This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
"the term database implies that the data is managed" < always? not true. Is manged or was manged, may be managed, will be manged? For example database on CD ("CD Database" = 7,070,000 results). The data data 'is' not manged at all. Is just as is, with no possibility of any management, since is in fixed read only form. Proposed change> "the term database +may+ imply that the data is managed". Eventually the word 'may' can be replaced by other worded conditional statement. 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 07:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
"The structure of a database is generally too complex to be handled without its DBMS" < there is one circular one false assumption. False: that structure is handled, while it is true, only: too complex database structure is difficult to handle. Circular: 1 the database has already 'its DBMS' 2 can not be without 'its DBMS'. Proposed change >"some too complex structurally databases cannot be handled without a DBMS" 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 07:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
"A database is not generally portable across different DBMS," < If the database is prepared accordingly to standards can be loaded in plenty of DBMSs (virtually in any). What is not portable are database binary file/device harvested in binary form from memory or storage device. the simplest if one copy data file from MSSQL will not work on MySQL and vice versa. But dumped properly can be ported without a problem to any standard DBMS. Proposed change > A database binaries are not generally portable across different DBMS. Eventually to consider variant of: database binary file, device, binary representation. 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 08:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
"A way to classify databases... contents,... ... Another .. application area, for example.........." < May give drowned in ...examples... impression of completes which is very false. Paragraph is silent about major division in databases classification: relational databases versus object databases . Most of the article >99%? is devoted to relational and from this 99% most is dedicated to DBMS . DBMS is not a database. DBMS. DBMS has its own article. DBMS is a system used to manage some and not all databases. Proposed change > A cut cluttering examples, B add info contrasting relational databases versus object databases.
As needed much more setup, to move all DBMS related stuff to DBMS article, is proposed too. It will require to turn off some bots since cutting moist of article is needed and such bots will editing work turn difficult. All the software names, divisions: commercial/OpSo and counts, in lede are related to DBMS and not to database so should go bye-bye too. 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 08:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to make it explicit and clear: I oppose text movement from here to the DBMS article for the sake of completeness of this article. As I already said, the DBMS article needs to be expanded (possibly using the Implementation section here for text and ideas) to qualify as main DBMS article, rather than cutting this article short; and more:
-- Comps ( talk) 17:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Personally I think the article should be shortened: per WP:SUMMARY this article should really be an overview and leave as much detail as possible to sub-articles. Since May 2011 (when Comps started putting a massive amount of work into the article) it's grown nearly fourfold but without significantly changing scope: in a way that's a good thing, as it should make it straightforward to split the new content out to sub-articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
For me this is a Database article. As explained in the article, databases are implemented by DBMSs and thus inseparable. Details of DBMSs are given only in the implementation section. These are minimal detail to make the article as complete as needed, to give a satisfactory explanation how Database requirements are met. I mentioned above that a Database management system article exists, and should be the main one on DBMS, to avoid redundancy in Wikipedia. It is also tagged as Main article in the Implementation section. The DBMS article should be expanded considerably to meet the role of main DBMS article. Some overlap between Database and DBMS articles is unavoidable, and it is OK. But the emphasis is different. the DBMS article should be a substantial expansion of the current Implementation section in the Database article.
This question was asked by an editor, and the above is my answer. -- Comps ( talk) 15:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I now see that the new section abobe exactly discuses this. I overlooked when writing. -- Comps ( talk) 16:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
This question was raised by two editors in a previous discussion.
The current definition of a Database in the article is by a set of usability requirements that a database should meet (in order to qualify as a database. This is my opinion). The requirements are very flexible each, and can be implemented in different levels of quality. They are common and well accepted goals for any Database (see modern texts; all that I know). All of them are met to a great extent by all existing popular DBMss in the market, both Proprietary, and Open source. Thus it is logical that they should be met to some degree in order to qualify a data collection ("for one or more purposes...") as Database.
