Talk:Wolf Robotics

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Hertzfeldt (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

April 2014

I'm having a hard time verifying this claim: "Its robotic-grade welding positioners have a load capacity of up to 100,000 kg[3] (220,462 lbs), which are among the strongest ever built"

My goal is to find a chart or something similar listing the load capacities of welding positioners.

NickInFoCo (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

The following sentence in the leading section is cumbersome, providing a little too much detail:

Industries it serves include “energy, oil and gas, mining and structural steel”,[5] as well as defense, transportation, fabrication,[6] off-road,[3] "NASA technologies",[2] “construction and agricultural applications”.[7]

After tallying industries mentioned in References 2-7, I propose culling the list down to the three most-mentioned. To be concise, they could be appended to the following sentence, thus:

By 2014, it had installed over 8,400 robotic systems[6] for mining, construction, agriculture, and other industries[2][3][4][5][7].

20:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hertzfeldt (talk • contribs)

Thanks! That seems sensible to me - I've made the change. - Bilby (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request: combine & trim last three sections

An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes.

A couple of the references in the "Certifications & Awards" section have questionable encyclopedic value, the "Accomplishments" section is rather small, and all the references in the "Further Reading" section relate to political interest in the company. The content of these sections might flow better if it were all combined into the Accomplishments section, and trimmed down in a manner similar to this:

Its robotic-grade welding positioners have a load capacity of up to 100,000 kg[3] (220,462 lbs), which are among the strongest in the industry[citation needed]. It introduced robotics to the process of submerged arc welding.[15] As one of the first four companies to be certified by the Robotic Industries Association[11] as a robotic integrator, it is also one of six organizations recognized by the American Welding Society as an approved testing center for the Certified Robotic Arc Welding (CRAW) program. The company is visible in the state of Colorado[ref: Associated Press][ref: Office of Gov. John Hickenlooper].

Hertzfeldt (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caveats on proceeding with edit request: 1. Last sentence ("visible") is meaningless, omit; 2. Put citations and citation needed tags at end of supported sentence, after the punctuation. 3. The term "positioner" is jargon, is there a better term? – S. Rich (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]