![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sheesh! I can't believe nobody got the joke yet: my explanation of patent nonsense is an example of it and should be moved to the bad jokes page. -- Ed Poor
Refactored: pre-refactor version
How about life as patient nonsence[sic]
This is not a motion to delete the Wikipedia: Patent nonsense page, but a discussion of whether to delete patent nonsense wherever you find it. Matt Stan 19:57, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Supporters of "Delete patent nonsense" include:
Opponents include:
Supporters of "Give the author a chance" include:
Opponents include:
--- Supporters of "Check out whether the author is a paranoid nutter who will run amok in Wikipedia if he feels put upon, in which case go gently; or a robust ignoremus whose contribution can be eliminated with total satisfaction" include:
Opponents include:
If it weren't for my high degree of skill at reading, my mind would have exploded trying to read that. -- Luigifan 23:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
To put it simply, that is FAR too wordy. -- Luigifan 23:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Is patent nonsense defined as something like this?
Rational choiceFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Who is your Daddy and what does he do? |
(Actual deleted article)
I think Wikipedia doesn't respect myspace music artists due to the fact that they've won no grammys haven't exactly sold any records or for that matter have any major play in the music business therefore they're considered to not be "notable" in other words upcoming artists or should i say artists on the rise have no chance of an article of them making it to wikipedia but that's ok I guess some artists are born with fame.-- BXKING ( talk) 21:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Shellon.
Are future histories patent nonsense? Hello, I would like to propose that histories of future events be included in the list of items that are patent nonsense in the WP definition. By a future history I mean statements about future events that are written in the past tense. An excellent example is this blurb about a would-be tennis star --
from [1] (if that hasn't been deleted yet).
Not all statements about future events are nonsense. Let's try to limit the scope of an expanded definition to just those statements which are sure to be patent nonsense.
I invite your comments. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Of course future histories (except when related to published fiction) are rubbish. But they're not covered by the present Wikipedia definition of "patent nonsense", and I don't think we should extend the definition to include them. "Nonsense" to me means something incomprehensible, and has nothing at all to do with truth or falsity. Incomprehensibility can be grasped speedily, but truth or falsity can't, and needs to be checked.
The stuff about Trevor Longley could be "true" in the novel Wimbledon 2099 or some such thing, and so it only appears to be rubbish because the context wasn't set properly. I don't think lack of context is a good enough reason for speedy deletion.
And what hasn't been mentioned about the Trevor Longley article is that it actually began with information about the past: "Trevor Longley (May 17,1986)is a noted tennis champion. He was born in the Bahamas and began playing tennis at the age of 4. He turned pro in 2004". It may be that there is an up-and-coming professional tennis player by the name of Trevor Longley, that the information about his life up to 2004 is factually accurate and verifiably so, and that the contributor is a fan of his who just got carried away and decided to speculate about his future as well. It can't be assumed that the opening section is rubbish. I think that however the rules about speedy deletion are extended to cover other sorts of rubbish, they should only cover articles that are entirely rubbish, not articles that are just partly rubbish. Articles that are just partly rubbish can be edited back to the parts that aren't, and listed on Vfd as possibly unverifiable. If after five days the remaining parts cannot be verified, the article will be deleted. I don't think there needs to be any rush. -- Oliver P. 21:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Mizan, is a cartoon character created by D'Man. Created as a stroke of genious by its creater, it has spawned an entire collection of Mizan type characters. Some examples are Bizan and Pizan (Mizans cousins). Although not well known yet (13/03/2004) the maker is hoping that the title Mizan will be as common as the word 'Bart' (character from 'The Simpsons').
