Template talk:US patent reference

message: The inventor's name should not be in boldface, per the manual of style.--Srleffler (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Happy‑melon 11:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request change

message: 
There should be some sort of separator between the inventor's name and the title; a comma or a semicolon or some such. Or maybe a period. It looks like a typo, just having them smashed together like that.—Chowbok ☠ 23:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: added comma between the two and a period at the end.  SkierRMH (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Separator

message: Please add a link to google's version of the US patent, similarly to that provided by .  For example,
 (google copy)
—AlanBarrett (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Is there a reason why you need links to three copies of the same patent?--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 19:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess, ideally, it should be the same thing as with geocoordinates. It should be a link to toolserver that provides user with a wide range of possible providers to look up a patent. --GreyCat (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The google link is more useful than a link to a PDF copy, because it's usable in a web browser without needing a PDF viewer.  I agree with GreyCat that a toolserver would be best.  —AlanBarrett (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Please link to google patent page

message: The link is spanned with . The class cause the PDF icon to show, but the font size clips the icon. This may be browser dependent, tested in FireFox 3.6.8. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: PDF icon

message: Please review the proposed version at , with examples of usage at User:Cxw/test.  The new version more gracefully handles missing parameters, e.g., when only the year of patenting is available, or when the title and inventor are specified in the text outside the template call.  What do you think? —Cxw (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, done. I'm assuming that you have fully tested this before deploying ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed changes to handle missing parameters

message: The doc has been changed to recommend the use of  instead of ,  and .  Firstly, it is less cumbersome using a single parameter instead of three.  Secondly, it's more flexible in that it allows day-month-year and month-day-year dates rather than forcing year-month-day format.  They've not yet been removed from the template code but it's probably better that they be removed but, of course, not whilst they're still in use (we could put through a bot to get rid of that).  Also,  seems not to do anything so it could be got rid of. Jimp 20:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date parameters 

message: Before making any changes, I wanted to throw something out there:
The espacenet database does very poorly with old US patents. See: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=89770&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP#
Whereas Google Patents doesn't have that issue: https://patents.google.com/patent/US89770
Template:US patent defaults to Google Patents unless the USPTO is specified as the source. Couple of thoughts:
* Ideally Template:US patent and Template:US patent reference should be functionally similar (intuition certainly led me to believe that they would behave similarly)
* Although Template:Cite patent utilizes the espacenet database, it does seem somewhat redundant to me to have a *separate* template that essentially is the same as cite patent without providing US/USPTO-specific features. It seems to me that this might be a reason why Template:US patent exists in the first place ... to provide features separate from cite patentor
* My goal: Make sure that the links in the reference box actually reference information that lets a reader access the source material. (This could possibly be accomplished with a flag in this template like src=google or something that editors can manually flag if the patent is very old.)
* Doesn't have to be Google, either -- the USPTO made bulk data available of all patents since 1790: https://bulkdata.uspto.gov/data/patent/grant/multipagepdf/1790_1999/ ... but I mean, once you hit the late 1890s, we're talking about >10gb of data per year. I'm not sure if uploading that to Wikisource or the Commons is really a good idea. (Also, I don't believe there is much metadata there - I think that's the big difference with what Google did - they OCRed and collected the metadata to make it searchable.)
Thoughts?
Jewell D D (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Align With [[Template:US patent]] - The espacenet database used by [[Template:Cite patent]] isn't complete