Name of the template should be changed from "Computer programs, software and patent law" to "Software patents". The main headline links to "Software patent" anyways and under Wikipedia policy all the names should be as simple and understadable as possible. This is not. I suggest renaming the template. Is there any discussion about current name?--Kozuch (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

discussion copied from --Kozuch (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)talk page

Can you point me to the discussion where this name came from??? This name makes no sense and it links to "Software patent". So what the hell is that? Dont you want to rename "Software patent" article to this tragedy too???--Kozuch (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't remember where the discussion is. Software patent is a POV term used by those against patents for computers terms to mean "patents I don't think should have been granted." It's not an officially used term and, as such, has no precise meaning. Official terms include "computer program patent" (USPTO) and "Computer-implemented invention" (EPO and UKIPO), but some think these are POV and aren't well-understood by non-attorneys. Choose one of those and you're also immediately focusing the discussion on the law of that particular country, which is not a worldwide view of a topic. A completely neutral title was therefore chosen for the template. It's descriptive of the content rather than giving it a POV label. GDallimore (Talk) 08:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I understand you are a Patent attorney, the name is simply biased against Wikipedia's general public readers and should be just made simpler. I do not agree that "software patent" is a POV term - while it might mean nothing, it becomes a generally used term.--Kozuch (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I understand you support free software, the proposed name is simply too loaded whereas the current name explains exactly what is meant and ensures it has general applicability beyond the software patent article. GDallimore (Talk) 11:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "beauty" of Wikipedia is that after discussion consensus it can come to new (or better said simpler and more understandable) names for complicated material. This feature should not be deprecated by self-assigned "experts" that are not representing major view of the matter.--Kozuch (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're walking a very thin line, sir. WP:NPA. I don't like agressive people and will take no further part in this "discussion". I've said my points and believe them to be well-founded. However, find me a definition of "software patent" that everyone can agree on and I'll bow to your superior knowledge. In the meantime, I'm going to make an edit to the template which I believe is a good compromise that meets your particular objection to the template. GDallimore (Talk) 11:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you can not supply any refference for current template name, I am going to revert your edits back to title "Software patents" as there are pages called like that already.--Kozuch (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have failed to reach consensus for the change. Nobody else has commented here, including the person who created the template in the first place. Given the lack of discussion, I would say people are happy with the current title and format of the template, so please do not make changes without reaching a consensus. GDallimore (Talk) 10:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See below. --Edcolins (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since this seems to be as central a point as any to discuss the issue, what with this template being used on a number of pages, I want to try to reach a consensus on the naming of pages within this whole software patent ambit.

The software patent article can and should still be called "software patents" since that is a common name. However the naming of the following articles needs careful consideration:

• Software patents under TRIPs Agreement
• Computer programs and the Patent Cooperation Treaty
• Software patents under the European Patent Convention
• Software patents under United Kingdom patent law
• Software patents under United States patent law

These are articles discussing the legal basis of the patenting of computer progams in each country or region, yet the legal sources never mention the term "software patent" and to name these articles after a term that is meaningless within the laws in question cannot be appropriate.

More appropriate names would be: "Computer programs under x" in keeping with the PCT name, in keeping with the exclusions in UK and EP law to "computer programs as such" (software is never mentioned) and in keeping with USPTO parlance of "computer program patent".

The only good reason I've come across for the current situation is that there is a consistent naming convention. This reason, however, is meaningless when there is no consistent meaning of the name.

Thanks for your thoughts. GDallimore (Talk) 11:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is rather a big chunk of edit and should be discussed for all the pages separatelly.--Kozuch (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upon creating the template, I tried to select a name which describes the content, and which is neutral and precise in view of the links listed in the template (especially in view of the discussion here, which gives some background for my choice - see also here, here, and here). I found the title well-balanced and, as I wrote, especially descriptive. The title may not be perfect, but, from Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Controversial names:

"... the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed. However, debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia..."

I hope this helps. --Edcolins (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]