Talk:Semiconductor intellectual property core

message: Seems to be a lot of ARM only links on this page.  Maybe consider re-organizing it by company instead of by technology?  E.g. such that ARM for instance, only has one link.  There are MANY vendors out in the world, I think we should avoid making this an advertisers directory and just stick to the facts that are relevant as per the Wikipedia project goals.  Tomstdenis 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see any problem with an article size. While supporting adding the ChipEstimate along with Design and Reuse (http://design-reuse.com/), I see no reason yet to remove any links Dimawik 15:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not a place to list non-notable external links.  ARM is listed, for instance, because they are extremely notable in the field (so would MIPS be).  If every band of developers listed their company or affiliation on Wikipedia we would be inundated with thousands upon thousands of links, the vast majority of which would contribute nothing of substance to the articles.  If people want to find IP Cores Inc., they should be referred to the notable IP aggregators like ChipEstimate.com which then would point them in the right direction.  Again, Wikipedia != Geocities.  Tomstdenis 16:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would like just to repeat that your nightmare scenario is not happening, so your repeated invocation of the danger of thousand links seems way off the mark. The time we both are going to waste editing this article of Wikipedia could be better spent adding new articles about IP vendors even you will consider notable (say, Tensilica).Dimawik 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have added the Aggregators section with  both D&R and ChipEstimate in it. Feel free to add more. Dimawik 17:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrow POV Issues 

message: I'm renewing my objection to the vendor links.  They do not further the understanding of the subject matter and are commercial in nature.  Frankly, there are tens of thousands of IP vendors throughout the world.  The article is good enough without the links.  If nobody objects in the next day, I'll remove the links.   Tomstdenis 15:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am renewing my objection to this proposal. I do not see tens of thousands of links in the article - so the danger is way overhyped; the links already in the article seem to be of good quality and definitely add value. Wikipedia articles on other items, like cars,  include such lists (List of automobile manufacturers), and nobody seems to be disliking them. My suggestion is to avoid removing information unless it hurts (which is clearly not the case here). Dimawik 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So all IP hardware vendors should link here?  This adds value because?  Your arguments are very badly formed.  For instance, I can both be against racism and not dedicate my life to tracking down every last racist in the world.  Similarly, it's not invalid to think action $A on wikipedia is bad just because it occurs elsewhere.  Vandalism happens all over the place, by your logic, it's acceptable since not all vandalism has been cleaned up.  I just don't see what a reader learns about IP designs by having a link to arm.com or whatever.  At best, the mentions should be in passing and not a listing of companies like a directory.  Wikipedia != geocities.  Tomstdenis 14:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is wrong to argue - as you apparently do - that nothing can be learned from a list of vendors. I also do not see why an article about a thing X becomes worse when it mentions the companies that actually make Xs :-) Dimawik 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: i agree (that the vendor links should stay) --pagemillroad 21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Tomstdenis, please stop destroying the content. You asked yesterday if there are any objections to deleting the vendor content - there were two objections in one day. Yet you went ahead anyhow and destroyed the content. A full-fledged section became a stub as a result. Dimawik 15:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consider adding to the stub en lieu of blindly adding vacuous links to commercial websites.  If you really think the article has been vandalized consider applying for a protection of the page.  Tomstdenis 15:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the deleted content had value, I had simply moved it to a separate article. Dimawik 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I AfD'ed it because this isn't Geocities.  Tomstdenis 16:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I firmly believe in the free-editing feature of Wikipedia, even when some folks use this feature for an undignified fight against competitors of their own company. I will therefore not even try to apply for protection. I also believe that controversial edits (like yours) should be discussed here on the talk page first for a week or so, and some kind of agreement (or at least understanding of the lack of it) formed. Dimawik 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mon dieu, shut up about competition.  First off, competition arguments have no place in Wikipedia.  This is not the place to advertise your business.  Even if it were, I'm against the non-notable discussion of my company as well.  This isn't about me prop'ing my company over yours, it's about removing commercial non-substantial non-notable articles and discussions from Wikipedia.  Tomstdenis 18:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For God's sake, stop pretending to be working for Common Good, Inc. and not Elliptic Semiconductor. You have acknowledged in a discussion with me that you delete the links and articles together with your CEO, you apparently use your work PC to delete the links during your work hours, and then you turn around and say that "competition arguments have no place on Wikipedia". By the way, I agree with your latter statement, so could you also live by it and please stop deleting links and articles? Dimawik 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to the Vendor Links 

message: I understand the idea of an IP core, but why does it have Semiconductor in its name?  Isn't just IP core good enough?  Even more, it seems to me that the same idea could apply to other IP. One could, and presumably does, license out fictional characters to movie companies. Why not "Intellectual Property Core" with a link from the current name?  Gah4 (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why semiconductor?