![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Not to be a stickler, but robots can be biological or nano-tech: for example, the remote-control rats and the nano-tech manufacturing research bots so I'm not sure the opening sentence on the page is quite true. Jdietsch 17:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, re the "Dangers and Fears" how about talking about lives saved by robots, like iRobot's PackBot and Foster-Miller's Talon, or the surgical robots that enable physicians to perform brain surgery that was too difficult and delicate to do unaided by mechanical systems if you're going to talk about people killed? Also, shouldn't there be a distinction between movies where fictional robots intentionally kill humans and some fellow who is knocked off because he forgot to turn off the automation system before he repaired it? Jdietsch 17:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't think of a good angle though. This kind of section is outside of my expertise. What are the important points we want to get across? These are some I can think of:
Any thoughts, please modify above accordingly.
Rocketmagnet (
talk)
00:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Igordebraga, you tried to convert the intro list into prose. However, it still reads like a list, not prose. I think that, if it's going to be prose, it should be proper prose. Otherwise a bulleted list is much easier to read. Rocketmagnet 11:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Rocketmagnet. The bulleted list makes it easier to understand "robot" to be a selection of something from a list. This is less clear when written in prose. I changed it back. takeitupalevel 7:51, 5 November 2007 (EST)
I don't like the competitions section at all. It seems to only describe FIRST competitions. The robot competitions spin-off page is not bad. We should use this section to describe the range of different competitions, without going into too much depth on each one. ---- BAxelrod 14:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Since this page gets a lot of Karl Stefanovic vandalism, would it be possible to make a bot specifically for dealing with this type of vandalism? Or can one of the other bots be modified to spot this? Rocketmagnet ( talk) 16:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
A very good article, well written, and very broad. Try to keep the NPOV throughout the article. Very many references, a very good job. Well done! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Ejg930 04:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
←I agree, Rocket, you did a good job. The WP:LEAD should tell people what to expect in the article. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 04:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The history section in this article is excellent. The article History of robots could use some help. Eventually, I think it would be good if material from here (and from humanoid robot#Timeline of developments) was merged into History of robots, to spread the good material around and help with the overall organization of Wikipedia's robot articles. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I love this page and I'd love for you guys to get "Featured Article" status. I made a bunch of changes to bring some things in line with the Manual of Style (MOS)...headings have to nest correctly, block quotes are for more than 4 lines of quoted text, removed the very last of the robot definitions since it repeated earlier material, changed an "and" to an "or" for parallelism, removed some capitals per MOS, deleted two occurences of the "/" symbol per MOS, fixed hyphenation (37-year-old), and fixed two links...hm, I worked on this longer than I thought!
I also made a couple of suggestions to Rocketmagnet in emails rather than doing the edits myself.
I see Rocketmagnet's editorial comment that new links are not to be added without talking first, and I didn't, other than just fixing the two links that weren't working. The only change of any substance was the change I made to the last bullet point in the introductory paragraph. Feel free to revert it, I made all changes with individual edits, hopefully they're be revertible if anyone feels the need, but hopefully you won't feel the need :) The problem with that last bullet point was, per MOS, if it's not clear how the linked material fits in, you're supposed to explain it...I made some guesses what you wanted them to get from Pathetic fallacy and Anthropomorphism, but please feel free to correct me if I was wrong. I didn't see relevant content in Reification and that article is in bad shape...do you need that link?
Btw, my nefarious purpose here is to do whatever needs doing on your articles so I can get to work on robots.wikia.com, which needs some serious work, starting with making relevant links to the Wikipedia robotics articles and getting rid of the trash that's there, mostly outdated content stolen from your excellent article :)
Dan Dank55 ( talk) 05:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks much to the recent contributors, it's all been good stuff, but notice that it's now 63K long, and some browsers choke on anything over 32K. How shall we divide things up? There are already separate pages for specific robots, competitions and exhibitions...should we just give pointers to those articles and keep descriptions out of this article? Or maybe give a short description with each link? — Dan Dank55 ( talk) 21:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I asked Andreas about his edit, he explained: "I added category 'Applications of computer vision' to category 'Robots'. Since the article Robot belongs to category 'Robots', it doesn't need to belong to category 'Applications of computer vision' anymore. I hope this is fine." — Dan Dank55 ( talk) 20:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's incomprehensible to most people, but most people know what a robot is. Lets make the definition a little easier to understand shall we? 65.41.92.77 ( talk) 00:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
How about: A mechanical device that is capable of performing a variety of human tasks on command or by being programmed in advance. -- RoboticBob ( talk) 17:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Talking about definitions, the definition sections opens with a US definition, then a Japanese and only then the international (incl US and Japan) definition. This order does not reflect worldwide view and needs to be changed. Arnoutf ( talk) 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Reddi (about etymology of robot)...I've heard that somewhere too, can you find a source? If not, I'll hunt it up. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 12:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Btw, Rocketmagnet, now I get what you were saying: I should have made it clear that you had done good work digging up the most important reference for Josef Karel's prior use of the term, and that I was looking for something more. Sorry. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 14:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the anonymous edit of "metre" to "meter" and posted a note at the anonymous user's talkpage, but it was a judgment call. (If they hadn't been anonymous, I would have contacted them first.) What made it a difficult judgment call is that you guys have done a pretty good job of avoiding words that are spelled differently in different places...all I could find, looking quickly, was "behavior" (American) and "metre" (British). Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, the rule is to leave the spelling alone unless there's a clear trend in the article towards for example American or British spellings, in which case it's a good idea to be consistent. But there's just not much of a trend here. Rocketmagnet has shouldered most of the burden here and he's British, so I don't think it's fair to take away his "metres". - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Not to be a stickler, but robots can be biological or nano-tech: for example, the remote-control rats and the nano-tech manufacturing research bots so I'm not sure the opening sentence on the page is quite true. Jdietsch 17:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, re the "Dangers and Fears" how about talking about lives saved by robots, like iRobot's PackBot and Foster-Miller's Talon, or the surgical robots that enable physicians to perform brain surgery that was too difficult and delicate to do unaided by mechanical systems if you're going to talk about people killed? Also, shouldn't there be a distinction between movies where fictional robots intentionally kill humans and some fellow who is knocked off because he forgot to turn off the automation system before he repaired it? Jdietsch 17:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't think of a good angle though. This kind of section is outside of my expertise. What are the important points we want to get across? These are some I can think of:
Any thoughts, please modify above accordingly.
