Talk:Yamaha Tesseract

Patents 1

I quick search showed multiple articles that mention that Yamaha had trouble receiving some patents for this system because of priority of another protoype, the Shotter 4MC -- e.g.. Which is just one point as to why these patents are relevant and can be expanded beyond this article stub. WP:PRIMARY says nothing about going around deleting whole sections merely because they are based on primary sources like patent documents. The main problem is if editors are interpreting, analyzing or synthesizing content from primary sources, or basing entire articles only on primary sources, which is not the case at all here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this article is reliable. It says it's written by a "Contributing editor" and I can't find more information about the author. It describes the article as "gossip" in the title. However, in general, if there are secondary articles about Yamaha and its patents for Tesseract than we should use those secondary sources, rather than patent records. CorporateM (Talk) 04:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Same thing here. More attention to patent filings here. And here. Secondary soruces track what's going on with patents to anticipate what a company like Yamaha is going to do with this thing. There's no need to meet WP:GNG to include patents in this article; we need only see that there is reliable information out there and nobody is synthesizing or creating a Frankenstein or coatrack.

The thing to do with this article is either expand it or leave it alone until someone else does. It helps nobody to start chopping bits off for no good reason. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Patents

@Dennis Bratland: I disagree with your restoration of numerous primary sources about patents.[23] Primary sources are not forbidden. For example, the patent records could be used to verify the exact date of issuance of a patent covered in secondary sources. However, an indiscriminate list of patents using only primary sources violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It also runs contrary to WP:WPNOTRS, which specifies that articles "should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources". We should never have an entire section of the article's body devoted exclusively to primary sources. If the patents haven't been covered in secondary sources, it's unlikely that they are significant enough to warrant inclusion. It's not unusual for a company to own thousands of patents; it's also not unusual for some to be challenged and found to be trivial, invalid or already patented by someone else. CorporateM (Talk) 04:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a concept vehicle. It exists primarily to demonstrate the company's technological prowess, prototype new technologies, and attract public attention for more conventional products. Patents are near the heart of what a concept vehicle is all about. It's a showcase for new technology and what do you do with new technology? You patent it. There's no reason not to give an "entire section" to these. There's nothing magical about a entire section, as if creating a section was like cutting off one of Wikipedia's big toes or something. Sections exist to make life easier for the reader. And this is a stub anyway. Just how much perfection do you expect from a stub?

Which part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE is relevant here? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

All of it. Many companies have thousands of patents and encyclopedic articles do not attempt to list them. In fact, if the only thing that can be said about a topic is that there are a few patents, WP:N might not be satisfied and the article should be deleted. Whatever it is that makes the topic notable should be in the article without undue details. If secondary sources mention some patents for a particular reason, those mentions can be included (without links to primary documents per WP:NOTDIRECTORY). Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a list of thousands of patents. That would be indiscriminate. It's not summary of a fiction plot. It's not a lyrics database. It's not a list of software updates. Nor statistics. There's nothing like that here. This is a list of patents related to the subject. The statement that the article should only contain what makes the subject notable is contradicted in the notability guidelines, WP:NNC Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. You don't use notability to prune content from articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Calling out patents from the patents themselves is WP:UNDUE weight and particularly if they are being presented to " demonstrate the company's technological prowess, prototype new technologies, and attract public attention for more conventional products" inappropriate WP:SYNthesis. If third parties have specifically discussed the patent issues with this product, presenting their commentary and analysis is acceptable.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The policy on undue weight deals with neutrality. Balancing differing points of view. There are not multiple points of view here. This article is about a simple thing, a concept vehicle, whose basic nature and characteristics are uncontroversial. The existence of patents related to it are uncontroversial facts. If you want to nominate this for deletion, please go ahead, but there is sufficient coverage in many sources to keep the article. The reason these reliable sources see fit to care about this subject is that it is a demonstration of new technology, ergo, patents. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The WP:UNDUE policy deals with how much and what type of coverage we give to the various aspects of the subject. Trotting out the patents is coverage in our article and therefore subject to discussion about whether or not such trotting out of patents is in line with what the reliable sources have stated about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• I also fail to see what reason we have for including a random list of patents here. There's 0 evidence these patents are significant right now (anyone can patent anything, so just having a patent means diddly squat), and if they were. then the technologies (not the patents themselves) should be discussed in prose. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

New here, so excuse me if I err. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is definitely a long stretch by my reading; WP:WPNOTRS says "should" and not "must". I quite like knowing which vehicle introduced what technology (and therefore, reliable reference to patents is the best source) because more often than not, the technologies presented in concept cars end up in production cars as breakthroughs. But I support what Lukeno94 said - focus on the technology in prose, as a better way to present this info CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the value. IMO, the page should describe the technology & how it differs from what's usual, & (if desirable; I'm not sure it passes not using primary sources) cite patents as source for the info; I'd far rather we cite from a reliable magazine source, like Scientific American or Motorcycle or somewhere, so we get some perspective on the "differentness" or value (as opposed to Toyota's PR spin). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think focusing on this in prose is a fine idea. This takes us back to the only real problem with this article: it's a stub. When you see a stub like this, you don't have to start excising information wholesale because you don't like how it's presented. Either expand the stub, or leave it for somebody else. The list of patents is a perfectly good stopgap until someone gets around to expanding this into a proper article. The fact that the information isn't presented in the best possible way doesn't mean delete it altogether, it means fix it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I was not expecting so much participation from a quick RSN post! There seems to be pretty strong consensus to remove the patent records, so I have removed them. I also incorporated the secondary sources provided by Dennis Bratland. I don't actually see being a stub as a problem. Since it was just a concept vehicle and was never actually produced or sold, no new sources are going to emerge, so it will likely be a permanent stub. Lots of stubs are actually very good, short, articles. For my part, I'm disappointed there are so many cool concept vehicles that are never actually produced or are produced, but quickly go bankrupt. The public seems pretty attached to avoiding change. CorporateM (Talk) 20:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Really? This discussion has existed for a mere 16 hours and you think it's all done and over? Most discussions are allowed to run for a week before anybody feels the need to declare them over. What's the rush here? How about you put it back and give others some time to weigh in? You know it's the weekend and lots of editors won't even see this until Monday. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Dennis, I do appreciate where you stand, but it is worth noting that no one has actually supported their inclusion in this format, as far as I can tell. The reason for this level of participation has as much to do with the WT:CARS notification as anything else, CorporateM. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• After 16 hours? Not even one day! I've never heard anyone on Wikipedia claim that anything could be decided so fast. Based on my watchlist, hardly any of the active members of WikiProject Motorcycling have edited anything in the last day. They're probably all out riding their bikes; it's the middle of summer. Why not wait until they have a chance to take a look? Again, I ask, what's the rush? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not personally saying that the discussion should end now; what I was saying is that there has yet to be a dissenting opinion here (and I would be surprised if consensus swung the other way, to be honest). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)