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 2 |
☯ Zenwhat (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice illustration of the point I'm about to make, Zenwhat :) There's an article in the current SciAm about how Hitachi is moving forward on reducing the size of RFID chips. I was dismayed to see that 90% of the online reaction, even at tech-friendly sites like Engadget, had the flavor of Zenwhat's userbox. (The relevance to robotics is that cheap, tiny RFID chips can communicate to a robot what an object is and how it should be manipulated.) What I'm taking from this is that discussion about strong reactions to advanced technology is just as worthy of inclusion in encyclopedia articles as the technology, if those strong reactions are likely to have definitive consequences. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll throw some things out to get us started, and feedback would be appreciated. Anyone is welcome to designate anything that I write as useless handwaving and consign it to my talk page at any time, or we can discuss things heatedly and quickly and stick it in an archive and move on. We don't need to WP:AGF from Zenwhat, he's already demonstrated that he's full of it (haha). In particular, User:Zenwhat/Zen_guide is highly recommended. Welcome. Welcome also to AndonicO, who is a polyglot admin with a very funny userpage, and of course Jameson, who re-started this project, and who will almost certainly receive his admin mop in May. In fact, every day I run into someone new on one of the robotics-related pages who is funnier, smarter, and/or more accomplished than I am, generally all before they turn 21. If I hang around much longer, I'll need Prozac.
An observation: robotics-related pages carry some burdens more than other WP pages do. One is the technophile/technophobe divide, a problem that not even the magic of WP has been fully able to dispel. When I have made edits to WP:Robot to help it conform to the Manual of Style, I have sensed distrust from the technophiles, and when I discuss technical subjects on Wikimedia sites and chat channels, I get a strong sense that I'm being given a very short rope, much shorter than if I were talking about something blander and less technical. (Obviously this could have more to do with the presenter than the material.) I've seen evidence on WP that some technophiles who are trying to get upgraded status for their favorite articles feel that admins are useless, bureacratic weasels who cover up the fact that they don't know anything about the subject by making them jump through one useless hoop after the other, and conversely, I've seen discussions by admins that they believe that technophiles make particularly difficult editors, unwilling to play by the same rules that everyone else here plays by. Comments? How can we reduce the heat and get everyone to play nice? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You're all POV-pushing for anti-human\anthrophobe\robophile\pro-robot apologetics. You'll all be sorry when the robots take over and you have to pay tribute to them with human babies (see The Matrix) or through servitude to them (see I, Robot (film) and the Cylons in Battlestar Galactica). This is assuming, of course, that they don't outright EXTERMINATE the human race entirely! (see The Terminator)
Stephen Hawking is a super-genius. He's clearly seen a LOT more movies on robots than you guys. You should respect his authority on the subject and listen to him.
Alter our DNA or robots will take over, warns Hawking.
Robots are forms of property that, like nuclear weapons, must be carefully controlled (if not outright abolished) to prevent our own self-extinction.
The coming Robocracy is NOT something we should look forward to. HUAR! ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This page's objective is to discuss topics of the WikiProject, not to discuss the validity of article subject(s) revolving this WikiProject's existence. Please direct your productive rantings to those respective articles, especially HUAR. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 02:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You're doing a great job of making my point, Zenwhat...this is part of the burden that we robotics editors face. Sometimes it's this blatant, sometimes it's just discomfort with the subject, a lack of support or interest.
Btw, I know my reference to "weasels" above sounds like a borderline violation of WP:CIVIL. I believe it's customary to give people a little more leeway during the brainstorming segment of a Wikiproject (as long as it doesn't boil over into personal attacks). This is a good time to discuss process questions...what isn't working? What would you like to see changed?...as well as practical suggestions for particular articles. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
My comments were intended to be humoros (with no U's -- that makes it more American) and apparently, they did a good job at stimulating discussion, which is what this page needed. On the contrary, I hope this project goes well. We need more information on robots on Wikipedia...
...if only to prepare for their inevitable rise to power.
So long as you guys are "robotics" editors and not "robotic" editors (I will follow WP:AGF but I still have my suspicions), I wish you luck with this.
Also, expanding\writing some articles on the military robots they've been using in the Iraq war would be a neat first task, with lots of sources on the internet about it. [1]
The TV show, Futureweapons, have also had several episodes on killer roobts. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The culture at Wikipedia, and the rules at WP:NOT in particular, might not be as supportive of robotics editors as we might want...and maybe it would be a good idea to fix that problem before we start wrestling with admins over robotics articles. There is a constant tension among three groups...and many people (like me) are in all 3 groups, so let's say, 3 different focuses. One focus is improving Wikipedia articles...there's no problem there, we know how to deal with this.