Yeh it stands 4 the sri lankan cricket board, oo btw jc is fit
Being made a sysop is all about being trusted not to break rules, not about having good judgement. It gives them extra administrative capabilities, but not extra decision-making rights. If something involves any subjective judgement, I think the community as a whole should get a say. I think that everyone can make bad initial judgements at times, especially if they are acting hastily. Making people discuss things on Vfd reduces the risk of that happening. Even there, sysops often say things are obvious nonsense when they aren't, and often the pages end up being kept. I can't think of any specific examples, but I know it's happened... -- Oliver P. 05:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It may be worth pointing out that sysops have the power to undelete as well. Therefore deletions can effectively be appealed. If what was thought to be patent nonsense turns out not to be, e.g. if Trevor Longley does win the Open in 2016, a sysop in future can just undelete the article save the trouble of it needing to be rewritten. Matt Stan 01:47, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think it's important to distinguish between popularly known "future histories" such as Star Trek and Nostradamus, as opposed to "original research" or "vanity page" forms of future history. If all future history were to be deleted, there'd go all of science fiction and pseudoscience doom sayers. (Though it might be worth it...) -- zandperl 18:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The tennis pages are an obvious prank by a bored teenager. Whether or not they should be considered "patent nonsense" is, in a sense, immaterial -- call them what you like, be it "nonsense" or "prank", but they are obviously not valid articles. As far as I'm concerned, the speedy deletion policy should include "obvious prank" as an additional category alongside "patent nonsense", so that we don't need to split hairs about what does or does not constitute "patent nonsense". The pages can always be undeleted if it turns out that a sysop erred in his judgment about what constitutes an obvious prank. -- Egomaniac 18:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This is not a motion or discussion of any kind, but rather a question that was placed on the main page by an anon (in italics):
-- Scott eiπ 23:31, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure on the necessary procedure for getting this agreed, but I'd like to see two more categories of Patent Nonsense explicitly mentioned. These are:
Why aren't we allowed to create an entry on our German teacher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandidoferoz ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Any thoughts? DJ Clayworth 21:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Beer is nutritious, depending on how you define nutritious" and the definition of "nutritious" is not clear from the context.
If you're asking are your questions patent nonsense, I would have to say yes. Your questions have already been answered on the relevant talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 15:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is there any movement to rename the category/phenomenon of patent nonsense into something slightly more technical or at least more in general usage? Even "nonsense" would be more in current English usage than "patent nonsense." ~ Dpr 04:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. mikka (t) 20:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
From the "Not to be confused with..." section:
So then what are these {{crap}}? How should we tag them for deletion?
I'm a fairly new admin and am often confronted with the decision whether or not to speedy-delete a page of nonsense. The problem is, I have read several times now that not all nonsense is patent nonsense. How do I tell the difference? What's an example of nonsense that isn't patent? -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 15:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
an anon added "In-jokes that only memebers of a specific, very small minority whould understand, hence also non-notable vanity." as a third category of patent nonsense. Adding to this page without discussion is wrong, adn i have removed the addition, but doies anyone think this a useful addition? DES (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Please see Category_talk:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#patent_nonsense for a question I have about what constitutes patent nonsense. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Should we put a big flashy tag in the beginning of this page to tell people that poorly written content and hoaxes are not patent nonsense? - ulayiti (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The first line under "do not confuse with" was "Patented content or copyrighted works (nonsense or not)". This is incorrect.
This mixes up different kinds of intellectual property; mere content cannot be subject to a patent. That is what copyright is for. For something to be patented (in the U.S.) it has to be a machine, an article of manufacture, a process, or a composition of matter. A description of anything covered by a patent, as opposed to the patented thing or process itself, not only can't be restricted by the patent, but also, if the text is straight out of the patent document, it cannot be covered by copyright; because the public is entitled to free access and distribution of descriptions of what they are obligated by a patent to avoid using. Unlike copyrighted content, a verbatim copy of the text of any issued U.S. patent would be perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia because it is by law in all cases in the public domain. That is why it is called a "patent", which is short for a "letter patent", i.e. an "open letter" - an open letter to the world, from the government, describing precisely what they are obligated not to practice unless they get the patent-holder's decision or wait til the patent expires.
(This content does not constitute legal advice; if you need legal advice seek the services of your own qualified attorney.)
So, since this was flatly erroneous, I changed it to "copyrighted content or works (nonsense or not)". - Reaverdrop 04:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if these should be included in the list of "patent" nonsense... i mean.. there are plenty of people who believe this stuff... and there are plenty of entries on magic, stated in a factual manner... like "to invoke the angel gabriel you do xyz" instead of "believers of --- believes that doing xyz would invoked the angel garbriel"
what do you guys think? Forgot 05:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think more people need to watchlist this page - it was just blanked for over an hour. - ulayiti (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency in policy between Vandalism and Nonsense. Folks over at the Vandalism page think Nonsense is vandalism. This pages says that nonsense should not be considered vandalism. I think both pages need a change. Here is a bit of the discussion from the Vandalism talk page.
I made an edit for consistency. Sometimes nonsense is only an accident or a person had problems expressing themselves. They should NOT be treated as vandals immediately! but more importantly, One user was already confused by the difference in policy. You can read the problem on User talk:Pat8722. The policy WP:Nonsense says that Nonsense is not Vandalism. The Policy WP:Vandalism says that it is. The should be consistent. And I think my edit fixed the problem reasonably. My Edit was:
Nonsense: While nonsense can be a form of vandalism, sometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves incorrectly or there may have been a connection error resulting in the appearance of nonsense. Assume good faith.
