Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics/Assessment

Assessment at WP:ROBO

Feedback is welcome on our assessment policy.
Latest assessment changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics/Assessment/progresstable and current work progress at /July2010outline.

Fixed the attention needed parameter

Hi

I have fixed the attention needed parameter that was previously missing from the assessment tag.

The details are the same: |attention=yes}} sets the bit on and adds it to Category:Robotics_articles_needing_attention

Chaosdruid (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Robotics assessments update

Hi all

I have got as far as "P" in checking and updating the A-Z articles, but 221 of them are still unassessed and unclassified [1].

I have found a fairly high number of "Stubs" that were incorrectly labelled which I re-classed as "Start", although there were none that were deserving of a B class there were a few that were close. There were a couple of Start class that I have put to B class however.

One or two new GAs and FAs appeared, but these were mainly due to them not having a Robotics tag although within the scope of the project.

The next stage is to consider whether the classes are correct. Some I have put at C class (although the project does not use this classification normally) as they are needing only slight amounts of work to turn into B's - I will endeavour to make sure they have the "attention needed" parameter set to yes (now I have fixed it lol) to ensure they appear in the correct category for easy locating from the category page once work starts.

There are a disappointing amount of Top and High importance articles that are not at B class as well! Some work is needed on those but if anyone wishinng to help and unsure of the higher class categories, ie a novice editor, I would suggest is a good place to start.

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Importance

You template links to a non-existence anchor for "Importance scale." I discovered this when trying to determine why turtle (robot) was ranked as low, when it was the first exposure to an actual robot for generations of children. By contrast, the obscure (to all but fans of robots, or viewers of Nova Science Now) Justin (robot) is Mid-importance. --Belg4mit (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, though it does point to the right page where the importance table is and will probably not be changed per future development.

Comparing the Turtle to Freddy II and Justin (mid imp.) is akin to comparing a go-cart to a motorcar, and a supercar would be ASIMO, though Freddy II might get promoted - It was the first robot to use vision, manipulation, and intelligent thinking and even used 3D vsion, all between 1969-1973. Freddy II's successors take those processes and develop them further, the Mars rovers and Justin being two examples of this (though the Mars rovers are distinctly higher). Justin is designed to go into space to chase, collect and repair satellites. I really think that Turtle is really simply a children's development tool and has been superseded by other systems such as LEGO mindstorms. In reality, Roomba is probably akin to it. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Who's comparing the sophistication of the robots? That has nothing to do eith the project categorization system as far as I can tell, but rather historical significance/meaningful milestones in the field.

As for importance importance scale, one of us is missing something. I did not suggest modifying the template. I sai the template points to something that does not exis, yet you claim it does. Where is this "importance table?" --Belg4mit (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

We have recently completed a year long run on talk page tagging, and assessing/updating existing ones, for articles within the Robotics Project scope. At some point in the near future we are going to start checking all the Robotics tagged articles for existing importance and class. Before that is done we have to agree a formalised outline of "importance". Though the "Importance" section resulting from that discussion it is not yet made, that is where the banner template points to and where it will be created once finalised.

I do not think I would have to explain that importance is indeed related to sophistication, and that the things you have mentioned only cover historical significance. An unsophisticated robot would not be as important as a more sophisticated one. There is also the factor of longevity. Something that is high importance today might be mid in one or two years, or low after 10 or 20. Taking other factors into consideration can only add to the importance or leave it the same. The MARS rovers are of mid importance, though some may be of higher of lower. There are other factors to take into consideration than just historical importance. Let us consider the Mars rovers:

• Talk:Mars 2 : Low : First manmade object to reach Mars, crashed not deployed.
• Talk:Mars Pathfinder : Mid : Defunct, first deployed on another planet, first airbag landing, first auto-avoidance, Robot hall of fame inductee (RHoFI). (as RHoFI probably will not be reduced to Low)
• Spirit rover : Mid : Defunct, first hematite, first crushed rock, first photo of Earth from another planet, RHoFI. (as RHoFI probably will not be reduced to Low)
• Opportunity rover : Mid : Was pinnacle, still current, first meteorite on another planet, RHoFI.
• MSL : High : Pinnacle of current rover technology, current rover in development (and so most likely to be inthe news), next planned Mars rover mission.

This table:

Robotics articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA			2			1	3
FL			1				1
GA	1	2	7	9			19
B	14	22	53	44		4	137
C	5	26	107	129		40	307
Start	5	40	410	659		159	1,273
Stub		2	79	355		70	506
List	3	3	10	16		2	34
Category					554		554
Disambig					9		9
File					15		15
Project					18		18
Redirect	1	3	35	57	131		227
Template					44		44
NA					4		4
Other					33		33
Assessed	29	98	704	1,269	808	276	3,184
Unassessed				2		62	64
Total	29	98	704	1,271	808	338	3,248
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 11,078			Ω = 4.93

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation about project progress. I don't entirely share your views Re:importance, but I'm not a majpr contributor to the project, so that's fine. I had seen that table, but as it had been referred to it seemed you were trying to offer it as an answer to my question, which it was not I.e; what constitutes what on the scale, but you have now clarified that; it might be wothy adding stub section for that anchor. Bonne chance. --Belg4mit (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you did spur me into action though, there was a draft I did a long time ago saved into notepad which I posted and touched up - you will get the general idea - it is very rough so excuse the small errors Wikipedia:WikiProject Robotics/Assessment/Importance scale

Feel free to join the project - disagreement is not always a bad thing :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)