The second focus is anxiety about broader implications of technology (see above), and there's no easy fix for that. Sometimes this leads to intrusive behavior, but the bigger problem is it usually just makes people give up and go away. In the case of robotics, the problem is that everyone cares. Cars are robots, robots are used in war to kill people, food is cheap because of modern farming robots. We need robots, we can't get rid of them, but we don't know how they work, we don't trust them, and we are all suspicious of the people pulling the levers. This anxiety intrudes constantly and forcefully into WP robotics articles...not just with vandalism, although there's a lot of that. Mostly, the problem is that we don't get the same level of wiki-love and support that makes WP work so well. If you are still reading this, but your eyes have started to glaze over and you're having a strong desire to go read something else, then you understand exactly what I'm talking about.
The third focus is the desire to get something done in the real world, as opposed to writing good WP articles. This would include a student sharing information helpful to other students, a househusband who has played around with robotic vacuums and has very useful things to say about what works and what doesn't, or an expert in a particular field who knows exactly what software works and what doesn't. The most relevant WP:NOT rule here is the one about unsourced material...which works really well when dealing with, say, history, but not when the relevant subject material is being updated every month, and usually by people who are not academics or journalists.
The bottom line is that, although WP policies have done magical things in other subject areas, they aren't working as well for robotics articles in particular and technology articles in general. The person who wants to know what bird he just saw can come to WP with confidence; the person who wants to know if he can buy a robot to fetch a beer out of the fridge is going to be disappointed, because the WP process only does really well with the simplest and most well-established technological questions. It seems to me we ought to be able to do better.
I'm not looking for the magic answer to all this, but I am inviting comment, and it would be great to know where in WP similar issues have been hammered out before. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
For anybody who gets too caught up in this... If you're either extremely pro-robot or extremely anti-robot, and it upsets you when there are POV-pusher on the issue (with all due respect!) you should see the essay Wikipedia:Don't be a dork.
If any of you have any examples of people fighting over POV-pushing relating to technology (especially robots), let me know, because that would be a GREAT addition to the article! ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the "An open letter to our new members" section is a very nice touch, but it is more geared towards the objectives of the outreach page. I'd like to motion to have this section moved as well as attach a copy to the Invitation template. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Since it's been a while since anyone has taken interest in this WikiProject, I'll see if I can spruce up the place a little bit. Feel free to join in... it's so quiet here... - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 22:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a link for "Home robotics". I'm getting a sense that we have two entirely different audiences here...the home robotics people are likely to need simpler English and, in general, simpler articles and a simpler approach. Many of them will have little or no experience with Wikipedia, so let's keep this link roughly where it is, that is, the 3rd section down. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The external links look very superfluous and messy. Can I establish consensus that finding one website which links all of the teams would be more acceptable and help clean up the article a little bit? - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 20:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I created a userbox for the WikiProject:
This user is a member of WikiProject Robotics. |
If anyone would like to use it tell me and I'll create a subpage for it in my userspace. Happy editing, Midorihana~iidesune? 07:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Some people in this group may be interested in my userbox:
This user has built a Robot Friend. |
--- BAxelrod (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I like all three - let's decide on an official userbox! Jiuguang Wang (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the one in Jamesontai's sandbox is the best, although the design is a little busy. DBSpeakers
11:15 April 21,2008
Oh, I didn't know you guys were working on it. I posted mine on the front page and it already is a template> Hope you like it. Juthani1 22:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This user is a participant in WikiProject Robotics. |
Actually i like Juthani1's design a lot. It's simple and clean, although it looks a lot like WikiProject Technology. I added Category:WikiProject Robotics participants to the gear userbox. I'll try to tweak my userbox a bit too. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 16:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The Foundation is asking that user projects (and user pages, etc.) avoid decorative and unofficial uses of WMF logos and trademarks. As a trademark issue, they want to avoid the confusion that projects, like this one, have some official relationship with the Foundation. With that in mind, could you remove the Wiki globe from Image:Wikiprojectrobotics.png. Thanks. Dragons flight (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I came across the following categories
and noticed that most articles are not associated with a WikiProject. These three fields are obviously very important to robotics, but I'm hesitant to add them to our project, since together, they cover more broad topics than the scope of WikiProject Robotics.
What I'd like to do is to start a new "WikiProject Intelligent Systems", covering topics such as:
Robotics would play a very important role in this project, since it is the foremost example of an intelligent system. Obviously, creating a completely new WikiProject requires a lot of time and effort, so I wonder if we can establish consensus here to make the transition into this new WikiProject - we could certainly benefit from the arrival of experts in their respective fields (closely related, but outside of robotics).
Any thoughts? --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jiuguang,
Thank you for your quick response and for your appreciation of my comments. From outside, the probably best solution would be to have a project dedicated towards computer vision. A problem, as pointed out by Dan, is that currently there are not so many active editors in this area. Since I started contributing to computer vision articles, I have interacted with a few. Not all of them appear to be active right now. There is a diligent Wiki on Computer Vision at [[2]]. However, there is a lot that remains to be done in this Wiki. Specifically, for those articles I have looked at in this project, the regular Wikipedia articles are indeed better and more up to date. Hence, unless a sufficient critical mass of editors can be established as well as interaction links to this community be built up, I'm hesitant on starting what could be interpreted as a competing project. However, we should also listen to more people about their views.