The editors mentioned above would like to have a broader definition. I think that the definition is sufficiently broad, and exactly convey what knowledgeable people mean when they say "database". Any broadening introduces the danger of qualifying strange systems as DBMSs (the requirements are also induced on the DBMSs; a DBMS-Database duality exists), and their data collections as databases. The term Database is often used for data collections that do not qualify for me as databases, and also have been used in names of prods (especially in the past) that very partially meet the requirements, and thus do not qualify for me as DBMSs and their data collections as databases.
I strongly believe the current definition should stay. -- Comps ( talk) 16:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The firs sentence is frequent in sources. (and may be the definition) The > 75% in lede is about DBMS. Including all the "prods"(products?). Lets cut at start the DBMS prods. If we move out Oracle (and all other along) out of lede putting the art in shape will be easier. 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 07:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
(skip discussion in this section, treat it as ref data base for use in art)
Here is area about to chose S and draw what to put in art. If one want to put pro versus contra for S&Q please use number to refer to each one. Add another in section above if needed to draw arguments for discussion. Try not use your "head only" words but use pointer to citation for each thesis adding S&Q when appropriate. 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 12:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
About the ref finally spell out by user Comps. Firstly is good to see it now completed. Now discussion about it reliability and methodology may follow. The results, do they are a original research made by Fortune? (probably GR). How market share were number were calculated. Do the figure include hardware sales and It support (let say yes)? If the hardware and other profits are accounted can this ref stay as is now? Obviously os db to run have to run on some hardware, and its IT cost too . Proposed change < delete all the sentence about software DBMS and move it to DBMS article 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 10:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
In the last three weeks I have spent more time on the article than in the 6 moths since I started to work on it on May 6 until tree weeks ago. Since I started I have made a reog, rewrite, and expansion, and the article has grown from -26K to ~103K. My intention was to make it a quality article. The last three work weeks I consider useless and a waste of time. This is due to continuous warring against nonsense, to keep the article from being ruined, with people with no understanding in the area (many mistakenly feel experts since databases are all over...), with awkward logic, and with excess time. It also has involved personal attacks on me and my integrity. It is a shame that Wikipedia cannot stop such behavior that causes a complete chaos in the work of developing this article. Until this is resolved I cannot afford wasting more time here, and regretfully suspend my participation. -- Comps ( talk) 17:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
"The term "database" refers both to the way its users view it, and to the logical and physical materialization of its data, content, in files, computer memory, and computer data storage. This definition is very general, and is independent of the technology used. " < rewrite
It's not mentioned in this article as consumer database management software. 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 21:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that this article is way off track. A database can be a simple paper folder file storage system, while a relational database is an electronic database that uses relational principles. IMO most of this article should be moved into the article relational database because there already is an article on just that subject. A file system such as DOS is considered a database. An RDBMS such as Oracle is considered a relational database. Why all this overlap? // Mark Renier ( talk) 07:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. "Database != Relational Database" is absolutely correct, and this article is general and applies to all database types. Thus no sense in moving it or portions to an RDB article (you may copy/use relevant portions). It is true that historically much of the development of the area was done in the context of RDB (due to its success and popularity), but also other type existed, exist, and are invented as we discuss. What is written here is also applicable to RDBs, but the general subject of databases (described in this article) is much larger than the specific subject of relational. 65.96.201.116 ( talk) 23:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
There are more specific articles for a lot of the material in this article. It is more appropriate to move the specific stuff into the specific articles. Database is a less specific (more generic) term that should be a cover article for all of the specific types, each of which have their own article already. Most of the sections in this article already acknowledge this fact by having the section headers that point to the more specific information. Don't do work here, at the more general level, that actually should be at the more specific level. For example, text entries on this article that apply only to relational databases do not apply to network databases; therefore the material is too specific for this article and belongs in the specific article relational database. This article is about database in general; if there is text here that is specific to relational databases, move it to that article, there is already an article just for that specificity. If you do not agree to move specific stuff to specific articles, then we need to merge the specific articles back into this article, because there is duplication of effort in both articles which is not only misleading, it is wrong. In simplest terms, here are the differences. Note that each subject already has their own article. My contention is that somewhere along the way, someone decided to start adding the specific info into this general article, and that the specifics should be moved into those specific articles.
