Talk:Robot/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Structure of the Opening Paragraphs and History Sections

Before I do anything drastic, I wanted to open this one up. I think that the opening before the table of contents should be shortened to about three or four solid paragraphs, and the rest moved to the Overview and/or history sections.

Additionally, I think the list under the beginning of the history section makes it hard to read through the article and should be moved to the "History of Robots" article. That section in general seems too lengthy, and any parts taken out, should in my opinion be moved to the History article as well. Anyone have any thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickCarbone (talk • contribs) 22:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks good to me as far as it goes. Problem - there are still no sources cited in the lead, which has created more problems. The starting definition right now is "A robot is a mechanical device that can perform tasks automatically". That def is contradicted by a following section on "Telerobots" - a robot that does not perform tasks automatically. This article really needs information that can be verified by external reliable sources and cited in-line, starting with a definition. I found some sources re: and we can probably pull up more.... giving a def of "autonomous, semi-autonomous or remotely controlled". There may be better source. Yes, history should be moved, if it can be verified, and summarized in the lead. I did allot of this once already, it should now be continued since WP:BURDEN for reverting back to the old version was never fulfilled (see "Edited Lead" section above). So, yes, I think edits should continue along the lines you have followed so far.... just edits need to follow WP:RS. Larger sections of the lead, and the article for that matter, should simply be deleted as un-verified at this point. Most of section "Defining characteristics" can be deleted because it tries to teach by example instead of giving any referenced description. The rest of the article seems to follow the same way, allot of WP:OR, very little WP:V. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bryn, thanks for your reply. Yes, I think we need to add in the references in the beginning - it shouldn't be hard to do. Maybe the hardest area to cite would be vague or general references that talk about the history of robotics in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. Right now, the other issue I see is that the article is very much like a giant list, which makes it not so much an article as a large set of article stubs all on one page. -PWC 11:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickCarbone (talk • contribs)
I like the changes so far. I think the article would also benefit from clearly distinguishing between real and fictional robots. Mllyjn (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The opening paragraph used to be much better, and the definition certainly didn't include clocks. Please take a look. It was the result of a great deal of work and discussion, and it's a shame to see that all that has eventually eroded away. Rocketmagnet (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

The word robot was introduced to the public by the Czech interwar writer Karel Čapek in his play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots), published in 1920.[40] "to the public"--correct but the first use was in a letter Karel to his brother. How should this be added? Wikkrockiana (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

With a reference. Seriously - how we mention it (if at all) might depend on the context within the letter, and the context of the letter itself. Do you have a link, or can you quote enough of the letter to give the context? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect from Robert Williams (robot fatality) but no info

Page for people with name Robert Williams references one who was killed by a robot, but no info about this is in the page itself. Digitalmaven (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the reference from the disambiguation page. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Trivia

The whole page reads like a set of trivia entries. Automata should be moved to their own page and should not be covered in any great detail here. I was amazed that someone seriously wrote that Al-Jazari's robots weren't employed as workers because manual labour was still cheap back then. It seems that people writing big chunks of this article only know about robots from watching TV and reading comic books. I also dislike the undertone about robots stealing/taking human jobs. Plenty of robots perform jobs that just weren't done before. I'd like to clean up the article by removing most discussion about automata, job-stealing and arbitrary categorising, but I thought I should get some agreement before I go ahead. Owen214 (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I took a big whack at it in February since the lead seemed to be an obvious un-encyclopedic un-referenced essay (see Edited Lead above). Another editor reverted what I did because...... well, I never got a clear answer on why to keep the content, at least as far as Wikipedia goes. I left the revert in case other editors wanted to fulfill WP:BURDEN. We are 6 months out now and I guess WP:BURDEN is never going to be fulfilled. So yeah, feel free to cut all the unreferenced stuff out. I would note that there seems to be very little (no?) reliable sourcing in the article (including no referenced definition as to what a robot is) so following WP:V would mean knocking this article back to a stub, at this point there is just no "there there". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I like the changes you have suggested. Perhaps fictional and real robots should be discussed separately as well? Mllyjn (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Usage of robots in the worls