The current status of having robotics as indirectly including other areas as subdisciplines is, however, not satisfactory either. A renaming would reduce this problem somewhat. If you make the scope wider, however, you also need competence in the other areas to build up a satisfactory basic structure to start from. I could try to help on this within the area of computer vision but not outside. My role will, however, be limited. Currently, I'm largely maintaining the articles I have contributed to. Tpl (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Recently, I notice that a large number of computer vision articles have been included into the robotics project by User:Jiuguang Wang. It is true that a large part of the work in computer vision may be relevant to robotics. It is however also the case that you can work in computer vision without ANY association to robotics. Hence, computer vision is an independent subfield of computer science on a similar independent footing as other areas of computer science, such as machine learning or robotics, however, with mutual relationsships. I would say that I as well as many other users/authors/researchers with a background in computer vision are not comfortable with this implicit decision of classifying computer vision articles as part of a robotics project. If there should be a new organizational structure for reworking the computer vision pages, this work should be done from the scope of computer vision, not robotics. Tpl (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
So, these are my excuses, so to speak. To make you (and other editors with similar concerns) happy, I'd like to ask:
I like the rename idea, as I have originally proposed. But I'm open to suggestions.
--Jiuguang (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.
See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.
The Transhumanist 10:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a continuation of the Scope of WikiProject Robotics thread above.
@ Tpl - thanks again for your comments. My thoughts on the subject consists of mainly two issues.
1. Issue 1: Assuming that we do not have enough active editors in these areas, is it better to leave the categories alone without a WikiProject, or should we expand the scope of an existing WikiProject (such as this one, since it is probably the closest related project) to include them?
2. Issue 2: Assume that we have enough editors to create separate WikiProjects for each of these categories. Should we do that?
--Jiuguang (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Is Hell Is Other Robots really within the scope of this project? I find that odd since none of the other episodes of Futurama seem to be tagged for this project. I understand tagging pages like Bender (Futurama) but why one individual episode out of 72? And if this episode really is of mid-importance to this project shouldn't some other robot-heavy episodes be included such as Crimes of the Hot, Mother's Day (Futurama) and I Dated a Robot? It just seems strange to me is all, either include TV episodes or don't, picking and choosing the ones that happen to be featured articles is a bit odd. Stardust8212 18:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Since a major assessment drive is underway, I thought we should have a discussion on our assessment policies. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Robotics/Assessment, the mechanics of assessment is outlined, but I'd like to know some details on the importance scale. For example,
--Jiuguang (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The main template for the project, Template:WikiProject Robotics, could use a little update:
List of Proposed Categories
Oh yeah, and just so you guys know, I'll need someone to help me program in the categories into the project banner, because I wouldn't have a clue as to what I would need to do for this. I might end up copying WP:Technology, but I'll still need help. If someone knows how to do this efficiently, please let me know. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 06:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
So, while editing the new ((WPBannerMeta)) template, I've encountered some issues due to our existing category setup. A few of our current WikiProject categories uses non-standard capitalization - for example, Category:Category-class Robotics articles , the "class" should be capitalized. Since I can't change that in the new template, I'll make the modifications in the existing template...--Jiuguang (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a place where we can keep track of the robotics articles featured on DYK? --Jiuguang (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Woohoo! 2 more DYKs! Thanks Jiuguang Wang again! :D - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 19:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Robotshop is up for deletion but it seems like it may be a noteworthy company. Can anyone offer insight to help find sources or otherwise help other editors clue-in if this company is notable? Banjeboi 13:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Some time ago I wrote a program which has the capability of reducing multiple state logical equations to minimum form. I recall that even today in some of the projects started by the former Soviet Union (space projects) technicians and engineers still talk as if they are robots sentenced to binary logic. To test the value, action or benefit of the program I designed it to accept multiple state logical equations using a letter of the alphabet followed by a numerical state which I abandoned temporarily and relied on position to denote a variable and an integer to denote it's state. The variables and states were assigned meaning and then equations were formed and submitted to the program which reduced them to minimum form. The results were amazingly human as though a friend had turned and said, "Oh you mean such and such," on the order of a response you might expect from Star Trek Data's Positronic Brain. -- adaptron (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
: So you are coming from an AI background - ignore my response on my talk page, then. If you are purely referring to Boolean logic equations, are you familiar with the Quine–McCluskey algorithm? Can you tell me the difference between the program you wrote and that algorithm? For circuits, there is also the Espresso heuristic logic minimizer, but that's perhaps application-specific.
