Template talk:Cite patent/Archive 1

message: This template should be combined with Template:US patent reference and Template:US patent application. — Omegatron 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, unless you can provide functionality to allow the user to go to either the USPTO database of the espacenet database as they see fit, which starts making it a somewhat complex template to use. Personally, I would always prefer the espacenet database, but some people might prefer linking to the USPTO, so the US templates have the uses and provide a different function than this template. GDallimore (Talk) 07:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some people prefer USPTO, some people prefer espacenet, some people prefer Google Patents.  But how do you decide which to link to in an article?  Personal preference of the editor adding the link?  That's not a good solution.  We need to merge the templates and provide a way to link to all of the databases.  See Bugzilla:10866 for a proposed solution.  In the meantime, we should pick one database and stick to it. — Omegatron 14:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. The problem of multiple database references has been solved in the case of ISBNs by Special:BookSources which gives a special page that gives a choice of databases to the user. I think this solution is cleaner than using multiple citation tags, one per database. Int21h (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combine 

message: About the "usage" section... The fictional example 
:   
returns "". What's the purpose of the fields which do not show up? Just wondering... (there are two "invent1" fields, the second one should probably be invent2?) --Edcolins 19:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no purpose at the moment, and may not be in the long term, but I thought I'd suggest a standard format for this sort of information now in case the template gets extended in future. Thanks for pointing out the error. GDallimore (Talk) 21:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Can anyone make a version to point to the google patent database? The USPO ones don't always load bacause of quicktime problems. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think that's a good idea. espacenet, which this template links to is better, more comprehensive and probably more reliable than google patents. Also, espacenet doesn't use weird image formats like the USPTO site. If I found a google link, I would invariably replace it with an espacenet link. GDallimore (Talk) 10:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Google

message: Please add the text "from Espacenet" to the template to make it clear which patent lookup service is being used.  For example, for  produce
*   from Espacenet
instead of just
*  
Thanks 68.167.254.66 (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this change goes completely against the intended and actual current use of the template - which is to provide a brief inline link to the a patent. Making this change would require corresponding changes to almost every article in which the template is used. The change is also unecessary. Why would someone need to know that they are going to follow a link to espacenet before they actually follow it? And, having followed the link, it's completely clear where they are. GDallimore (Talk) 08:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add notation that makes it clear which patent lookup service is being used 

message: --- Copied from personal talk page ---
Espacenet has also recently changed their interface and the following generic call to their new SmartSearch would perhaps be perfect for all Wikipedia templates referring to patents; their server is online all day long. By the way, Espacenet covers all patents worldwide, not only US or EP:
: http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?compact=true&DB=EPODOC&query={searchItem}
: Example http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?compact=true&DB=EPODOC&query=US2005123456
: Notice, that patent application (US20050123456) and also publication numbers US2005123456 are both found using this new call. 
--Wikinaut (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't think that would be a good call to use. It creates a link to a list of search results rather than a link to a specific patent or patent application. This makes it very unclear which patent is being talked about, which is bad from a referencing perspective. GDallimore (Talk) 10:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smart Search 

message: I've added a merge request at template talk:ref patent#Merge request to (finally) combine  and  into one backward-compatible template. Should this be approved, the plan will be to move  over  so that we have one comprehensive general-purpose citation template for all patents. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: New code seems to work just fine. Good plan. GDallimore (Talk) 21:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request 

message: In converting a couple of inline  uses to use <ref> and this template, I noticed that this template does not create the PDF links like the other template.  Can we add a conditional inclusion for the PDF links if country=US?  AdThanksVance. Slambo (Speak) 11:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an option, although probably not in quite the way you're thinking. The link at the moment points to a page of information about the patent (example . That page includes, as a series of tabs across the top, links to view the plain text of the patent or to view and usually download a copy of the PDF. I could add an optional link directly to the PDF view with a term "viewPDF=" or something if you really wanted, but given that it would only take one additional click to get there anyway, I'm not sure it's worth it. GDallimore (Talk) 14:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just made this edit to an article you were working on to show you some of the options for using this template and the template  which is the simpler version more like the US patent template. See what you can do with them to get the article the way you want! GDallimore (Talk) 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  use {{tl|US patent}}? 

