Jump to content

Talk:Robot/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Structure of the Opening Paragraphs and History Sections

Before I do anything drastic, I wanted to open this one up. I think that the opening before the table of contents should be shortened to about three or four solid paragraphs, and the rest moved to the Overview and/or history sections.

Additionally, I think the list under the beginning of the history section makes it hard to read through the article and should be moved to the "History of Robots" article. That section in general seems too lengthy, and any parts taken out, should in my opinion be moved to the History article as well. Anyone have any thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickCarbone (talk • contribs) 22:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks good to me as far as it goes. Problem - there are still no sources cited in the lead, which has created more problems. The starting definition right now is[1] "A robot is a mechanical device that can perform tasks automatically". That def is contradicted by a following section on "Telerobots" - a robot that does not perform tasks automatically. This article really needs information that can be verified by external reliable sources and cited in-line, starting with a definition. I found some sources re: [2][3][4][5] and we can probably pull up more.... giving a def of "autonomous, semi-autonomous or remotely controlled". There may be better source. Yes, history should be moved, if it can be verified, and summarized in the lead. I did allot of this once already[6], it should now be continued since WP:BURDEN for reverting back to the old version was never fulfilled (see "Edited Lead" section above). So, yes, I think edits should continue along the lines you have followed so far.... just edits need to follow WP:RS. Larger sections of the lead, and the article for that matter, should simply be deleted as un-verified at this point. Most of section "Defining characteristics" can be deleted because it tries to teach by example instead of giving any referenced description. The rest of the article seems to follow the same way, allot of WP:OR, very little WP:V. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bryn, thanks for your reply. Yes, I think we need to add in the references in the beginning - it shouldn't be hard to do. Maybe the hardest area to cite would be vague or general references that talk about the history of robotics in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. Right now, the other issue I see is that the article is very much like a giant list, which makes it not so much an article as a large set of article stubs all on one page. -PWC 11:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickCarbone (talk • contribs)
I like the changes so far. I think the article would also benefit from clearly distinguishing between real and fictional robots. Mllyjn (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The opening paragraph used to be much better, and the definition certainly didn't include clocks. Please take a look. It was the result of a great deal of work and discussion, and it's a shame to see that all that has eventually eroded away. Rocketmagnet (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

The word robot was introduced to the public by the Czech interwar writer Karel Čapek in his play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots), published in 1920.[40] "to the public"--correct but the first use was in a letter Karel to his brother. How should this be added? Wikkrockiana (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

With a reference. Seriously - how we mention it (if at all) might depend on the context within the letter, and the context of the letter itself. Do you have a link, or can you quote enough of the letter to give the context? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect from Robert Williams (robot fatality) but no info

Page for people with name Robert Williams references one who was killed by a robot, but no info about this is in the page itself. Digitalmaven (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the reference from the disambiguation page. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Trivia

The whole page reads like a set of trivia entries. Automata should be moved to their own page and should not be covered in any great detail here. I was amazed that someone seriously wrote that Al-Jazari's robots weren't employed as workers because manual labour was still cheap back then. It seems that people writing big chunks of this article only know about robots from watching TV and reading comic books. I also dislike the undertone about robots stealing/taking human jobs. Plenty of robots perform jobs that just weren't done before. I'd like to clean up the article by removing most discussion about automata, job-stealing and arbitrary categorising, but I thought I should get some agreement before I go ahead. Owen214 (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I took a big whack at it in February[7] since the lead seemed to be an obvious un-encyclopedic un-referenced essay (see Edited Lead above). Another editor reverted what I did because...... well, I never got a clear answer on why to keep the content, at least as far as Wikipedia goes. I left the revert in case other editors wanted to fulfill WP:BURDEN. We are 6 months out now and I guess WP:BURDEN is never going to be fulfilled. So yeah, feel free to cut all the unreferenced stuff out. I would note that there seems to be very little (no?) reliable sourcing in the article (including no referenced definition as to what a robot is) so following WP:V would mean knocking this article back to a stub, at this point there is just no "there there". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I like the changes you have suggested. Perhaps fictional and real robots should be discussed separately as well? Mllyjn (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Usage of robots in the worls

