This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jj98(talk | contribs) at 03:42, 6 January 2012(assess). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 03:42, 6 January 2012 by Jj98(talk | contribs)(assess)
This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft 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.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Player Project has its own wikipedia page, so information about player project belongs there, including external links. An entry in the see also section is more appropriate pcrtalk03:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant the good and bad thing of an article topic, for a NPOV. I.e. Esperanto, Biodiesel, Ethanol fuel and so on. One can do it in two ways. Include a criticism section or include a link to other robotics suites (the concurrency it is basic for full NPOV - i.e. see cars topics-). --Altermike06:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of articles includes criticism to the different topics and because of this, they are neutral. Non-neutrality would be not include the criticism to the article. (have you seen any article of the mentioned?)--Altermike17:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Logo
The logo programming language has no direct relevance to Microsoft Robotics Studio. While Microsoft Visual Programming Language, as a dataflow language has some similarities to functional programming languages like logo, and while robotic turtles have been used in robotics education, there is not currently any work that I am aware of that makes this relevant pcrtalk03:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As in Player Project, one can include this in the criticism section (as in other products, it forgets this traditional and easy to use robotic language ) or as a link. --Altermike06:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if that is the CTP it should be linked to on the CTP page. If it isn't the CTP, this article should be changed so the license name is correct and the link added here. NicM08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Supported Robots
I believe we should broaden this category to be "Supported Hardware" so that it can also include sensor systems and robotic components instead of entire mobile robots. Also, should we designate between supported hardware that ships with MSRS like the fischertechnik, and supported 3rd party hardware like the CoroBot? --- BAxelrod (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]