Wikipedia talk:Patent nonsense/Archive 1

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

No, it wasn't patent nonsense but instead merely non-NPOV. --Damian Yerrick

Arguably it was patent nonsense to write "Patent nonsense is nonsensical ideas about patents, particularly the view that a patent provides intellectual property rights.", except that I have heard the term used (jokingly) to mean that -- or from an NPOV, "Patent nonsense is a term that some people in favor of intellectual property law reform use satirically to deride the view that a patent is primarily intended to provide monopoly rights to creators of intellectual property.". So it wasn't patent nonsense at all! (Even though it may still have been a bad joke.) -- Toby Bartels

Miscellaneous discussion

Refactored: pre-refactor version

---

How about life as patient nonsence[sic]

Support and opposition

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:

1. Larry Sanger
2. Tim Shell
3. Jerry Muelver
4. Pinkunicorn
5. Koyaanis Qatsi
6. Janet Davis
7. drj
8. Taw
9. GWO
10. Damian Yerrick
11. tbc
12. clasqm
13. AxelBoldt
14. Enchanter
15. Rotem Dan
16. ugen64
17. Fermatprime (but I remind you not to delete the page if the page itself could be useful).
18. Neutrality^talk 21:16, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Opponents include:

1. 24 (Every page needs its own nonsense file separate from talk so that there is an idea of why something might be targetted for those who come later).

---

Supporters of "Give the author a chance" include:

1. AyeSpy
2. Tim Shell
3. JerryMuelver
4. tbc

Opponents include:

1. Larry Sanger (everyone should feel free to improve any page on the wiki)
2. Lee Daniel Crocker (the mindset that a Wiki page has "an author" restricts the process by which pages can evolve)
3. Robert Merkel (Perhaps the rule was intended for hot-button topics like abortion?)
4. clasqm (This rule assumes that all authors periodically check everything they have written so far. Too much of an assumption)
5. AxelBoldt (either rewrite, or start discussion on talk page)
6. 24 (once you've touched it, you own it; talk increases the chance that someone will respond)
7. Damian Yerrick (Give the author a chance? What is this, E2?)
8. Robert Merkel (in general, see the debate for more details)
9. JHK
10. FearÉIREANN
11. Neutrality^talk 21:16, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

--- 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:

1. Matt Stan

Opponents include:

1. --Luigifan 23:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC) (What are you, the king of run-on sentences?!? Reword that abdomination so that it can be read by the average person in less than 5 seconds, and then we'll discuss its merits.)

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

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)

Discussion

Is patent nonsense defined as something like this?

Rational choice From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Who is your Daddy and what does he do?

(Actual deleted article)

Future histories

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 --

In 2012 and 2016 he completed the "golden slam" (all 4 majors and an Olympic gold medal in the same calendar year).

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)

It's covered implicitly by NPOV guidelines, surely, so patent nonsense doesn't need to mention it explicitly. It can't be anything other than non-neutral to suggest that something will defniitely happen - it has to be allowed that there's a point of view that it won't. As for using the past tense for something that hasn't yet occurred, then this obviously is patent nonsense by any yardstick, but does the patent nonsense page need to cover every instance of nonsense that could occur. I suggest not. Matt Stan 16:52, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is hard to find a good statement, as all future history is fiction, not patent nonsense. Perhaps this: "future history which does not appear in published fiction is patent nonsense"? — Jor (Darkelf) 16:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah, but whether or not something appears in published fiction cannot be ascertained speedily! -- Oliver P. 21:39, 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)

That's a good point, but it doesn't change the fact that this article was one of two that were created as mere pranks by the same anon user. I don't think there is any doubt about that, let's discuss it if there is. But for the purpose of this discussion can we assume that they were clearly identifiable as simple pranks? Then rather than discussing what patent nonsense does, doesn't, should or shouldn't mean, the real issue is, how do we deal with these?

I think they should be speedy delete whatever they are called. We need to be efficient in dealing with them, so as not to encourage the pranksters, and so as not to waste too much time on them.

A prank entry can of course include accurate information, and if we make it known that we are prepared to waste our time sorting out which is which you can bet that the pranksters will give us plenty of practice at it. Better IMO just to delete the pranksters' text. By the time you've verified the facts, it would have been easier to start all over again anyway.

