Wikipedia talk:Patent nonsense

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Renaming: patent nonsense -> obvious nonsense 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Brilliant prose=featured article? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. I find it amusing that someone could have a WP:COI in patent nonsense. Keira1996 06:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request re: Featured article link 

message: Is this really a guideline? I feel like this is already covered by WP:G1 for entire articles, and Wikipedia:Vandalism / Wikipedia:Disruptive editing for individual edits. "Demoting" would decrease WP:CREEP, but I feel like there is something I am missing here. Thoughts / comments / reasons why this is a WP:BADIDEA? HouseBlastertalk 02:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the oldest content guidelines. I agree it may seem obvious. However, I am uncomfortable with the idea of demoting something simply because it is obvious. Is there a reason why demoting this would help the encyclopedia? I don't think proposing to demote things reduces creep - I think that is actually increasing creep because we're spending time quibbling on distinctions without differences. Sure, in the end you're left with arguably less creep, but you've increased the aggregate creep over time value x, the area under the line of creep if you will. So, aside from it being a bad idea to go around reducing the emphasis on the idea that the encyclopedia can act with extreme prejudice when something is blatantly nonsensical - why is this a good idea? Andre🚐 03:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not really arguing that it should be demoted because it is obvious (even though it is obvious). I am arguing that benefit provided by this guideline does not outweigh the institutional creep it creates. creates does not outweigh the benefit it provides to the  PAGs does help the encyclopedia, and this guideline does little to actively help the encyclopedia. This is obviously anecdotal evidence, but when I started editing, I was slightly overwhelmed by the number of times I would click on a blue link on a policy page and being was greeted by another massive box with a green or blue checkmark. I imagine I am not the only person with that feeling. Making it just a tiny bit easier for newcomers to learn the rules would help the encyclopedia. From the second sentence of WP:CREEP,  It follows that decreasing creep makes people more likely to follow other, less obvious rules, and therefore be constructive contributors. That would help the encyclopedia. Finally, if you need to read this page to know that adding "dsafhialsdjflks" to the end of an article is a bad thing, I would rather you operate under the assumption that it is okay and be CIR blocked just a bit faster. That would help the encyclopedia.I also respectfully disagree that simply discussing this increases the complexity of the rules, especially when this particular debate centers around simplifying then. Even if it this discussion would only decrease creep in the future, that still means that this would eventually result in a net decrease in creep under the line.Sure, we would only remove one PAG. But I believe that we cannot let perfect be the enemy of good. We all know that Wikipedia changes at a glacial pace. This would get the glacier moving in the right direction. HouseBlastertalk 04:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your good faith argument and reasoning, and I will concede the point that a simplification of a complex system, even a small one, is a good thing. However, I think having a clear bright line rule against obvious nonsense simplifies the operation of the project, so for this reason I oppose your proposal, but I will grant that you have legitimate reasoning for coming here. I am all in favor of moving the glaciers and whatnot. This one doesn't feel like it does actually move in the right direction. I don't think the right direction is "fewer polices and guidelines." We might need fewer in some areas, and more in other areas. Andre🚐 04:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super crazy idea: demote to info page 

message: Should Wikipedia:Patent nonsense page be "demoted" from a guideline to an information page? HouseBlastertalk 02:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *I should add that the mere fact the community agrees with it doesn't mean it should be a guideline. By that logic you could create a project page with any obvious statement and it would have to be declared a guideline. Guidelines are supposed to be useful as well as accepted. Hut 8.5 18:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC on "demoting" to information page