message: This template needs to be updated to not automatically link the date fields.  Linking dates to get the autoformatting has been deprecated; see MOS:UNLINKDATES for a summary and links to lengthy discussion on the subject.  Slambo (Speak) 13:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. This creates a problem, though, in that the template documentation mandates "yyyy-mm-dd" format for the dates. I assume this format supports the "COINS" automatic data extraction, but it is generally considered unacceptable form on WP. I removed the date links anyway, because while they do allow some editors to see the dates in their preferred format, most users (and nearly all non-editors) were still seeing the date in yyyy-mm-dd form. Unlinked "yyyy-mm-dd" is the best option until someone implements a better way to reformat dates. --Srleffler (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delinking dates 

message: I've made some changes to this template to (finally) make it backwards-compatible (through making all attributes optional, and allowing for anonymous attributes) with the current . This should have no fallout: I've started a test cases page to check that everything works as it should. Should this be approved, the plan will be to move  over  so that we have one comprehensive general-purpose citation template for all patents. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 15:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a further step in this direction by making the output consistent with the patent output produced by Template:Citation; now both template produce COinS metadata and support all parameters.  Let me know if there are any quirks that my testing did not detect.  Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited this template to support the parameters used by Template:Citation, for compatibility.  Is there any reason for the output produced by this template to differ from that produced by Template:Citation/patent? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

text: In the light of the discussion in the section above, and comments at User:Citation bot/bugs‎, I've amended Template:Citation/patent so that it produces the same output that was being produced here, and allowed each template to recognize the parameters used at the other.  Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request 

message: The problem is that abstracts for old patents that are omitted in espacenet are frequently available elsewhere on line.   Suggestion is that the url parameter used in other cite template types be added so that the title can be linked to one of these other sources (google patents, etc.) for quick access to the abstract.   Without this, it makes more sense to use the book or other cite template for old patents. Rostdo (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request "url=" parameter to access old patent abstracts 

message: I believe the doc page could do with some updating. It currently states that the parameter  is not displayed by the template. This is incorrect. Also, it encourages editors to use the parameter , but peeking inside the template suggests that ,  and  might be more appropriate. I did not want to edit the doc page myself as I don't understand this template. HairyWombat 07:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The documentation doesn't say what you say it says. GDallimore (Talk) 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Edit conflict, the documentation doesn't say what he says because I just changed it, sorry for the confusion) The template originally did not show the inventors, but after the above discussion, this was changed so the names of the inventors are now displayed.  I have updated the template documentation to reflect this change in the template. In addition, a free format inventor parameter was also added.  I think the use of the numbered inventor parameters is unnecessarily complex and I prefer the free format parameter, but to each his own. Boghog (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed the edit conflict myself. OK! GDallimore (Talk) 12:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to doc page 

message: For older US patents, Espacenet does not have much info. So when we do , it goes to here which has nothing in it. Should we use Google patent instead in such cases? If so, how can we incorporate that alternative into this template? Z22 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It has the original document. No need to use google. GDallimore (Talk) 18:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried but was unable to find any link to the original document from the Espacenet link (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=270543&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP). Only thing I see is "Abstract not available for  US270543 (A)". Could you please help me to get to the text, PDF or image files from that link? Thanks. Z22 (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  A link to the pdf is there on the lefthand side of the web page under the "Bibliographic data" panel. Clicking on the "Original document" button will lead you directly to the pdf. Boghog (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

text:  An alternative is  which renders as . You have to click on the "images" button however to get the pdf. Finally   which renders as , a link to the same Google patents link that you provided above, but this template does not allow one to add bibliographic information. Boghog (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I missed that link. I guess the standard cite patent template is good enough. Thanks all. Z22 (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older US patents 

message: See the section above too.
I'm after this:
http://www.google.com/patents/USD126657    (A 1940 design patent)
I want to use  rather than , for consistency with other refs. Also I want to display inventor, assignee etc which  doesn't handle well. However I want to link to Google, which has the best copy of this patent I can't find it on Espacenet, it's in the US Patent site database but there' no content displayed.
Should this template support either an explicit URL?  Or else a src= parameter for Google patents and US PTO?   Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  URL as explicit parameter? 

message: It's , but Espacenet does not like it because it turns into "FT=E" parameter in the URL. If we just manually change that URL to "FT=D", it will work. Anyone know what FT=D on Espacenet means? How do I correctly use cite patent template for this case? Z22 (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I cite this particular patent application? 