So riddle me these:
I could go on and on about how these changes are necessary; please speak up if you want more examples. // Mark Renier ( talk) 03:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a good Database article (and users give it good ranks). I have been teaching Databases for years in Academia, and this article is the best summary I know. You (Mark Renier) know SQL and maybe more database material, but you do not seem to get what this article is about: It covers at a very high level almost the entire database space, and quite well. Some sections may need expansion and enhancement, but almost none can be dropped without harming the article's completeness. If you can add anything important, it would be nice, but to start tearing it apart is really bad. On the other hand, other WP database articles' quality is not satisfactory, and if databases are your passion, you can put your efforts there, and try to improve them. Regarding your new tag comment, condensing was requested for number of named sections, and not for content. I think that the multiple sections in the TOC and hierarchy help a great deal in reading the article and looking for a specific subject, and thus this tag is completely unnecessary and can be removed. Also your tag is unnecessary: This article is not a random collection of links, as you describe it in your tag comment. This article is well built, with a very logical order that cover well a huge space of many dimensions relevant to the general database subject. 65.96.201.116 ( talk) 16:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Not to my opinion. This is an important part of the Database article, and provides a very short answer to how the Database requirements, the subject built in the first sections, are met. This answer, conclusion, should be an integral part of the article.
It is perfectly OK to enhance the DBMS article ( Database management system), and even to copy text from the Database article if helpful, but is is a big mistake to harm the integrity and completeness of the Database article. In the DBMS article the copied text should be expanded and elaborated. 65.96.201.116 ( talk) 20:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, move it! DBMS section is specific to relational databases only, and not to object databases, database management systems, hierarchical databases, nor network databases. In fact there is already a whole separate article JUST for that subject. Standard wiki procedure is just to include a single paragraph on how that article applies to this article, with a section header that points to that information. Right now it is a mistake because the article duplicates information already found elsewhere. // Mark Renier ( talk) 03:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The article has been advocating the idea that "a Database is a collection of data managed by a DBMS" to meet certain quality requirements. This is the idea supported in all the database professional text books that I know. This idea has evolved since the database concept came into use. Some people use it in more general ways, where the extreme approach calls a "database" any collection of data. This is simply incorrect according to the people who invented the concept and the people who do development and research in the area. Generalized use may deserve a sort comment in the article. Changing the article to take this general view is misleading and a mistake. 65.96.201.116 ( talk) 21:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The tag includes the following text:
This text is incorrect and misleading:
The only agreement I have here is about the term "Broad concept."
Though the article may need some enhancements and expanding in (few) empty sections, it is in general very good, well describes this complex and broad subject in a logical way (even the TOC is useful as a directory), and useful to anybody who is interested in databases. It is a good introduction which provides a broad view of the subject. Following the links (including main articles) readers can get dipper into specific sub-subjects.
I have taught databases in Academia for many years, and would recommend to my students and others reading this article. This improper tag should be removed. 65.96.201.116 ( talk) 13:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The article has accumulated several tags. Please do not apply changes related to subjects under discussion.