::I have been using MathCad since version 3 or 4. Version 4 included Maple which had algorithms to resolve variables that worked on fairly complicated equations. It did not include the ability to solve logical equations which I thought was odd since Maple was written in Canada where logic is a big topic of concern. -- adaptron (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I have made a barnstar for this WikiProject. Please give me your thoughts on it here. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 1071 articles are assigned to this project, of which 304, or 28.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I was on the WikiIRC channel and came across this: User:Lady Aleena/Test banner. Will this offer more or less abilities for us? - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 06:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, I created this article. Still needs work, if anyone can help out. ScienceApe (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone interested in keeping an IRC channel for our WikiProject? Interested persons please let me know. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 07:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 08:47, Jamesontai <j...com> wrote:
Hey there. Sorry for the lateness of this response.
I would recommend #wikipedia-en-robotics - please feel free to go ahead and register it, by joining and then typing /msg chanserv register #wikipedia-en-robotics .
I don't know how experienced you are with IRC, so, let me know if you need any further help.
Thanks,
Sean
So I'm going to now create the room. I'll register it under my username since I'm there a lot. I'll post again when it's done setting up. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 18:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yup! It's made and ready! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 18:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 11#Robot categories. Thanks! --Jiuguang (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, Robot is at WP:GAR. I'm working on the section Eastern and Western views at the moment. I have Hornyak's Loving the machine: the art and science of Japanese robots, which is great on a Japanese perspective. I'll start adding things from that. If anyone has opinions on Chinese or other Asian perspectives, please feel free to jump in. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I will be more than happy to help improve quality on the 33 robotics articles that made the Version 0.7 cut, if someone will list them at the 0.7 copyediting requests page here. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
34 of 376 unassessed articles of WP:ROBO were autoassessed based on already done assessments by other projects on the same talk page per request of - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs by TinucherianBot. FYI -- Tinu Cherian - 09:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
We need to update our portal. Interested individuals, please meet on #wikipedia-en-robotics connect. Thanks. Feel free to discuss improvement suggestions here as well. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 23:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
There is discussion regarding the notability of the RFL. Please discuss at its talk page. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 07:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Automatic number plate recognition for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Peter Andersen (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I learned only today that their are two separate Wikipedia articles on unmanned space vehicles: Space probe and Robotic spacecraft. I'm not sure I see the value of two articles, especially as currently described where their definitions seem to overlap (and be fuzzy). Are not all unmanned space vehicles robotic in the sense that they make complex operations (electronic, electical, mechanical, whatever) without human operators. I'm wondering if some of you with more robtics expertise might be able to help us with the discussion. So please drop by Talk:Robotic spacecraft or Talk:Space probe to weigh in with your thoughts. N2e (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
It's been tagged as belonging to your project, and I was wondering whether it belongs there. Please comment there as well as here, as I may not monitor this page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:37, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Proposed addition to people counter entry
Embedded Stereo Vision
Embedded Stereo Vision devices use two camera lenses in order to incorporate height data into the onboard intelligence algorithms and greatly increase system accuracy.
These devices are IP addressable and have the ability to capture and send counting, service, queueing, and various other metrics as well as record a video stream to validate system results. No additional on-site computer or data aggregation hardware is required. All image processing and behavioral analytics are performed on the camera and data is delivered at configurable time intervals, thereby making embedded stereo vision people counting a low bandwidth solution.
The incorporation of stereo data into the image processing and analytics allows the stereo camera to operate reliably and accurately in normal, high, low, and varying lighting conditions.
Advantages:
Chris.mcrae (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I added an article on "ant robotics". I am not sure where it should best be linked into the current article. I provided a couple of links but perhaps others see better ways of referring to the new article. Antonbharkamsan (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The Outline of robotics attempts to overview this subject, showing its structure while providing links to all the key topics on Wikipedia that make up the subject.
It's like a site map or table of contents to robotics on Wikipedia.
What's missing?
The Transhumanist 00:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: Some other well developed outlines include Outline of Japan, Outline of forestry, Outline of Buddhism, and Outline of cell biology. For the whole collection, see WP:OOK.
I need help on Industrial Robot. It is under attack by some guy trying to advertise his company but his products do not conform to the ISO definition at the top of the article or the talk page. I keep deleting it, he keeps putting it back. Robotics1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC).
At WP:FAR YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 05:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Category:CNC, CAD, and CAM has been nominated for renaming. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I've update my list of missing techology topics including its section related to robotics - Skysmith (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
there should be an article on soccer robos, roxy: JELLO says HELLO (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
-as far as I'm aware, there are no dedicated soccer robots; the ones used are just other robots that have been trained to play soccer. I agree however that an article should be made, I'll make it sometime soon. I think it should be called "Football robots", since the game is known more widely as that.Owen214 (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a peer-reviewed version of Wikipedia at Scholarpedia.org, that only has a small number of articles, but maybe some of the content is useful to add to Wikipedia, such as the "Light-weight Robots" page? (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Light-weight_robots)
They are mainly AI articles but have a section on robotics: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Category:Robotics What do you guys think? Shervinemami (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi
Having had the article Three Laws of Robotics delisted from FA I am trying to start a little initiative to get it back up to FAC status.
