Talk:Industrial robot

message: Note that this article meets all the requirements for a class B but due to a disagreement with the assessor it is being held at C. Moreover the quality scale states "For robotics articles, B-class will mean anything that's definitely better than the "Start" category, but doesn't fit the description of "GA" above."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Jdietsch 10:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment on focus of article 

message: Someone called Veiner removed the entire external links to robot manufacturers section. I've asked him why. He has made no contribution to industrial robot before as far as I can see. Maybe he thinks they are commercial. On the other hand the remaining 'other links' are distinctly commercial. For example I can't see why Tim King is in there at all. Unless anyone objects I propose to put back the links to manufacturers and edit the list of 'other links' to those that are relevant to industrial robot if any.
Robotics1 18:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: This looks like a good idea by the Bangladeshi student but he embedded his name even his phone number in the text. Plus the text was one long paragraph and needs to be made into a readable list. There had been so many edits with his name and phone number I just had to revert right back to the 18th august version. Removing each bit would have taken too long. The list can go back providing it is properly organized and has no name address and phone number.
Robotics1 08:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I want to make some major changes but I don't want to step on the toes of the original writer.
My main concern is 'movements and singularities'. I think this should move up above 'robot programming'. Then the part of 'movement and singularities' which describes point to point programming should be moved down to below and part of 'robot programming'. Then I would like to copy the part of 'robot software' which describes how this point to point program would actually be programmed using various languages used in industrial robots.
Coming back to what will be left of 'movement and sigularities' I would like to expand a little on robot movement. I can't actually see any singularities at all in this section but I may have a different understanding of the word singularity. I would like to put in an example of a singularity in terms of what can go wrong.
Any comments please.
Robotics1 21:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rework of this article. 

message: the article is about more then just about robot arms; the pictures must include other robots, other robots must be mentioned and perhaps some of the info can be moved to the robot arm article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.48.38 (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: pictures & focus

message: An external link was put in for this organisation by MartyRobar then removed by Andy Dingly as spam. I had a look t seems to be a non profit organisation and just the sort of external link that would contribute to this page. Doesn't look like spam to me. Any comments? Robotics1 (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it's legit, then re-add it. I removed this (and a batch of others) as it appeared to be a spam run across a number of articles, related to RCSA. It may well be that RCSA is reasonable as either or both an article, and as an EL. At the time it didn't demonstrate appropriateness for some of those to which it was added. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, thanks for the heads up. I didn't know about the others but I'll restore this one. Robotics1 (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robotics Certification Standards Alliance (RCSA) 

message: Yaskawa robotics home page says:
Yaskawa Electric Corporation
Head Office
2-1 Kurosaki-Shiroishi, Yahatanishi-Ku,
Kitakyushu, Fukuoka 806-0004
Japan
the US subsidiary is a subsidiary.
Nachi homepage lists the Tokyo HQ and the robotics division also HQ Tokyo.
Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation
Shiodome Sumitomo Building
1-9-2, Higashi-Shinbashi
Minato-Ku, Tokyo, 105-0021  Japan
Tel: 81-3-5568-5240
Fax: 81-3-5568-5236
Nachi Robot Engineering Co. Ltd
Shiodome Sumitomo Building
1-9-2, Higashi-Shinbashi 
Minato-Ku, Tokyo, 105-0021  Japan
Tel: 81-3-5568-5240
Fax: 81-3-5568-5236
Robotics1 (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yaskawa Motoman Robotics and Nachi Robotics 

message: This section has been tagged since March 2010.  It is clearly commercial with links to Wikipedia pages and webpages of preferred suppliers.  See WP:ELNO. Wikipedia does not support commercialism.  This section must go.  Rlsheehan (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank  you.  With these changes I have assessed the  article as a B rating.  Rlsheehan (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercialism - List of Suppliers 

message: See |WP:REF.  References and sources can be footnotes, in-line citations,  and general references such as books.  Grouping them makes sense.  This makes it clear that the books are indeed general references to support the article.  Rlsheehan (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel strongly about it, go ahead and revert me. I'm just not keen about using "general references", because they end up cluttering up the article. These references have been here so long that the original editor that added them is probably long gone and will never end up applying an inline ref. But like I said revert me if you like. Wizard191 (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  This is a good article.  The references are a little weak, yet not to the point of tagging it.  This inclusion of general references strengthens the article so  I could assess the article  as a B in Technology.  Rlsheehan (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I hadn't realized there was a discussion about this, sorry. But general references dot books does not seem to me to be any kind of improvement. This article is not a good article at all. It is already 8 years old and has changed very little. I added the paragraphs about repeatability but really it needs total restructuring. Tagging it or changing odd words here or there are not what is needed. That's just pruning, what we need is a creative effort. Robotics1 (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Rlsheehan if you are in the mood for pruning please take a look at robot software. It's a complete mess - a playground for every kid with a pet programming project. Half the article is external links. I just removed another asinine contribution by leaderpro but really it needs someone to wade in there with a flame thrower. Robotics1 (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