Many countries now use robots. Many modern day people have robots installed in their homes. The countr that most uses robots is Japan. There is about 356,000 robot installations throught the small country. The second biggest user of robots is Germany. The people of Germany have installed roughly 121,000 robots so far. The people of the United States come in third with about 115,000 robot installations. In Italy, italians have installed approximatly 53,000 robots. South Korea is fifth. They have installed roughly 51,000 robots. France has installed about 28,000 robots, and Spain too. With about 22,000 robot installments, Spain is the seventh country that has installed the most robots. Great Britain has installed about 14,000, and Taiwan has installed about 12,000 robots. Finally, Sweden. Taking tenth place, Sweden has installed about 7,000 robots. Jules3676 (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Lucy Suchman

Might I suggest Lucy Suchman be mentioned in this article? Her work focuses on "robot" as a human-machine relationship as a subject object. She writes, "Three stagins of human-robot encounters (with the robots Mertz, Kismet and Robota respectively) demonstrate different possibilities for conceptualizing these subject objects, for the claims about humanness that they corporealise, and for the kinds of witnessing that they presuppose" in her article "Subject Objects". Her work as a whole contributes greatly to the work of feminist technoscience and nonhuman objects, and her inclusion would benefit a holistic entry of "Robot" as a wikipedia page. Taylor Bohl (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

GAR link

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Robot/1 robots areuseful to human beings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.249.253.29 (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2013

Etymology - The word "robot" is derived from Slovak "robota", which means work. 89.173.212.174 (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. The article already mentions the word "robota" and the fact that it means work in many Slavic languages. — Reatlas (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Usage of the term during WW2, and entry into common parlance

During World War 2, Nazis developed ballistic missiles [1] [2] which were commonly refered to as "robots". The word gained prominence in this regard before Asimov's definition took over. Does anyone want to take a stab at including this information under "history" or "etymology" or even "trivia"? I think it's a notable hole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambiguator (talk • contribs) 17:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

References? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Collaborative robots section copyedited

PaintedCarpet (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

robot

robot is a machine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.246.35 (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Graphics in the Robot article

Simplified robottypes.svg

  • machine millers--> machine mills
  • cloth washers-->clothes washers
  • robot arm-->robot arms all should be plural

Wikkrockiana (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This image appears to be whimsical and not illustrative in nature. It seems to not be useful for the article, and I submit that it should be removed. (Though, admittedly, it's pretty cute.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyne (talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

    • Agreed, it looks like a children's drawing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.163.158 (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

laparoscopic machine

The graphic of "A laparoscopic robotic surgery machine" is inappropriate for this article. The system depicted is the daVinci surgical assist system, which is always under the control of a surgeon, not a "surgical robot" as it is unfortunately called in the media. A "surgical robot" would function autonomously, without the concurrent control of a surgeon. To date, no such system has been approved for clinical use. 24 Aug 2012

Shoshone7110 (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If the definition of "robot" includes "remotely controlled" then it would be a robot. Problem is the article is so badly written its hard to say. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

robotic technology is the most advanced technology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.249.253.29 (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Robots in society sources

The sources cited in the Robots in society section are all at least 6 years old and I believe no longer accurate because robots are a quickly developing technology. Also, they don't support the generalized claims made in this section. I suggest deleting this section if better sources are not available. Mllyjn (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Here are two sources that contradict the view that view presented in this section:
At the very least the situation is more complex than is presented here. Mllyjn (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Your right, its allot of old sources and OR/Weasel word combinations such as "experts and academics have increasingly explored" "Some experts and academics have questioned" and "A recent example of human replacement". Section should be deleted, its not encyclopedic and adds nothing to the article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I have deleted the section. Mllyjn (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

the robots is good :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.218.172.94 (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Lives of the Necromancers as a source for Category:Roboticists

Perhaps Category:Legendary roboticists would be more appropriate given most of the people listed by William Godwin are historical figures. I've encountered problems saying El Cid was a mythological swordsmen; however legends can be both historical and mythological figures; people are more commonly referred to as legends in their fields not myths in their field. Pope Sylvester II, Albertus Magnus, Virgil and several others are said to have had constructed brazen heads. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo credit

The article contains a photo with the credit appearing on the photo caption visible in the article. Should this be removed? I think all photos on Wikipedia list their credits in the photo description page rather than in the articles. Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2014

Change "has" to "have" in "has been addressed in fiction". Ro(b)ottttttt (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Done thanks. Sorry the page has had to be protected because of persistent vandalism. Dmcq (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Word and its Author's origin

The word ROBOT is not a purely czech word. It comes from Russian RABOTA which means work. In Slovak, ROBIT' means to work, to make, to do. For the author's origin, he is Czechoslovak, at the time Czech republic and Slovak republic were together in one country.