There was another about the same time, Mizan, an article which read in total (spelling mistakes and all)

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').

and was created by an anon editor. No other history, other than adding VfD and speedy delete messages, and then reverting the speedy delete.

I think that the term patent nonsense does cover things like this already, but I'm increasingly thinking that it might be easier to call it something else, just so we can move on. Andrewa 02:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it might be easier to think of a different name. It seems like "original work of fiction" is appropriate. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:29, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IMO what we want is a term that covers all texts that are pure pranks, whether they include some facts or not (and it's in a sense impossible to write pure fiction, which is one of the things Jabberwocky is about), and whether they are substance-inspired or not (the current article on patent nonsense singles out alcohol, which I think is a bit behind the times). It should include for example:

Yeh it stands 4 the sri lankan cricket board, oo btw jc is fit

which was the entire text of the BCCSL article before I got to it. Now BCCSL is a valid topic, but if it had been under an article name that wasn't useful I would have liked an instant delete, although the text isn't pure nonsense.

I really can't see why things that are obvious pranks need to be discussed and voted on. Certainly, if there is any doubt they should be. But I think our sysops do very, very well already at giving the benefit of the doubt in the correct direction, as described by policy, in other matters. I think they'd do as well on this one. Andrewa 00:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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)

I certainly agree that an important consideration in deciding who should be a sysop is that they need to be prepared to follow the rules, but I don't think that's all that is required.

Years ago I was at a youth conference run by the protestant church to which I belong, and we had as a chaplain a young Roman Catholic monk. In one of several 'radio' interviews broadcast over the camp PA system, he mentioned the three-fold vow of poverty, chastity and obedience, which he paraphrased "or, if you like, no money, no honey, no mucking about". He was asked which of the three was most the difficult. He replied without hesitation, "Obedience. It means you have to learn to listen."

It seems to me that there's also a lot of listening required to being a sysop. The idea that the sorts of rules we're talking about here can be formalised in a way that leaves no scope for interpretation is IMO not credible. If that's true, then judgement is also required to do the job well.

You seem to agree with this much, but I wanted to spell it out because I don't think you've thought it through. The question then is, where do we draw the line? Is it necessary, or even possible, for every decision that requires judgement to be referred to discussion, as you seem to suggest?

My answer is that it's neither necessary nor possible. To you, some decisions seem clear, and you're happy to have these done by sysops, and you think the others should be referred to the community. But in each case this is your judgement, and not everyone will agree as to which of these decisions fall clearly under the rules. So, unless we refer everything to a vote, we are going to be in the cases that don't come to a vote depending on the judgement of the sysops as to what the rules mean and what they cover. This is what is happening now, and it works well.

Food for thought? Andrewa 01:39, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I may have exaggerated the "sysops aren't judges" business. They do need to be able to tell whether or not something is covered by the "speedy deletion" rules, which does require some judgement. However, the point of the "speedy deletion" rules is to avoid having to discuss material whose deletion is entirely uncontroversial. If a controversy arises about a certain type of material, as it has here, it follows that speedy deletion is inappropriate for that type of material. If in doubt, don't delete. That's a rule. -- Oliver P. 00:33, 25 Apr 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)

You've missed the point. The Trevor Longley article was never patent nonsense, regardless of its truth value. "Nonsense" is not a synonym for "falsehood". Furthermore, deletions can only be appealed if they are noticed, which in most cases they probably wouldn't be. Even if they are appealed, there is little chance of the appeal working, because the undeletion policy as it stands is strongly biased in favour of keeping deleted things deleted. -- Oliver P. 00:33, 25 Apr 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)

As has already been pointed out above, the Trevor Longley article contained information about the past, which was not obviously false. And as has already been pointed out above, some "future history" is valid. It could be part of published work such as Star Trek or Nostradamus, and such things need checking. -- Oliver P. 00:33, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Talk

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):

• Incompetent and/or immature stuff
• Flame bait entries....what does that mean??
• Vandalism (See dealing with vandalism)

-- Scott e^iπ 23:31, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

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:

1. Contextual nonsense. Stuff that makes sense on its own but clearly has nothing to do with the topic in hand. For example (ficitious example) "Politics in Upper Silesia: My ma bakes excellent cookies and always irons my shorts real well."
2. Factual nonsense. Stuff that is obviously untrue. "Arnold Jamplaget was born in 2045 and was the first man to scuba dive on Mars".

