Espacenet scheduled outages[edit]

The Cite patent template links to Espacenet/Worldwide service which makes sense because it covers all worldwide patents and offers a three language interface (en/fr/de). Espacenet has a message page about scheduled service outages. If a document is missing, you can contact their helpdesk and the document will be scanned and becoming publically available in short time.

Espacenet regular scheduled outages - all times are CET (Central European Time, which is UTC+1)
Mon-Sat from 05:00-05:15, Sun: 05:00 to 06:00

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinaut (talkcontribs) 07:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Class : CPC or IPC instead of ECLA[edit]

Since ECLA has been replaced (back in 2013 already) by CPC, I would recommend (even though this field appears to be scarcely used) to replace reference, regarding "class" to ECLA by reference to CPC.

Even better, I would strongly recommend to devise this field by reference to the IPC, which is administered by the WIPO and which has a wider coverage (for example, by default all JP patents are classified in IPC but only a fraction are classified in CPC).Ileresolu (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second this, but also suggest that

    1. either the field handle any of them (if they can be distinguished by form), or
    2. have separate fields for each (if not) and deprecate the unmarked term so none are default; and
  1. allow multiple, space delimited (if possible) or by repeated tag (if not). Sai ¿? 10:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This field was removed, as far as I can tell in 2010. See my comment at the end of talk. I agree, separate IPC and CPC classifications or just IPC classification.
I have no experience editing templates to suggest a correction.Lkingscott (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update search URL to new Espace interface.[edit]

After a discussion about some issues with this template User:Skullcinema and I have found that redirects for US design patents are not working correctly (at least for me). See: User_talk:Skullcinema#Reverted_Cite_patent_change.

We believe that this could be resolved by updating the URL query used for the search to the new Espace interface. Currently, the template is creating this URL (for patent USD647821): which goes to the old interface. Using the search box from the new espace interface it creates this URL: Can somebody familiar with editing templates please assist or advise? Best IPBilly (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obversely, all the current patent links are working fine for me. User:IPBilly is getting search error patent not found results from the Espacenet interface with US design patents and unpredictable results with standard patents. We are not certain how widespread this issue is (given we only have n=2). Could other editors try the following links and report back on how they work for them?
US D647821, Bischoff, Klaus; Lichte, Marc & Cruzeiro, Silva Arnaldo, "Motor vehicle", published 2011-11-01, assigned to Volkswagen AG 
US 1847622, Murray, William S., "Process of obtaining indium and zinc from ores containing the same", published 1932-03-01, assigned to Oneida Community Ltd. 
GB 1426698, Pedrick, Arthur Paul, "Photon push-pull radiation detector for use in chromatically selective cat flap control and 1000 megaton earth-orbital peace-keeping bomb", published 1976-03-03 
One US design patent, one standard US patent and one GB patent. Many thanks, Skullcinema (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]
All 3 ok for me - Chrome, Win10.  Stepho  talk  11:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have narrowed this down to an issue with WP's "Open external links in a new tab or window" gadget setting. If I disable that in my WP prefs the issue is resolved and the links redirect correctly (even if I right click open in new tab). This issue is now way above my head, but if anybody has any idea how those are causing interference, assistance is appreciated. IPBilly (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I wonder if this unresolved bug could be causing an issue with the espacenet patent links. Regardless, to avoid the error for now I have switched the patent links in the OceanGate article to point to the Google patents site. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of dates[edit]

Can someone please modify the template's code include a date format |df= parameter? Most other ((cite)) templates have |df= as a documented parameter, but this template does not.

I would have made an edit request but I'm not much of an expert with template coding so as to produce code with desired changes in an X to Y format. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 16:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked ((cite patent/sandbox)) and ((cite patent/core/sandbox)) to accept |df= where the value assigned to that parameter is any of the values accepted by ((date)):
  • ((cite patent/sandbox |country=GB |number=394325 |title=Improvements in and relating to Sound-transmission, Sound-recording and Sound-reproducing Systems |status=patent |gdate=1933-06-14 |fdate=1931-12-14 |pridate=1932-11-10 |inventor=Alan Dower Blumlein |invent1=Blumlein, Alan Dower |assign1=Alan Dower Blumlein |assign2=Musical Industries, Limited |class=H04R1/40B; H04R11/12; H04R9/16; H04S1/00 |df=dmy))
    • GB patent 394325, Alan Dower Blumlein, "Improvements in and relating to Sound-transmission, Sound-recording and Sound-reproducing Systems", issued 14 June 1933, assigned to Alan Dower Blumlein and Musical Industries, Limited 
  • ((cite patent/sandbox |country=US |number=2005038718 |DisplayedNumber=2005/0038718 |status=application |title=Method and System for Facilitating a Shopping Experience |pubdate=2005-02-17 |fdate=2004-07-01 |assign1=American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. |df=mdy))
    • US application 2005038718, "Method and System for Facilitating a Shopping Experience", published February 17, 2005, assigned to American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. 
Date formatting applies to the renderings of |publication-date=, |pubdate= (aliases that contribute to |PublicationDate= in ~/core), |issue-date=, and |gdate= (aliases that contribute to |IssueDate= in ~/core). |fdate= and |pridate= (|FilingDate= and |PriorityDate= in ~/core) do not contribute to the visual rendering of the template so are not formatted.
Without objection, I shall update the live templates from their sandboxen.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I really appreciate your quick changes to the template. Have a nice day — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 05:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

class removed?[edit]

Has class been removed? When I include class in a Cite patent I get an error:

Warning: Page using Template:Cite patent with unknown parameter "class"

I know that the EPO ECLA classification has been superseded by the Cooperative Classification Classification (CPC) but there has been no change to the description of this template, indicating that ECLA class is still present.

I searched the source code and did not find the word class in the latest version. I searched the history and found it disappeared in Revision as of 12:33, 3 October 2010. There was no mention of it being removed in the history comments.

If there has been a policy decision on this then the template description must be updated. If it has not then it must be reinstated and the template description updated to state that it is the superseded classification, i.e. CPC or IPC.

Lkingscott (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 12:33, 3 October 2010 edit that you mention did not remove |class=. As far as I can tell, this template has never supported |class=. The template's documentation mentions ECLA classification but also says 'not displayed'. Templates that don't check for known parameter names will ignore parameters that aren't used. Checking for unknown parameter names was introduced at this edit. Either the documentation should be amended to remove |class= or the template should be modified to use and/or display |class=; the latter is the more difficult.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it has never been displayed do we _really_ need to add it into template. As this is a citation template surely only the information necessary to locate the patent referred to needs to be included. Adding in the patent class is akin to adding a Dewey decimal number to all the Cite_book references. Plus whilst I've been cleaning up the Cite_patent instances I have stripped out all the class information already. 15:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Skullcinema (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]