text: OK, consensus seems to be that the article should not include books as general references.  The lack of references now stops the article from earning a B Technology rating.  Rlsheehan (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting a bit confused here. I don't know how or when it happened but the section entitled "notes" used to be called "references" and it currently contains the reflist. So assuming no-one objects I will rename it references. I confess my reversion was incorrect on that one. Seems I have contributed to the confusion and my apologies to Wizard191 with whom I have collaborated in the past. I hope this is ok with you Wizard191. Notes is now references that are referenced from the article in the usual way. The list of further reading can be called anything you like but they are not references because they are not referred to in the article. Or am I missing something? They are further reading, no more and no less. As for the grade I don't think it matters if it is a B or a C grade. As far as I am concerned it is not a good article but it is accurate, unlike robot software. If anyone wants to know what industrial robots are about this is it. There isn't anything better. As soon as I get time I will start to make suggestions about restructuring and I hope others who are interested in robotics will join me. Robotics1 (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference section 

message: I have two improvements I would like to make:
First is to split this into two articles. Originally the section had movements and singularities mixed together with examples of programming steps. I already edited it a while back to put sinularity in its own paragraph.
I would like to split off the software part and edit the remaining so that movements are discussed in just a bit more detail, for example how 5 and 6 axis robots move which in turn leads to the problem of singularity. It could also include the differences between pick and place and continuous path motions.
The second (additional) section would be more about the programming and would list all that P1 P2 stuff. So as not to rock the boat I wrote a lump about how this programming is actually done in the most popular robot labguages. I researched the major manufacturers for examples of programming to make that lump, but I ended up putting that into robot software to try to give that article some support and maybe a bit of grounding. The article is rather ethereal for the most part. However someone already removed the link, that I had to restore and the robot software article is already under attack as being too ambiguous (see that talk page). I am inclined to bring that lump back to industrial robot in this new section. Any thoughts?
Robotics1 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: DONE Robotics1 (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movement and singularities 

message: I have removed this entire section for 2 reasons: 1 it's a foot in the door for people to add more and more companies - see earlier discussions above - 2 the numbers quoted can not be verified - or if they can then we need references. Robotics1 (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  manufacturers list on Industrial Robot 

message: I see the statistics from IFR for reference 4 are no longer available. I have written to them to see if they have an alternative reference. Robotics1 (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* Reference section */ 

message: Is this ok?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. — ¾-10 22:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going to add something on electric motor types used. 

message: Not familiar with robots, and new to editing wikipedia, but there is a type of soldering surface mount components referred to as "pick-and-place" (which involves a pick and place machine), the article is here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/SMT_placement_equipment -- when the main article refers to "pick and place" and links to the word "pick", I was a little confused.  I suggest altering that statement in a way that removes the ambiguity between "pick-and-place" soldering and picking up objects and placing them down (seriously, there has to be a better phrase for that.)
:First of all, re-factoring other peoples posts can be regarded in a bad light, as one is not really supposed to do that. I realise that your intent may have been simply to help by making obvious corrections, but please remember that some may take offence at being corrected.
:The term pick and place is correctly applied to robotic machines and robots that perform that series of actions, picking up and placing down - be they a P&P machine such as those used for components on a soldering board, Freddy II or for palletising, or indeed for any other robotic device that uses such a process some examples at the bottom, pic is of one such application. Pick-and-place is not limited to PCB construction, in fact most SMT machines are robotic machines rather than robots. The picture of the German robotic arms used for palletising bread products is a good example of a large pick and place robotic system (top of the page on the right).
:The article SMT placement equipment is limited to PCB construction. I am assuming you are talking about the first paragraph of the article, I have corrected the links for clarity. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pick and Place ambiguous? 

message: Such figures would be the best concrete description of where robot manufacturing stands in relation to the human workforce. The rate of growth at a net level, and in key industries would also be very relevant figures for the article. 65.102.241.122 (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: What Percentage of Total World Manufacturing is Done by Robots? Also, what is the Breakdown By Industry?

message: My edit was reverted by Andy Dingley with the comment "no this is quite wrong". Andy, you could be right, but rather than leave me guessing as to why could you not have put in an explanation? I have looked after this page for some years; most of what you see here are incremental edits by myself. If I make a mistake I am open minded enough to agree but surely some explanation would be only polite? Robotics1 (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between accuracy and precision is widely described, even if not so widely understood. The distinction with repeatability is a little less clear: sometimes being regarded as a form of accuracy, sometimes as a third measure in its own right. However what's very clear is  that it isn't the same thing as precision. Of the two, repeatability is closer to accuracy than it is to precision. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. However certainly accuracy and repeatability are not the same and that is covered in ISO 9283. Sure people do think that they are the same but they are not. I had to actually purchase my copy of ISO 9283 to refine that section. Repeatability is not close to accuracy according to that paper. The description of precision vs accuracy is virtually the same. When I came across that article I could see the similarities and thought a cross link would be good. Looking back through the accuracy vs precision article history I see at one time it was descibed using targets. That is exactly the same as in robotics. So it is not true to say "no this is quite wrong", maybe "I think this is wrong" with explanation. Maybe put something in the talk page. Why didn't I put something in the talk page first? Because whenever I do I rarely get a response from anyone so I go ahead anyway. Can you give me more information on your POV please. Robotics1 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