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

This is a hypothetical statement that I made up to illustrate a ploy commonly used in contentious articles. The writer wants to say "Beer is good for you" but he can't support the statement, so he says "Beer is nutritious". Well, beer has calories so it is nutritious in some sense. The statement really says:

"Beer is nutritious, depending on how you define nutritious" and the definition of "nutritious" is not clear from the context.

To a mathematician or logician, using an undefined term in a statement is patent nonsense, but I'm nor sure if it would be called "patent nonsense" here.

The ambiguity could be resolved by re-wording to something like "Beer contains nutrients" but the writer may insist on keeping his ambiguous but suggestive wording. The problem is much worse when there are more than one ambiguous terms in a long, complicated statement. Attempts to make sense of these statements have been denounced as querelous nit-picking.

Is there any Wikipedia guideline that explicitly suggests defining or clarifying ambiguous or undefined terms?24.64.166.191 03:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article says "please use the discussion page to propose major changes" so I am proposing to say something like:

"If a statement contains words which could have various meanings, and the meaning is not clear from the context, the meaning should be made clear. One way to do this is to replace the ambiguous word with its definition".24.64.166.191 06:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• GIGFY! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had to google to figure that out.24.64.166.191 04:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An actual example would be the statement in Israel that the population of Israel is 80% Jewish.

I could also say that the population of Israel is less than 50% Jewish.

It all depends on how you define "population", "Israel" and "Jewish".

If you define "Israel" and "Jewish" as the religious settlers would, and define "population" in the usual way based on where people normally reside, then you get the 50% number.

If anyone is interested I will give the definitions leading to the 80% number.

Of course, demographics is a hot political issue in Israel.

I am reluctant to put this into Patent Nonsense without some discussion because I think it is a MAJOR change. Many articles are full of ambiguous or undefined terms. Some of this is due to sloppy, imprecise writing, some is tricky weaselyness and some may be ambiguous compromise wording.

Should Patent Nonsense encourage querelous nit-picking mathematicians such as myself to demand well-defined unambiguous terminology in articles? Is there a more appropriate article to put this in? 24.64.166.191 04:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another example is (my wording, not what it currently says in Israel, you will find similar nonsense in many articles): "The Land of Israel is the homeland of the Jews."

To understand the meaning of this statement, we need to know the definitions of "The Land of Israel" and "homeland". These are not clear from the context.

"The Land of Israel" might mean "the region where Jews came from". "homeland" might be defined as "the region where a religious/ethnic group came from". So "The Land of Israel is the homeland of the Jews." might mean "The region where Jews came from is the region where Jews came from". Is this Patent Nonsense? 24.64.166.191 05:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

Rename?

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)

We should not need this page. Words have usages (Sometimes called "meanings" or "definitions") which are listed in scholarly dictionaries like the OED with references to their earliest uses. Words are strung together in sentences according to generally accepted grammatical rules.

Aside from "total nonsense", "Patent nonsense" is defined as "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head or tail of it."

If I'm trying to make "head or tail" of a statement, I would first ask the writer to specify which usage (meaning, definition) of words is meant. If they can't or won't, the statement is meaningless (= nonsense).

How does one make "head or tail" of statements like: "the population of Israel is 80% Jewish" and "the population of Israel is less than 50% Jewish" if writers are not required to define their terms? I don't have a lot of use for Wikipedia if this sort of nonsense is acceptable. 24.64.166.191 07:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. mikka (t) 20:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Not nonsense?

From the "Not to be confused with..." section:

1. Incompetent and/or immature material
2. Flame bait entries
3. Obscene remarks

So then what are these {{crap}}? How should we tag them for deletion?

They may well be vandalism, and speediable or revertable as such. If they don't clearly fit Wikipedia:vandalism, then either simply revert or edit or if it is the entire page, put the page on AfD. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

When is nonsense not patent?