Rocketmagnet (
talk)
00:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Igordebraga, you tried to convert the intro list into prose. However, it still reads like a list, not prose. I think that, if it's going to be prose, it should be proper prose. Otherwise a bulleted list is much easier to read. Rocketmagnet 11:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Rocketmagnet. The bulleted list makes it easier to understand "robot" to be a selection of something from a list. This is less clear when written in prose. I changed it back. takeitupalevel 7:51, 5 November 2007 (EST)
I don't like the competitions section at all. It seems to only describe FIRST competitions. The robot competitions spin-off page is not bad. We should use this section to describe the range of different competitions, without going into too much depth on each one. ---- BAxelrod 14:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Since this page gets a lot of Karl Stefanovic vandalism, would it be possible to make a bot specifically for dealing with this type of vandalism? Or can one of the other bots be modified to spot this? Rocketmagnet ( talk) 16:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
A very good article, well written, and very broad. Try to keep the NPOV throughout the article. Very many references, a very good job. Well done! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Ejg930 04:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
←I agree, Rocket, you did a good job. The WP:LEAD should tell people what to expect in the article. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 04:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The history section in this article is excellent. The article History of robots could use some help. Eventually, I think it would be good if material from here (and from humanoid robot#Timeline of developments) was merged into History of robots, to spread the good material around and help with the overall organization of Wikipedia's robot articles. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I love this page and I'd love for you guys to get "Featured Article" status. I made a bunch of changes to bring some things in line with the Manual of Style (MOS)...headings have to nest correctly, block quotes are for more than 4 lines of quoted text, removed the very last of the robot definitions since it repeated earlier material, changed an "and" to an "or" for parallelism, removed some capitals per MOS, deleted two occurences of the "/" symbol per MOS, fixed hyphenation (37-year-old), and fixed two links...hm, I worked on this longer than I thought!
I also made a couple of suggestions to Rocketmagnet in emails rather than doing the edits myself.
I see Rocketmagnet's editorial comment that new links are not to be added without talking first, and I didn't, other than just fixing the two links that weren't working. The only change of any substance was the change I made to the last bullet point in the introductory paragraph. Feel free to revert it, I made all changes with individual edits, hopefully they're be revertible if anyone feels the need, but hopefully you won't feel the need :) The problem with that last bullet point was, per MOS, if it's not clear how the linked material fits in, you're supposed to explain it...I made some guesses what you wanted them to get from Pathetic fallacy and Anthropomorphism, but please feel free to correct me if I was wrong. I didn't see relevant content in Reification and that article is in bad shape...do you need that link?
Btw, my nefarious purpose here is to do whatever needs doing on your articles so I can get to work on robots.wikia.com, which needs some serious work, starting with making relevant links to the Wikipedia robotics articles and getting rid of the trash that's there, mostly outdated content stolen from your excellent article :)
Dan Dank55 ( talk) 05:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks much to the recent contributors, it's all been good stuff, but notice that it's now 63K long, and some browsers choke on anything over 32K. How shall we divide things up? There are already separate pages for specific robots, competitions and exhibitions...should we just give pointers to those articles and keep descriptions out of this article? Or maybe give a short description with each link? — Dan Dank55 ( talk) 21:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I asked Andreas about his edit, he explained: "I added category 'Applications of computer vision' to category 'Robots'. Since the article Robot belongs to category 'Robots', it doesn't need to belong to category 'Applications of computer vision' anymore. I hope this is fine." — Dan Dank55 ( talk) 20:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's incomprehensible to most people, but most people know what a robot is. Lets make the definition a little easier to understand shall we? 65.41.92.77 ( talk) 00:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
How about: A mechanical device that is capable of performing a variety of human tasks on command or by being programmed in advance. -- RoboticBob ( talk) 17:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Talking about definitions, the definition sections opens with a US definition, then a Japanese and only then the international (incl US and Japan) definition. This order does not reflect worldwide view and needs to be changed. Arnoutf ( talk) 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Reddi (about etymology of robot)...I've heard that somewhere too, can you find a source? If not, I'll hunt it up. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 12:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Btw, Rocketmagnet, now I get what you were saying: I should have made it clear that you had done good work digging up the most important reference for Josef Karel's prior use of the term, and that I was looking for something more. Sorry. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 14:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the anonymous edit of "metre" to "meter" and posted a note at the anonymous user's talkpage, but it was a judgment call. (If they hadn't been anonymous, I would have contacted them first.) What made it a difficult judgment call is that you guys have done a pretty good job of avoiding words that are spelled differently in different places...all I could find, looking quickly, was "behavior" (American) and "metre" (British). Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, the rule is to leave the spelling alone unless there's a clear trend in the article towards for example American or British spellings, in which case it's a good idea to be consistent. But there's just not much of a trend here. Rocketmagnet has shouldered most of the burden here and he's British, so I don't think it's fair to take away his "metres". - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)