65.96.201.116 ( talk) 21:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a pretty poor article. It seems to ramble around the subject with no sense of direction or purpose; and it seems to have little sense as to what information is important and what isn't. It seems to be written by people who don't have a clear picture as to who they are writing for - who is the reader and why are they reading it? It's not an easy article to write so I don't blame anyone (and if it were easy then I would try to do better). I've been tracking it for years and (quite apart from the high level of vandalism) many of the contributions seem to be by people with a very weak grasp of the subject - I suspect from students, perhaps even schoolchildren. The lack of citations doesn't worry me too much since most of the facts are uncontroversial. So I can't propose easy answers, but please don't delude yourself into thinking that it can't be improved. Mhkay ( talk) 17:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, firstly, there's a lot of poorly-written English. Almost every sentence suffers. Here's one chosen almost at random: "Accordingly its supported data collection needs to meet respective usability requirements (broadly defined by the requirements below) to qualify as a database." I know what it's trying to say, if only because the article says it about four times in different places, but it's a very inelegant way of saying it. Here's another example: "The database concept has evolved since the 1960s to ease increasing difficulties in designing, building, and maintaining complex information systems (typically with many concurrent end-users, and with a large amount of diverse data)." That's jus muddled thinking. How do you ease a difficulty? Why have the difficulties been increasing if database technology has been easing them? If the concept has evolved, then what was the concept at the beginning and what is it now? Almost every sentence raises more questions than it answers, mainly as a result of convoluted prose.
Secondly (as noted) there's an awful lot of repetition.
The article ties itself in knots dealing with the difference between a database and a DBMS. It's not difficult, why make such a meal of it? A heading like "Evolution of database and DBMS technology" just raises questions and complications - there's no difference between database technology and DBMS technology.
The long list of "database type examples" is dreadful. It's a bucket into which random odds and ends have been thrown. There's no attempt here at a coherent taxonomy, which is probably why the word "examples" has been added.
The overall structure is totally illogical. Why is "Types of people involved" a subheading of "History"?
Then we get a list of "functional areas": "The functional areas are domains and subjects that have evolved in order to provide proper answers and solutions to the functional requirements above." A vain attempt to provide coherence to a structural ragbag.
So: you asked for a critique. In summary: (a) the structure is very poor, (b) the writing is very poor, (c) there is a lot of repetition, (d) it's too long for its purpose. The saving grace is that most of the facts are correct and the opinions uncontroversial. Mhkay ( talk) 22:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
It's a shame that you are so reluctant to listen to constructive criticism. Listening to critics is how people improve. Mhkay ( talk) 22:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't see any point in attempting to improve the article myself. I would start by changing "data" to be a collective singular, which is almost universal usage in computer books (if it's plural, then it makes sense to ask "how many data are there in your database?"), and someone (you?) would immediately revert it. I've edited this article to improve it in the past, and the improvements have disappeared within months. Mhkay ( talk) 16:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Mhkay in that this author just not listen to criticism. He's using Wikipedia as if it were a means to publish a book. This is no place to publish books nor scholarly articles nearly as much as articles with ENCYCLOPEDIC knowledge: you reduce your big subject matter into a few dabs here and there in a short, concise article. Frankly, if you cannot do that, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. Go publish elsewhere. Just because the subject is large, complex or important does not mean an encyclopedic article about it has to be. If you cannot summarize effectively, don't blame the subject matter: blame yourself for being so brain-bound (like muscle-bound) that your subject matter has command over you instead of you having command over your subject matter. Your replies to everything on this page only proves your inability to listen and understand any way other than your own.