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)

I assume you've seen the Not to be confused with section? What about that is unclear? (So we can improve it). JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, for example, how do I tell the difference between "patent nonsense" and "incompetent material"? If I find a three-line "article" claiming that Basque is the language spoken by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, can I speedy-delete it as patent nonsense, or do I have to take it to AFD and wait five days while the community agrees with me that it's not worth keeping? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 04:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

According to my reading of this guideline, intelligible statements that are clearly untrue or uverifiable are not patent nonsense. I would say "Adam and Eve were a language spoken in the Garden of Eden" would be covered by the guideline, but it is hypothetically possible that the statement you give could be proved by someone (as it is not, in itself, unprovable or internally invalid). Maybe there should be another guideline for patently unverifiable statements.

I think it is best using common sense in these situations. I'd imagine you could move the statement to the talk, comment it out or leave it followed by for a while, if you don't like deleting things that aren't patent nonsense. If an article only contains such statements, you could probably speedy it for something else.

If blatantly unverifiable or untrue statements aren't supposed to be covered by this guideline, it should probably be added to the not to be confused with section.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 10:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

in Jokes

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)

Yeah, it seems like a good one. Re-add it. - Kookykman|(t)e 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe restrict that to situations were the statement would be covered by patent nonsense if one weren't to interpret it as a joke (as opposed to including all in-jokes, which, though innapropriate, aren't patent nonsense).

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 11:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Category_talk:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#patent_nonsense

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)

Misuse of this criterion

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)

Patent error about "patented content"

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)

What happens when it is discovered that one of the formats in wide use on Commons is not in fact patent-free? Then we have a lot of content in a patented format. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 03:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

New Age?

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 your second option is the better one. If the Coven (or for that matter Church) of the Blessed Weenie of Foo believe that to invoke Great Foo you must blah blah blah, then you report that that is what they do. Belief systems should be described (NPOV), but not promoted nor deprecated (POV).

"Great Foo created the Universe after he was thrown out of a 7-11 in Iowa after he invented the Universe in it" is patent nonsense. "The Church of the Blessed Weenies believe that Great Foo invented...etc" is fine, if you can cite the source for the belief (and, for that matter, the church). --SigPig 19:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

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)

I undid a vandalism. Hooray! 128.158.145.51 18:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism vs Nonsense

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)

FWIW, here is my opinion: if you think there is even a remote chance that the editor who inserted the nonsense actually intended to improve the article and WP in general, then it's not vandalism. Otherwise, it is vandalism. I would exclude the case of a new user 'experimenting', which we traditionally allow as a 'test', to be followed up by inserting an appropriate test template warning in the contributor's Talk page. Crum375 14:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you on this sense of things. I began this edit when I observed a talk page where there was confusion because one page said Nonsense is Vandalism and another page said it was not. I am seeking to harmonize and clarify. The WP:VAN page includes a discussion where one person opposes this edit. --Blue Tie 14:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Patent nonsense or Blatant nonsense?

Which is a better title? - Jack (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the usage of patent to mean obvious has fallen out of modern usage, however this might just be in the U.S. I think that blatant would probably be more clear to the majority of en.wiki users.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 00:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Not just the US; I live in the UK, and until coming to this page, I had never heard of patent to be used in this context. Suggest a move? Perhaps we should get the opinion of someone a big more linguistically mature lol - Jack (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, we don't need old people. Us teenagers know everything. >.> —WAvegetarian•(talk) 00:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 19:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Wikipedia:Patent nonsense → Wikipedia:Obvious nonsense – Because obvious is obviously more obvious - Jack (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose. The meaning of the current article title is patently obvious. --SigPig 17:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Patently long-established term. Helps to avoid instruction creep. Septentrionalis 18:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Long-established; sounds more natural; the attributive patent is still common usage when referring to nonsense or similar even if obsolete elsewhere; patent feels stronger than obvious. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 10:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

How ironic...

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)

• That's the exact opposite of irony. 69.47.235.115 (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This page and definitions

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)

I also agree that the "brilliant prose" suggestion is quite redundant and nearly impossible to implicate in 99.9% (exaggerated percentage but you get the idea) of CSD cases. I wouldn't feel much regret to remove it from the page, however; I'm a bit hesitant to summon up some boldness to edit it before other editors chime in and unanimously agree on its redundancy.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Silly (but deliberate) nonsense

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 does exclude jokes, from the "not to be confused with" list, jokes would most likely fall under "Incompetent and/or immature material", could be hoaxes if they look like an attempt to game the system, or if they're obscene, they can be considered vandalism. I can't think of an example which doesn't fall under those three. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 13:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "patent"

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)

That's, er, nonsense. If the term isn't clear, we should change it. If it is clear, there is no need to supply its definition. Simple as that. The example above you cite was opposed because "the meaning of the current article title is patently obvious" - so by citing it you've just proved that there is a consensus that it is clear.

