Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Robotics (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconWikipedia:WikiProject Robotics is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Assistance with Draft:SuperDroid_Robots_Inc.Edit

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) )

Article for review at AfC: Plus (autonomous trucking)Edit

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:

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)

Wiki Science Competition 2021Edit

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)

Aurora Odysseus article - what is "and visited by the" meant to mean ?Edit

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 (talkcontribs) 04:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

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" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

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)

Help assessing notorietyEdit

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.


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)