Talk:List of Doctor Who robots

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 August 2024. The result of the discussion was merge.

Lists Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: British Low‑importance

	Television portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by the British television task force.

Indexes

This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.IndexesWikipedia:WikiProject IndexesTemplate:WikiProject IndexesIndexes articles

Doctor Who Low‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Untitled

That's a rather Bizarre alteration - to decapitalise three words of a title. Is it some wiki-convention I am unaware of? Otherwise it seems unnecessary and incorrect. I won't revert it until I have had some comment.User:DavidFarmbrough 11 Apr 2004 17:31 (BST)

The convention in Wikipedia is to capitalize only the start of an article name, and thereafter only if there are proper names in it. So it is, for example, "List of supporting characters in Doctor Who", not "List of Supporting Characters in Doctor Who", but "Meddling Monk" is permissible. Remember to wikilink and italicize the serial titles as per the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Doctor Who, please. --khaosworks 03:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's fine - I don't mind it being done if it's the convention here. As for the linking, I was going to go back and do that later...but someone has beaten me to it! User:DavidFarmbrough 12 Apr 2004 08:42 (BST)

This information seems a little too specialized to have its own article -- perhaps it should be combined with the Supporting Characters page. Ravenswood 17:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No because it isn't just an adjunct to the Doctor Who pages, it also flows from the List of fictional robots and androids. To incorporate all the Doctor Who robots in that article would distort it too much.David Farmbrough 11:27, 3 May 2005 (BST)

How about a compromise: Fold this article into the Supporting Characters page, and link to that section of the article from the List of Fictional Robots article. Ravenswood 06:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's way too long to put in the Supporting Characters page, which is long enough already. Besides, this is a very specialised listing, and are not just supporting characters. --khaosworks 07:36, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Are the Appearance of the Repeated Meme from The End of the World robots?--GingerM 16:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Adherents did turn out to be droids - which qualify as robots, yes. --khaosworks 17:13, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Krotons

Anyone know/remember/can find on google, is a kroton a robot or a cyborg? Tim! (talk) 21:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain, but I don't think they were completely robots. --khaosworks 22:04, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I did a quick check on the Doctor Who Reference Guide. The Krotons are crystalline based life forms. --khaosworks 22:04, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, not one for this list then :) Tim! (talk) 19:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Robot clowns

Weren't the clowns (or most of them) in The Greatest Show in the Galaxy robots? --JB Adder | Talk 03:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually, they were. There were a bunch of half-finished robot clowns in the workshop that start menacing Ace at the end of part two. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robots in Doctor Who novels

I suggest that if robots in the (many) novels be listed then they have their own list.GraemeLeggett 13:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-Z

How about having an A-Z format, like List of Doctor Who villains. Two reasons: consistency, and making it easier to find a certain robot. e.g. If you wnated to find out more about the Clocwork Droids that appeared in The Girl in the Fireplace, you might not know that it is a Tenth Doctor story. --Thelb ⁴ 10:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Okay, now that we're here, what's the issue(s) we have to deal with? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, that most of the robots are redirected to the articles about the episodes they appeared in, due to lack of information on the original version of the page. Apart from that, I'm not sure. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 17:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way we had it before, ie a short sentence about each robot. They can be put in alphabetical order if necessary but a just a list of main article links looks awful. Tim! 17:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need to put some information about some of the more notable robots into the list instead of links to main articles, but when I redid the page, most of the robots had no information about them. So now all that's left is just to add more information about some of the robots. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 17:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

Following the above discussion on cleanup - I have hcanged the tag to expand.GraemeLeggett 17:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

As anyone here who is familiar with my Wikipedia work will know, I am a strong proponent of pictures. This article would be greatly improved if we had a small picture to illustrate each robot in this list; I strongly recommend this measure as part of this page's expansion project. --Promus Kaa 20:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santas

About the Robotic Santas: Used together in both The Christmas Invasion and The Runaway Bride, the Robotic Santa Clauses and Robotic Christmas Trees were used by both the Sycorax and the Racnoss on Christmas Day 2006 and 2007 respectively. I thought they were just ... freelance scavengers, if you will, in The Christmas Invasion, and weren't actually affiliated with the Sycorax? Pilot fish, as the Doctor put it.--Codenamecuckoo 07:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, change it (if you haven't already), I wrote that but I'd forgotten how the Doctor had described them so I wrote that instead, the closest I could think of to that. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 11:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let u know i've added in that they were ,at that time, just hitching a ride with the scyoraxes and that possibly might've been rewired/employed to obey the Racnoss.--I.W 16:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge

Kevinsam has placed a merge template on the Clockword Droids section to merge into the article Clockwork Droids. So what do you think? I, personally, am against, because as far as I'm aware only creatures who have appeared in more than one serial (e.g the Daleks in several hundred DW stories including novels and comic strips, the Raxacoricofallapatorians in Aliens of London/World War Three, Boom Town, and the novel The Monsters Inside, etc) and as far as I'm aware (and I'm pretty aware) the Clockwork Droids have only appeared in The Girl in the Fireplace. Anyway, what do you think? ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 07:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merge proposal looks backwards to me. As Ghelae says, we generally create separate articles for Doctor Who monsters only when they make multiple appearances. This can be multiple appearances on television (e.g. Dalek, Sontaran, etc.), or multiple appearances in other media (e.g. Zygon — they were on TV only once, but they've made many subsequent appearances in comics, novels, etc.). My understanding is that the clockwork droids appeared only in The Girl in the Fireplace, so they really don't deserve an article of their own. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberman on the airship

In the age of steel, wasn't there a cyberman on the airship that had no brain yet? Wouldn't that count as a robot?Samx 10:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

scarecrows

where can i find information on the scarecrows from Human Nature and The Family of Blood? theyve been removed from the aliens and monsters section, should they be placed in this article or the henchmen article?--Lerdthenerd 14:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

never mind someone has put it back into the aliens and monsters article.--Lerdthenerd 14:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gundan.jpg

Image:Gundan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Quark (doctor who).jpg

Image:Quark (doctor who).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Robot spiders.jpg

Image:Robot spiders.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Clockworkdroid.jpg

Image:Clockworkdroid.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quark, The Five Doctors - Video or DVD cover.

The article states that the Quark were on the cover of the The Five Doctors, but seeing the cover ([1]), I'm pretty sure it's not the Quark, but instead it's the tower in the Deathzone, I think it's called The Tower of Rassion or The Tower of the Tomb of Rassion something like that anyway? Babelcolour5 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's MechOnoids, not MechAnoids

See, for example, http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/chase/detail.shtml. As the self-appointed president of the Respect for Mechonoids League, I must register my distress at this error. (The same error occurs on the page The Chase (Doctor Who).) 67.68.50.56 (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an increasingly common error. The correct spelling is "Mechanoid". I have today confirmed this by checking the end credits of "The Chase", episode 5 (their first appearance), which is the definitive primary source. The spelling there is clearly "Mechanoid". 86.7.30.217 (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roboforms

I was on "The Pandorica Opens" wikipedia article, and the alien species of Roboforms (Who were the Santas in The Christmas Invasion and The Runaway Bride, who appeared in The Pandorica Opens) redirects here, despite not being listed here, which is quite odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokelego999 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I added a section for the Roboforms, but I messed up the main article section and cannot fix it. Could somebody fix that if they can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokelego999 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]