Additionally, one cannot arbitrarily decide which words exactly are "subject to confusion". The word is not archiac or uncommon and does not obviously warrant explanation. --84.71.35.120 22:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that other editors, above, have said that the term is not clear. It's not just me saying that it's confusing. So I hope we're beyond the point of argument of this - it's should be conclusionary that the term is confusing to some people. (While you may find that it's not personally confusing, that's exactly one data point - I certainly hope you're not saying "I don't find it's confusing, ergo other people won't either.")

Thus the question is - Should we change the term? I've already pointed out that this has been tried (see above), and failed. But if you want to propose, again, that it be changed, I not only have no objections, but I'd support changing the title to "Obvious nonsense" or something similar. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Other editors" does not a consensus make. The proposition failed; thus it has been agreed, by consensus, that the term is not confusing. I do not dispute that some people may find the term confusing; that's their own fault and nothing to do with us as here on Wikipedia our consensus agrees it isn't. I'm eventually going to remove it again on these grounds; you'd have to show me a successful proposition to change the term if you want to convince me I'm wrong. --84.71.35.120 19:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not dispute that some people may find the term confusing; that's their own fault and nothing to do with us as here on Wikipedia'. Excuse me: you're saying that our job does NOT include REDUCING confusion whenever possible? As, for example, reducing confusion by leaving the definition in? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What kind of ridiculous doublethink are you championing here? If the term is confusing, we should change it! --84.71.35.120 16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we done? Can I remove it now? --84.71.35.120 18:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What?

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)

What about mine?

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)

It was. Get over it. Contribute useful, real content: that is what you "should do about it". — Scientizzle 06:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Where is the policy that says, "it doesn't need sources" FX (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Category 2 nonsense

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)

as patent nonsense

I occasionally find the {[fact}} template used on facts that are patently obvious. I don't expect to find 3+2=5, but I'll bet someone has used e=mc². I have seen 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)

Rather hypotherical examples

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)

I am quite restrictive in how I apply the CSD guidelines, but I would unhesitatingly delete those first 3 examples as test pages. Its the only rational basis why someone would have entered them. This discussion might more usefully continue at WT:CSD, where more people will see it (I saw it only because I was asked to look by the proposer). DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll add a pointer from WT:CSD to here. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but there are only two examples of articles I'm proposing:

1. The sky is blue.^[1] The Sun is hot.^[2] An elephant is a mammal.^[3]
2. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

In the first, each sentence is both grammatically correct and has a meaning, even a source, but the article as whole makes no sense. The 2nd example is a classic grammatically correct sentence with no meaning. Pcap ping 22:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

As for "test pages": there's not real description in the WP:CSD policy as to what that means, and no link to anything detailing it. I suppose it's an unwritten custom amongst those patrolling new pages to tag examples like the above that way. Perhaps the issue of defining "test page" can be clarified during this discussion as well. Pcap ping 22:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is a classic example of patent nonsense if that was the entire article, because "no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever". (Although I have to confess I have loved this sentence for a long time, and could see a science fiction story come out of it.)

If I ran across "The sky is blue.^[1] The Sun is hot.^[2] An elephant is a mammal.^[3]" and couldn't find any way to see a good faith attempt at an article, like DGG I'd delete as a test page (although I wouldn't fault an editor for putting a no context tag on it). If I were just tagging, I'd probably add an explanation of my reasoning either in comment after the speedy tag or on the talk page to help the deleting admin out.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Phillip K. Dick could have done something with the green ideas if he hadn't moved on to the great science fiction convention in the sky, but Fabrictramp is right that grammatically correct nonsense is still nonsense. I would also agree that the other one looks like a test as there is not any obvious attempt to construct an actual article. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 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)

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously is a blue link. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, because it's a notable nonsense phrase coined by Chomsky to show that correct grammar does not suffice to give a sentence meaning. So, it's a good example here for that very reason. Pcap ping 12:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)