I can see that perhaps it should not say "Nonsense" as the first word, but rather "Unintended Nonsense". But this requires a bit of mind reading. Maybe though, it is a special category of "Mistake", which is listed. If so, I still think that it should be somewhat explicit: Nonsense may sometimes be mistakes!
Maybe BOTH policy pages need a change. WP:Nonsense should be changed to say that "Inadvertant Nonsense" is not vandalism but intentional Nonsense IS Vandalism and WP:VAN should be changed to say the same thing. -- Blue Tie 22:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Which is a better title? - Jack (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 19:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Patent nonsense → Wikipedia:Obvious nonsense – Because obvious is obviously more obvious - Jack (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments
Somebody just vandalized this page with inane banter... -- Luigifan 23:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Sticky wicket likes to picket
Eating yams and feet
Pimple busters make great custards
Num, num, num, num, sweet.
Baldmonkey juice on a moose,
Midgets hide in my caboose,
We have a truce, I am not loose,
Like an onion or a goose.
64.142.93.164
03:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I just want to chime in and agree with some users above (and on many, many AfD pages) that this policy is confusingly worded. On one hand, it defines patent nonsense in a very strict, straightforward way (i.e. Stuff like "32wasf%$#@" or surreal junk of the "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" mold) but then a few lines later, suggests dealing with this nonsense by turning it into "brilliant" prose, or discussing it on the talk page. How do you turn @#gsdg#@55asg into brilliant prose? How do you engage with the editor who contributed this? The back-and-forth on AfDs about what is or isn't patent nonsense is not really helped by this page, which is inconsistent and self-contradictory.- Dmz5 *Edits* *Talk* 05:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. Patent nonsense, especially articles with nonsense titles, can't be turned into a brilliant prose by no means. The whole thing about rewriting could be included in AfD or reverting vandalism, but not in patent nonsense.-- Orthologist 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Does this policy actually cover bad jokes; ie stuff that is readable and means something, just that the meaning is obviously completely silly? If so, shouldn't it say so more clearly? Right now it neither includes or excludes jokes. Moyabrit 10:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's important to explain what "patent" means; it's NOT at all clear to everyone. See, for example, the section above where an attempt was made to rename the guideline because it was felt that the meaning of "patent" wasn't clear. So I've reverted, again, the deletion of the explanation, and welcome further discussion here.
As for "why not link every word to wiktionary", the answer is that (a) this is an important word - one that is IN THE TITLE; and (b) it's a word that is subject to confusion, so explaining its meaning is important. (I'm not really hung up on linking to wiktionary; the important thing is to explain what "patent" means for those who might be confused about it; the link to wiktionary presumably is to show that the definition is in fact valid.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
My page ( http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/flaggeninkal) was deleted as "patent nonsense". I tried to contest the deletion, but was ignored. Junulo ( talk) 22:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Accounting4Taste called the page "night puma" patent nonsense! What should I do about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumagirl7 ( talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Where is the policy that says, " it doesn't need sources" FX ( talk) 12:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Could an example be included for category 2 nonsense? I'm having trouble understanding what this type of nonsense is, as I find its definition contradictory: content that is meaningful, yet nobody can make sense of it. Epbr123 ( talk) 11:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I occasionally find the {[fact}} template used on facts that are patently obvious. I don't expect to find 3+2=5 citation needed, but I'll bet someone has used e=mc2 citation needed. I have seen citation needed used as a retaliatory measure akin to vandalism. I don't like the idea of a non-administrator removing the template, but is there some sort of appeal process to remove it? Phil_burnstein ( talk) 19:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This occurred to me during a debate at WP:SYNT. The following example of an "article" isn't explicitly prohibited by a policy: "The sky is blue (cite 1). The Sun is hot (cite 2). An elephant is a mammal (cite3)." Assuming the citations are proper, these facts all meet WP:V. But this "article" has no discernible topic, except perhaps random truisms. I think such an article is obviously prohibited by WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It seems a reasonable example of patent nonsense at the paragraph rather than sentence level. A classic example of the latter is Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. I'd like to add both of these examples to the guideline unless someone objects. Pcap ping 21:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
←Actually, "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is a suitable topic for an article (though possibly not suitable as the only content in an article). Bongo matic 00:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sheesh! I can't believe nobody got the joke yet: my explanation of patent nonsense is an example of it and should be moved to the bad jokes page. -- Ed Poor
Refactored: pre-refactor version
How about life as patient nonsence[sic]
This is not a motion to delete the Wikipedia: Patent nonsense page, but a discussion of whether to delete patent nonsense wherever you find it. Matt Stan 19:57, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Supporters of "Delete patent nonsense" include:
Opponents include:
Supporters of "Give the author a chance" include:
Opponents include:
--- Supporters of "Check out whether the author is a paranoid nutter who will run amok in Wikipedia if he feels put upon, in which case go gently; or a robust ignoremus whose contribution can be eliminated with total satisfaction" include:
Opponents include:
If it weren't for my high degree of skill at reading, my mind would have exploded trying to read that. -- Luigifan 23:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
To put it simply, that is FAR too wordy. -- Luigifan 23:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Is patent nonsense defined as something like this?