Many countries now use robots. Many modern day people have robots installed in their homes. The countr that most uses robots is Japan. There is about 356,000 robot installations throught the small country. The second biggest user of robots is Germany. The people of Germany have installed roughly 121,000 robots so far. The people of the United States come in third with about 115,000 robot installations. In Italy, italians have installed approximatly 53,000 robots. South Korea is fifth. They have installed roughly 51,000 robots. France has installed about 28,000 robots, and Spain too. With about 22,000 robot installments, Spain is the seventh country that has installed the most robots. Great Britain has installed about 14,000, and Taiwan has installed about 12,000 robots. Finally, Sweden. Taking tenth place, Sweden has installed about 7,000 robots. Jules3676 (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Lucy Suchman

Might I suggest Lucy Suchman be mentioned in this article? Her work focuses on "robot" as a human-machine relationship as a subject object. She writes, "Three stagins of human-robot encounters (with the robots Mertz, Kismet and Robota respectively) demonstrate different possibilities for conceptualizing these subject objects, for the claims about humanness that they corporealise, and for the kinds of witnessing that they presuppose" in her article "Subject Objects". Her work as a whole contributes greatly to the work of feminist technoscience and nonhuman objects, and her inclusion would benefit a holistic entry of "Robot" as a wikipedia page. Taylor Bohl (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Robot/1 robots areuseful to human beings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.249.253.29 (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2013

Etymology - The word "robot" is derived from Slovak "robota", which means work. 89.173.212.174 (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. The article already mentions the word "robota" and the fact that it means work in many Slavic languages. — Reatlas (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Usage of the term during WW2, and entry into common parlance

During World War 2, Nazis developed ballistic missiles [1] [2] which were commonly refered to as "robots". The word gained prominence in this regard before Asimov's definition took over. Does anyone want to take a stab at including this information under "history" or "etymology" or even "trivia"? I think it's a notable hole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambiguator (talk • contribs) 17:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

References? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Collaborative robots section copyedited

PaintedCarpet (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

robot

robot is a machine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.246.35 (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Graphics in the Robot article

Simplified robottypes.svg

  • machine millers--> machine mills
  • cloth washers-->clothes washers
  • robot arm-->robot arms all should be plural

Wikkrockiana (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This image appears to be whimsical and not illustrative in nature. It seems to not be useful for the article, and I submit that it should be removed. (Though, admittedly, it's pretty cute.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyne (talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

laparoscopic machine

The graphic of "A laparoscopic robotic surgery machine" is inappropriate for this article. The system depicted is the daVinci surgical assist system, which is always under the control of a surgeon, not a "surgical robot" as it is unfortunately called in the media. A "surgical robot" would function autonomously, without the concurrent control of a surgeon. To date, no such system has been approved for clinical use. 24 Aug 2012

Shoshone7110 (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If the definition of "robot" includes "remotely controlled" then it would be a robot. Problem is the article is so badly written its hard to say. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

robotic technology is the most advanced technology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.249.253.29 (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Robots in society sources

The sources cited in the Robots in society section are all at least 6 years old and I believe no longer accurate because robots are a quickly developing technology. Also, they don't support the generalized claims made in this section. I suggest deleting this section if better sources are not available. Mllyjn (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Here are two sources that contradict the view that view presented in this section: [8][9]
At the very least the situation is more complex than is presented here. Mllyjn (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Your right, its allot of old sources and OR/Weasel word combinations such as "experts and academics have increasingly explored" "Some experts and academics have questioned" and "A recent example of human replacement". Section should be deleted, its not encyclopedic and adds nothing to the article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I have deleted the section. Mllyjn (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

the robots is good :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.218.172.94 (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Lives of the Necromancers as a source for Category:Roboticists

Perhaps Category:Legendary roboticists would be more appropriate given most of the people listed by William Godwin are historical figures. I've encountered problems saying El Cid was a mythological swordsmen; however legends can be both historical and mythological figures; people are more commonly referred to as legends in their fields not myths in their field. Pope Sylvester II, Albertus Magnus, Virgil and several others are said to have had constructed brazen heads. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo credit

