Wikipedia talk:Patent nonsense

Add discussion
Active discussions

Renaming: patent nonsense -> obvious nonsenseEdit

I really know what is meant, but due to nonsense patents being around so much I always get it wrong at first each single encounter of the term ... Are there others with the same sentiment? -- Tomdo08 (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. For historical reasons, I oppose moving the page; this is a reference to one of the earliest edits to Wikipedia, especially because the term "patent nonsense" is used together with "brilliant prose." In fact, it appears that the term "brilliant prose" refered to what are now featured articles; see historical revisions of the Featured articles page. DRAGON 280 (TALK/CONTRIBS) 07:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Tomdo08. We shouldn't keep an ambiguous term for purely historical reasons. WP:PATENT really shouldn't redirect here, but changing it, e.g., to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources would break existing uses. (Although, since there only appear to be eight such links, they could feasibly be changed.) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. "Patent nonsense" is a well-established expression in our language. Any confusion is immediately cleared up on reading the lede. Secondarily, it creates havoc when WP policies are renamed; it's difficult for anyone to master the policy spaghetti we necessarily generate here, and changing our jargon on fairly cosmetic grounds means users have to give effort to relearning something without improving overall comprehension. Laodah 07:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


The WP:PATENT short-cut links here. I want to put a hatnote on this page to disambiguate with patent (legal) meaning help i.e. link to the essay Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_patents_reliable_sources.3F . Any objections? Widefox; talk 13:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

  Done. It should also help disambiguate the subcase of the nonsense patents above. Widefox; talk 12:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding PN to existing articles.Edit

The way that this page is currently written excludes instructions on what to do if a user adds patent nonsense to an existing article. I would think that in such cases the user should be warned with the uw-test series of templates and that such instances should be reverted (undone or rolled back). Could someone add this to this guideline with easy to read and understand language? I'm not as good at wording things like this as I thought I was based on my experiences attempting to modify wordings on other guidelines. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding random characters to the middle of an article is just garden-variety vandalism. You handle it like you would any other edit. The only time patent nonsense requires special handling is when the whole page needs to be deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I came here looking for tips on what to do if a user adds an entire section to an existing page ( [1] ), and I agree that this guideline is not clear on what to do in that case.
I added a few words about UNDO. What else should we say about undoing nonsense added to normal, no-nonsense articles? What other parts of this guideline can we trim down to Wikipedia: avoid instruction creep? --DavidCary (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant prose=featured article?Edit

Something rather confusing about this project page is that brilliant prose is linked to Featured article. First of all, "brilliant prose" is made to sound like a popularly used phrase to describe good articles. Second of all, are "brilliant prose"s only featured articles? Anyway I find this nomenclature weird and the Wikilinking even more baffling. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a hangover from the early days of Wikipedia, when WP:Featured Articles was called 'Brilliant prose'. It was renamed back in 2004 for precisely the reasons you've identified. The link here should really be renamed as well, since Featured Articles do not necessarily contain 'brilliant prose' (whatever that peacock term is meant to mean, anyway). Robofish (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request re: Featured article linkEdit

In the section "Dealing with patent nonsense", the first bulleted item is "Replace it with a well-written article." with the "well-written article" linking to WP:Featured articles. I don't think anyone is going to replace a patent nonsense article with a featured article (not off the bat, anyway) and would like to request that the link either be removed or (better) replaced with a link to WP:How to write a great article. This seems more in keeping with dealing with patent nonsense and encouraging editors to replace it with non-nonsense. KDS4444 (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. I find it amusing that someone could have a WP:COI in patent nonsense. Keira1996 06:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
As do I, Keira1996, but it has been suggested that I not attempt to directly edit any policy or guideline as I have disclosed participating in paid editing and am now considered to have a conflict of interest with regard to pretty much anything, including patent nonsense... as nonsensical as that may sound to both of us! Such are the costs of disclosure, it turns out. KDS4444 (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware, and I heavily pity your situation there. I understand the rationale behind the decision, though... I'm going to work through the quicker portions of the COI requests backlog over the next few days, so hopefully your editing won't be too hindered by the waits. Keira1996 05:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The Not to be confused with ... sectionEdit

How could anyone confuse copyright violations, plagiarism, defamation, or underlinked content with patent nonsense? They do not resemble patent nonsense. If we are going to list everything that is not patent nonsense—as opposed to problems that one might plausibly confuse with patent nonsense—this section should grow to approximately the size of Wikipedia. In my opinion, we should remove these items because they detract from the guideline.—Finell 21:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

It maybe could be that the person in question had no idea of such material being copyrighted. But yes, i do agree it cannot be some sort of nonsense, unless in some extreme casesCreesperings (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC) (reformatted  :-) SquisherDa (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC))
It seems sensible to clarify tht "patent nonsense" isn’t a catch-all bucket for any-/everything an editor disapproves of? And maybe editors reading the piece occasionally confuse "patent nonsense" with "patently unsuitable"? and condemn (eg) underlinked articles under the wrong heading? The admins on New pages patrol would be the ones to know, I guess. But the point about diverting from / diluting the guideline topic seems probably important. And of the various listed types of duff copy, copyvio is probably the least likely to give classification problems like that - and therefore a rather baffling first item, as at present, in the list. (That bullet is also least clear on what the editor should do in such cases.) So I’m moving that bullet to the end. - SquisherDa (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

cos as presently positioned, at the top, it must be unnecessarily baffling. - SquisherDa (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)