Talk:Robot/Archive 3

message: I have replaced the definition of Robot, with something, I believe, covers the machines we call robots. It's not a sharp definition, in the same way that robot is not a sharply definable word. The definition looks a little cleaner now too. Rocketmagnet 21:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice! +5 Insightful. You might want to add the Darpa Grand challenge vehicles to the list of cars between Bigtrak and KITT. Cphoenix 01:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! :) I've added the DARPA cars to the list. I think you're right that that's needed. Rocketmagnet 00:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Definition

message: === demining ===
The demining link is only to a particular company and could be considered an advertisement.  Another link, which has a more detailed comparison and study of the issue is http://www.mech.uwa.edu.au/jpt/demining/ .
I would like to ADD this link (not just delete the other one).
To contact me, please e-mail robotworks (at) gmail
130.95.52.218 23:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what this new link has to do with robots. Rocketmagnet 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is the basis on problems facing those doing demining (with or without robots) Robotworks 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Then add the link to the Demining page. Rocketmagnet 13:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking for the link to be changed to http://www.ieee-ras.org ?  It is already that. Rocketmagnet 10:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: The demining link is only to a particular company and could be considered an advertisement.  Another link, which has a more detailed comparison and study of the issue is http://www.mech.uwa.edu.au/jpt/demining/ .
I would like to ADD this link (not just delete the other one).
To contact me, please e-mail robotworks (at) gmail
130.95.52.218 23:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what this new link has to do with robots. Rocketmagnet 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is the basis on problems facing those doing demining (with or without robots) Robotworks 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Then add the link to the Demining page. Rocketmagnet 13:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  demining 

message: The link to the IEEE-RAS (IEEE Robotics and Automation Society) page has changed to http://www.ieee-ras.org. Can somebody change that?
Ovz 08:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking for the link to be changed to http://www.ieee-ras.org ?  It is already that. Rocketmagnet 10:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit link to IEEE-RAS 

message: Bruyninckx, Herman, De Schutter, Joris. Introduction to Intelligent Robotics - This source does not seem to be a real book. Both authors listed have publication lists at their personal sites and they do not mention this as a book or article that they have written. I think its a false source.
: Is it possible to find out who wrote that reference and ask them? (apart from looking through all the diffs one by one) Rocketmagnet 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: False Reference

message: well this article appears to be being maintenenced right now with vandalism present so whenever this is unlocked, can someone please revert and yell at the vandal on his talk page... it was the second latest change.  N i g h t F a l c o n 9  0 9  0 9' T a l k 23:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: locked with vandalism

message: Since we are talking here about definitions of robots, I added this page as a reference from the main article (currently ref number 6). I don't know if that's really allowed though, because this might count as original research. Anyone know? Rocketmagnet 23:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition discussion reference

message: I nominate WowWee Robotics for getting a link in the external links section.  In fact, there seems to be a shortage of discussion on robotic toys in this entry.  Perhaps a section could be added to Robot on that topic.  Thoughts?
Rocketmagnet 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link Nominations

message: This is a relatively light hearted look at recent developments in anthropomorphic droids.
http://www.vaasapages.com/RobotsAndroids.htm
--Malcolm Pemberton 07:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robots and Androids 

message: I suggest include in the external links : http://robots.wikia.com  --Altermike 10:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robots Wikia 

message: Actually, I am wondering if it would be a better idea to make a whole separate page on robotics as User:ThurnerRupert tried to do.  N i g h t F a l c o n 9  0 9  0 9' T a l k 13:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: These are some things I think should be done before the article is re-nominated. Let's not just do the minimum.
* References - We need to find references for as many of the statements as possible. 
* Images - The old Japanese robot is good, but I still think we need more.
* Structure - There are big chunks of text which aren't well structured, and don't lead the reader through them smoothly. Especially Contemporary uses, History, Current developments and robotics. Someone should go through each section, and totally re-write it, using the information which is there, and supplying references for as much as possible. I am currently working on Contemporary uses, which I will post in a week or two, when I'm happy with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocketmagnet (talk • contribs) 21:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem of an old robot is currently rather aggravating to me. I have been looking for a non-copyright photo of one of the older turtles. (Are pictures from Smithsonian copyrighted?) Currently I am drawing a diagram of one from a bunch of photo's, and will put that up when I finish it. After that, I'll rewrite the history section entirely, and add a timeline, unless someone else has done it.   N i g h t F a l c o n 9  0 9  0 9' T a l k 12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Work to be done before re-nominating

