Talk:Soleau envelope

Hello, I am the translator of this page from French into English. As soon as the translation was achieved, I have tagged the article for proof reading which I expected to bring users to improve the English grammar or incorrect expressions I may have used. As a consequence it has been tagged for further issues: - lack of inline citations, - lack of notability, - need for copying editing (grammar, spelling, style, etc.)

As I can understand all of those concerns, I would like to comment on notability which seems to be summarized in the following sentence: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." [1] and would be the solution to the lack of inline citation.

I believe there might be concerns linked to the lack of sources on the one hand and the relative importance of the topic on the other.

I have inbetween added links to the official institutional website. (Administration of Enveloppe Soleau's is in the hands of a sole governmental institution, the French Institute for Intellectual Property (INPI, cf. link in the article) which is also responsible for registration of patents or other industrial property rights. As such, the INPI is the sole institution applying the rules for admissibility.) Regarding the affiliation of the sources to the said institution, I believe it's not applicable there as the article is merely descriptive of the rules. There's no interpretation of the system efficiency or the usability of this instrument. There exist different sources, some also from governmental origin, which I hold for as reliable as those from the INPI, though the INPI is the central institution: Dictionary of IP by the Chamber of French Patent Attorneys Guide on IP from the French Ministry of Industry and employment

As for the relative importance of the article, I believe above all that the English-language Wikipedia should be the one where people from any country should be able to find what they're looking for, not in a third language. Above any other, English is the world economy lingua franca.

Any potential Non-French creation or copyright depository on the French territory with a bad command of the French language might be interested in knowing about the means of proving anteriority there. Leaving the article untranslated on the French page excludes de facto a Non-French person with insufficient command of French from gathering information itself.
Also, this article might be of interest for comparative studies of legal instruments.

I'm not aware of any debate on the link between English as a lingua franca and the admissibility of articles of foreign concerns (thus of relative importance for actual English speaking countries). I would be happy to be linked to it, though, if you consider it necessary.

I welcome any contradicting opinion which I will try to answer thoroughly.

Regards, Cldeviers Cldeviers (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the article, which is notable enough IMHO. The origin of the Soleau envelope seems to date back to 1915 or earlier. A search on Google Books with the words "soleau "mai 1915"" gives some interesting hits. That may be a good way to improve the article. It may be interesting also to explain why the French INPI does not keep the envelopes more than 10 years... Is the content destroyed then? --Edcolins (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually ignored that the instrument had such a long lasting history. I might need a bit of time to go through it as I'm currently working on creating another article. Three weeks maybe?

I'm not sure why the term is limited to 10 years. Probably because this legal instrument was intended for quick moving fields and is thought not to be redundant with the patent system. I will search for any relevant information or recital to this regard.

Also, once the ten years have lapsed, the envelope is either given back to the owner or destroyed. Restitution can also be achieved at any point of time during the ten year period. The relevant references are on the French version of the article. My mistake was to translate the French version before extending it. I'll deal with it altogether.

Thanks for your comments and additional information.

Cldeviers (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was surely not a mistake to translate the French version before extending it. Having translated it enabled you to get possibly useful feedback.--Edcolins (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]