Please check for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_%C4%8Capek

from there you can see:

Etymology of robot

"Karel Čapek introduced and made popular the frequently used international word robot, which first appeared in his play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) in 1920. While it is frequently thought that he was the originator of the word, he wrote a short letter in reference to an article in the Oxford English Dictionary etymology in which he named his brother, painter and writer Josef Čapek, as its actual inventor.[13] In an article in the Czech journal Lidové noviny in 1933, he also explained that he had originally wanted to call the creatures laboři (from Latin labor, work). However, he did not like the word, seeing it as too artificial, and sought advice from his brother Josef, who suggested roboti (robots in English).

The word robot comes from the word robota, meaning literally "serf labor", and, figuratively, "drudgery" or "hard work" in modern Czech (in Slovak, Russian, archaic Czech and other Slavic languages the cognate word means simply "work", comparable to German Arbeit, with the same meaning; in Polish, both shades of meaning are extant.)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.41.228.80 (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please: a one-line summary of the above, with link to e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossum%27s_Universal_Robots#Origin_of_the_word deserves to be placed at the end of the opening paragraph to this article, don't you think? Fjados (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

the word 'robot' is not a czech word at all and neither russian, it is a root word 'rob' in the slovak language for 'work'. russians say rabota not robota like in slovak, robotnik is a slovak word for worker, in czech language is 'delnik' and russian is 'raboci'. it has nothing to do with the word 'slave'. slave in slovak is 'otrok' the word 'robotovat' in slovak means doing hard labor. another example between czech and slovak use of the word is, if you ask in slovak how much money you made, you would say 'kolko si zarobil'. in czech its 'kolik si videlal', in slovak when you as somebody what are you doing you say 'co robis', in czech it's 'co delas'. i speak and can read both languages and the root word 'rob' is slovak for work,labour and job. root word for work in czech is 'del' as you can see in the examples that i put up. so clearly karel capek used a slovak word and tried to make it a czech word which wikipedia should maybe take a look into just to get the facts right. thank you. ronald konig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.10.182 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Robot fans for stadiums

Already installed in one. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

RoboEarth ?

shouldn't we need to mention this in the article ? See RoboEarth — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

No this is a hardly noticeable EU project. Even mentioning it would give it undue attention. Arnoutf (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary uses

Criminal activity

Some vehicles are being used for illegal drug traffick. For example submarines have allready been created for this purpose.

Add in article

source? --danthemango (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2014


--122.176.122.121 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)--122.176.122.121 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)--122.176.122.121 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)--122.176.122.121 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)--122.176.122.121 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)--122.176.122.121 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)--122.176.122.121 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)--122.176.122.121 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Etymology of word robot.

Word rob means in Czech "let's work" and ot is common end in Czech for masculine noun. Word robot mean command somebody else to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambavlna1 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Etymology.

Etymology Word rob means in Czech "let's work" and5s ot is common end in Czech for masculine noun. Word robot mean command somebody else to work. Adambavlna1 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as explained in the etymology section, it is from the Czech robota (“drudgery, servitude”) - "Karel Čapek himself did not coin the word. He wrote a short letter in reference to an etymology in the Oxford English Dictionary." - so, the person who invented the word explained it - that is the origin we will stick with. - Arjayay (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC) I was not writing about who coin the word. I was writing about Czech language explanation bout Karel Capek and his brother Josef used czech language. Your answer is big misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambavlna1 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015

Another explanation word robot is rob means in Czech "let's work" and ot is a common end in Czech for masculine noun. I dont understand this t's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Absolutely do not understand. Adambavlna1 (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2015

I think this following link should be placed within the section "External Links": https://robots.zeef.com/roberta.roboter0 Lehmos (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: This does not look like a WP:RS. Seems to perfectly fit WP:ELNO Cannolis (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2015

Cybermen

External links modified

Boston Dynamics robot pictured at the top of the article is not the Cheetah Robot, it is the BigDog robot. The Cheetah robot looks very different.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2016

External links modified

Educational robots

Mention of Nikola Tesla Radio controled Torpedo ?

Sexist Robotics

Limitations of humanoid robots

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2017

Thanks from the Tatar Wikipedia participants

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Suggested Citation for Educational Robots (Programming)

Remove '(also called droid)' at the top please!

External links modified

About the Foxconn's 3-year-plan in the section Relationship to unemployment

Proposed merge with Robert Williams (robot fatality)

Toy section needed

History of the term "robot"

Robot Toys

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI