Talk:Droid (Star Wars)

This is not a general Droid article
This article is not about droids in general, this is about Star Wars Droids, in particular, C-3PO and R2D2. -- Joecool94 11:41 PM, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree - this is what struck me when I read the opening paragraphs to this article, which I expected to be about "intelligent" robots in general. From the text, it appears that the word originated from a contraction of "android", which first appeared in a Star Wars novel.  I move that this article be generalised more, as I think the word has entered common usage. Leevclarke (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This independent article should stay because of the extensive advertising of the Verizon Droid smart phone and the citing of Lucasfilm's ownership of the word at the end of each of these commercials. In my opinion, the article should transform to address this interesting ambiguity more directly. Simkiott (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation Message
Has anyone else noticed the current disambiguation message is humorously similar to the often quoted, "these are not the droids you're looking for" line from the movie? Was this intentional, and if so does it break the "serious" theme that Wikipedia has come to be known for? Just a thought. --Aethumus 08:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised if it was unintentional. I wouldn't change it because it does make sense. --Lyght 23:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I put back the older message back. Not the "go about your business" one, but the one this article had before it. It's still encyclopedic and factual, and it was the accepted one for a long time. If you disagree, please feel free to remove it.72.51.179.30 21:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Not the droids you are looking for"
This -and variations of it - is a famous and widespread catch-phrase. That should be mentioned somewhere. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Behaivour
"They exhibit human-like behaviour, however, e. g. react emotionally, think intelligently and self-reflective, and require sleep"- Do droids really need sleep? While they enter sleep mode, like R2 did in Episode 4, I never heard it was a requirement-just a way to save power when there was nothing better to do. Furthermore, lot's of them aren't that intelligent or emotional, or even sentient. -LtNOWIS 17:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed it say that some droids exhibit human-like behavior. I also removed the part about requiring sleep since I agree that it's not true. If someone else has a source for saying it's required, they can add it back in (of course, unless they state their source, it will probably be removed again). --Aidje 17:11, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)


 * Wow. I just realized that my changes never got saved. *smacks forehead* I guess I'll go do it now. --Aidje 15:59, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)


 * Do they eat?79.76.244.22 (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page Now Needed
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-10384994-266.html (October 28, 2009) reports: "Verizon Wireless customers will soon be able to get their hands on the much anticipated Google Android phone called the Droid."

Trademarking
Anyone know if the word "droid" is trademarked by Lucas? I heard it was in the case of the "Droids" TV show back in the 80's, but since the word is a take off of Asimov's "android" and that word is freely used, can "droid" be used in the same fashon without permission from Lucasfilm? --Cyberia23 16:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See the section titled "Disambiguation Page Now Needed" above


 * A trademark search in the US shows that there are some live trademark claims by Lucasfilm LTD:,  ("toys, games and playthings, namely, skateboards")  ("Toys, games and playthings, namely, hand held units for playing electronic games; skateboards; toy action figures and accessories; construction toys; toy building blocks and connecting links for the same.")  ("Providing news and information programming in the field of edutainment, and entertainment relating to motion picture films, and to science fiction via a global computer network and other electronic networks. ),  ("Entertainment services, namely, providing audiovisual entertainment in the field of edutainment and entertainment via global computer networks; providing audiovisual entertainment in the field of science fiction via a global computer information network or other electronic computer networks; providing news and information in the field of education and entertainment relating to science fiction topics via global computer networks and other electronic networks; providing news and information in the field of education and entertainment relating to motion picture films via global computer networks."),  ("computer peripherals; interactive entertainment software and CD-ROMs featuring science fiction."), http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=k418l1.2.5 ("toy action figures and related accessories.")


 * As well as some dead/abonded claims including ("housewares, namely, mugs, plates, bowls, lunch boxes, lunch pails, vacuum flasks, thermal insulated containers for food and beverage, drinking glasses and cups, paper cups, plastic cups, paper plates, paper bowls, hair combs, hair brushes, electronic and non-electronic toothbrushes, non-metal decorative boxes, serving trays not of precious metal, decanters, pitchers, figures, figurines, sculptures, and statuettes made of terra cotta, earthenware, glass, porcelain, resin, crystal and china, wastepaper baskets, soap dishes, toothbrush holders, china ornaments, wind chimes, plastic coasters, cocktail picks, comb cases, commemorative plates, cookie cutters, cosmetic brushes, corkscrews, soap dishes, dispensers for liquid soap, drinking flasks, toothpick holders, pepper mills, pastry molds, pudding molds, powder puffs, salt shakers, and all purpose portable household containers; back scratchers; cookie jars; drinking steins; shot glasses; sports bottles sold empty; non-metal coin banks; children's dinnerware; candlesticks not of precious metal; coffee service not of precious metal, flasks")