text: done some more research and thinking. Although as you say the distinction with repeatability is less clear the standards do make it very clear and it is those we should write about, not perceptions. However I think the mathematical/statistical approach is different so they are not the same exactly. The accuracy and precision article is so clear and understandable I think it is a valuable link from repeatability. I have changed it to "similar" rather than "same as". It's worth keeping the link because the precision article explains things so well. If I were to try to explain repeatability with diagrams etc. I would probably end up with the same thing. Robotics1 (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  repeatability vs precision 

message: I have removed the references to Comau in the last paragraph of history of industrial robotics. Even though they are a major provider of robot arms they are not part of the history of robot arms in the way that Staubli and ABB are. We used to have a list of robot manufacturers and removed it by agreement between various editors. If we allow Comau in this paragraph next we'll have Kawasaki, Reis, Epson, Tenso, Denso, etc etc. Please leave this paragraph alone.
Robotics1 (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comau 

message: It will be good if someone can create "World's largest industrial robot manufacturers" page, something similar to Automotive industry page.-.@Photnart. (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: trouble was we had a simple table of manufacturers and more and more were added until it got ridiculous. If we have a largest manufacturer table then we have to set a criterion. Also largest may not be the most interesting or noteworthy. Robotics1 (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

text: A table of manufacturers should not be included.   This would be providing commercial links and advertising.  Wikipedia is not a shopping list.   Rlsheehan (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I understand where you are coming from. That's why initially I supported the list. But gradually more and more names were added including the great many companies making hobby kits. That left us with deciding criteria for inclusion and that got contentious. A separate list like the one you quoted might be good if other editors support it and if criteria can be agreed. Robotics1 (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturers 

message: Someone added a whole section titled Robot Simulation. But there was already a paragraph "Offline Programming" which is the same thing near enough and there was some duplication. The new section was also wordy and large and seemed to promote Robologix. I have removed some of the text into the paragraph about offline programming and removed the new section entirely. The text by the author of the new section are largely still there but in the old section with some duplication and repetition removed. Robotics1 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robot Simulation 

message: Cwlin9011112 added a substantial section on the advantages and disadvantages of offline and online programming that I have temporarily removed as it needs discussion. Offline programming is described already in the article. The addition by Cwlin9011112 is factually correct but is top heavy compared to the rest of the article. It is almost an article in itself. It should perhaps be shortened and integrated into the existing article. It needs to be discussed before a section this big is added to the article. Robotics1 09:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of offline and online programming by Cwlin9011112 

message: There is a problem with the lead section because manufacturing is the only industry described as using robots.  Why not include robots in the mining and agricultural industries? For example this page from MINING.com refers to the use of automated trucks to haul iron ore.  - Fartherred (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What about automated trucks makes them incompatible with the industrial robot category?   May be that what is really needed is a renaming of the article to Robots in Manufacturing.  - Fartherred (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

text: "Unimation robots ... called programmable transfer machines" are referred to in the article.  They were used "...to transfer objects from one point to another..."  It seems to me that automated trucks are just as much robots as those Unimation robots and mining is just as much an industry as manufacturing.  - Fartherred (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

text: I have decided to put the issue right in the hands of the reader.  My edit of the article shows what I think.  If there is a better solution, have at it.  - Fartherred (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Robots in other industries than manufacturing

message: Unfortunately I didn't log in enough and my notifications expired. Consequently I did not see the addition of Norman Heroux as being the inventor of the Unimate robot. I have searched the internet and his obituaries and I see he was a field service engineer at Unimation. George Devol holds (held) the patent so George Devol invented the industrial robot. Devol employed engineers and Heroux was no doubt one of them. Maybe Heroux *designed* the Unimate while working for Unimation and George Devol. That does not make him the inventor. The only references I can find to that connection are extremely vague, for example one link is 404, one link ends up with "pecfest15 Girl is gone rap in battle"; next goes to iq option trading; wikiomni is a page of code and pictograms; next goes to binomo trading; next is a link to hitchhikers guide to the galaxy but it's some German spoof and heroux was only added in August and what's more all the content is "redirected from Wikipedia". Many other links such as wordaz simply refer back to wikipedia. It looks to me like a deliberate attempt to get google coverage to bring people from Wikipedia to these various trading sites. There is certainly evidence that Heroux worked for Unimation and the Bridgeport news mentions he gave a talk in 1972 but that is only genuine article and it does not mention inventor. Therefore I intend to delete all references to Norman Heroux and if anyone has any genuine evidence please discuss it with me. Robotics1 (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norman Heroux 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Industrial robot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121224213437/http://www.ifr.org/uploads/media/History_of_Industrial_Robots_online_brochure_by_IFR_2012.pdf to http://www.ifr.org/uploads/media/History_of_Industrial_Robots_online_brochure_by_IFR_2012.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified