Talk:Robotics

Differentiating from 'Robot' article
We already have a robot article, so this robotics one needs to be about robotics as the field of human study, employment, and research rather than the robots themselves. Made some edits and moved some content about robots themselves over there. Likewise, some of the content from robot which concerns the human field could be moved over here too.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 8 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tgs847.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * can /i /course /it\ 223.123.18.206 (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 14 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Wintersfire.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Mechatronics
I was wondering if reference should be made to the subject of mechatronics in the initial description where the related sciences are listed? I debated just adding it to the list but don't know if it can be listed as a science. I will leave the judgement to the regular editors of this article. Slink pink (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

tiny comment
Two robot snakes. Left one has 64 motors (with 2 degrees of freedom per segment), the right one 10. is that 10 degrees or motors ? it doesn't make it clear...180.181.67.106 (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For the RHS snake, it looks like a single degree of freedom hinge for each of its ten segments, not a ball joint etc., as on the LHS. So that's 10 DoF, probably 10 motors too. (Although snakebots do often share one actuator across several joints) Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow thanks to you I will be able to be a robotics Proud Ravenclaw (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Robotics and languages
Robots Invent Their Own Language. Well, perhaps we need to fill out the linguistics or communicative aspects in robotics. It's good for understanding first language acquisition in a very different approach. Komitsuki (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

External link removal: Plastic Pals
User Danim removed a link to Plastic Pals, an English website with a comprehensive listing of more than 450 robots. It is far more educational than Razor Robotics, which was allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamsSSessions (talk • contribs) 02:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I reverted your link additions to Plastic Pals becuase I treated them like spam. You have placed this link in many articles (Humanoid, Humanoid robot, Robotics, PaPeRo) in short period of time. You've also placed this link in Ropid, but I didn't revert it only because it was placed as reference..
 * Besides, in this case, I think that link to Razor Robotics suits better to Robotics article, because this page has lots of useful informations about robotics (guides about robot bulding, robot software, Artificial Intelligence, informations about robotics education, etc.). Plastic Pals mainly describes different models of robots, so I think it could be placed in Robot article, but before you do this it's better to ask about it on its discussion page.
 * Of course if you find link that suits better than Razor Robotics to Robotics article, you can discuss it here also.Danim (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well Plastic Pals has articles on more than 450 robots last I checked, most of them are humanoid, which is why I placed the link on the pages for Humanoid and Humanoid robot. Yes I placed them in a short time frame, because I feel they are highly relevant to anyone interested in them. Instead of treating links as spam maybe you should actually look at the content of the linked web page and make a decision based on that? --WilliamsSSessions (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd see it as a good link for domestic robot and not unreasonably (if linked to the right page) for humanoid robot. However it's not good enough to really sit on robotics (most robots are still industrial, not domestic) and certainly not on humanoid. Mostly though this is a human factors issue. Over-using a link annoys other editors, and the obvious backlash tends to remove it from everything. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Stelarc
Perhaps stelarc should be mentioned, see http://stelarc.org/?catID=20247

LTLMoP
Perhaps the Mae-robot/LTLMoP can be mentioned ? It seems to be made based on the NAO robot. See http://www.azorobotics.com/News.aspx?newsID=2270 91.182.116.161 (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not all that closely related to robotics though. The robot is just a platform. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

School project editing?
This article has had a swathe of new editors making ungrammatical and tonally inappropriate edits ("as we all know,the idea of robots will go back to ancient times of over 3000 years ago in India’s legend of mechanical elephants") over the past couple of days. Is this a school assignment whose teacher was unaware of the WP:INSTRUCTORS guideline? --McGeddon (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything salvageable since the last good version, just a lot of repetition, original research and test markup, so have just gone ahead and reverted it for now. --McGeddon (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The teacher User:Ollydbg has now left a message on my talk page apologising and suggesting that the article be reverted to what they see as the last good version, prior to the first student edit. I've gone ahead and done this. --McGeddon (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robotics. 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/20111109053615/http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/find-articles.pl?&ME06ART39&ME&20060709 to http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/find-articles.pl?&ME06ART39&ME&20060709
 * 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) 20:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

"Robotic aspects"...of Caterpillar tank tracks?
Under the heading "Robotic aspects", it lists three basic similarities shared by all robots. This is accompanied by a photograph of a WWII tank track and bogie mechanism bearing the caption "robotic construction". In my opinion, this is both poorly conceptualized and poorly expressed. If the objective is to express that robots typically have mechanical and electrical components, why is so much focus being placed upon a purely mechanical system such as a tank track? And labeling the photograph "robotic construction" is absurd; it is neither robotic, nor was it constructed by robots, nor does it depict a construction comprised of robots. Then there's the fact that the vast majority of robots today do not use a Caterpillar-type locomotion; most are stationary, and those that are mobile are predominantly wheeled. I think that this section needs to be thought-out more fully to find an example that is relevant to robotic technology, rather than century-old tractor technology. Bricology (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Asimov's laws
Most robots in use today have no means of following these laws, or prioritize them differently. For example, many industrial robots will crush a human if they get in the way, or crush another person if instructed by a human operator, so they are constructed with safety fencing to keep this from happening. They may or may not damage themselves in response to human commands depending on what safeguards have been put in by the manufacturer. The laws in the way Asimov was thinking about them generally only apply to robots powered by artificial intelligence, and are more relevant to writing fiction than modern robot design. I'm pretty sure they don't belong in the intro, but there also doesn't seem like a more appropriate section, so I was thinking of just removing mention entirely, except for maybe a "See also" link? Any thoughts? -- Beland (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the 3 Laws are a fictional device with no bearing to the modern (or for that matter, historical) field of robotics. Maybe in the future with AI-driven robots that will change. But until then I’ve removed the reference from the intro and history section. It’s still touched on in the etymology section. Don’t think anything else is needed, especially since the page for robot touches much more on the cultural role of robots. R0uge (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Need a different SCORBOT-ER photo
The photo of the SCORBOT-ER 4u educational robot has got to go. Due to the angle of the photo, it looks as if the robot is injecting something into someone's neck. And the person is even reaching back and grabbing at his upper back. What a disastrous photo!

Robots
Alot of people love robotics and many think that robots will take over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:7F8C:D200:F81F:6E25:2B07:7F1B (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Repeated information
The paragraph:

Robotics is a branch of engineering that involves the conception, design, manufacture, and operation of robots. This field overlaps with electronics, computer science, artificial intelligence, mechatronics, nanotechnology and bioengineering.[3]

Seems to be just saying what is said in the very first paragraph of the article with another words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.195.182.198 (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Definition
Hi

A recent edit changed the very definition of "robotics".

Can we please remember we have to stick to the most widely adccepted definotions, and any such major change would need consensus.

I do not agree, so it has not, and I suspect others will also agree it is not a good definition.

Why? Because definitions should define things, not make them more word-salad that no one understands, and is incomprehensibly indirect. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Atlas from boston dynamics.jpg

Robot
Robots are cool. 73.29.12.65 (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

"Socionics(CIT)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Socionics(CIT) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"Swarmanoid" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Swarmanoid and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"Robotics." listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Robotics. and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by StellaQuan441 (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)