message: The TemplateData for this template is quite inaccurate; all of the parameter names it lists as canonical are not supported by this template at all, only used in passing the values in question on to  —SamB (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the difference between the template supporting the parameters directly and passing them to another template? What is your proposed fix? Can you point us to TemplateData documentation that explains how TemplateData is supposed to be constructed? I have asked this question a few times in other venues and have not received an answer. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  TemplateData badly broken 

message: I've been trying to get the link in to work. The Template:Cite patent external link string output ishttp://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=NL&NR=1010697C2&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP However, the string that works ishttp://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=NL&NR=1010697C2&KC=&FT=D&locale=en_EPThe only difference between the two strings is the espacenet  parameter. For some reason, Template:Cite patent results in the  parameter at Espacenet to default to FT=E. I need Template:Cite patent to allow me to set the  parameter to be entered into the espacenet URL as FT=D. Would you please add a parameter to the Template:Cite patent that allows setting the espacenet  parameter. I don't know what espacenet's FT stands for (It could mean Filing Time? Filing Transition?). Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is not obviously the problem, and it does not default to FT=E as you suggest. Hover over the actual link and you'll see it's of the form http://worldwide.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=NL1010697C2 with the espacenet server reforming it. I do not know why this link is being reformed incorrectly (perhaps because it's in Dutch (D), rather than English (E)?) and have been unable to find a number combination that works. GDallimore (Talk) 10:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

text: thank you for reporting. I will contact the Espacenet experts. --Wikinaut (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  FT stands for Format and tells if the document number (NR) is in EPOQUE format or DOCDB format. The parameter can have two values, E for EPOQUE (which is default) and D for DOCDB. Abruunprv (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The espacenet {{para|FT}} parameter

message: There appears to be no "Cite trademark" template. Shouldn't there be? Jeh (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Cite trademark? 

message: In contrast to every other modern CITE template, this template uses a single "name" parameter. This breaks the ref=harv system. I strongly suggest we move to the first(n)/last(n) system used in other cites. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: While I support the addition of an explicit URL parameter, I've reverted the change form April 6 as it breaks the existing functionality- if you don't supply a URL parameter, no link is made as an "empty" url is passed to the (citation/patent) parent template. --PresN 02:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The new update fixes the problem, thank you! --PresN 17:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting URL param addition 

message: I edited the template documentation to add the full parameter set in horizontal format, plus a few other elements. The "most commonly used parameters in vertical format" is currently the same as the full parameters, but I thought someone might want to omit at least a couple, like "class" and "url" (since that's apparently only for exceptional circumstances). --tronvillain (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horizontal Format 

message: Sometimes it's useful or relevant for a particular reference to have the filing date specified, since that might be what is being compared in the article. Can we add an option to have at least the month & year of filing shown in a less-condensed manner? For an example on the article section I'm working on:
:US patent 4062180, Meshi, Joseph & Ponsor, Jeffrey R., "Electronic chess clock", issued 1977-12-13. Originally filed 31 July 1975.
Or whatever is literature-appropriate. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option to display filing date 

message: I'm not sure what the intent of this template is; I suspect it should link to a patent at Google Patents. The way it's coded now, it doesn't seem to do that. Instead, it seems to function just like . The name of this template (Googpat) is also not intuitiveley found. It is not mentioned in  nor categorised as :Category:Google templates. One article linked to it, Onion routing, which I .
I suggest to move this template to . The code could be like this:
 Patent no.  at Google Patents

Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note - somehow this comment was weirdly moved to its own talk page at Template talk:Cite patent/sandbox2. It is relevant here so I moved it here, and am suggesting deletion for that other page.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Coding

message: Is there any way to cite a US design patent?
I'm searching for (and have had trouble finding) a patent related to an aircraft, the Northrop N-102 Fang. This was the subject of a design patent, US Des 180,297, of 1957 :Northrop_N-102_Fang_patent_1.gif. So far I can't cite this easily with our template (I can force the URL in but I suspect the metadata would be wrong), nor even search it through Espacenet or Google. In the main patent space, this number is that of a Victorian farm gate.  Northrop Aviation do seem to have used the line drawing design patents  for a few aircraft designs - possibly when their new delta wing design was worthy of protection, but when clear prior art would prevent the assigning of a more robust patent otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Design patents? 

message: Currently this template creates automatic links to Espacenet, which is a service of the European Patent Organisation. At a glance their website seemed more difficult for me to read than the Google Patents website, and I wondered why that service was preferred. I read through the talk archives.
 seems to be a Wikipedian and patent attorney but he has not been here since November 2014. This user favored Espacenet and created  in March 2007 to link to that database. Some other users suggested linking to United States Patent and Trademark Office.
After looking a bit more, I agree that although Google Patents are easier to read, Espacenet is a better choice for now. It has more comprehensive information plus also Wikipedia generally links to noncommercial services unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. This discussion is raised from time to time and for now I see no reason to change.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see this easily controllable by a clear parameter to the template. Sometimes one favours the other as a clear source for readers (we're an encyclopedia rather than a patent library), but the only way at present is to shoe-horn in the URL. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which patent mirroring service to use? 

