Talk:Robots

Accuracy
I wanted to ask: I have my Dalek and Cyberman on here. Technically speaking these are not robots. Cybermen are, like the Borg, cyborgs with human brains. Daleks are actually aliens bound to encounter suits. I've left out my Vorlon, which is, effectively, the same thing as a Dalek (though not actually dependent on the encounter suit, they need it to maintain a physical presence).

On the other hand, mechs aren't actually robots. They are, more accurately, anthropormorphic vehicles. They could even be seen as a sort of encounter suit for humans/humanoids. They're explicitly listed as OK, so the line is already blurred.

Where would other such ideas land? Powered armour that's not gigantic would be the same as mechs, but not big. Like Iron Man. There's also things like the exoskeletal lifter Ripley uses in Aliens. It's basically powered armour without the armour part, but from another point of view it's just a two-legged forklift. Then you have things like the Terminator T-1000, which is clearly a robot, but technically a cyborg since it has human skin grown over the robot. It might even be considered a meat encounter suit for a robot.

I'm just trying to determine the propriety here. Clearly a Cyberman and a Dalek *look* more like robots (though they aren't) than, for instance, Data from Star Trek who just looks like a pale yellowish guy, but definitely IS a robot. Or even a Google self-driving car, which is a real life robot, but looks like a car. Or a drone/UAV, which is a real robot but looks like a large remote controlled plane. Or...

Dodger (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2015 (BST)


 * Good question. Let's see whether I can remember my reasoning.


 * Mechs may actually be anthromorphic vehicles, but people call them "giant robots" - that's why I put them on the page. Generalizing from that, I think my reasoning was what popular culture calls the models; if they're thought of as "robots," then I listed them here.


 * I wouldn't be adverse to a split of the page - "real robots" and "pop-culture robots" is reasonable and understandable - but I don't have time to do it myself...


 * --Robkelk (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2015 (BST)