This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support per WP:CONCISE and the principle that our article titles have to agree with article scope (one way or another - sometimes such a conflict is resolved with a WP:SPLIT or WP:MERGE). I don't understand DanielPenfield's objection; the article has sources. If he's convinced that the entire article is bogus, or that parts of it are and that the rest should be merged into other articles, that is not a WP:RM matter and has nothing to do with resolving the issue before us, which is a conflict between title and scope. The forum he is looking for is WP:AFD. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Support per WP:CONCISE and the principle that our article titles have to agree with article scope (one way or another - sometimes such a conflict is resolved with a WP:SPLIT or WP:MERGE).
Why is it that when I click on the {{Find sources}} that I placed above, half the results for "robotic automation" refer to the use of industrial robots to automate manufacturing processes (which this article is NOT about) and the other half refer to Robotic process automation, a software solution originally sold by a robotics company called Blue Prism, but now apparently a "market segment" as defined by Gartner, Forrester Research and a whole bunch of software vendors whose websites are used as "sources" for Robotic process automation. If "robotic automation" is truly a "thing" worthy of an article, why is it so difficult to find 1) sources actually about the phenomenon and which also call that phenomenon "robotic automation" as WP:GNG requires and 2) sources that are "independent of the subject"—not links to firms selling the software or marketing research companies selling reports about the software "market segment"—as WP:GNG requires?
Furthermore, you actually expect readers to believe that the "robotic automation" term invented in 2012 or 2013 is the first time somebody described the societal effects of automation due to software? Sounds like Wikipedia:Recentism. "Why, there was no such thing before 2012, but just in case there was, let's use the most recent name for it!"
I don't understand DanielPenfield's objection; the article has sources.
How could you understand if you didn't take the time to examine the sources to see if they are actually about the topic? How many of them actually use the term "robotic automation"? About four if you don't include the duplicate HfS ("Horses for Sources") marketing research "click here to download your free copy of our report"!!! come-on. And none of the ones that actually use the phrase "robotic automation" really go into any depth other than to sensationalize the "Z0MFG!! S0FTWAREZ CAN CLICKETY-CLICK 0N 0THER S0FTWAREZ!1!!@ MASS UNEMPL0YMENTZ!1!!!" aspect.
If he's convinced that the entire article is bogus, or that parts of it are and that the rest should be merged into other articles, that is not a WP:RM matter and has nothing to do with resolving the issue before us, which is a conflict between title and scope.
If someone really wants to write an article on the societal impacts of software-specific automation that he or she doesn't think are already covered in Automation or Technological unemployment, he or she should NOT start with sales pitch-masquerading-as-reports from marketing research firms or low-quality sensationalist articles from two or three years ago. Instead, he or she should identify WP:RS from the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, up to today that actually answer the Five Ws of the phenomenon and use the most widely-used term actually used in those sources as the article title. "Robotic automation" could appear therein as a synonym and/or as a passage describing Blue Prism, their software solution, their competitors, and discuss the "sky-is-falling" sensationalist media reaction there.
@SMcCandlish: DanielPenfield has provided some detailed information on the article and his rationale on my talk page earlier and subsequently I more or less agree with him wouldn't consider the suggested page move anymore. There's still a problem of the article's title seemingly referring to a way broader concept than what it's used for and what the article describes. So maybe it would be good to append some clarifying word to the title in brackets. Also it probably needs to be split / changed so that the lead gets trimmed off things like "The term robotic automation or robotization refer to the automation of industrial and business processes using robots, of various guises" and "Examples of robotic automation include the use of industrial robots in manufacturing" - these sentences describe the broad robotic automization software and not this class of software products that somewhat mimicks persons. I also said in this talk page discussion that I'm not sure whether the article trimmed of said content would be notable enough on its own and that an article on the broad concept would probably be useful / needed separately of this article and under a different name. However, for that to happen it also needs a clear distinctions between it and the even broader automation article. --Fixuture (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
This massive wall o' text is mostly predicated on a fallacy, that the sources have to use the term "robotic automation" or "robotic automation software", which they do not. Our article title is a descriptive title (WP:NDESC), not a proper name. All that is required is that it be neutral and descriptive of the article content/scope. I think Penfield is approaching a WP:PRECISE argument, since this term is sometimes used to mean other things (manufacturing automation by robots, and robotic process automation). I don't object to the argument, but it requires more analysis. If the majority of uses of the phrase pertain to something within the scope of this article, then it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that term. If not, then we need another title, or perhaps this article should be split or merged in some way (which may be more of a WP:AFD discussion than a WP:RM one). The fact remains that the present title is a failure, because the article's scope is not limited to software. If you don't like the proposed move, suggest a better alternative. I decline to respond to the rest of this, as it's too ranty and off-topic, and has more to do with trying to mock either me or various off-WP writers (cf. the "ZOMFG!!" stuff) than with the requested move discussion. WP is not a battleground, nor a soapbox. Please do post post enormous blocks of text and tables in the middle of RMs, RfCs, or other comments sections; we use extended discussion sections below polls for a reason. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
.jpg){kind=small}
