Talk:State of the art/Archives/2014

Content cut and pasted from State of the art (disambiguation)

I have cut and pasted the content from State of the art (disambiguation) to replace the content of this article, which only contained dictionary definitions (after moving the material relating to patent law to the article "prior art"). The history of the disambiguation page can be found here. This unconventional way to move the content seems, in my opinion, to be a good way to preserve the history of both articles. --Edcolins (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments

I added reference to Australian patent law using this concept, but I suspect that it is more widespread - can anyone confirm whether other major countries use it? It might be better to just say that it is used by many countries, rather than a list. Ricky 04:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A simple search on the web gave an earlier occurence of the phrase. It is already used by Charles Sanders Peirce [Popular Science Monthly 12 (November 1877), pp. 1-15].131.155.109.27 16:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Request withdrawn following restoration and improvement of previous article at this title. bd2412 T 16:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

State of the art → State of the Art – The clear primary topic of the all-lowercase "State of the art" is the concept that is synonymous with Prior art, and should redirect there. All truly ambiguous versions are capitalized titles. This is one case where WP:DIFFCAPS clearly makes a difference, and its application will prevent the needless piling up of disambiguation links that are never intended for any capitalized version. bd2412 T 15:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that per WP:CONSENSUS, if there is no consensus reached in the current discussion, the article will be reverted back to the state that it was in before the dispute arose, which means that the previous article will be restored until there is a consensus to change it to something else. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I disagree. Your point makes some sense but very few people use caps when they search. An all lower-case "state of the art" should go to a disambig. Bhny (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if capitalization were not a distinction, you and I both know what "state of the art" means. It has a primary topic. I just went through the first hundred Google Books returns, and every single one - even these that were capitalized - referred to the concept of something representing the current level of development in an area. Also, "state-of-the-art" redirects here, and no one searching for any of the titles would hyphenate the term. bd2412 T 17:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually didn't know it was synonymous with "prior art" until I read it here. I just thought it meant "highest level of development of a device". Bhny (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That is basically what "prior art" is - the highest level of development of an area of technology at the time a new invention is introduced. The invention, to be patentable, must be shown to be a step ahead of the highest level of development as it existed at the time of the invention. bd2412 T 18:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: The specialised use of the term in law, as suggested to be primary by the proposer, is a meaning that is not the most common interpretation of the term. In common use, "state of the art" refers to something that is simply up-to-date, very modern, or highly capable. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • In that case, we are missing an article on that meaning, for which its usage in patent law is merely a subtopic. It certainly doesn't commonly mean any of the capitalized titles on the page. bd2412 T 18:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It is normal for a disambig page to put a dictionary meaning and then list the other uses. We don't need articles for every meaning of a phrase or word, that's what a dictionary is for. Bhny (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but we do need articles for encyclopedic meanings, and the inclusion of hundreds of incoming links suggests that there is something more than a dictionary definition to this phrase. What does "state of the art" mean in the encyclopedic sense? What are its characteristics and how is it determined? How has the idea of the state of the art evolved over time? bd2412 T 20:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

yes someone might write an article like that (I doubt it), but that is only one more reason this disambig page shouldn't redirect to "prior art".Bhny (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support the move, but I question where the search should take readers. I've read the lead of prior art and I guess if in Europe that's the term they use, that's a lot more encyclopedic of a topic than our American usage of it to mean "up-to-date". Still undecided there and eager for European readers to help out. Red Slash 21:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC) and I now strongly support restoring the former article found here. State-of-the-art is emphatically not bleeding edge technology and I see no reason to force-feed this whole article into prior art. Surely an article can be written on what makes very, very good products very, very good? If not, this is a task for WP:AFD, not WP:RM. Red Slash 22:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment the disambiguation page State of the art (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was cut-and-pasted on top of the existing article State of the art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on 2 February 2014; shouldn't this have be done through WP:AfD or some discussion at least? This is deletion through overwriting, isn't it? -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. Per WP:CONSENSUS, if there is no consensus reached in the current discussion, the article reverts back to the state that it was in before the dispute arose, which means that the article will be restored until there is a consensus to change it to something else. bd2412 T 13:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    • This dispute we have here is a different issue and was *after* it was made a disambig. There is nothing to revert to. If you dispute the disambig change then start another section. Bhny (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Per WP:BRD, no new section is needed to revert an undiscussed bold revision; the discussion would be initiated following the reversion (B, then R, then D). However, there already seems to be some support here for reverting to the earlier version, so once the reversion is done, it is unlikely that there will be a consensus in favor of the bold revision. bd2412 T 19:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't support reverting to the old version. Also that's a weird way to go about BRD, someone makes a bold edit, you suggest a different bold edit then ?? Did you argue against the original change? (I may have missed it) There's a section above for it where nobody said anything against it. Bhny (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
          • The section above is not a proposal to make an edit, but a statement after the fact that such an edit has been made. bd2412 T 20:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
            • It would be a suitable place to discuss that edit rather than here Bhny (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose the redirect to prior art, that is not the primary topic. The primary topic would be something about the highest level of technology, for which we are missing a general article but which we have a more specialized bleeding edge technology article which is a subtopic of "state of the art". I believe the cut-and-paste should be reverted and State of the art (disambiguation) should be restored as a disambiguation page. This page could redirect to bleeding edge technology with a hatnote to the disambiguation page. OR create an article about the highest level of technology. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment, not on the requested move/rename from State of the art to State of the Art but on the bold edit I made (which seems to have triggered the whole discussion). Let me explain that edit. After Bhny pointed out that the article contained only dictionary definitions, I first objected but then realized that Bhny was essentially right. Thus, after removing the section regarding patent law (which was largely redundant with the content of the article "prior art"), there were only dictionary definitions left. Thus, I cut and pasted the content of the disambig onto the article, to avoid any deletion (and I have also added notices on the relevant talk pages for attribution [1][2])... This appeared to be appropriate in this case. But if somebody disagrees with my bold edit, then the proper way to proceed would indeed be to revert back my edit and to start (or let somebody start) a proper Afd! So, BD2412, please feel free to revert my edit, under WP:BRD! Thanks, --Edcolins (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support restoring of this as an article and removal of the "Dictionary" tag, as there is much more substance there than a dictionary definition. If anything, cutting edge, leading edge, and bleeding edge should all be merged/redirected here. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 04:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

rambling dictionary definition

I don't know how to fix this article. It seems to be about the phrase and not about any specific topic, which is why I added the "Dictionary" hatnote. Also the sections are repetitive and make no sense. The lead should define the topic.-

* Lead -  2 separate definitions with WP:REFERS problems
* Origin - is an etymology
* Patent Law is the 3rd definition which should just redirect to "prior art" if it actually is a synonym
* History - is another etymology. Why??
* Definitions - even more definitions

Bhny (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Great job! --Edcolins (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)