The article contains a photo with the credit appearing on the photo caption visible in the article. Should this be removed? I think all photos on Wikipedia list their credits in the photo description page rather than in the articles. Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2014

Change "has" to "have" in "has been addressed in fiction". Ro(b)ottttttt (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Done thanks. Sorry the page has had to be protected because of persistent vandalism. Dmcq (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Word and its Author's origin

The word ROBOT is not a purely czech word. It comes from Russian RABOTA which means work. In Slovak, ROBIT' means to work, to make, to do. For the author's origin, he is Czechoslovak, at the time Czech republic and Slovak republic were together in one country.

Please check for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_%C4%8Capek

from there you can see:

Etymology of robot

"Karel Čapek introduced and made popular the frequently used international word robot, which first appeared in his play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) in 1920. While it is frequently thought that he was the originator of the word, he wrote a short letter in reference to an article in the Oxford English Dictionary etymology in which he named his brother, painter and writer Josef Čapek, as its actual inventor.[13] In an article in the Czech journal Lidové noviny in 1933, he also explained that he had originally wanted to call the creatures laboři (from Latin labor, work). However, he did not like the word, seeing it as too artificial, and sought advice from his brother Josef, who suggested roboti (robots in English).

The word robot comes from the word robota, meaning literally "serf labor", and, figuratively, "drudgery" or "hard work" in modern Czech (in Slovak, Russian, archaic Czech and other Slavic languages the cognate word means simply "work", comparable to German Arbeit, with the same meaning; in Polish, both shades of meaning are extant.)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.41.228.80 (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please: a one-line summary of the above, with link to e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossum%27s_Universal_Robots#Origin_of_the_word deserves to be placed at the end of the opening paragraph to this article, don't you think? Fjados (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

the word 'robot' is not a czech word at all and neither russian, it is a root word 'rob' in the slovak language for 'work'. russians say rabota not robota like in slovak, robotnik is a slovak word for worker, in czech language is 'delnik' and russian is 'raboci'. it has nothing to do with the word 'slave'. slave in slovak is 'otrok' the word 'robotovat' in slovak means doing hard labor. another example between czech and slovak use of the word is, if you ask in slovak how much money you made, you would say 'kolko si zarobil'. in czech its 'kolik si videlal', in slovak when you as somebody what are you doing you say 'co robis', in czech it's 'co delas'. i speak and can read both languages and the root word 'rob' is slovak for work,labour and job. root word for work in czech is 'del' as you can see in the examples that i put up. so clearly karel capek used a slovak word and tried to make it a czech word which wikipedia should maybe take a look into just to get the facts right. thank you. ronald konig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.10.182 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Robot fans for stadiums

Already installed in one.[10] Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

RoboEarth ?

shouldn't we need to mention this in the article ? See RoboEarth — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

No this is a hardly noticeable EU project. Even mentioning it would give it undue attention. Arnoutf (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary uses

Criminal activity

Some vehicles are being used for illegal drug traffick. For example submarines have allready been created for this purpose.

Add in article

source? --danthemango (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2014

--122.176.122.121 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)--122.176.122.121 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)--122.176.122.121 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)--122.176.122.121 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)--122.176.122.121 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)--122.176.122.121 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)--122.176.122.121 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)--122.176.122.121 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Etymology of word robot.

Word rob means in Czech "let's work" and ot is common end in Czech for masculine noun. Word robot mean command somebody else to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambavlna1 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Etymology.