Rational choiceFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Who is your Daddy and what does he do? |
(Actual deleted article)
I think Wikipedia doesn't respect myspace music artists due to the fact that they've won no grammys haven't exactly sold any records or for that matter have any major play in the music business therefore they're considered to not be "notable" in other words upcoming artists or should i say artists on the rise have no chance of an article of them making it to wikipedia but that's ok I guess some artists are born with fame.-- BXKING ( talk) 21:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Shellon.
Are future histories patent nonsense? Hello, I would like to propose that histories of future events be included in the list of items that are patent nonsense in the WP definition. By a future history I mean statements about future events that are written in the past tense. An excellent example is this blurb about a would-be tennis star --
from [1] (if that hasn't been deleted yet).
Not all statements about future events are nonsense. Let's try to limit the scope of an expanded definition to just those statements which are sure to be patent nonsense.
I invite your comments. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Of course future histories (except when related to published fiction) are rubbish. But they're not covered by the present Wikipedia definition of "patent nonsense", and I don't think we should extend the definition to include them. "Nonsense" to me means something incomprehensible, and has nothing at all to do with truth or falsity. Incomprehensibility can be grasped speedily, but truth or falsity can't, and needs to be checked.
The stuff about Trevor Longley could be "true" in the novel Wimbledon 2099 or some such thing, and so it only appears to be rubbish because the context wasn't set properly. I don't think lack of context is a good enough reason for speedy deletion.
And what hasn't been mentioned about the Trevor Longley article is that it actually began with information about the past: "Trevor Longley (May 17,1986)is a noted tennis champion. He was born in the Bahamas and began playing tennis at the age of 4. He turned pro in 2004". It may be that there is an up-and-coming professional tennis player by the name of Trevor Longley, that the information about his life up to 2004 is factually accurate and verifiably so, and that the contributor is a fan of his who just got carried away and decided to speculate about his future as well. It can't be assumed that the opening section is rubbish. I think that however the rules about speedy deletion are extended to cover other sorts of rubbish, they should only cover articles that are entirely rubbish, not articles that are just partly rubbish. Articles that are just partly rubbish can be edited back to the parts that aren't, and listed on Vfd as possibly unverifiable. If after five days the remaining parts cannot be verified, the article will be deleted. I don't think there needs to be any rush. -- Oliver P. 21:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Mizan, is a cartoon character created by D'Man. Created as a stroke of genious by its creater, it has spawned an entire collection of Mizan type characters. Some examples are Bizan and Pizan (Mizans cousins). Although not well known yet (13/03/2004) the maker is hoping that the title Mizan will be as common as the word 'Bart' (character from 'The Simpsons').
