Talk:Deadliest Warrior

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon media.svg

This Media related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately.

This article is of MID importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png


Contents

[edit] Who

We write - and presumable quote as an authority:

  • It was briefly discussed on Charlie Brooker's You Have Been Watching, where it was promptly mocked for being idiotic.

Who is "Charlie Brooker" and why are comments on his show of interest? Perhaps this could be made clear in the article (or elsewhere) for those of us who do not share this cultural reference?--BobSpring is sprung! 14:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Guardian columnist, author, TV critic (probably one of the most widely read of the last decade in the UK), broadcaster etc. etc. etc. "Bob doesn't know who they are" does not equal "unimportant". The Screen Burn review can be found here. Scarlet A.pngmoral 14:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I particularly call to Bob's attention TV Go Home, written in the innocent days of the 1990s when its contents were outrageous satire rather than current pitches. Start at the bottom and work your way up - David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
YHBW - I quite like Rufus Hound calling it "Terrorist 5-a-side" Scarlet A.pngmoral 14:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Great. fantastic. For those, like me, who are not immersed in this particular culture a note of its importance could conceivably be worthwhile.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It's called "the UK", per my edit comment. HTH - David Gerard (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I worked that out! For those, like me, who are not immersed in this particular culture a note of its importance could conceivably be worthwhile.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hump.gif For the record, I added it because that's the only experience I have of it. And, of course, it's hilarious. Scarlet A.pngmoral 15:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't doubt that it is. My point is that for many people it's meaningless. It either needs a link to a source where people can share the hilarity or a blue link to explain the importance/significance of the reference.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the block. Very kind of you. But if you would answer the point at hand I would have to say it five times.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
In this case, I'm more inclined to think it's up to the reader to exercise their intellect if they're wondering "who?" Don't talk down, that sort of thing. It's like Human putting "[sic]" when a quotation contains UK spelling - deliberate parochialism to the point of proud ignorance is to be discouraged, not encouraged - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
One hopes Sir is satisfied by both the quality and width of the footnote just added - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
My question was perfectly reasonable. I'm sorry it irritated you. To be honest I still think it's poor, but I've lost interest in the topic.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought you'd be more iffy on the SCA reference to be honest. However, I realise that after adding the links to the talk page to justify the inclusion, I failed to add them to the article. My bad, I apologise. Scarlet A.pngmoral 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "The" RPG test?

A clarification for people who haven't seen and don't intend to see the show? --ZooGuard (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's all in the external link, which is considerable in size and scope so really acts as a reference for all the claims in the article. I'd say to recreate some of those claims but I wouldn't want to rely on a single source so we have the same numbered cite appearing 15 times. Scarlet A.pngmoral 16:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Why the Hate?

I love this show, and can't quite understand peoples problem with it, outside of the cheesy fight sequence at the end. --Thunderstruck (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's part of it, but there's also the dubious history and the half-assed method they use to calculate the results. I'd rather just weave bullshit with my friends on who would win - it's no more intelligent, but at least I wouldn't be watching Spike TV. Colonel of Squirrels你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。 01:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Whats wrong with spike? Its still better then just about anything on T.V.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to go with Angus Young on this one. The show really isn't so much about science than it is about entertainment. And to that end, it's just a matter of tastes. Spike TV, IMO, does have some cool shows. Punky Your mental puke relief 23:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to be confused with the Historical Re-enactionists who sometimes (I am told) fight different groups ('I enjoy fighting the Romans, the weekend Viking said, 'their armour bends so nicely.') 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC) How can one even claim that the battles would be accurate? It's a computerized battle sim, with NO players. Without the human factor, noone can definitively claim who is better. All the sim takes into account is variables. These meatheads and the single dork at the laptop can't really reduce everything about a culture or individual into a variable accurately. So I agree with Gooniepunk.

[edit] Rewrite

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Revolverman/dw

I did a rewrite of this, and I was wondering if it would be good enough to replace the main page here? --Revolverman (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Toolbox
support