Etymology Word rob means in Czech "let's work" and5s ot is common end in Czech for masculine noun. Word robot mean command somebody else to work. Adambavlna1 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as explained in the etymology section, it is from the Czech robota (“drudgery, servitude”) - "Karel Čapek himself did not coin the word. He wrote a short letter in reference to an etymology in the Oxford English Dictionary." - so, the person who invented the word explained it - that is the origin we will stick with. - Arjayay (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC) I was not writing about who coin the word. I was writing about Czech language explanation bout Karel Capek and his brother Josef used czech language. Your answer is big misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambavlna1 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015

Another explanation word robot is rob means in Czech "let's work" and ot is a common end in Czech for masculine noun. I dont understand this t's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Absolutely do not understand. Adambavlna1 (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2015

I think this following link should be placed within the section "External Links": https://robots.zeef.com/roberta.roboter0 Lehmos (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: This does not look like a WP:RS. Seems to perfectly fit WP:ELNO Cannolis (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2015

in educational robotics we have another product , widely using in india known as "iPitara Kit" 183.82.103.121 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC) [3]

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket
  3. ^ www.thinklabs.in
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The scope of this article is to provide general information on robots, not a listing of all the robotics systems available on the market. I think the only robots that should be specifically mentioned are those that had a major impact on the history of robotics, but I can't even find a Wikipedia article on the iPitara Kit. Altamel (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Cybermen

"(See The Terminator, Runaway, RoboCop, the Replicators in Stargate, the Cylons in Battlestar Galactica, the Cybermen in Doctor Who, The Matrix, Enthiran and I, Robot.)"

Cybermen are not robots, the whole point of them is that they are biological creatures who have changed themselves to the point where they are almost robots - but also definitely not robots.

A better example from Doctor Who would be the Mechonoids/Mechanoids which effectively built their own society despite being created by humans to serve them.

86.171.224.170 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Robot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Boston Dynamics robot pictured at the top of the article is not the Cheetah Robot, it is the BigDog robot. The Cheetah robot looks very different.

See http://www.bostondynamics.com/robot_bigdog.html See http://www.bostondynamics.com/robot_cheetah.html 2.27.49.249 (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2016

The reference at § Soft robots bears no mention of “soft robots.” Please either cite a source that uses that name for that thing, or change that heading and remove the claim of a “newer branch of robotics” in the lead. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The source mentions "soft" multiple times. "The Biomimetic Technologies for Soft-bodied Robots project is trying to make an ersatz caterpillar that will move around in pretty much the same way as the real thing. The researchers see the potential to use the squishable, ..." and "While expressing enthusiasm for the project, he cautioned that soft is hard. When he embarked on a project to create the flexible robotic arm more than five years ago, he had hoped to stick with soft materials. But “it’s very hard to engineer with all-soft components,” he said. “We had to make compromises along the way” to get the strength and force that the arm needed."
The source supports the statements in the section as well, mentioning silicone and flexibility. The source does not mention fuzzy logic or neural networks, however, so I will remove that part. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Soft-bodied robots, then? That’s the only such term supported by this source. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, the commas outside the parentheses should be removed from that sentence. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Educational robots

Lego robots are one of the most influential educational robots as they give step by step instructions and introduction on robotics Al-mudathir (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Mention of Nikola Tesla Radio controled Torpedo ?

Hello, Think Nikola Tesla was the first to use radio control .For a "Rpbot" no mention of ythis in article/Just that he had a Torpedo. ThanksEddson storms (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sexist Robotics

I'm going to delete the "Poledancing Robot" paragraph and reference in the next few days since it is neither noteworthy nor appropriate, and the linked to reference is blatantly sexist. Since it is the only text under the "Entertainment" section, unless someone can provide some non-objectionable content for it I'll also remove the section.

I welcome feedback, except for arguments along the lines of "it's no harm" or "lighten up" or "it's not sexist because blah".

mjog (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I went back and checked the reference and the only thing sexist I found was the author's use of the female pronoun "her" when referencing the robot dancers. It was one occurrence and I don't think it qualifies as "blatant" sexism. The article was quite short.

As for notability, well, as of Dec 2016, those pole dancing robots are still a thing. Here is another article, carefully selected for gender neutral pronoun usage. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/739166/Giles-Walker-kinetic-artist-pole-dancing-robot-Melbourne

Granted, there haven't been any newcomers to the pole dancing robots game. But those original pole dancing robots from 2012 still make regular appearances at international expos.