Yeh it stands 4 the sri lankan cricket board, oo btw jc is fit
Being made a sysop is all about being trusted not to break rules, not about having good judgement. It gives them extra administrative capabilities, but not extra decision-making rights. If something involves any subjective judgement, I think the community as a whole should get a say. I think that everyone can make bad initial judgements at times, especially if they are acting hastily. Making people discuss things on Vfd reduces the risk of that happening. Even there, sysops often say things are obvious nonsense when they aren't, and often the pages end up being kept. I can't think of any specific examples, but I know it's happened... -- Oliver P. 05:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It may be worth pointing out that sysops have the power to undelete as well. Therefore deletions can effectively be appealed. If what was thought to be patent nonsense turns out not to be, e.g. if Trevor Longley does win the Open in 2016, a sysop in future can just undelete the article save the trouble of it needing to be rewritten. Matt Stan 01:47, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think it's important to distinguish between popularly known "future histories" such as Star Trek and Nostradamus, as opposed to "original research" or "vanity page" forms of future history. If all future history were to be deleted, there'd go all of science fiction and pseudoscience doom sayers. (Though it might be worth it...) -- zandperl 18:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The tennis pages are an obvious prank by a bored teenager. Whether or not they should be considered "patent nonsense" is, in a sense, immaterial -- call them what you like, be it "nonsense" or "prank", but they are obviously not valid articles. As far as I'm concerned, the speedy deletion policy should include "obvious prank" as an additional category alongside "patent nonsense", so that we don't need to split hairs about what does or does not constitute "patent nonsense". The pages can always be undeleted if it turns out that a sysop erred in his judgment about what constitutes an obvious prank. -- Egomaniac 18:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This is not a motion or discussion of any kind, but rather a question that was placed on the main page by an anon (in italics):
-- Scott eiπ 23:31, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure on the necessary procedure for getting this agreed, but I'd like to see two more categories of Patent Nonsense explicitly mentioned. These are:
Why aren't we allowed to create an entry on our German teacher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandidoferoz ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Any thoughts? DJ Clayworth 21:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Beer is nutritious, depending on how you define nutritious" and the definition of "nutritious" is not clear from the context.
If you're asking are your questions patent nonsense, I would have to say yes. Your questions have already been answered on the relevant talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 15:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is there any movement to rename the category/phenomenon of patent nonsense into something slightly more technical or at least more in general usage? Even "nonsense" would be more in current English usage than "patent nonsense." ~ Dpr 04:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. mikka (t) 20:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
From the "Not to be confused with..." section:
So then what are these {{crap}}? How should we tag them for deletion?
I'm a fairly new admin and am often confronted with the decision whether or not to speedy-delete a page of nonsense. The problem is, I have read several times now that not all nonsense is patent nonsense. How do I tell the difference? What's an example of nonsense that isn't patent? -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 15:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
an anon added "In-jokes that only memebers of a specific, very small minority whould understand, hence also non-notable vanity." as a third category of patent nonsense. Adding to this page without discussion is wrong, adn i have removed the addition, but doies anyone think this a useful addition? DES (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Please see Category_talk:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#patent_nonsense for a question I have about what constitutes patent nonsense. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Should we put a big flashy tag in the beginning of this page to tell people that poorly written content and hoaxes are not patent nonsense? - ulayiti (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The first line under "do not confuse with" was "Patented content or copyrighted works (nonsense or not)". This is incorrect.
This mixes up different kinds of intellectual property; mere content cannot be subject to a patent. That is what copyright is for. For something to be patented (in the U.S.) it has to be a machine, an article of manufacture, a process, or a composition of matter. A description of anything covered by a patent, as opposed to the patented thing or process itself, not only can't be restricted by the patent, but also, if the text is straight out of the patent document, it cannot be covered by copyright; because the public is entitled to free access and distribution of descriptions of what they are obligated by a patent to avoid using. Unlike copyrighted content, a verbatim copy of the text of any issued U.S. patent would be perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia because it is by law in all cases in the public domain. That is why it is called a "patent", which is short for a "letter patent", i.e. an "open letter" - an open letter to the world, from the government, describing precisely what they are obligated not to practice unless they get the patent-holder's decision or wait til the patent expires.
(This content does not constitute legal advice; if you need legal advice seek the services of your own qualified attorney.)
So, since this was flatly erroneous, I changed it to "copyrighted content or works (nonsense or not)". - Reaverdrop 04:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if these should be included in the list of "patent" nonsense... i mean.. there are plenty of people who believe this stuff... and there are plenty of entries on magic, stated in a factual manner... like "to invoke the angel gabriel you do xyz" instead of "believers of --- believes that doing xyz would invoked the angel garbriel"
what do you guys think? Forgot 05:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think more people need to watchlist this page - it was just blanked for over an hour. - ulayiti (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency in policy between Vandalism and Nonsense. Folks over at the Vandalism page think Nonsense is vandalism. This pages says that nonsense should not be considered vandalism. I think both pages need a change. Here is a bit of the discussion from the Vandalism talk page.
I made an edit for consistency. Sometimes nonsense is only an accident or a person had problems expressing themselves. They should NOT be treated as vandals immediately! but more importantly, One user was already confused by the difference in policy. You can read the problem on User talk:Pat8722. The policy WP:Nonsense says that Nonsense is not Vandalism. The Policy WP:Vandalism says that it is. The should be consistent. And I think my edit fixed the problem reasonably. My Edit was:
Nonsense: While nonsense can be a form of vandalism, sometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves incorrectly or there may have been a connection error resulting in the appearance of nonsense. Assume good faith.