Please can anyone who has a specific interest go to Work required and look at the problems listed and comment on any ideas they may have in the section Addressing the problems below it.
Any responses please place in the relevant section after the Proposed solution header
Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'm kindof newbie with Wikipedia, so apologies if I'm missing the place to say this :).
I'm expanding the article of ADL, which seems to be just a translation of the Wikipedia. If there is any tip on it, I would appreciate it. Kikoso (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_description_language
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Robotics articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I have posted a request for all current active members to post their status (or not) at the discussions page Category talk:WikiProject Robotics participants I have tried to contact James but to no avail :¬(
There are a couple of things that need doing, we have lots of articles that are unassessed and no importance given and I have updated the table today to find no real changes since it was last run. (see the main project page for the table)
The bot that puts the recent changes seems to be not working and some of the links on the main page nad th eproject page are no longer functioning.
Basically we need to do some housecleaning and I cannot do it all on my own :¬) as we seem to have no assessment team.
There is in my opinion a need to update quite a few things and that can only be done through consensus where common sense does not give ann obvioous choice. By common sense I m ean that updating the tables is fairly simple and is done by a tool and as it cannot be influenced by the user running it is a common sense thing that does not need consensus - it should be done regularly and can be done by anyone and the project page automatically updates once it has been run.
Other problems involve things like checking refs and going through the current FA, GA, A-class etc. These can be done quite quickly using a number of bots and tools which the FA and GA assessment teams use but since the last real functions of the project were around early 2009 we need to identify thos who can join the team, work out a strategy and implement the assessments and checks.
Chaosdruid (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Surely this isn't "of interest" to a robotics project? Rich Farmbrough, 06:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC).
There is a relationship between pi and the alphabet. see Morale Builder 5 or Optimist 1.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.84.82 (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I have finished the work on the article and have put it for peer review. Wikipedia:Peer_review/Three_Laws_of_Robotics/archive1
Chaosdruid (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Project Aiko has been requested for deletion. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The article List of programs and machines in the Matrix series which is tagged as part of this WikiProject is nominated for deletion. If you feel like it kept or delete, please contribute here. − Jhenderson 777 20:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
A GA review of Three Laws of Robotics is taking place and has been put on hold for an initial seven days to allow work to take place to address concerns mainly around referencing and original research. SilkTork *YES! 23:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Here, may I join? I may be of some help.--The Master of Mayhem (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi all
I have made a start on the Robot Wars pages, the main issue is the confusing rounds sections.
I started by making a table and put it in the Storm 2 page
If anyone has time to take a look can they add tables to the relevant pages from Category:Robot Wars competitors
Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
(transcluded from /Assessment#Robotics_assessments_update)
Hi all
I have got as far as "P" in checking and updating the A-Z articles, but 221 of them are still unassessed and unclassified [4].
I have found a fairly high number of "Stubs" that were incorrectly labelled which I re-classed as "Start", although there were none that were deserving of a B class there were a few that were close. There were a couple of Start class that I have put to B class however.
One or two new GAs and FAs appeared, but these were mainly due to them not having a Robotics tag although within the scope of the project.
The next stage is to consider whether the classes are correct. Some I have put at C class (although the project does not use this classification normally) as they are needing only slight amounts of work to turn into B's - I will endeavour to make sure they have the "attention needed" parameter set to yes (now I have fixed it lol) to ensure they appear in the correct category for easy locating from the category page once work starts.
There are a disappointing amount of Top and High importance articles that are not at B class as well! Some work is needed on those but if anyone wishinng to help and unsure of the higher class categories, ie a novice editor, I would suggest is a good place to start.
Chaosdruid (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as ((citation)), ((cite journal)), ((cite web))...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse ((arxiv|0123.4567))
|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and ((JSTOR|0123456789))
|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. What do you think about addition of video links (eg. from youtube) to robots articles, in "external links" section? I think that vidoes are very important when it comes to robots (to see what they can do, how they move, etc.). But how many links can be added to a single article in your opinion? I mean those important, good quality, educational or instructive videos. If I find 10 equally important videos, can I add them all, or should I reduce them to... (how many?) Is there such limit? Danim2 (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I have amended a couple of the infoboxes on simple matters of plurality.
