Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics/Archive 2

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors See submissions through external academic peer review Format accepted articles Promote the journal Authors Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review) Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group. [1] Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001. [2] "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have started a wikiproject about Open Product Data, "codenamed" WikiObject.

I have started adding info related with Open Source Hardware world like:

• Components of a 3D Printer (Prusa I3 Hephestos) https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=27000417
• List of arduino official boards https://query.wikidata.org/#%23Items%20where%20manufacturer%20is....
• Open Source FPGA "IceZUM Alhambra" datasheet https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q25026145

It could be good to contribute togheter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qupro (talk • contribs) 12:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I just updated a page, MAHRU & AHRA. Feel free to check it out! --RainPearl233 (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I found this show fascinating and wonder how, when, if this brain/computer linkage can be useful for Wikipedia and whether WMF might want to be involved. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Robotics

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 18:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

As the WikiProject with the most specialised interest in machine learning articles, does anyone here have a view on the possible conversion of Template:Machine learning bar to a footer template? This sidebar has annoyed me for some time but the last comment on the template talk page (also expressing the same opinion) is two years old. Since this affects quite a lot of articles I'm hoping for at least some clue that this change wouldn't go against a contrary consensus before going ahead... Bigbluefish (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello all. I just updated the page, Epson Robots. Feel free to check it out. Any tips on how to improve are more than welcomed and much appreciated! (Smcarter37 (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC))

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Will someone please assess this draft as to its suitability to be moved into article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

A requested move to lower-case the name of the astronaut driven vehicle used for Moon exploration is at the link above. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I've just copyedited this article and there are a few specific outstanding issues (links and wording) that need expert attention. If anyone could have a look that would be brilliant. Thanks in advance.--Philologia (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi

I have reverted the image placed on the banner.

I cannot see any consensus for the change, and the image used was very sub-standard.

So, I guess we need to have some discussion about the image used, and whether or not it should be changed, and of so, what to?

I was OK with it as it was, though it may well be time for change.

Having said that, let's go!

The new 2018 image for the WikiProject seems to imply this wikiproject is fictional, or pertains to anthropomorphic robotics (androids), implying a limited scope. It would be better to have something less humanoid and less comicbook. Perhaps an industrial robot arm?

-- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

No idea why it was changed, but I have initiated a discussion and sort of vote section below so we can decide what, if anything, needs changing, and what, if anything, we feel needs updating.

I have also reverted to the original imaage - this is NOT Google Android lol Chaosdruid (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Was wondering if someone from this WikiProject would mind taking a look at this new article and assssing it. It looks like a first attempt at writing an article by a new user. Subject matter seems quite technical, and it reads more like an academic paper than a Wikipedia article. I tried to do some basic formatting cleanup, but perhaps someone here is familiair with the subject matter and can help with the phrasing, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorted I believe - Diaana has remnamed from caps, and it is now a redirect to CAPTCHA Chaosdruid (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Who in their right mind added a Robotics project line to Brainiac (character)? He's a fictional robot. Not an actual one. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? Did you not think that "he" is not even a "he"?

It's a robot, this is the robotics project - any robot, fictional or not, is within our scope. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Robotics. Is anyone from the project interested in updating this? Espresso Addict (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Shame it has gone, but the maintenance was too much for the one or two passing editors and I could not do everything on my own :( Chaosdruid (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

A redlink user wants to see in a crossbow trigger mechanism a cam (brief vid on mechanism). I disagree. Qualified opinions are welcome. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at the above article to make sure the formulas are correct? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I had a quick look, but as I do not have a clue what they mean, my input was futile (that's two robotics jokes in there btw) ... might be worthwhile canvassing some of the more mathematical sections for someone to help with checking it as this project is surprisingly resting like a parrot. I say suprisingly, because most people see robotics as part of other things, for example, space robotics, industrial robotics, and so we have very few active authors currently. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Passes_GNG_but_I_just_don't_think_it_belongs we are talking about Draft:Robot Robin, a robot built by a teenager in Bangladesh, and whether it is a notable subject. Your views would be appreciated. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to find some folks who can help review this draft and help clean it up for submission to AfC. I'm trying to use the feedback provided to improve and restructure the page. ( Ben AbioticSine (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC) )

I believe that AI falls under the remit of this WikiProject, so I am here to ask if an editor member could help review an article I've submitted at Articles for Creation for Plus, an autonomous trucking technology company based in Silicon Valley. The submission can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Plus_(company)

I am an employee of Plus and have a conflict of interest and I understand that the page needs to be carefully reviewed by editors. If editors here have any questions, I am more than happy to help. With gratitude, PlusJoc (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Onel5969, User:Chaosdruid and User:Curb Safe Charmer: Hi! I'm looking for editors to help review my draft at AfC and saw your names in the discussions above, and it looks like you're currently active on Wikipedia. Would any of you have some time to look? With gratitude, PlusJoc (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@PlusJoc: There's a queue for having drafts reviewed, currently with a seven week wait. Please wait your turn. We are volunteers here, whereas you get paid to work in marketing and communications. We are not here to help you promote your company. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I am here to remind you all that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many territories last week. It will last until November 30th or December 15th, depending on the areas.

