have gotten better in the 2nd season, but it always feels that they are on the verge of a fist fight in every episode which is a big turn off i think. Also that computer guy Max...it always bugs me when he gives his 2 cents, cause it's like "what made you an expert all of a sudden?". Maybe I'm the only one, but thats just my opinion. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
140.175.214.35 (
talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} remove the sentence that is saying americans always win, a troll edited that in
Trey44 ( talk) 19:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
Please remove these sentences from the Deadliest Warrior page as they are biased and inaccurate. The quotes appear in order, starting from the end of the first paragraph.
"However, most of the tests appear to be rigged in the American's favor. Even in outcomes totally illogical, the Americans seem to pull it off"
" However, even superior weapons seem to lose if it doesn't belong to an American against an American."
"And once again, the Americans always win. It's pretty ridiculous, the odds. But somehow, the SWAT beat the GSG-9, the KGB lost to the CIA. Jesse James beat Al Capone."
"However, once again, the Americans always win, so it doesn't matter what the guests say, if you are American, you win. Most of the American wins are due to extremely rigged odds. For example, most of the Capones were Italian, so they sent the Capones in with one gun, a close-quarters gun, and in close-quarters, they lost to Jesse James because they had loaded Revolvers and Winchesters that they had just stolen from the museum."
76.23.129.210 ( talk) 20:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
In the third paragraph of the article, it states that "Season two . . . the last episode airing on August 27, 2010". The last episode actually aired on July 27, 2010.
Additionally, I am unsure why there is a citation on this sentence that leads to an article about equipment used in Season 1. (Citation #4, "Tekscan, Inc. Featured on Spike TV's Hit series, Deadliest Warrior") It seems this may have been accidentally misplaced in an earlier edit?
Cltarr ( talk) 06:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
...is Drew Skye. So STOP PUTTING DAVID WENHAM. It may sound just like Wenham in 300, but in the end credits, it says the narrator is Drew Skye. Right now, it says David Wenham. It needs to be changed. Drew Skye is who they say narrates it, not David Wenham. -Mike R. from Ogdensburg, NY 10/16/10
- I just changed it back to Drew Skye. Spike TV credits Drew Skye as the narrator, not David Wenham. It doesn't matter who people think the narrator sounds like; Drew Skye is the credited Narrator. jjh295 10/24/10
Exactly what I was getting at. I was saying that, despite any resemblence between the narrator and David Wenham, the show clearly states that the narrator is Drew Skye, so people need to leave it as Drew Skye, as opposed to David Wenham. -Mike R. from Ogdenburg, NY 12/15/10
Is there some source for the historical accuracy, or the fact that the decisions usually fuel debate than settle it? 71.194.44.209 ( talk) 21:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed all of the complaints about the show's accuracy in the Response section. It was all unsourced information. Like the FAQ says, if you can find a reliable source that says that kind of stuff, you can put it in the article. Otherwise, keep it out. Cond256 ( talk) 20:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
this is going to seem incredulous, but I've heard that Jeff Daniels played George Washington in the season 3 premiere! is there any truth to this??-- 99.101.160.159 ( talk) 23:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
"Joining Elliot was show regulars" --> should be "were" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.191.59 ( talk) 22:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Geoff Desmoulin confirmed in a podcast that the show was cancelled due to the cost involved in producing each episode. It's the "Jay and Kirby Deadliest Podcast", google it and you'll find them ( http://www.jayandkirbyproductions.com/). Is that enough to be considered a reliable source? It's just two guys that record a podcast, but they interview the actual guys from the show; in my mind, Geoff confirming that the show isn't coming back when he's asked is pretty reliable. Even if it's only a podcast by two unknown guys and most of them are about silly stupid stuff now.
They interviewed Nick Hughes, the Foreign Legion guy, and he gives some interesting background to the episode. Is any of this notable enough for inclusion? Oaktree b ( talk) 02:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
So, in the reactions section, what exactly is the justification for having random celebrities comment on which fictional character would win in a fight? There doesn't seem to be any connection to the show, and even if there is, they are not cited, so I can't check. While the show is about people fighting, first the show focuses on real types of warriors and secondly the show focuses on archetypes of warriors, not singular characters. Even if this is relevant, I fail to see why it should be in the reactions segment, as it has no relation to the actual broadcast show. Unless someone can explain why this is relevant, I think it would be better to delete the aforementioned part of the reactions segment. 66.57.77.154 ( talk) 07:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Deadliest Warrior. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Deadliest Warrior. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
What happened to the announcement of the film adaptation to be directed by Shawn Levy?