Talk:Robert (doll)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photo would be nice[edit]

What does the doll look like? Are there any suitably licensed photos for Wikipedia to use? 86.174.188.81 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC) There is a photo of Robert on his Wikipedia page, but he curses everyone who takes a pic of him without his permission, so pray that whoever took the pic on the page asked permission first.[reply]

Somebody got cursed for your photo. I hope you're happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.202.208 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interview where Don Mancini, creator of the Child's Play franchise, says that "Chucky" was inspired by earlier films and not "Robert", and was not originally written as being a 'voodoo' doll:

The whole idea of voodoo – I just couldn’t buy into that. In my script, Chucky was not possessed by the spirit of a serial killer. He was the manifestation of the id of the little boy, - http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/17586/1/the-father-of-chucky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.165.158 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you put a picture on the Wikipedia page?🤨 Ballora minicreepa (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion[edit]

This article isn't very developed and is missing a tone of information on its subject including it's history, and references in popular culture which need to be added to the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not very detailed when it comes to the doll's history. Might consider expanding t as well as the above mentioned info.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

I suggest this page be protected. There's a growing edit war of people trying to add a section about films based on the doll, and it seems consensus is to have no such section 134340Goat (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially if the shills prove to be persistent. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Safe to say they're persistent now? The edits have been continually reverted well over thrice now. 134340Goat (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Just had to do so again. I've now alerted an admin to the situation. 134340Goat (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new section[edit]

We should add a section either here or in the article itself for users to apologize for looking at this photo of Robert without his express permission. It's known that bad things happen to people who do and neglect to apologize. 2600:1017:B125:79A4:D53A:14C2:B7D1:ECCB (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:FRINGE. We do not give space to such nonsense. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox toy[edit]

Tajotep has added an infobox to this article. I'm not sure this is desirable. The infobox doesn't really convey a lot of information, and I think "infobox toy" is intended for a kind of toy (like "Rubik's Cube" or a particular Lego set), not a specific individual toy. The "Company" field looks a bit out of place in this case. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the infobox doesn't add any value to the article. I favor removing it. - Donald Albury 11:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind. I added it because I find it more appropiate, but I won't discuss the removal of the infobox. Anyway, thanks for discussing it first. Tajotep (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your understanding. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Real urban legend, or marketing?[edit]

What is the scientific source for this legend? Are you sure it was not made by the firm who exhibited the doll? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is based on the cites. If you can produce a reliable cite to say it's all marketing, please do. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are not really to WP:Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Hi @LuckyLouie, thank you for reviewing the Robert (doll) page and notifying me of your concerns with my latest edit. All information within the update I attempted to publish is backed by credible and independent sources. The WP:FRIND sources you listed as Panicd.com, phantom press, youtube, robertthedoll.org, are all in place alongside other legitimate, independent sources to further cite the information as culturally relevant. My edit to Robert's page is solely to update and inform the cultural relevance and historical significance of such a doll. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All information within the update I attempted to publish is backed by credible and independent sources. The WP:FRIND sources you listed... No, the sources I listed were not WP:FRIND. They were examples of what are not credible or independent sources, and your edits intentionally or unintentionally were lending credibility to supernatural claims. This tells me you may have a problem with English comprehension or some other issue. Editing WP:FRINGE topics such as supposedly haunted dolls can be a steep learning curve (see WP:NOTNEUTRAL). I suggest you start editing articles about some noncontroversial topic to familiarize yourself with the encyclopedia's polices before you attempt to improve WP:FRINGE articles. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]