I can see that perhaps it should not say "Nonsense" as the first word, but rather "Unintended Nonsense". But this requires a bit of mind reading. Maybe though, it is a special category of "Mistake", which is listed. If so, I still think that it should be somewhat explicit: Nonsense may sometimes be mistakes!
Maybe BOTH policy pages need a change. WP:Nonsense should be changed to say that "Inadvertant Nonsense" is not vandalism but intentional Nonsense IS Vandalism and WP:VAN should be changed to say the same thing. -- Blue Tie 22:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Which is a better title? - Jack (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 19:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Patent nonsense → Wikipedia:Obvious nonsense – Because obvious is obviously more obvious - Jack (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments
Somebody just vandalized this page with inane banter... -- Luigifan 23:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Sticky wicket likes to picket
Eating yams and feet
Pimple busters make great custards
Num, num, num, num, sweet.
Baldmonkey juice on a moose,
Midgets hide in my caboose,
We have a truce, I am not loose,
Like an onion or a goose.
64.142.93.164
03:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I just want to chime in and agree with some users above (and on many, many AfD pages) that this policy is confusingly worded. On one hand, it defines patent nonsense in a very strict, straightforward way (i.e. Stuff like "32wasf%$#@" or surreal junk of the "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" mold) but then a few lines later, suggests dealing with this nonsense by turning it into "brilliant" prose, or discussing it on the talk page. How do you turn @#gsdg#@55asg into brilliant prose? How do you engage with the editor who contributed this? The back-and-forth on AfDs about what is or isn't patent nonsense is not really helped by this page, which is inconsistent and self-contradictory.- Dmz5 *Edits* *Talk* 05:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. Patent nonsense, especially articles with nonsense titles, can't be turned into a brilliant prose by no means. The whole thing about rewriting could be included in AfD or reverting vandalism, but not in patent nonsense.-- Orthologist 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Does this policy actually cover bad jokes; ie stuff that is readable and means something, just that the meaning is obviously completely silly? If so, shouldn't it say so more clearly? Right now it neither includes or excludes jokes. Moyabrit 10:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's important to explain what "patent" means; it's NOT at all clear to everyone. See, for example, the section above where an attempt was made to rename the guideline because it was felt that the meaning of "patent" wasn't clear. So I've reverted, again, the deletion of the explanation, and welcome further discussion here.
As for "why not link every word to wiktionary", the answer is that (a) this is an important word - one that is IN THE TITLE; and (b) it's a word that is subject to confusion, so explaining its meaning is important. (I'm not really hung up on linking to wiktionary; the important thing is to explain what "patent" means for those who might be confused about it; the link to wiktionary presumably is to show that the definition is in fact valid.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
My page ( http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/flaggeninkal) was deleted as "patent nonsense". I tried to contest the deletion, but was ignored. Junulo ( talk) 22:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Accounting4Taste called the page "night puma" patent nonsense! What should I do about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumagirl7 ( talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Where is the policy that says, " it doesn't need sources" FX ( talk) 12:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Could an example be included for category 2 nonsense? I'm having trouble understanding what this type of nonsense is, as I find its definition contradictory: content that is meaningful, yet nobody can make sense of it. Epbr123 ( talk) 11:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I occasionally find the {[fact}} template used on facts that are patently obvious. I don't expect to find 3+2=5 citation needed, but I'll bet someone has used e=mc2 citation needed. I have seen citation needed used as a retaliatory measure akin to vandalism. I don't like the idea of a non-administrator removing the template, but is there some sort of appeal process to remove it? Phil_burnstein ( talk) 19:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This occurred to me during a debate at WP:SYNT. The following example of an "article" isn't explicitly prohibited by a policy: "The sky is blue (cite 1). The Sun is hot (cite 2). An elephant is a mammal (cite3)." Assuming the citations are proper, these facts all meet WP:V. But this "article" has no discernible topic, except perhaps random truisms. I think such an article is obviously prohibited by WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It seems a reasonable example of patent nonsense at the paragraph rather than sentence level. A classic example of the latter is Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. I'd like to add both of these examples to the guideline unless someone objects. Pcap ping 21:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
←Actually, "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is a suitable topic for an article (though possibly not suitable as the only content in an article). Bongo matic 00:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)