There is also the problem of the infoboxes being fairly high visibility items. Can you at least let us know which ones are being worked on and which are proposes for creation? It will help us keep track of exactly what is going on. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi there,
I've just arrived from Speech_generating_device, which I'm planning on giving quite an overhaul in the next few weeks - It's got a tag saying it's part of this robotics project - I confess this surprised me because I hadn't thought of it that way - thought I can see speech_synthesis being right up your street. Can someone of this project check that Speech_generating_device is really in your remit - obviously it would be cool to get some extra input if this is really the case... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Failedwizard (talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The use of the pagename Android is under discussion, see Talk:Android_(operating_system)#Requested_move. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I've begun working on the Start quality Top importance articles, starting with Automation. I'd like to organise and expand upon the Applications section - at the moment it's a bit limited and I don't think it gives a true representation of the scope of Automation. I've put up a few ideas and a structure that could be used on the talk page. I'd love for someone here to have a look and give some feedback. Uwadb (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Ive started a page on odour sensing and would really like your help on improving the article. Currently its just the name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malithyapa (talk • contribs) 08:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Projet:Robotique/images libres (in French) links to some free robotics images. Maybe most of them are already included here on the English Wikipedia within project articles. But if not, the collection may be of some interest. --Trevj (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Guys ! can you tell me how many Robots are on the international space station ? Come and read the International Space Station article, and you'll be none the wiser. Is this a good thing ?
They are pretty cool, some of them move like inchworms, around the station, repositioning themselves. Seriously, there is not even a section about it in the station structure. I can write one, but I need real editors to help me with this. Come on ! Penyulap talk 14:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated International Space Station for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
Penyulap talk 14:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi all
An AfD has been started to delete the European Robotics Research Network article. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
hello what about we do a special page with the robotic point of view and our champions (lunar solar power criswell,the automated factory growing,robotic village,lunar ring shimizu,robonaut,justin and the like]
lunar solar power, david criswell
the automated growing factory concepts from the 80s (http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/GrowingLunarFactory1981.htm)
robotic village, concept from the 2000 (i have to find the references]
lunar ring from the shimizu dream page, for illustration purposes and for solar power
robonaut for project m
some concepts but maybee fun to present, wath do you think ?-unsigned comment
From memory there are two major Robot bases in the making at the moment, there is at least one for the moon, I think it may be Japanese, although there may be more than one, I'd check chinese after japanese. The other one is Mars, in the '20's (or '30's with delays) there will be a Russian space station in deep space in Mars orbit. They won't land, but will have an assortment of robotic probes on the surface, operated from orbit. Then if there are signs of life, they'll take off and nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Marpost is the name of that space station, and aliens is the name of the series. Penyulap talk 12:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
After a little bit of work Speech generating device (part of your project for some time now) is now a good article nominee - if any of you guys would like to review it, (or even given any comments) that would be very cool indeed :)
Failedwizard (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm an italian user and I'm not very good in english, so I'm sorry if I will make some mistake. In the italian wikiproject about ships & co. (Progetto Marina) we're discussing about a notability guide about ships and submarines (both civilian/military – sandbox here in italian). The point is that we've no idea about what to do with ROV (example) and AUV, may you have a notability guide about them yet? I imagine that AUV are not notable (is correct "notable"?) but for ROV? They're notable only if they're owned by an oceanographic facility (like this) or by a naval warfare service branch of an armed forces? (lot of words to say simply military units like Royal Navy) or something else? --Zerosei (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a rough guide to notability relating to robotics topics here . Each AUV and ROV has to be notable according to the general Wiki guidelines on notability. There needs to be a reasonable amount of media coverage, or it needs to have achieved something as a first or otherwise notable event, for it to gain notability enough to be included.
In general notability is assessed on the general guidelines, though in many cases the parent organisations are so big that they would not be left on the "parent" page, but have been separated into an article of their own. Feel free to look at some of those already in existence, such as those from the categories Category:Robotic submarines and Category:Unmanned underwater vehicles (as well as it's subcategory Category:Remotely operated underwater vehicles, specific to ROVs)
Most of the Woods Hole machines that have an article have achieved notability for their discoveries or in pushing the boundaries or current knowledge further than before. For example, I have included the Woods Hole template:
I hope this helps :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Do Neural Network related articles also come under the scope of this project? --SMS Talk 20:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Robotics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey all. The Curiosity rover article was split earlier today (6 Aug 2012), AFTER the successful landing of the rover on Mars, hived off from the more spacecraft-related and spaceflight-mission-related article Mars Science Laboratory. (This is a result of a consensus developed on the MSL Talk page after approx. 24 July.) So now the rover article is a robotics article and planetary science article, and not really a spaceflight article, while the MSL article retains the spaceflight/spacecraft aspects of the complicated mission.
Anyone want to help out? Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Robotics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The SpaceX Grasshopper is a reusable VTVL rocket prototype being used for testing of landing large rocket first-stage tanks back on terra firma for reuse. Obviously some heavy robotics involved that this project may be interested in. (but that article is not currently a part of the Robotics WikiProject, nor is Reusable launch system.). Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at this robotic vehicle test flight, conducted two weeks ago—conducting both a controlled hover and a controlled descent and upright landing—and see if you still believe this is not a robotic vehicle.