message: Is it possible for robots to be sabotaged?
Is it possible for robots not to be able to be sabotaged?
:What on earth kind of a question is this? The answer to the first question is "obviously" and the answer to the second question is "no." 'Kash 15:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sabotage of robots

message: I'm doing research for robotoid and am trying to track down the word's origin. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. -Eep² 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  robotoid 

message: I'm working on a whole new Current Developments section. As with the changes to the Contemporary Uses section, I'm trying to give it a lot of structure, headings etc. I want to try to give a good coverage of everything that's the state of the art, and the cutting edge of robotics. It could end up pretty long, but it's the 'meat' of the article. If anyone wants to contribute, please do. You can  find the work in progress here.
Rocketmagnet 18:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Current developments section - Please help

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robot&diff=134072317&oldid=133916362
“Juanelo Turriano made a wooden humanoid robot in the late XVI century that was called "El Hombre de Palo".”
El Hombre de Palo translates to The Man of Stick.
Has anyone heard of this guy or this robot? It seems to be vandalism to me so I am removing it for now. 
 NightFalcon90909 Talk 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you follow the links, the Spanish Wikipedia talks about El Hombre de Palo. I can only assume it's not vandalism. Rocketmagnet 18:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted Probable Vandalism

message: The first line read:
Robot is a mechanical or virtual, artificial agent designed for total world domination and annihilation of the human race.
I undid this edit because I don't think this is true.  The article is full of examples of robots that aren't designed for world domination- in fact, I don't know of any real robots that are.  If this really supposed to be true, please explain! Tcturner2002 03:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed what I think was vandalism

message: Added another major chunk of article, replacing Current Developments, which I think was a bit of a mess. There's a lot more to come. The work in progess is on my talk page. Please feel free to contribute to it, and to edit the new stuff I posted. Rocketmagnet 15:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Developments

message: This article still needs lots more material. Specifically, does anyone have anything to add on the subjects:
* Navigation
* Intelligence
* Sensing
* Wheeled robots
I think that the following sections could also use a re-write:
* History
* Dangers and fears
* Literature
* Robotics - Maybe it could be deleted or reduced a lot, as this already has its own page?
* Robots and human-machine interfaces - I'm not sure what this section is for. Maybe delete?
* Competitions
Anyone interested in taking on one of these sections? - Rocketmagnet 22:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Help

message: I am inclined to think we should have a separate page for robotics (the study of robots) and robots, but I would say currently the robotics page is way behind the robots page.  In particular, the robotics page has no references, whereas if it were really reflecting scientific or engineering disciplines it should have more references than robots.  It may be that it is not really sustainable to separate the concepts.  I've put up the "merge into"/"merge from" tags to see what others think.--Jaibe 12:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should keep them separate. The robots page is getting quite long, and it's only going to get longer. The robotics article will also be a fairly long page one day, with references too. Instead of merging them, why not improve the robotics article? Rocketmagnet 00:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh? Do you think the wkipedia definition of robotics is worse than the wiki definition of robot? The robots article is pretty good, despite the tricky definition. I'm sure the robotics article will be good one day too. -- Rocketmagnet 07:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: At the moment, the Robotics page isn't too good, and has much text which is more about Robots than Robotics. There is a great deal to do on that article. However, I do think we need a separate article. The Robots article is already very long, more than twice the recommended 32k. There is still a lot of information I believe needs to be added; more general topics about the concepts in robotics, e.g. (inverse) kinematics, modeling/simulating, trends in technology, more about what we can learn from robots, different types of control (simple sequence, subsumption architecture, evolutionary, etc.). The Robots article may not mention these topics, or may touch on them very briefly. Please, let's keep both articles, because we need them. -- Rocketmagnet 07:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent, we're agreed. Why not jump in and start making some changes? -- Rocketmagnet 12:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Or just jump in and move/delete those blocks of text which are in the wrong article. Maybe add some headers of sections you'd like to see written, and put a sentence of text under each one, then people can fill them out late. -- 84.45.206.219 17:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge from