Talk:Intellectual property

message: The Criticism section is comparable in size to the rest of the article (38/94 KB, at time of writing). It is therefore of adequate size to justify a split, with this article presenting a brief summary of the main points. NPOV and breadth have improved significantly since the last discussion concerning this section in 2011. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the section is big enough and notable enough to be it's own article Rexh17 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

text: This looks a lot like WP:UNDUE proportion. This article should have a few decent critics but it is strange for it to be more than half of the article. There is already a criticism of patents article and it has had a WP:NPOV tag on it for seven years now. Instead someone should clean the section up. For example the second paragraph alone summarizes a single primary source essay that wouldn't follow the WP:RS guideline. There are a lot of paragraphs that could be shortened or even removed and still explain everything. Do we really need that many words to explain the criticism that it's not really like personal property and should be compared to a monopoly? Jorahm (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose - WP:CSECTION generally discourages articles and sections of such nature. — Davest3r08 >:) (talk)  03:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split proposal 

message: I was reading the article on the upcoming Starfield (video game). In it, it mentions that the game is the first "intellectual property" from Bethesda in 29 years. In the strict sense, of course it's not, they create IP every single day they work on this or other games. But that got me thinking, it is a very common usage in the video games industry, how a series is often referred to as an "IP". I don't see any reference to this usage here anywhere, but think it would probably merit a section, or at least a mention somewhere. Darkage7[Talk] 16:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am only seeing this post now but this is a good question. It is normal for readers or even companies to throw words around but it is important for the encyclopedia to be precise and clear with its terminology. I am not sure where to put this guidance but someone should write this. (You are correct that they are constantly generating new IP in a legal sense and the ordinary word they are looking for is "first new series".) Jorahm (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I don't think such a section should be added. Keep in mind that this is an encylopedia - not a dictionary. The article is about a concept, not the 'term', which is an important distinction. If some field uses these words to mean something else that is not necessarily on topic here. It might be worth mentioning at Wikitionary, though. MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly a valid point. Here's the problem I see: because video game reporting will continue to use the term "intellectual property" to refer to new video game franchises, it will probably continue to the way Wikipedia needs to refer to them, because that's what the sources say. I think perhaps an entry in Glossary of video game terms#I would suffice, however I've seen many articles erroneously link to Intellectual Property when referring to a new franchise. I certainly don't know the answer, but to me the status quo seems inadequate from an encyclopedic perspective. Darkage7[Talk] 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably fair to say that the Starfield video game is the first intellectual property it has released in 29 years. The issue here is imprecise wording in Starfield (video game), and video game reporting, not a fault of the article that actually deals with IP. TJRC (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP as a term for a video game series 

message: — Assignment last updated by User78632 (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Legal Research