It uses some combination of autonomous and telerobotic control.
P.S. That sub-sixty-second video has gone viral, and has more than 2 million hits in the first week, since it was posted Sunday evening US time on 23 Dec 2012. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Just letting other robotics editors know that I just created an article on the recently-completed Robotic Refueling Mission demonstrating in-space propellant transfer on a series of satellite hardware that was deliberately designed to match existing commercial and government satellites that had not been designed for refueling operations. You may also want to look at the robotic Space Infrastructure Servicing, a planned commercial mission for robotic servicing/refueling of approx. 12-15=year old satellites. Conceivably, the SIS prospects just got a boost from the technology maturity demonstrated by the NASA demonstration mission.
Would appreciate other robotics-editor eyes on the article, as well as the potential addition of the article to the WP Robotics project. (I did not add the project flag since I had just assessed the article for WP:WikiProject Spaceflight). Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Is the WP:WikiProject Robotics still an active wikiproject?
It appears there is little activity going on here. I'm not suggesting that robotics is not a vibrant and rapidly advancing field of study, but I am suggesting that it would appear that the WikiProject is very quiet for such an interesting and active sub-discipline of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Mechanics, and Software Engineering.
What are others' views? Is this project an active and going concern? I know that there are at least a few of you who watch this page? Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
A survey of just over one-third of the (then) 59 participants on the WikiProject Robotics participants page was initiated on 3 Feb 2013. The survey was not a random selection, but did attempt to get a good cross-section by selecting the ten top-most and ten bottom-most participants listed to query via their user Talk pages. No further sub-selection was done by the survey taker beyond that simple selection guideline.
As of 22 February 2013[update], nearly three full weeks after the survey questions were left, only two of the twenty editors queried have commented on this Talk page, and one editor removed their name from the participants list. The participants list now has 58 names on it.
Not sure what conclusions might be drawn here, but that is the basic summary of the results. Thanks to Chaosdruid and Dank for responding. And thanks to everyone who is working to make Wikipedia robotics-related pages better over time on the English Wikipedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey everyone, fellow WikiProject Robotics-interested editors and roboticists.
I just placed the following text on the User Talk page of just over one-third of all WP Robotics participants. I did so on the first ten, and the last ten, WProject Robotics participants listed on the participants page as of 3 Feb 2013.
While it might be useful to take a larger sample, this 34% poll ought to get us a pretty good idea of how many, or how few, editors consider themselves part of this project as of 3 February 2013[update]. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I see you are listed as a member of the WikiProject Robotics project. Some of us are trying to assess who and how many of those Wikipedia editors who have signed on to the project in the pass seven years are still active, or would like to still be active, in the endeavor of improving Robotics-related articles on the English Wikipedia.
If you have the time and inclination, would appreciate it if you would weigh in on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics Talk page, or perhaps indicate current interest by your name on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Robotics/Participants page. If you are no longer interested in participating, please just remove your name from the Participants page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
It's not clear to me when Hierarchical Hidden Markov Models were pioneered. According to the following, Markov himself and subsequently Norbert Wiener hypothesized models of hierarchical sequences of states:
"The Russian mathematician Andrei Andreyevich Markov (1856 - 1922) built a mathematical theory of hierarchical sequences of states. The model was based on the possibility of traversing the states in one chain, and if that was successful, triggering a state in the next higher level in the hierarchy. Sound familiar?
Markov's model included probabilities of each state's successfully occurring. He went on to hypothesize a situation in which a system has such a hierarchy of linear sequences of states, but those are unable to be directly examined-- hence the name hidden Markov models. The lowest level of the hierarchy emits signals, which are all we are allowed to see. Markov provides sa mathematical technique to compute what the probabilities of each transition must be based on the observed output. The method was subsequently refined by Norbert Wiener in 1923. Wiener's refinement also provided a way to determine the connections in the Markov model; essentially any connection with too low a probability was considered not to exist. This is essentially how the human neocortex trims connections-- if they are rarely or never used, they are considered unlikely and are pruned away. In our case, "
Source: How to create a mind, Ray Kurzweil.
I have so far located Markov's first paper on chains, his 1907 "Extension of the limit theorems of probability theory to a sum of variables connected in a chain". I have yet not found his hierarchical models.
Does anyone know more about this? Kurzweil himself claims to have pioneered HHMMs in the 80s and 90s.
Thanks! Robolobster Robolobster (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robolobster (talk • contribs) 00:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Based on the very low activity level of Wikipedia editors with this particular WikiProject, I'd like to begin to clean up the Participants pages, but do so in accord with the guidelines for doing such things on Wikipedia.