 * I'm no lawyer, but I believe you'd be safe using "droid" or "droids" within fiction, but you might be weary of using it as your book's title.—Pengo 00:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that on all the commercials there is fine print at the end noting that "Droid" is a trademark of Lucas Films, so I would put that up there.DonConquistador (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The citation link given in the article for the trademark status of the term "droid" is a link to thefreedictionary.com, which itself references a now dead page  (results in a 404-style page served up by the domain). Therefore, I am marking that section of the article with a "Citation needed", and will remove the link. I think thefreedictionary.com is a questionable source for a Wikipedia article, at any rate; a claim like this needs a little more support IMHO. 151.151.16.8 (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I'll leave the link but still add the citation needed markup. Someone else should take another look at this. 151.151.16.8 (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As there is precedence in 80's film Robocop, ED-209 being referenced as being short from "Enforcement Droid", you probably are safe. -J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.67.7.132 (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism?
the changes on 16 December appear to be vandalism, most likely accidental, if there is no objection I will remove it after seven days time. I have sent a message to the user asking them to clarify or remove the edit.--Kent Witham 04:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * unable to find user as it seemed to be an anonymous edit. Therefore I justremoved it, if the original editor would like to add what they were attemting to add they could certainly do so.--Kent Witham 04:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:A new hope 2.jpg
Image:A new hope 2.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 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) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced bizarre comment
"A philosophy held by many fans of the original Star Wars Episode IV is that a droid by definition is a servant robot completely devoted to its sentient master; any robot not so devoted was simply a robot." I have been a fan of the original Star Wars for 30 years, and this is the first time I have ever heard of this. This is not a "a philosophy held by many fans". -- 76.104.46.56 (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

R2-D2 is not a Droid
"Droid" is an abbreviation of "Android", which literally means "like a man". This term can only be applied to humanoid robots, and R2-D2 clearly does not fit that definition. Regardless of the terminology Lucas mistakenly used, it is simply a fact that the term "android" does not apply to R2-D2. Since this is an encyclopedic website, I feel that the information should be accurate. SpACatta (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it not correct that "droid" as used by Star Wars is an invention of the work in the sense that the audience is expected to assume this is an idiomatism unique to the SW universe, like BSG's frak? If so then in fact the term "droid" applies precisely because Lucas chose to use it, regardless of what etymology you may propose. "Droid" is first and foremost the name SW gives to robots, and R2-D2 is referred to by it as a(n astromech) droid, numerous times.--Ar-Pharazôn (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. While R2 doesn't LOOK like a man, he certainly acts like one. He gets pissed off, he whines, he screams when shocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.139.1.68 (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Android" refers to the body, i.e. Asimo and C3PO are androids, R2D2 is not. "Droid" in the Star Wars context just means "robot", but sounds cooler/more scifi. 79.232.82.116 (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Should not be the default result for "Droid"
Although it is most likely that previously any queries regarding "droid" would pertain to Star Wars, with the introduction of Motorola's eponymous (is this the right prefix by the way?) phone this is bound to change. Usage of "droid" is not prevalent in science fiction (although it has been used in certain prevalent science fiction) and is usually self explanatory. I think the majority of people entering "droid" in the search field nowadays are expecting to (or possibly will expect to in the near future) arrive at the article regarding the phone.

The phone article is also more complete.

I'm not sure what exactly wikipedia policies regarding this are, but it seems logical to have "droid" redirect to either "Motorola Droid" or "Droid (disambiguation)". Thoughts/comments/objections? --Ar-Pharazôn (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but eponymous isn't a prefix at all let alone the right one. 129.139.1.68 (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why yes. ep- is the prefix, obviously. ;-) --Ar-Pharazôn (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1977 star wars info
I added:


 * The use of the circumcised android to droid, originated in the first of the Star Wars series of movies back in 1977.

