| Science desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 28 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 30 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
January 29 Information
Wikipedia's " List of prolific inventors"
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Your list of "List of prolific inventors", begins at 200 Patents. The USPTO Website shows I currently hold 309 US patents under my name; "Viola, Frank". How is it my name is NOT listed at 309 Issued US Patents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.12.97 ( talk) 00:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- The only
Frank Viola I'm aware of is a pitcher. Can you provide a citation for this fact? ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 01:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- A very quick search in any of the patent databases shows at least a lot "Viola, Frank" patents. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Like many articles that are large lists, this one is evidently incomplete. Personally, I don't think patent-count is a particularly good indicator of how prolific an inventor is; but other editors have chosen to compile this list. I'm not sure how the various editors determined criteria for inclusion in that article.
- Is your work mentioned in other publications? Do many people outside of your community know of your work?
- You can add the information to Wikipedia yourself - that's totally allowed, but have a read-through at our conflict of interest policy to make sure you don't run afoul. As long as you add well-sourced information, you may write about yourself; if you want to wait for someone else to write about you, you can simply continue to be prolific, and someone will eventually write Wikipedia content about you.
-
Nimur (
talk) 01:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- This question belongs over at Talk:List of prolific inventors. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note that many lists on wikipedia, especially list of this sort, require items are
WP:notable before they are included. This often means every item must be a blue link and link to an existing article on the item. (It can't be a redirect back to the list!) Sometimes red links are acceptable meaning that if editors feel an article is justified but simply doesn't exist an item may be added. If an item is clearly not notable and so would have to be unlinked, then it doesn't belong. No matter how people may feel about that, or whether there are reliable secondary sources which provide sufficient info to establish that the item could be added to the list. And to be clear, notable means by wikipedia standards i.e. basically there are sufficient
reliable secondary sources covering the item. It doesn't directly have to do with how "famous" something is.
Nil Einne (
talk) 02:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- But that doesn't apply to this article. It's purely a matter of numbers there.
--jpgordon
𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 02:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe it should. See WP:LISTPEOPLE. But as jpgordon says, this belongs on the article talk page. Not here.-- Shantavira| feed me 09:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- But that doesn't apply to this article. It's purely a matter of numbers there.
--jpgordon
𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 02:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| Science desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 28 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 30 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
January 29 Information
Wikipedia's " List of prolific inventors"
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Your list of "List of prolific inventors", begins at 200 Patents. The USPTO Website shows I currently hold 309 US patents under my name; "Viola, Frank". How is it my name is NOT listed at 309 Issued US Patents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.12.97 ( talk) 00:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- The only
Frank Viola I'm aware of is a pitcher. Can you provide a citation for this fact? ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 01:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- A very quick search in any of the patent databases shows at least a lot "Viola, Frank" patents. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Like many articles that are large lists, this one is evidently incomplete. Personally, I don't think patent-count is a particularly good indicator of how prolific an inventor is; but other editors have chosen to compile this list. I'm not sure how the various editors determined criteria for inclusion in that article.
- Is your work mentioned in other publications? Do many people outside of your community know of your work?
- You can add the information to Wikipedia yourself - that's totally allowed, but have a read-through at our conflict of interest policy to make sure you don't run afoul. As long as you add well-sourced information, you may write about yourself; if you want to wait for someone else to write about you, you can simply continue to be prolific, and someone will eventually write Wikipedia content about you.
-
Nimur (
talk) 01:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- This question belongs over at Talk:List of prolific inventors. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note that many lists on wikipedia, especially list of this sort, require items are
WP:notable before they are included. This often means every item must be a blue link and link to an existing article on the item. (It can't be a redirect back to the list!) Sometimes red links are acceptable meaning that if editors feel an article is justified but simply doesn't exist an item may be added. If an item is clearly not notable and so would have to be unlinked, then it doesn't belong. No matter how people may feel about that, or whether there are reliable secondary sources which provide sufficient info to establish that the item could be added to the list. And to be clear, notable means by wikipedia standards i.e. basically there are sufficient
reliable secondary sources covering the item. It doesn't directly have to do with how "famous" something is.
Nil Einne (
talk) 02:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- But that doesn't apply to this article. It's purely a matter of numbers there.
--jpgordon
𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 02:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe it should. See WP:LISTPEOPLE. But as jpgordon says, this belongs on the article talk page. Not here.-- Shantavira| feed me 09:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- But that doesn't apply to this article. It's purely a matter of numbers there.
--jpgordon
𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 02:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.