Talk:Robot (Doctor Who)

message: Is the dodgy CSO shot of the robot growing really the best choice of image to accompany this article? —Josiah Rowe 04:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look for a better one tonight when I go through my copy of the story. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Terence.  (I'm completely inept when it comes to image capture, or Photoshop or anything like that.) —Josiah Rowe 04:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I don't know. You could say it is at least representative of the story! :-) Angmering 08:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true, but I'm sure there's a better dodgy CSO shot that shows the dodginess more clearly. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the King Kong re-enactment is pretty emblematic of the story.  I suppose that the giant robot trumps Tom Baker doing jumping jacks? :-) —Josiah Rowe 23:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid so, although I did consider him in a Viking outfit... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: Under "In print" it is said this was "...one of two Doctor Who serials to have a second novelization written, aimed at younger readers...titled Junior Doctor Who and the Giant Robot." Under "Continuity" when it is stated that this serial is one of two instances where Bessie is driven by a Doctor other than the third, the other is specified. So why not name the other Junior novelization here? I have no idea what it is myself, and in fact Chris Howarth and Steve Lyons' Doctor Who: The Complete(ly Useless) Encyclopedia implied there were more than two, IIRC, but I can get past that easily enough. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junior Doctor Who 

message: If i remember well, it is state in one of the episods that the robot can't hurt human because of his programmation. Is this not a reference to the first law of robotic ?
77.193.108.144 (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily, it could just be a safety feature.  DonQuixote (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Asimov's robotic law ? 

message: "The Tenth Doctor mentions the giant robot in the 2009 special "Planet of the Dead", citing it as an example of the information in old UNIT files."
In the 2009 special he does not specifically mention which giant robot, and seeing as the next most previous special episode "The Next Doctor" features a giant robot (to which is specifically cited as being "...history, spoken of for centuries to come."), I don't think we can be sure of this link.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.84.128 (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity mistake? 

message: The plot section needs to be trimmed from ~2500 words down to about ~1000 words per WP:WHO/MOS. I'm better at adding stuff than removing, so if anybody would like to help that would be great. 64.40.57.53 (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking of completely rewriting the Plot section and would like to get some input before doing so. I've also left a note at WT:WHO regarding that. Thanks for any input. 64.40.54.54 (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trim plot section 

message: (Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Help with Robot (Doctor Who) because I missed this link): Awesome. I'd suggest modelling it after City of Death and Genesis of the Daleks. Also, here are some reviews: Radio Times, AV Club, DVD Talk, IGN, Dreamwatch, and an entry in silliest moments. Those may also be used for sourcing other things--especially DVD release (and the RT article also has filming locations and dates). Also, I think the text on the BBC website is the same from The Discontinuity Guide and The Television Companion (according to the site itself), so both don't need to be sourced.  Glimmer721 talk 22:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks ever so kindly, Glimmer. There's a lot of good information you've provided there. I'll be adding it as I work my way throught the article. I appreciate the help. Best regards. 64.40.54.112 (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: General

message: who had been working in construction at the time.
At the time, this would have been called "working as a builder". In fact, in the building industry, it still is. Nuttyskin (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronistic Language