I've looked around and the closest thing I found was this: WikiProject Council/Dealing with inactive WikiProjects. While this project is not inactive, just very slow with few participants, I think the guideline for cleaning up participants lists is probably appropriate for us:
I'm willing to start doing that piece of work, but thought I'd bring it up here for discussion first. My sense is doing that cleanup task would give us a first start on who the potential-active editors might be as we begin to take other actions to revive the project. What thoughts do other WProbotics editors have on this? Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Chaosdruid (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings,
I am a newbie as a wiki editor, so am not sure who to ask for permission or where to place new articles on robotic research and development projects. I have complete copyright rights for data and images concerning these projects.
Thank you!
Victoria.Lee.Croasdell (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Assisting in the dissemination of technical information regarding robotics and rehabilitation robotics
We would like to assist in the dissemination of technical information regarding robotics and rehabilitation robotics by sharing "Do It Your Self" Robotics Projects specifications and text from published research papers on the technologies we have developed, in the hopes that it will encourage further research and development into the humanitarian aspects of robotics worldwide. With that motive in mind I would like to include in wiki’s robotic and rehabilitation robotics area the following:
A section on “Do It Yourself Beginner Robotic Projects”
A series of projects, complete with schematics, parts lists and instructions to build simple robots. Example, simple robotic pets that are either positively phototropic or negatively phototropic. We have been teaching and sharing our project designs "for free" with educational institutions and technology centers for years, but the audience is limited to these institutions.
Perhaps these projects may be more suitable for wikiversity with a link to them from the Robotics Portal. We can supply enough information and direction to give an understanding to the general public on the structural, mechanical and electro mechanical principles regarding simple robotics. At the very least even a novice should be able to make a robot with the instinctual intelligence of a single cell ameba.
Papers on Rehabilitation Robotic Technologies
1- Abstract; "Facial Feature Interfaced Cybernetic Experiments" published by and presented before RO-MAN 2003, The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. Images are included in the paper by John Siegel and Victoria Lee Croasdell.
2- Abstract; "Interfacing Artificial Autonomics, Touch Transducers and Instinct into Rehabilitation Robotics", published by and presented before "ICORR '99 Sixth International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics". Images are included in the paper, by John Siegel and Victoria Lee Croasdell.
3- Abstract; “Robot Arm Controlled by Facial Features”, published by “CWUAAT” 1st Cambridge Workshop on Universal Access and Assistive Technology” 2002. Paper by John Siegel and Victoria Lee Croasdell. There were no images included in the paper; however we have images and video of the device being operated.
Paper on our “Public Use Robotics” and “Rehabilitation Robotics”
4- Abstract; “MRISAR, Institute of Science, Art & Robotics”, published in the “World Robotics; Service Robotics 2011”, by IFR International Federation of Robotics. We were the only company in the world to receive a complete chapter regarding our unique approach at researching and developing “Public Use Robotics Devices” and “Rehabilitation Robotics Prototypes”. We are a four member family team that has created the world’s largest and most durable selection of public use robotics, while funding our own research and development in rehabilitation robotics. Images included.
Adding Mention of and a Link in 2.1 Ancient Beginnings
On the “Robotics” page under section of 2.1 Ancient Beginnings, adding mention of and a link to the wiki page on Albertus Magnus for his automaton in 1200's. We would also like to include additional information about his work on his page.
Victoria.Lee.Croasdell (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The article Tactical Autonomous Combatant has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated))
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ansh666 04:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
I have created Missing topics about robots and robotics - Skysmith (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see this CfD discussion.Comments welcome. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, fellow wikipdians, I am wondering, because there is no link on article suggestion to wepons, I am wondering if anyone can make a page for the Super aEGIS II.
Thanks,
Happy Attack Dog (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Have a look and see if you can find any non-company sources first, as I cannot, post them here and we can take it from there. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
We don't seem to have an article on this high profile robot. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The Rema 6000 might also be deserving of an article. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear editors: Here is an old abandoned Afc submission that may be of interest to this project. Is this a notable roboticist, and should the article be kept instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I have requested an article for Wolf Robotics, which is a company I work for. I have gathered references and written a stub in my user space draft. — Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this notable? An IP has prodded this stub. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
An RfC Should Tesla's birthplace be changed? has been created. Comments are welcome.- MrX 15:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Zero moment point needs attention. It's a confusing jumble of math which fails to explain a geometric concept. The subject is important for legged robotics. --John Nagle (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated this at WP:Articles for deletion/Milton Bradley Playmate, because I can find no confirmation that it ever existed. Comments welcome. JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, |
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a notice about Category:Robotics articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The new article, Autonomous spaceport drone ship, would benefit from another pair of eyes from someone in the robotics wikiproject. I've reflected some robotics content in a link or two, and on the Talk page, but someone with more background in autonomous vehicle control would likely make the article better in short order. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)