Template talk:EPO Register

Discussion
Nice template. Maybe a template parameter to distinguish European patent applications from European patents would be useful? --Edcolins (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Edcolins (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The link is broken
The template is broken. The epoline web site has been upgraded. Even the links from espacenet to the EPO register are broken... It seems we need to replace by  ... Or is there a better workaround? --Edcolins (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They messed up the transfer to a new site. Just got news today that some fixes are coming. Might be worth waiting to fix it then rather than trying now. GDallimore (Talk) 20:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It now works for application numbers, but not for patent numbers. GDallimore (Talk) 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Given it's not used very much, this gives me the chance to completely rewrite it and hopefully make it more future-proof against similar changes. GDallimore (Talk) 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * God, I'm good :). Comments on the new style? Speak now or forever hold you peace (in the unlikely event that this template becomes popular). GDallimore (Talk) 20:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

New link style
I've now worked out how the links to the new register work, and there's a lot of flexibility available which might be used to improve the template. Suggestions for improvements welcome.

The most generic way I've found to link to the register is https://register.epoline.org/espacenet/regviewer?XX=YY

Where XX is "AP" for application number or "PN" for publication number; and where YY is the number itself. For European application numbers, a preceding "EP" is optional, but for publication numbers it is mandatory. I've also found that the international application and publication numbers can be used in the form WO2001JP06647 (app no.) or WO0214566 (pub no.).

The template could be updated so that someone can enter any or all of these different numbers in order to link to the register. I'm not sure how useful that would be, however. Anyone watching this page think it would be a worthwhile change to make? GDallimore (Talk) 09:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The new format seems fine (given the sparse use of the template). Thanks! --Edcolins (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)