Talk:Remotely operated underwater vehicle

message: I would like to include at least a link to the Robot Wars article. To my mind, combat robots are clearly remote operated vehicles. Most examples do not have a two-way communication link, relying instead on being in sight of the operator at all times, so I would also like to change this definition. Does anyone object?
:This article is about underwater robots, not any type of R/C vehicle/toy.  Though I do enjoy both shows--and your enthusiasm of Wikipedia--, I'm afraid that you'll have to add those links on a more appropriate article.  Also, when you add a comment to a talk page, please sign your comments with four tildes (~) as it makes life a lot easier for editors.  Thank you,  Montgomery' 39 (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Robot Wars/BattleBots

message: The term ROV is an industrial defintion and widely used in the oil/gas and communications industry that rely on submersible ROV's.  The merging of the RCV section into this ROV entry will cause confusion about the term ROV IMHO.  It is true that in the early days of ROV's they were sometimes referred to as RCV's but this term is no longer in favour in the offshore industries.  For the same reason I disagree that the Robot Wars article be linked.  ROV's are not really robots.
--PeterMarkSmith 03:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand the difference between ROVs and RCVs, but about the Robot Wars. Although it's called Robot Wars, it's actually mostly ROVs. (or RCVs, I'm still not understanding the difference) Although automated robots are allowed, still, it's very rare. --PokeOnic 01:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ROV is an industrial definition

message: I am currently offshore on an ROV support vessel in the Gulf of Mexico.
My exposure to ROV technology goes back to the early 1980s and no one I can recall ever referred to them as anything but ROVs.
It is not an accurate name since the word vehicle implies that a person could ride in it. But the name stuck and I believe the inclusion of RCV should be no more than a “See Also” link.
John S Poteet
"Underwater robots" were first called RCVs (Remote Controlled Vehicles). However back in the 70's a company called Hydro Products manufactured and produced an RCV225, one of the first "underwater robots". They copywrited the name RCV. Hence others started calling them ROVs which is where the name came from and has stuck ever since.
Ray Shields  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.38.115 (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ROV is an industrial definition...continued

message: These are valuable external links, please do not delete them. I suspect that none of these companies will make any sales by being listed in Wikipedia. As much as I love the Wikipedia project, it is not the place you go when you want to buy  a few million dollars of high-tech underwater gear. On the other hand, if you are trying to learn about high-tech underwater gear; these external links offer valuable information on their company websites. To include all companies is very democratic but completely ignores the fact that not all companies are equal. I have no interest shares or affiliations with Oceaneering nor do I benefit from their success.  I do know them however and they are a bunch of good engineers who build a large percentage of the world's ROVs.  To not mention them, would be akin to writing an article about microprocessor without mentioniong Intel.  
On a different note, I did add two ROV pictures today. It took a while to get them, I think they are extremely cool. It is amazing that we can do these things in the deep ocean. Do you agree? 
:Aside from our shared amazement, I disagree - especially in regards of the analogy of the CPU and Intel.  While they are a large, known company, they are most certainly not the Intel of the ROV world.  I feel they would be more akin to Wal-Mart in that aspect, but that isn't the point we're trying to discuss.  I just find no relevant information pertaining to further education of ROVs on Subsea 7 or Oceaneering's website other than a few specs on the ROVs that they have available.  If the websites are updated to show informative ROV content, then I have no problems with them listed.  In regards to Bluefin, I retract my previous request for removal.  Further browsing on the website uncovered some ROV videos that goes great with this article.  Excellent pictures, by the way  Maotx 21:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't care either way, I just want what benefits the reader.  Subsea has some decent ROV information.  What does Oceaneering provide for the reader?  Maotx 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsea 7, Oceaneering, and Bluefin

message: There is a deliberate attempt by a small unknown company to introduce their name in this article. I will keep deleting this vandalism until it stops. Please stop trying to build market recognition this way. First if all it does not work and secondly ,and more importantly, it misinforms the honest reader. Lastly if you disagree please discuss it and sign your comments rather than vandalize a good article anonymously
I don't see any advertising in this article. Just because there are mentions of companies doesn't mean that is advertising. People who are interested in ROVs need to know about the history and ROVs from the past and present. They also need to know about the broad range of ROVs that exist. Also Frank it seems you are an AUV guy more so than an ROV guy. Maybe you would be better suited on the AUV page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUV
*Bluefin is an AUV manufacturing company. Being in the industy, I see many misconceptions as far as what people think ROVs and AUVs are. I don't think there is any need to link to Bluefin other than them promoting themselves. They already have their link on the Wiki AUV page.
== I agree . it sounds like to me that the poster frank was one in favor of advertising other companies along with his and now since other disagree with that all mentions of names should be delted. i like all the info in the current article and think oceaneering and subsea 7 are good links at the bottom.
:I really don't care either way, I just want what benefits the reader.  Subsea has some decent ROV information.  What does Oceaneering provide for the reader?  Maotx 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising

