Jump to content

Talk:Robotics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Talk:Future of robotics

Differentiating from 'Robot' article

[edit]

We already have a robot article, so this robotics one needs to be about robotics as the field of human study, employment, and research rather than the robots themselves. Made some edits and moved some content about robots themselves over there. Likewise, some of the content from robot which concerns the human field could be moved over here too.

The three current large sections on mechanics, control and software could all be rewritten to emphasise what Robotics *as a field* does with them, rather than just what they are. e.g. saying what are the main kinds of motor belongs in the Robot article. But saying how different kinds of engineer work with them or research new kinds of motor would belong in the Robotics article.

It looks like a lot of editors have been trying to promote their own company products and research publications in these sections too -- a full edit is needed to remove these citations and leave only the real canonical examples.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 8 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tgs847.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can /i /course /it\ 223.123.18.206 (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 14 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Wintersfire.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mechatronics

[edit]

I was wondering if reference should be made to the subject of mechatronics in the initial description where the related sciences are listed? I debated just adding it to the list but don't know if it can be listed as a science. I will leave the judgement to the regular editors of this article. Slink pink (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tiny comment

[edit]

Two robot snakes. Left one has 64 motors (with 2 degrees of freedom per segment), the right one 10. is that 10 degrees or motors ? it doesn't make it clear...180.181.67.106 (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the RHS snake, it looks like a single degree of freedom hinge for each of its ten segments, not a ball joint etc., as on the LHS. So that's 10 DoF, probably 10 motors too. (Although snakebots do often share one actuator across several joints) Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks to you I will be able to be a robotics Proud Ravenclaw (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robotics and languages

[edit]

Robots Invent Their Own Language. Well, perhaps we need to fill out the linguistics or communicative aspects in robotics. It's good for understanding first language acquisition in a very different approach. Komitsuki (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Globalhawk.750pix.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Globalhawk.750pix.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

User Danim removed a link to Plastic Pals, an English website with a comprehensive listing of more than 450 robots. It is far more educational than Razor Robotics, which was allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamsSSessions (talk • contribs) 02:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reverted your link additions to Plastic Pals becuase I treated them like spam. You have placed this link in many articles (Humanoid, Humanoid robot, Robotics, PaPeRo) in short period of time. You've also placed this link in Ropid, but I didn't revert it only because it was placed as reference..
Besides, in this case, I think that link to Razor Robotics suits better to Robotics article, because this page has lots of useful informations about robotics (guides about robot bulding, robot software, Artificial Intelligence, informations about robotics education, etc.). Plastic Pals mainly describes different models of robots, so I think it could be placed in Robot article, but before you do this it's better to ask about it on its discussion page.
Of course if you find link that suits better than Razor Robotics to Robotics article, you can discuss it here also.Danim (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Plastic Pals has articles on more than 450 robots last I checked, most of them are humanoid, which is why I placed the link on the pages for Humanoid and Humanoid robot. Yes I placed them in a short time frame, because I feel they are highly relevant to anyone interested in them. Instead of treating links as spam maybe you should actually look at the content of the linked web page and make a decision based on that? --WilliamsSSessions (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd see it as a good link for domestic robot and not unreasonably (if linked to the right page) for humanoid robot. However it's not good enough to really sit on robotics (most robots are still industrial, not domestic) and certainly not on humanoid. Mostly though this is a human factors issue. Over-using a link annoys other editors, and the obvious backlash tends to remove it from everything. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stelarc

[edit]

Perhaps stelarc should be mentioned, see http://stelarc.org/?catID=20247

LTLMoP

[edit]

Perhaps the Mae-robot/LTLMoP can be mentioned ? It seems to be made based on the NAO robot. See http://www.azorobotics.com/News.aspx?newsID=2270 91.182.116.161 (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all that closely related to robotics though. The robot is just a platform. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

School project editing?

[edit]

This article has had a swathe of new editors making ungrammatical and tonally inappropriate edits ("as we all know,the idea of robots will go back to ancient times of over 3000 years ago in India’s legend of mechanical elephants") over the past couple of days. Is this a school assignment whose teacher was unaware of the WP:INSTRUCTORS guideline? --McGeddon (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything salvageable since the last good version, just a lot of repetition, original research and test markup, so have just gone ahead and reverted it for now. --McGeddon (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
v adv gd do f
C sff Aaerfe 117.219.138.115 (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The teacher User:Ollydbg has now left a message on my talk page apologising and suggesting that the article be reverted to what they see as the last good version, prior to the first student edit. I've gone ahead and done this. --McGeddon (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robotics. 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) 20:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Robotic aspects"...of Caterpillar tank tracks?

[edit]

Under the heading "Robotic aspects", it lists three basic similarities shared by all robots. This is accompanied by a photograph of a WWII tank track and bogie mechanism bearing the caption "robotic construction". In my opinion, this is both poorly conceptualized and poorly expressed. If the objective is to express that robots typically have mechanical and electrical components, why is so much focus being placed upon a purely mechanical system such as a tank track? And labeling the photograph "robotic construction" is absurd; it is neither robotic, nor was it constructed by robots, nor does it depict a construction comprised of robots. Then there's the fact that the vast majority of robots today do not use a Caterpillar-type locomotion; most are stationary, and those that are mobile are predominantly wheeled. I think that this section needs to be thought-out more fully to find an example that is relevant to robotic technology, rather than century-old tractor technology. Bricology (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asimov's laws

[edit]

Most robots in use today have no means of following these laws, or prioritize them differently. For example, many industrial robots will crush a human if they get in the way, or crush another person if instructed by a human operator, so they are constructed with safety fencing to keep this from happening. They may or may not damage themselves in response to human commands depending on what safeguards have been put in by the manufacturer. The laws in the way Asimov was thinking about them generally only apply to robots powered by artificial intelligence, and are more relevant to writing fiction than modern robot design. I'm pretty sure they don't belong in the intro, but there also doesn't seem like a more appropriate section, so I was thinking of just removing mention entirely, except for maybe a "See also" link? Any thoughts? -- Beland (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the 3 Laws are a fictional device with no bearing to the modern (or for that matter, historical) field of robotics. Maybe in the future with AI-driven robots that will change. But until then I’ve removed the reference from the intro and history section. It’s still touched on in the etymology section. Don’t think anything else is needed, especially since the page for robot touches much more on the cultural role of robots. R0uge (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need a different SCORBOT-ER photo

[edit]

The photo of the SCORBOT-ER 4u educational robot has got to go. Due to the angle of the photo, it looks as if the robot is injecting something into someone's neck. And the person is even reaching back and grabbing at his upper back. What a disastrous photo!

Robots

[edit]

Alot of people love robotics and many think that robots will take over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:7F8C:D200:F81F:6E25:2B07:7F1B (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated information

[edit]

The paragraph:

Robotics is a branch of engineering that involves the conception, design, manufacture, and operation of robots. This field overlaps with electronics, computer science, artificial intelligence, mechatronics, nanotechnology and bioengineering.[3]

Seems to be just saying what is said in the very first paragraph of the article with another words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.195.182.198 (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

[edit]

Hi

A recent edit changed the very definition of "robotics".

Can we please remember we have to stick to the most widely adccepted definotions, and any such major change would need consensus.

I do not agree, so it has not, and I suspect others will also agree it is not a good definition.

Why? Because definitions should define things, not make them more word-salad that no one understands, and is incomprehensibly indirect. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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) 17:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robot

[edit]

Robots are cool. 73.29.12.65 (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Socionics(CIT)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Socionics(CIT) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 20#Socionics(CIT) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Swarmanoid" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Swarmanoid and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 20#Swarmanoid until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Robotics." listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Robotics. and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 20#Robotics. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): StellaQuan441 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by StellaQuan441 (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coatrack/s

[edit]

Trying to understand the "product placement" critic in the coatrack: where does it come from, what it is supposed to apply to, whether it's justified or not.

Coatrack history

(because it seems useful to trace / follows the discontentment to understand it better.)
@CactiStaccingCrane: places first coatrack on 6 November 2022, 16:40, saying:

This article may relate to a different subject or has undue weight on an aspect of the subject. Specifically, the article goes too much detail on specific types of robots. Please help relocate relevant information and remove irrelevant content.

at 16:41, adds another coatrack asking for "additional citations for verification";
at 16:49, adds to one coatrack "reads like a press release or a news article and may be largely based on routine coverage";
at 16:50, gathers both coatracks in one that says:

...multiple issues...:
  • This article may relate to a different subject or has undue weight on an aspect of the subject. Specifically, the article goes too much detail on specific types of robots.
  • This article needs additional citations for verification. (November 2022)
  • This article reads like a press release or a news article and may be largely based on routine coverage.

@95.147.31.135:, 9 January 2024 at 15:41, removes the 3rd critic, that is: "This article reads like a press release or a news article and may be largely based on routine coverage".
@2.30.195.245:, 30 August 2024 at 09:20, removes the critic about the need for "additional citations for verification". Remains only the "too much detail on specific types of robots. Please help relocate relevant information and remove irrelevant content."
2.30.195.245, 30 August 2024 at 09:51, adds to the remaining critic:

"and has too much product placement."

(follows up with some fiddling with the coatracks (30 August 2024 at 09:52) that gives the same critics in two coatracks, coming back to only one coatrack at 09:53 and that's the one as of today 24 September.)

Was hoping to get more info from that, but for doing so i'd need to closely study the details of each modif. Haven't got the time for that. Nevertheless, since i've done that little bit of research i leave it here in case it comes useful later.

"product placement" complaint history

product placement: marketing technique where references to specific brands or products are incorporated into another work... specific promotional intent."

95.147.31.135, 3 January 2024 at 21:38, changes this picture: with the legend: "TALON military robots used by the United States Army", for this picture: with the legend: "Tracked agricultural robot".
@MrOllie:, 3 January 2024 at 21:40, reverses 95.147.31.135's edit (restoring the first pic), and his edit summary introduces the term "product placement" by saying: "Rv product placement image". Then that term ends up in the coatrack as seen above, via 2.30.195.245 on 30 August 2024 at 09:51.

1) I don't understand how a pic that has a legend saying "TALON military robots used by the United States Army", is less in the range of "product placement" than a picture that says "Tracked agricultural robot". Seems to me it would be quite the opposite, what with the first pic's legend citing "a specific brand or product" (but even so... see point 2 that follows). So I'm clearly missing something there and I wouldn't mind it being explained to me. In layman terms please.
2) I think the term "product placement" does not apply here; neither in this case of the photo/s, nor in what i've seen of the rest of the article (haven't read it all). I don't see "specific promotional intent" + as a total ignoramus on the question, I appreciate to be told the brand names that designate these products as there is little doubt that every next device/s will bear some noticeable difference since the field is just starting an intense phase of development. + I get a strong feeling that the critic is based on principle, and not on a de facto basis that would take into account the need for device identification.
Thanks for your attention. Pueblo89 (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image was focused on the company's logo and not on the robot itself or what it was actually doing. It was obvious advertising. MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robotics&oldid=1250932018"