Talk:Robotics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm against a merge. Similar to below. Its the same as the difference between programming a game and playing it. HD

I am against merging this article with robot. Robotics and robot are two different things in the same way that fine cuisine and ovens are different. The science of robotics has a lot of potential for its own article and should absolutely not be merged. 67.68.4.208User:Beltz

Against merging the article, due to the distinction mentioned above. The page could use a little cleaning and reflection on the current state of robotics, but the science of robotics is very different than the cultural and mechanical icon that is the word robot itself.

I am against merging this article with robot. for the resons mentioned above. --maayan 20:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I too, am against merging these categories. Robots are entities, robotics is the study of them and how to improve them. However, it is interesting to note that this artical attempts (poorly) to differentiate between "mobile robots" or "autonomous robots", it only refers to "robotics" that are not fully autonomous and "robots" that are mobile. Food for thought. pes

Should robotics be a category that links from robots as it is the study of how to use and program robots? I believe that all kinds of robots could be discussed under robots, with web crawlers hived off with disambiguation. Robot wars type robots are not really robots at all but radio controlled vehicles with attachments most of which cannot even be described as arms. These *could* be included or 'disambiguated' off. Mobile robots to be called robots should be autonomous IMO. If 'telerobotics' is to be included as in nuclear engineering or bomb disposal etc. then a distinction could be made? Just thinking aloud.

BTW I made two edits to the external links and forgot to log in first - with the 217 IP address which is one of BT (British Telecom)'s numbers, the other starts with 81. Robotics1 12:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This sounds very good, but what does "all kinds of robots" really mean? This discussion is getting very close to what I believe to be the right solution, but a careful definition of "robot" should be made. My suggestion: A robot is an autonomous mobile entity. It has a specific but perhaps someday may have several functions.

A more controversial addition to this concept is that a robot may also have something akin to a personality as expressed by its behaviors, lights, and sounds. I would further state that industrial robots (manipulators) and automatic guided vehicles are not robots but incorporate robotic elements. pes