message: *The Scorpio ROV is a class or type of ROV that doesn't expand on the ROV article in general. It seems to be just for promoting all the links in the article and wouldn't help the ROV reader looking to gain information. May be best to leave it off so it doesn't start a trend of other see also links for classes, vehicles or companies.
Please sign your comments
__________________________________________
Thanks for your interest. I wish some of my other articles would get this much attention. When I found this page in May, it did not have a single good picture and it was mostly talking about remotely controlled drones. Since then I believe it is moving in the right direction. At least it now has information on real ROVs. I am also proud of the images that I uploaded. Although I never worked at an ROV company, I have visited several ROV manufacturers and know many of the engineers that work on this technology both in the science and commercial markets. I sincerely believe that the Scorpio ROV article is interesting and written from a neutral point of view. I have no commercial allegiance to the Scorpio folks. They are however a good example of a real ROV. The last person who was trying to get their company name on this page was someone selling a glorified tow fish. I believe that vandalism has now successfully been repelled. This is not the case with the Scorpio link. 
:Because the Scorpio is a well known class of ROV used by professionals throughout the world and is a model that current generations look at, I agree that it's relevance on this page is appropriate. Maotx 15:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scorpio Link

message: There is no need for the Phx reference. I think we should keep this article clean of external links and references. This is a place for people to learn about ROVs, not for companies to promote. - In the vehicles classification, you can just state an ROV has been developed to go 7000 m. There is no need to elaborate and put a reference to try and promote phx. I am sure if people want more information specifically on that they can go to google and search for 7000 m rov and it will come up as the first result. - Lets keep this a clean article with just forward facts and info and no get caught up in the advertising and external links like tons of other articles are.
*I did not consider it advertising and saw it relative to the statement made about the Titanic.  You are right, Google does bring it up and that is how I found the reference for citation.  On the other hand, you have removed the reference to 7000m in conjunction with Titanic all together, therefore removing the need for the citation.  I can live with that too.  Maotx 04:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: I've never heard ROV called an RPV. Every RPV I've ever heard of was an aircraft. Shouldn't the redirect be to UAV?  Trekphiler 15:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RPV?

message: I removed the list of links to manufacturers' websites per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkfarm

message: Is Roboshark considered an ROV, or some other type of robot?  If Roboshark is indeed an ROV, I guess it would be appropriate to add Roboshark to the see also, and .  If anyone has any suggestions/answers, please contact me on my talk page.  Thank you.  Montgomery' 39 (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roboshark: ROV or other type of robot 

message: Its seems possible that mini-sized ROVs equipped with motion sensors can be parked underwater/garaged and tethered to electrical cables that link them with a computer that is programmed with specific known wavelength/motion data (fish, gators, swimmers etc.) so that it can signal when a human body enters its 'territory' range but does not exit the area (i.e., a potential drowning) and emit a timed detection siren and/or flashing lights connected from the garage to its roof/surface.   beadtot66.217.68.79 (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  canal/harbor monitors 

message: *Copyedit
*Check article for factual accuracy
*Check previous concerns in above comments were addressed
*Check refs
*Reassess when done
Chaosdruid (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Robotics attention needed

message: This is the use I'm most familiar with, especially concerning aircraft, but there doesn't seem to be a convenient place to cover this function. ROV's have been use to discover numerous crashed aircraft and retrieve their wreckage and flight recorders. I think covering those operations would help this article quite a bit. Dcs002 (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search & recovery/salvage operations 

message: , I see that you have partly changed the abbreviation used in the article from ROV to ROUV. Do you have any evidence that this is the more usual usage? My experience in the diving industry is that they are usually referred to as ROVs, not ROUVs. Please ping with reply. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I renamed it ROUV because it directly means remotely operated underwater vehicle like article's name, whereas ROV is remotely operated vehicle. Oranjelo100 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I do not dispute that ROUV is a valid acronym, I asked whether you have reason to assume that it is the more common usage, which goes against my experience in professional diving. Any ROUV is necessarily a ROV, and as far as I know ROV is what they are usually called in practice. I have no objection to changing consistently to ROUV if evidence is available that that is the more common term. If you just changed it because it looked more accurate, that is a good faith edit but not a valid one. At present both acronyms are used in an inconsistant way, which looks unprofessional, and I would like to clarify and clean up, but at this point it is my opinion vs yours, and while I know what my opinion is based on, I have no idea of what yours is based on, so I am asking. I can provide reliable sources indicating that ROV is widely and internationally recognised as an acronym for these devices in professional diving. It is clear that ROUV can be and is used, but not to what extent. I would prefer further clarification to avoid misunderstanding or misrepresentation, but on the balance of evidence currently available to me, I intend to revert to mostly ROV with an explanation of apparent usage. If you or anyone else can come up with reliable evidence that ROUV is more suitable we can change the article to reflect that. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I have amended the article to clarify usage as I understand it. Is this sufficiently clear? Your comment would be appreciated. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has rules specifically against using made-up acronyms. ROUV is not a legit term for anyone who know anything about ROVs. Konreal (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ROV or ROUV? 

message: The Configurations section says ROVs “have three basic configurations” but lists only two. I have no idea how many there are. Colintedford (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Configurations: 2 or 3?