Talk:Ubiquitous robot

Untitled
Hi TheFlyer, I'm delighted to see your work on this page. Correct me or revert me if I'm wrong, but I believe per MOS we shouldn't cede the term "ubiquitous robot" to any one research group until their work is so compelling that everyone starts using the term that way. &mdash; Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dan, Thank you for contributing to my initial edits. I assume MOS is Manual of Style, correct? If so, to which specific element of MOS are you referring? This is a minor point however, as I believe your linkage to Ubiquitous computing is correct.  They do seem to be very similar topics and it may well turn out that in time "ubiquitous robot" will becomes an element of the bigger topic of ubiquitous computing though there may also remain subtle differences that would keep these articles separate.  I think your current add to the beginning of the article correctly links the terms and it'll be interesting to see how the articles evolve over time.   One final point. I take some umbrage with your talk statement stating your objection to ceding a term to "some guys in Korea".  These "guys" are academic researchers; I have no reason to believe they are anything but respected researchers and considering that Asia is far more advanced than the good ole US of A with respect to robotics, I think it could well prove appropriate that this term be attributed to them in the long run.  But, we've got the discussion started and eventually the editors of Wikipedia will get it right.  Theflyer (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I wrote "some guys in Korea"...that is exactly the kind of phrase that I would edit out, and give someone a good talking to for saying it. And you're right, these are very respected researchers, part of the reason that Korea gets such high praise for its robotics research.  I'm a lifelong member of the ACLU, and I'm generally very sensitive to avoiding phrases that could even conceivably be condescending or bigoted.  I changed it to what I meant, "any one research group".  Yes, I meant WP:MOS ...and I even got that wrong, I meant WP:Policy.  In the spirit of WP:Neutral Point of View and WP:Conflict of Interest, we can't let any one research group claim to have the one true "ubiquitous robot" when a quick Google search shows that lots of other people have used the term for their robots...at least, not until everyone agrees that theirs is in some sense definitive. Dank55 (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with your last sentence and thank you for modifying your verbiage to better reflect what you meant to say. Theflyer (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)