Talk:Robotics Design Inc./Archive 1

Archive 1

Introduction

While this article is about a company, the technology created by the company is a serious innovation in modular robotics. This will be linked to many pages across wikipedia that it has relevance to, and will be primarily made as a article about ANAT technology although the initial company page will be relevant to the products that can and have been be produced with the technology. DO NOT delete this article please, it is relevant and not made for advertising purposes, we decided to make this page initially to link to you Self-reconfiguring Modular robotics Page, to add Charles Khairallah as inventor of this type of modular robots. Please contact me if there are ANY problems whatsoever with posting this technology page on the free encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 September 2009

The article clearly does not meet the criteria in WP:COMPANY. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In what way does this article violate any of the guidelines set by wikipedia??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ttonyb1, that's not very helpful for a new editor. Explain why it doesn't meet WP:COMPANY, and what they can do to improve it. To me, it looks like a pretty good article, which lacks reliable, secondary sources. This company is mentioned in other Wikipedia pages. The main thing it seems to lack is sources (ones which aren't the companies own web page). My suggestion to the creator would be to have a good look for sources which meet WP:SOURCE (in that they are reliable, and independent of the subject), and add any found to the article. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Kingpin, thanks... ttonyb1 (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of COI tag

Anyone wondering why the COI tag was placed on the article can see the original version of this talk page. Note that per WP:COI there is nothing wrong with COI – the article and the editor are not in some way "wrong", it's just that caution should be taken about material which may be seen as promotional, and the WP:COI guidelines should be followed. There are several red links in the article, and I recommend waiting until a reasonable amount of significant and encyclopedic information is gathered before creating the linked articles. The key test is: does new material help the reader, or does it help the company? Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerned

Anyone else concerned about three new SPA's creating ANATROLLEER ARI-100, ANAT Technology and this article? Individually they may be harmless, but three articles in three days feels spammy and socky.  7  02:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've CSD'd the first (the correctly spelled name is already on the title blacklist) and another editor CSD'd the second... now what about this one... 7  03:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Concern?

Please explain your concerns to me as this is rather confusing. The new articles were added in a short period of time because they were all pre-made before posting, in order to avoid everything that has happened. I wanted the articles to be linked within wikipedia first, then upload all pictures and put sources to external websites, apparently i should have really done everything at the same time. A little ironic, but i am will to do whatever it it to clean up this article, but i guarantee you that technology that allows robots to shift their shape is very Wikipedia worthy, maybe you would rater me put everything on one big page? Explain ive been getting more links to guidelines then i care to count, and for the record, have read them and do not see where my violation lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying they were all posted by you?  7  00:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am working with several students on this project, though usually the final post is approved as entirely factual by me, to avoid any misrepresentations or mistakes of any kind. I had intended to create all the pages in the red links, but so far they were both deleted, so i put a submission request and am looking for students to post everything themselves, as every post I've made has been met with significant resistance from wikipedia volunteers. I understand the need to protect this great tool from spam, but i cannot spend time arguing why this is extremely notable and not spam. I left all other article submissions to link to the Robotics Design page in the hands of the students, and maybe if they end up writing it there wont be hundreds of warnings about everything evil under the sun on the submissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 19:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that each day hundreds of promotional additions (from paragraphs to articles) are made to Wikipedia, so there has to be a robust procedure to quickly prune them. When an article is flagged for deletion, text appears at the top of the article including links to what a contributor needs to read and act on, if they want the article kept. Can you, or a student, briefly explain how it would benefit Wikipedia to have an article on each product made by the company with which you are associated? Editing Wikipedia (particularly creating articles) requires a degree of interest in the encyclopedia, with a willingness to learn some of the procedures used here. You earlier stated "This will be linked to many pages across wikipedia that it has relevance to". Can you give an indication of what "many" means (5, 50, 500?). There is no problem with something like BIXI which is a notable topic. Can you outline why other products warrant a separate article? Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

References

In a series of edits on 28 September 2009 (diff), 72.53.107.197 has added four references. I looked at these and cannot see how they add useful content to the article. I propose that these edits be reverted unless someone can explain how the added links act as references to verify information in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Johnniq, we always appreciate and look forward to your input, which helps us improve our articles. The first post is a cover story in a very popular electronics magazine called EP&T (Electronics Post and Technology), which briefly explains ANAT technology, and explores the uses and abilities of a product generated by it called the ANAT AMI-100, which allows cost effective industrial automation.

The second is an article published by a well known and respected French magazine called “Le Plan” in 1997, which serves to prove that this innovative technology was invented then, and explains the innovation of ANAT technology. I do agree with you that this excellent link may not belong here, but on a spereate page for ANAT technology. Would that be better?

The third is an external reference the ANATERGOARM, generated by ANAT technology won the gold medal at the International Geneva convention, and shows companies that choose this product that they are using an award winning product of the highest quality that will make their workers more productive and less vulnerable to work related injuries due to repetitive motions, such as carpal tunnel. The ANATERGOARM is especially useful for handling heavy objects in limited work-envelopes.

Finally the fourth is a mention and praise of the ANATROLLER robot by the Canadian government. This robot is the most efficient method for duct cleaning in existence, and the praise it received from Canadian government officials serves to reinforce this. Canadiansteve (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at some other other articles and their talk pages you will see that custom here is to focus on issues regarding improving the article. A reference provides verification of a fact mentioned in the article. The reference needs to be reliable, and should preferably be independent. It should clearly confirm the preceding one or two sentences in the article. References are not to be used simply to link to extra information ("External links" is used for that, but only in limited circumstances). In summary, I am not confident that each reference in the article is serving the purpose of verifying information in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're absoloutley right johnniq, not enough information is presented in the Robotics Design page. I thought it would be good to add other pages for each individual wonderful product generated by this revolutionary technology, that would serve to explain what each product is in detail. The Robotics Design page simply does not have enough information and now the external links are adding more information to is because there is not enough on wikiepdia. Thanks for the advice friend, I'll go ahead and make pages for all the red links in the article, and then i hope we can both praise the sources I added together. I always love to hear from you, and maybe you would like to work on the articles with me? You clearly are knowledgeable of Robotics, as you post here fervently, and I'm sure you're just as good a journalist as you are an engineer. Canadiansteve (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I recommend working on the material in this article. If you get sufficient referenced and verifiable material here, then you could create another article by moving the material from here. Creating articles that do not satisfy WP:GNG would be a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

New References

In light of the many new references added, I am removing the warning saying the article lacks them. Please also remove the conflict of interest warning to any staff that may see this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that the article has been extensively edited by someone that has an interest in the company and product, the COI tag should stay. ttonyb (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My interest is in Robotics and I work for several companies. I am posting here to firstly share my knowledge on what I believe to be the most efficient method for manufacturing robotics of all kinds, and of course helping out a fellow montrealer get exposure for his innovations across the world. This article is written mainly by me, true, but deals only in facts and remains to the point and a fine educational source. If this article was written like an ad, the tag might bear more weight, but it is currently sorely out of place and must be removed for the sake of the articles appearance. Please do this, and once again, if you would like to edit anything at all that you feel might be seen as un-neutral in any way, you know better than I that you can go right ahead and do this as you please.Canadiansteve (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

COI and refs

Hi

The problem here is that the article has to read more like an encyclopaedic entry and less like an advert. Many of the references are from the company's own material and should be from secondary sources.

The bold use of text should only be used for specific tasks and [[pile]]s can be used where the page linked to is "Pile"

COI is not really an issue at present, but be sure not to introduce peacocking or puffery statements. I am sure that your willingness to help your fellow Quebecian is in good faith and that you will try to find secondary references for more of the material than at present.

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Unclear tag

Scara? qu'est-que-ce? Greglocock (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable refs that should not be used to establish notability

http://www.roboticsdesign.qc.ca/assets/Uploads/PDF-content/InThePress/HVAC/Pluming+HVACmagazineapril2010.pdf puff piece or ad in trade journal

http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/design-engineering/motion-control-10/modular-robotics-10379 http://www.ept.ca/news/modularity-in-robotics-provides-automation-for-all/1000348213/

and others, blog entries, written by RD inc employee

Greglocock (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Frasers publishing hires excellent editors for their magazines. The articles were published on account of the technology and the company's notability, nothing else. These are articles that engineers read, and I wrote them to sound nice too, but also to present concepts that they could learn from and be inspired by, thereby providing them with a new concept to approach engineering with; building things with an H [module]. That these things are robots in this case is why the article is called ANAT technology. These magazines do not publish blog entries in their magazines. That is an insult to the readers, and a misappropriation of the magazines.

Frasers publishing hires excellent editors for their magazines. The articles were published on account of the technology and the company's notability, nothing else. These are articles that engineers read, and I wrote them to sound nice too, but also to present concepts that they could learn from and be inspired by, thereby providing them with a new concept to approach engineering with; building things with an H [module]. That these things are robots in this case is why the article is called ANAT technology. These magazines do not publish blog entries in their magazines. That is an insult to the readers, and a misappropriation of the magazines. To take all articles about products as an ad because they are about a product only is quite simplistic. This isn't a knockoff of a rip off of a ripped off Mp.4 player. It’s a product that will allow people that work for a living to make their lives easier. This technology is in a filed where you affect people’s lives, it’s not the stock market. Nobody will care about what you do, let alone publish an article about it as a product unless it is not only very interesting to readers but allows the professionals among them to rethink the way they work positively and improve their business and make work more profitable and the job more desirable for the employees. An ad is different than a new type of tool that makes peoples jobs easier. Articles about the mobile robots are appropriate, as well as those about the technology, because this is an innovation, an invention or something new. It’s a new way of doing things in robotics. And it's notable, and those are media sources that prove it. Please define how they are blogs before I continue this particular comment.Canadiansteve (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Dude, if your marketing manager writes the piece it proves nothing about notability. If you pay for an insert it proves nothing about notability. If you give a journo for a trade mag some nice photos and some spiel they can use in an article it proves nothing about notability. We know what trade magazines are. To be honest I think you are on the wrong track. The bike rack thing is far more notable than the robots. Greglocock (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Robotics Design does not pay to have articles written about it, it never happened ever. Though BIXI was more discussed in the media than ANAT robots, ANATERGOARM was applied at Hydro Quebec, and reduced the down time of one of the largest hydroelectric generators. These products have massive positive effects on any company that uses them, and magazines discuss them. The company itself has been widely discussed (If i could link video sources here, I could put the television reports) so it is notable. And I am not a manager. What is the right track, might I ask?Canadiansteve (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)