From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The status or A editor fields in the metadata template are either incorrect or absent.
  • If the article has been approved please add the approving editor to the A editor field.
  • Otherwise, please change the status from 0"" to an appropriate value between 1 and 4 in the metadata template.

Please update the metadata template here
This article has a Citable Version.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Catalogs [?]
Gallery [?]
Video [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Humanoid robots developed at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Computers, Engineering and Physics [Categories OK]
 Subgroup category:  Technology
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

International Collaboration on HUBO 2


What would be the appropriate way to list the developers of HUBO in the introduction, now that multiple universities and more than one models are involved? Should HUBO be described as "humanoid robot technology demonstrators" (not all HUBO's are humanoid robots) ?

(Chunbum Park 03:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Nice video. I don't think we want any kind of list in the introduction, maybe later or in a footnote. And, yes, keep the 'humanoid' at the beginning, as that's how he started. Ro Thorpe 20:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

On approval

With regard to the question asked in the forum: In my view this is a well-written article that deserves approval if -- as I do not doubt -- facts are correct and no major aspect is missing.
On the historical section: What about dates (years) in the subsection headings? And perhaps a subsection heading for HUBO-2? --Peter Schmitt 12:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. Would you or an editor trio (math, computer science, and physics) be able to approve the article? (Chunbum Park 21:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

A few of the references need to provide more information

This is a well-written article but some of the references are somewhat incomplete.

For example, reference 15 is listed as merely "Cho and Oh, 2007" and reference 25 is listed as merely "Cho and Oh, 2009, pp.7".

Are those references to a book by Cho and Oh? Or a journal article? or what? If a book, then what is the book title, who published it and what is the ISBN? If a journal article, what was the article title, what was the name of the journal, and what was the issue and volume of the journal? If an online website, what is the url of the website and what is the title of the url page? Also, Cho and Oh should be identified by their full names ... or at least initials and a surname.

A number of the other reference also list Cho as the author. Again, what is Cho's full name or at least initials and a surname?

Also, very few readers will know what is meant by KAIST. It would help if it were spelled out (Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) at least once in the main article and also in reference 5.

Basically, the idea is to provide enough information so readers can find the referenced sources. Milton Beychok 04:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a serious look at the article. I meant for more specific details of the references to be included in the bibliography subpage. Cho and Oh 2007 would refer to the only Cho and Oh from 2007, which would be

•Cho, Baek-kyu and Jun-ho Oh, "Controller Design and Experimental Approach on the Dynamic Walking on the Spot in Planar Biped Robot", IEEE-RAS International Conference of Humanoid Robots, Serial. 1, Pittsburgh, USA, 2007, 11 57

I didn't cite the pages if the statement was taken as a summary of various points made throughout the article.
Should I make the the notes more details, regardless? (Chunbum Park 05:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC))
Yes, if that is the complete referenced source that was used in the main article, then it belongs in the "Notes" section of the main article instead of the Bibliography subpage. Most readers are not going to look at the subpages. The Bibliography subpage is for sources which are not used in the main article (that is, they augment the main article sources). As an aside, the Notes are created by the {{reflist}} template, meaning "reference list" ... therefore I personally prefer to name that section as "References" rather than "Notes", but that is only my personal preference. Milton Beychok 06:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a matter of style, I would say. Personally, I prefer Chumbum's approach: All detailed bibliographical data in the Bibliography, references only where it is important to relate a speceific statement with a specific source. --Peter Schmitt 10:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
But Peter, that is exactly what we were talking about. Chunbum's references (or notes) all point to specific places within the main article. All I suggested was that they be complete rather than simply "Cho and Oh, 2007" and "Cho and Oh, 2009, p.7". How is the reader or visitor to know that he/she must look in the bibliography subpage to find the complete information on those two references? Please read all of the above. Milton Beychok 16:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I added the names of the articles that were cited in the two examples. Would that suffice, or is there something else missing as well? Thank you. (Chunbum Park 19:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

(Unindent)Chumbum, I think they both need to be complete like the one you gave above:

•Cho, Baek-kyu and Jun-ho Oh, "Controller Design and Experimental Approach on the Dynamic Walking on the Spot in Planar Biped Robot", IEEE-RAS International Conference of Humanoid Robots, Serial. 1, Pittsburgh, USA, 2007, 11 57

That is my honest opinion of what is needed for an article seeking Approval. If you would like, I would be willing to try and complete them for you ... but I would be at a disadvantage since I don't have any command of the Korean language. Milton Beychok 21:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I copy pasted them over. Wait... should I have included the specific page numbers when relevant? (Chunbum Park 00:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC))
That is much, much better!! As for the specific page numbers: yes, if you think they are needed to help readers. You are the best judge of whether or not that page numbers are needed. Thanks, Milton Beychok 01:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Those edits were quite helpful. Thank you. I will try to apply the changes to other citations as well.(Chunbum Park 03:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC))
Chunbum, there were 6 references (13, 14, 18, 22, 23, and 24) which had lengthy web addresses (urls) that I simplified by replacing the urls by hyperlinking their titles to the urls. Hope you agree that simplifies and clarifies them. I hope this article gets Approved because it deserves it. Milton Beychok 03:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! (Chunbum Park 04:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

Please extend that date of approval, I need to make a list of things that are wrong (there are a number of things). this should NOT be approved unless it is correct

Could the date of approval be extended to sometime past March 15th? Perhaps March 22nd? Thank you. (Chunbum Park 04:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

(Unindent)Chunbum, I have extended the approval date by about 10 days to March 25th. Milton Beychok 06:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. (Chunbum Park 18:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC))
Can we extend the date again? How about April 10th? Since he last sent me this e-mail, I haven't heard from him again:

"I am unsure about some of the older information (i.e. for the KHR-3 and KHR-2). I am going to KAIST in Daejeon in a few days so I will just find out all I need to know then. Please do NOT have it approved before I, or another member of the Hubo team, ok's it. thank you,"

Thank you. (Chunbum Park 18:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC))
I have extended the date to April 10, 2011. Chunbum, have you tried to email him again and ascertain when he will be able to start his corrections of this article? Milton Beychok 19:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I should. It's about time that he would have arrived in Korea. (Chunbum Park 01:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Daniel affirmed that he will edit the article before the April 10th deadline. (Chunbum Park 18:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

Cancel approval

I think the approval should be canceled for now. I did not receive the pdf detailining needed changes yet from Dan. (Chunbum Park 19:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

The approval nomination will automatically come to an end tomorrow without canceling the nomination. Milton Beychok 21:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that this will happen automatically ... --Peter Schmitt 21:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll cancel it. Milton Beychok 00:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is now ready for approval. (Chunbum Park 00:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC))


Which countries use the world million to mean another number? David Finn 10:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I am happy with the changes. Thank you. (Chunbum Park 11:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
David, the specific country I was thinking of was China. In most, if not all, English speaking countries, large numbers are based on multiples of a thousand ... in other words, one million is a thousand thousands. In China, their large numbers are based on multiples of ten thousand ... in other words, one million is a hundred (băi) ten thousands (wàn), or the two words băi wàn. They have no single word for a million. My best friend is Chinese and an engineering graduate of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) ... so I consider him to be a credible and verifiable soutce.
I'm not sure, but I think that the Koreans and perhaps other Asian countries have a similar system ... Chunbum would know. - Milton Beychok 00:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
That's interesting, thanks for the explanation. David Finn 07:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
That is true, but people would still translate million to hundred-ten thousand very easily. (Chunbum Park 13:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC))

APPROVED Version 1.0