WSC is organized every two years, and people from all countries can upload files (the goal are the international prizes) but specific national pages are also set up, for example for USA or Ireland or New Zealand. Such national competitions (when they exist) act as an additional incentive to participate.

We expect a sitenotice to show up for all readers here on enWikipedia as well, but probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission at the same time. In the meantime, if you are planing to upload some nice descriptive photo, infographics or video to Wikimedia Commons, please consider to submit them using the WSC interface, you might win a prize.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

In the Aurora Odysseus article - what is "and visited by the" meant to mean ? My best guess is that the text should be replaced by "and has been considered by" but I'm really not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southof40 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, full disclosure I am an employee of Agility Robotics, as such I don't think I can be an unbiased/objective editor. I'm hoping the folks working on this project can help me with evaluating whether Agility has enough notability to warrant a page. I think so, but again I am biased and would benefit from others assessment. Below is some of the coverage produced by 3rd party journalists. Thank you for any insight or thoughts you are willing to provide.

https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/21/agilitys-next-digit-robot-will-have-a-face-and-hands/

https://www.geekwire.com/2022/agility-robotics-raises-150m-from-amazon-and-others-to-build-robots-used-in-the-workplace/

https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/amazon-invests-in-robots-that-work-alongside-humans/

https://www.therobotreport.com/fords-package-delivery-tests-combine-autonomous-vehicles-bipedal-robots/

https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/inno/stories/profiles/2022/04/25/agility-robotics-factory.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/01/agility-robotics-building-two-legged-cassie-robot-and-delivery-robots.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2022/04/22/meet-the-startups-that-amazons-new-1-billion-industrial-innovation-fund-is-backing/?sh=6cd00ae025a4

If this community thinks the notoriety bar has been reached then I can work on a draft article, if that's even possible with my conflict of interest? Keganator (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Keganator. Welcome to Wikipedia. You're right to declare your conflict of interest, and are "strongly discouraged" from writing articles about employers and other close relationships. Note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a soapbox or means of promotion.

That being said, here's my estimation of the references you provided. I was only able to give each one a quick skim.

1. The TechCrunch article is a bit of puff piece. The consensus on Wikipedia is that TechCrunch can be a bit iffy.
2. Likewise for the GeekWire article. I wouldn't rate GeekWire as a particularly reliable source.
3. The ZDNet article seemed a bit better. ZDNet are generally considered to be a reliable source here.
4. The Robot Report article had more meat, although I'm not sure how much extrapolation they did from the video there. I normally rate Robot Report as "meh".
5. The Pittsburg Inno article seemed good. I saw no reason to doubt the quality of the journalism.
6. The Make It article seemed ok. I saw no reason to doubt the quality of the journalism.
7. The Forbes article didn't have much to offer. Forbes articles are generally considered to be reliable.

I would argue that, based on those references, your company is notable, and that a small article might be appropriate. There's not much in your references that a roboticist might get excited about.

Hope that doesn't sound too negative. There are many, many articles on Wikipedia with far worse references than those! -- Doktor Züm (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review and respond. Not negative at all, just objective review. I value your assessment (and the communities general regard) of those media sources. As a lay person I greatly appreciate the fact that Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for promotion. Thanks! Keganator (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, you can ask about references on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. (Just don't mention Fox News.) -- Doktor Züm (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

A merger proposal for military robot to lethal autonomous weapon has been started at Talk:Lethal autonomous weapon#Merge military robot to lethal autonomous weapon, input is appreciated. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I saw there is a draft for Neural Radiance Fields. It may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

FYI:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information fuzzy networks

You're invited to give your opinions.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, as a New Page Reviewer, I have stumbled across this article Force control. It was created as a translation of the German article at de:Kraftregelung. Can members of this project confirm if this is a content fork of an existing English Wikipedia article?

Please continue any further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#New article at Force control. Thank you, Fork99 (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

International Aerial Robotics Competition has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § AI for WP guidelines/ policies. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI, drone redirects are being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 24 -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Swarm Drone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) claims to be an India-only topic, and only a military aviation topic. Seems, a bit odd, since drone swarms are vastly used in advertising and artistic displays across the world, and espionage and military swarm drones exist outside of India. And there being swarms of non-aerial drones in research. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Robotics conventions#Requested move 30 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Robert C. Michelson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm wondering if any editors at this WikiProject would be interested in reviewing my AfC draft for Serve Robotics. I was very careful to write in a neutral, encyclopedic style and only cite high-quality sources (e.g., TechCrunch, VentureBeat, Bloomberg, The Verge, and Quartz). The draft was immediately declined and I would appreciate a thoughtful assessment from editors familiar with the subject area (namely, robotics and technology), so that I'm updating the draft in the right way before trying again, as I don't want to keep hitting a brick wall and wasting editors' time.

To me, the "written like an advertisement" tag feels unwarranted and is something I really really tried to avoid... but maybe there's something I'm missing. I'd welcome feedback from others. I know I'm coming from a biased perspective as the comms head at Serve so I would appreciate help in creating a neutral article that's a contribution to the Wikipedia community. Thank you! ServeAduke (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Meta Platforms#Requested move 29 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

There is an RFC at Talk:15.ai#RFC_on_Status_of_Web_Site on the status of the web site. Participation is invited. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The article Megasaurus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 12+ years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. No assertion nor evidence of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Speech-generating device has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)