98.231.142.70 (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Circumcised"? I've changed it to the technical term 'clipping'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.21.15 (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Link to Android operating system article
The context of the link clearly indicates that it is speaking about the Android operating system. However, the word "Android", in this context, is a hyperlink to the robotics article "Android", not the Operating system. Can this be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.102.154 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved page to Droid (robot), redirected "Droid" to disambiguation
Sorry if I did this all wrong, but I copied all the article and discussion to a newly created "Droid (robot)" article, then turned the original article into a redirect to the disambiguation. Now some bots think this article is a duplicate. Guess there's a better way to go about this, but either way it seems to work fine. There's no way searching for "droid" should take you directly to a Star Wars page now that it has become such a commonly used term, especially relating to phones using the Android operating system.Rob Hingle (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems like Droid (Star Wars) would be the most appropriate title. ―cobaltcigs 07:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Image
, I'm not understanding your edit summary, what is it you think is more appropriate about this image? The primary droid shown is (as far as I can tell) an abstract version of a Star Wars droid. This article is about the franchise, so representative images should be of replicas that illustrate what the article is talking about. The other image has not only a canon-looking R2-D2, but also an R5-D4 in the foreground.— TAnthonyTalk 16:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The image I inserted is not used anywhere else and gives a better view of another droid not commonly seen in the films. It's also good to use new images rather than recycle old ones. The droid in the image you put is already clearly seen in Episode IV--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This image is not, to my knowledge, in use anywhere else in Wikipedia. Are you saying the the white and orange droid in the image (known as R5-D4) is pictured in another article? I do not see it illustrated in the Episode IV article. In any case, the point I was trying to make is that (though I'm no droid expert LOL}, I do not recognize the blue R4 droid in the foreground of your image from a film. I know it is "incomplete" in that you can see the guts, but as far as I can tell the R4s in the films have been other colors but not dark blue, and the only blue one is in Star Tours (though that's a lighter blue). I see some dark blue R4s as toys but I haven't seen a designation or attribution to a film. I think I'd rather use droids from canon works before we go into derivative ones. Also, I don't 100% agree with your suggestion that we should always use "new images", we should use the best available image to illustrate a topic within an article. If that happens to be one used elsewhere, so be it. Images are readily available online for those seeking to find them, our goal is not to provide a varied repository of images of a topic. That said, once we identify your droid, I don't see why we can't have gallery of available Commons images of droids in the article.— TAnthonyTalk 22:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

, you are correct that it's not useful but the quality. Both droids are already seen in the movie in Episode IV and I thought showing a new droid from the expanded universe improves the quality. However (oh that word!) if you insist that's no good, I'll compromise for third image that should be acceptable to the both of us. Oh and on the subject of however, are you up for improving Technology in Star Wars? I'm pretty much done with the article on the long term. I will add more details when The Force Awakens comes out on netflix so I can watch again and enter more details of the technology from that film into the article, otherwise nobody's in your way.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Which one of these videos should we use?
. The second video has star wars droids in them, fully active.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Droid (robot). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081023174856/http://www.starwars.com:80/databank/droid/fourlom/ to http://www.starwars.com/databank/4-lom

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

— TAnthonyTalk 04:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 19:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Droid (robot) → Droid (Star Wars) – Per WP:CONSISTENCY with all other Star Wars related articles that all use "Star Wars" for disambiguation. Gonnym (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Supoort on top of the previously mentioned reasons the current name gives the impression that is a general article anout a type of real life robot not fictional robots from a single film franchise.--76.65.40.44 (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom; I've added a hatnote that I hope is helpful. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Original disambiguation may have to be deleted as confusing rather than retained as a redirect.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Like the others, I'd argue the current disambiguation is misleading. 'Droid' does have a heavy association with Star Wars, and Lucasfilm have a trademark on it, but it's not the only instance of droid being used to refer to robots or as a shortening of android; clarifying the page with '(robot)' points the reader in the wrong way. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * SWCA - From Droid Builder's Club Room (17015328980)-Cropped.jpg

Orphaned references in Droid (Star Wars)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Droid (Star Wars)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "recycledstarwars": From List of Star Wars Rebels characters:  From List of Star Wars characters:  

Reference named "TNY": From List of Star Wars characters:  From Rogue One:  From Jyn Erso:  </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

copyright violations?
https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Droid+%28Star+Wars%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)


 * Looks more like a copy-and-paste by the cited site rather than the other way around. --EEMIV (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It even days it's reusing Wikipedia material on the page. oknazevad (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)