As for appropriateness-level, well, that I'm not sure of. The robots were created by an artist who clearly intended for them to raise the very same questions posed in the "Sex Robot" section of this article and it's accompanying article. Valid questions about the role of robotics in the sex industry and it's impact on society. A sensitive topic but one that is quickly becoming to big to ignore. I think the pole dancing robots might make for a lighter example of this than the fully functioning sex robots complete with heated genitalia that are set to hit the market later this year. The pole dancing robots were obviously never meant to attract customers to a real strip club but brothels in at least two countries already have plans to fill rooms with the next generation of RealDolls. In my opinion, ignoring the issue is silly and Giles Walker's pole-dancing robots seem to be an easier example to mention than RealDolls whose entire website is NSFW.

tl;dr the pole dancing robots aren't sexist because blah and seriously lighten up because it's by far the least terrifying entry in the quickly growing "robots as sex workers" category. Robo042 (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Limitations of humanoid robots

"From the Contemporary Uses" > "General-purpose autonomous robots" section:

"Humanoid robots are still in a very limited stage, as no humanoid robot can, as of yet, actually navigate around a room that it has never been in.[citation needed] Thus, humanoid robots are really quite limited, despite their intelligent behaviors in their well-known environments."

In addition to having no citation, I believe Boston Dynamic's Atlas robot now makes the statement factually incorrect. It's a humanoid robot that seems to navigate quite well in the most unfamiliar room of all: outside. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

Robo042 (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the movie. The robot seems reasonably capable of navigating, but it looks like it would make a lot of damage to the furniture is used indoors. Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It might. But it seems a little unfair to include the ability to judge the value and fragility of furniture into a robot's definition of "navigate", no? It's a humanoid biped that handles doors and unfamiliar terrain without getting stuck. If something unfamiliar like your expensive table is in the way, the robot will handle it to complete the task at hand. You might be pissed if it handles it by throwing it out the window whilst performing the "retrieve beer from fridge" task. But not as pissed as you'd be if it takes 30 minutes to delicately maneuver around the table whilst performing the "retrieve unconscious human child from burning building" task.

The point is, humanoid robot technology has progressed to the point where the robot can navigate unfamiliar environments without getting stuck. Qualifiers like "delicately when performing mundane tasks" or "stealthily when going in for the kill" are probably still a few generations off yet. Robo042 (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2017

First phrase in the second paragraph (Robots can be autonomous....): I think the term "patent assist robots" should be replaced with "patient assist robots". Mbuechler (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks from the Tatar Wikipedia participants

Many thanks to the authors for the article. We translated it into Tatar Language.--A.Khamidullin (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Citation for Educational Robots (Programming)

Suggested citation for the educational robot section:

There are robot kits like Lego Mindstorms, BIOLOID, OLLO from ROBOTIS, or BotBrain Educational Robots can help children to learn about mathematics, physics, programming[1], and electronics.

michael.adrir.scott (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Scott, Michael; Counsell, Steve; Lauria, Stasha; Swift, Stephen; Tucker, Allan; Shepperd, Martin; Ghinea, Gheorghita (29 October 2015). "Enhancing Practice and Achievement in Introductory Programming with a Robot Olympics" (pdf). IEEE Transactions on Education. IEEE: 249–254. doi:10.1109/TE.2014.2382567. Retrieved January 1, 2016.

I would like to mirror the citation on this article to match a similar statement in educational robotics. I involved in this research on using robots to teach computer programming, but believe it to be relevant to this article.

michael.adrir.scott (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. This should've been marked when it was completed. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove '(also called droid)' at the top please!

