Talk:Santa Claus machine

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 December 2023. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Robotics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics 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.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yep, I think it's safe to merge them to fix a capitilization error in the title. (There isn't an easier way?)

I'd have to re-read the novel, but wasn't the Clarke station and space elevator in the mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson built by this type of machine? Mike998 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Mike998[reply]

unreferenced template[edit]

The article is short, but I don't think its lack of references is a crime. --Marc Lacoste 14:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venus Equilateral[edit]

The article text states that Theodore Taylor coined the term in 1978, but the term "santa claus machine" does not appear in the quoted text.

A similar explanation, which also included the necessity of a series replicators being able to build bigger replicators, appeared in George O. Smith's "Venus Equilateral" in 1945. So it appears to me that Mr Taylor enjoys neither priority nor claim to coining the term. Here's a cite: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.130.17 (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed[edit]

This article seems bare of reliable sources? Isn't that a requirement for a Wikipedia article in order to show notability? FireInMe (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intellience not found[edit]

The claim that a high level of of intelligence being required seems at odds with the idea that instructions need to be provided (which it must because otherwise it can't do anything). Beyond being able to understand the instructions, my 3d printer, a conceptually identical machine, requires no significant amount of intelligence. I see no reason to assume this machine to need more intelligence. 89.239.195.102 (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]