message: Currently the template adds a ref=harv or similar by default. This can be turned off by manually inserting ref=. But this is not clear, it's normally invisible.
If you have any number of common tools installed, the dangling REF will show up as an error, which is annoying for patents that are in the body, Further Reading, or like.
I think we should add the |ref= to the basic template so that it is obvious to the user that it exists and can be more easily modified.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Always has a ref=harv, which is bad 

message: Could an expiry parameter be added, like  ? Patents, like  can expire and it would be useful if there was a way to note this.--Auric talk 12:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expiry date 

message: Wonder if something has changed; this example no longer works:
* 
* 
—Sladen (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Espacenet - 0 results found 

message: should  |Ref=harv be updated to   |Ref= in this one?  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ref=harv 

message: Can we add the link to the title when a url is included but there's no patent number? Or maybe make it error? Otherwise it looks like this:  
Mvolz (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I just noticed this issue in this article because the EL symbol in the ref list stood out when I glance at the references.  We shouldn't be displaying a numbered EL like this. I fixed this article by adding the patent number. I don't know much about this template; the doc says the patent number is not required but only suggested. Can you add a :Category:Pages using cite patent without patent number? There may be more cases that can be fixed easily by adding the number. MB 17:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link URL from title rather than just as a bare numbered link? 

message: Citations on Wikipedia normally end with a period, but this template doesn't. Can we add one? Kaldari (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , on which this template is based, does not supply a terminal period. If you want one, use . Examples:
I suppose that you could try to gain consensus to add the period by default, but I don't know how many people are watching this talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

text: This sounds like a good idea. --Edcolins (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this it seems most of the other  templates do this Ianmc (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a period at the end 

message: Both of these appear to work when present as isolated parameters when not numbered (ie assignx/assigneex).
:
:
should assign and assignee be added to the Assignee - first template data parameters?
Skullcinema (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  assign or assignee? 

message: "The number parameter must be the patent number or patent application publication number without any intervening commas or other punctuation (e.g. 2135432, not 2,135,432; likewise, 2005108455, not 2005/108455). You may need to experiment with the precise form for published US patent applications or PCT applications, which are slightly unusual. Help for getting the correct number format can be found here."
These instructions should be expanded, they fail to note:
:Should it include trailing letters, like "3453601A"?
:Should it include the country code, like "US3453601"?
Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: The Assign parameter and the output "assigned to xxx" applies to US patents only and is legally incorrect in almost every other country of the world. In the US, every patent application is required to be filed initially in the personal name of the inventor, with the ultimate owner (often a company such as the inventor's employer) taking an assignment of the application - hence "assign" or "assignee". Nowhere else does that; instead the patent application is filed directly in the name of company or other entity that owns the rights. That entity is called the patent "applicant", and "assignee" is a non-existent concept. "Applicant" is standard terminology at the EPO and pretty well every other non-US patent office.
Another parameter "Applicant" needs to be added, with some suitable output such as "patent applicant: xxx". Alternately, change the Assign parameters to Applicant/Assign, with output "Applicant/assignee: xxx". MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Assign" language is wrong except for US patents 

message: Does anybody know how to use this template with Indonesian patents like:
: https://pdki-indonesia.dgip.go.id/detail/A00200803695?type=di&keyword=mobil
Espacenet doesn't seem to know anything about them. Tried searching different ways, including by an inventor's last name but the results don't show that patent.  Stepho  talk  04:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Is what you are looking for US design patent USD611388? I just searched the second designer's name in Google patents (oddly its search engine is better than Espacenet). Skullcinema (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was your own addition of many Indonesian patents that prompted my question. Your additions are good and welcome but I wanted to wrap them in this template. But it seems that this template deals mainly (only?) with Espacenet and that Espacenet doesn't deal with Indonesian patents.  Stepho  talk  10:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may have me confused with another editor? I have never added any Indonesian patent reference to WP. In general there is nothing to stop you using the Cite patent template, just complete the fields as for any other patent and use url= to get the correct link to the Indonesian patent authority's webpage for the particular patent you are referencing. At least that is what I would do. Skullcinema (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesian patents