64.109.54.132 (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC) I'm sure reading the whole article it would be fine and you would understand. But as a writer knowledgeable of other writers, since droid is a copyright term, please place it in its own section or let it be explained out in the article naturally. It may give a writer the idea to just call it a droid and get fined for it later on. You may think something bitter and negative about fiction writing all of a sudden well up in your mouth like foam for the dog...But I know a little more. Someone will glance and take that idea of droid being common like robot and use it in their fiction. We cannot say robot is also called droid out of androids, automatons, mechs, zords, etc. since like elves and fairies, it makes it sound like open game legally free to reproduce. It is not the rule of Wikipedia to deter such misleading, and it may not happen. But it is also not the rule of Wikipedia to mislead. Droids legally are a term only common in Star Wars and fictions that were given permission to use the term. This got an advertising firm in trouble, and they weren't even thinking of Star Wars when they chose their name. But nonetheless Star Wars is the only place we rather permanently and commonly call the robots droid. So please don't assert it that way. From saying zord you probably already felt that ruffle in your mind and made you aware that the article doesn't read '(also called zords)' or automatons and other such labels. Any who hear this please work your wiki-editing magic. I'm scared to touch these articles.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

to

About the Foxconn's 3-year-plan in the section Relationship to unemployment

As a report in 2016,it didn't happened.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fls81245 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.inverse.com/article/16254-foxconn-is-bringing-in-more-robot-workers-but-not-the-1-million-it-promised-it-would

Proposed merge with Robert Williams (robot fatality)

Per merge at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Williams (robot fatality) Widefox; talk 14:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

How about merging into workplace robotics safety instead? Chris857 (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, a better target. Widefox; talk 11:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
There's been no discussion in months, that AfD was closed many years ago, the current Robert Williams article is not the one that AfD applied to seems to be well sourced, and the workplace safety article doesn't seem appropriate for individual incidents, it currently contains none, and this would seem to be out of place. I'm removing the proposed merge tag from the Williams article. XeroxKleenex (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Toy section needed

Please add a 'Toy' section (like under 'Popular culture') where we can list popular toy robots. I'll never forget the Micronaut's Biotron I had in the '70s. There's a photo of one on Wikipedia's Micronaut page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.141.98 (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

History of the term "robot"

I am from the Czech Republic and I am sure that the term "robot" is from "robota," but this term does not mean "forced laborer" but the labour itself. The person would be "robotník" (in modern Czech there is "práce" - labour - and "pracovník" as derived word). Could somebody change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.53.25 (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Robot Toys

Alexjdance (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC) [1] Robot toys have developed and reduced in price to be affordable and easy to use for children as young as 5 with low-cost robot toys such as the Table Top Robot, Tin Can Robot or Salt Powered Robot.

For slightly higher prices there are solar-powered robots, fighting robots and coding robots.

The BB8 was a droid character popularized in Star Wars movies and can be purchased as a robot that can be controlled by hand gestures.

Tekno the Robotic Puppy was a popular electronic robot from late 2000’s.

The next level up options requires more build and coding options such as the Lego Mindstorms robot which comes with multiple robotic designs. Alexjdance (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.awesomerobots.com.au/

gmdngb udfhjkB VUIYCVjsndc uy BDSFJABURBJHABSUIBG kjbaisg kjbaqiuk jbsaigbkljn kjndfvjnaekgn iuasbgkjabuigb kjn nrgkjhakvnaildsuhvkladsjndviauvlknhvvjkdfanvjiaEKJVNAILUDFVKJEANVIUKJVNIAUVKLAJSNVO JDFONVKAJNSVKAJNDVLJANEVK,NDIFVKJABVIJANDKVNAKNVKJASNVKJASN DVNDVKJANEVKLNDSVJNASDLKVNASLDNVKLASJNDVKASNVKJDNFVUIAHRGKJNAIUFDNVA NKJDAFNVKJABFGNA I NKAJDFNGOIJNA OKJVN soka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.48.136 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I am surprised that no where in this article does it mention Disney's Audio-Animatronics, the companies that develop them (Disney Imagineering and SAARCO Robotics (or something like that). orvthe subsequent trend of robots for entertainment purposes such as theme parks, dinner shows, and stage plays. I think someone should add a whole dedicated section on this or at least a link with a description to the article on Audio Animatronics. No one can deny the impact the advancements in those especially in recent years has had on robotic development going all the way back to the mid 1950's and early 1960's onward! -Cale Enger 1/19/20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginiabookworm (talk • contribs) 19:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robot/Archive_11&oldid=1241359930"