This article is huge and does have too many sections to be an ENCYCLOPEDIC article about databases, more that just a cutout from some textbook about databases that you like so much. All you want to express about a topic that you worship so much could have been better accomplished by an overview article about databases, and then a number of well-written detailed articles that relate nicely to this overview article and support and be supported by it, instead of cramming it all into a single article, and so derived articles look a lot more repetitious than they need to be. Finally, remember: the key word is ENCYCLOPEDIC. Not thorough, not super complete. That is for textbooks. Not for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamp90 ( talk • contribs) 05:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Where vacuum exists in the Atmosphere, air is sucked in. Where vacuum exists in Wikipedia (lack of active experts), the clueless and illogical are sucked in (I'm trying to be polite...). Databases are very common. Everybody is familiar with the term, and too many are not aware of the extent of the area and consider themselves experts. It includes many areas of expertise, and a non expert should not mess with article text's meaning. I checked and found that the article was bad until mid 2011, and then got a good boost by experts. However, they do not seem to be active lately, and the clueless try to takeover, unaware of the harm they can cause. Some tags are unnecessary, and many comments here do not make sense. 209.144.63.76 ( talk) 23:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
At the risk of further complicating an (apparently) already overly long article, I find myself wondering why the hierarchical X.500 data model is not described here among the major database types. Unlike the original hierarchical DB developed at IBM, already listed on this page, the X.500 model is still alive and well, and a key part of most network infrastructure around the world. Highlandsun ( talk) 16:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed in a comprehensive treatise there would be some justification in including it. But we ought to be saying less, rather than more; we need to focus on what's most important. X.500 as a data model is interesting, but it's only really a variation on the "hierarchical" theme, and although in principle it is general purpose, it has never really made an impact (or tried to do so) outside a niche application area. Mhkay ( talk) 22:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
X.500 is not a DBMS data model. It is a series of computer networking standards covering electronic directory services. It is true that it involves a data model, and its implementations require some (embedded) DBMS technologies, but it is out of the general Database realm. This article deals with the major subjects pertain to databases and the major milestones in this area. In particular it does not cover the almost countless special cases of database (or "almost database") utilization. 65.96.201.116 ( talk) 23:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
What is that line at the beginning of the article. "See mostly erased Talk:Serializability#Commitment_ordering discussion. User:Ruud Koot lying about User:Comps sock puppets. User:Ruud Koot is also an idiot: good science wins eventually. 209.117.47.248 (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)" Jedieaston ( talk) 21:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
This article, at least the summary, uses lots of weasel words like "often" or "especially" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.233.9.72 ( talk) 19:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The "Database type examples" is quite long. Perhaps there could be a general summary in this article, with the detailed descriptions given in another linked article. I would be willing to do it. Shandong44
Well, I managed to get this article down from over 100K to around 56K by eliminating a lot of redundant content and pushing out excessive detail to subarticles. There is still some rambling and excessive detail for an overview article to take care of, but length is no longer an emergency (so I removed that cleanup tag). The Applications section in particular could probably use a complete rewrite. Once this article and Database management system are cleaned up a bit more, I think it would be an improvement to merge them. The distinction between the logical data part and the surrounding system that makes it work in the real world is rather awkward, and we end up talking about both in both articles since they are so interrelated. The distinction can just be mentioned in a "Terminology" section. We need to be careful that the result of the merge is shorter than just the sum of the two articles, though, because otherwise it would be too long. But, we should be able to reduce a lot of redundancy by combining parallel sections on history, functionality, transactions, data models, and terminology. -- Beland ( talk) 20:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I attempted to split the unweildy section 6 into two parts, the first concerned with architectural principles of database technology, the second more concerned with development processes. It wasn't a perfect split, but I was hoping it could lead to a more structured approach. Someone has reverted the change and lumped it all together again, which makes it look like a ragbag with no structure at all; the lack of focus is evident in the difficulty of finding a title and introduction that says what the section is about. Mhkay ( talk) 09:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I moved the below here from Talk:Database management system because it is unresolved. I tagged the problem sentence in the article itself to point here. -- Beland ( talk) 07:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The article includes this paragraph, which has no references associated with it.
"Many of the people involved with INGRES became convinced of the future commercial success of such systems, and formed their own companies to commercialize the work but with an SQL interface. Sybase, Informix, NonStop SQL and eventually Ingres itself were all being sold as offshoots to the original INGRES product in the 1980s. Even Microsoft SQL Server is actually a re-built version of Sybase, and thus, INGRES. Only Larry Ellison's Oracle started from a different chain, based on IBM's papers on System R, and beat IBM to market when the first version was released in 1978."
I have first hand knowledge of several of the products mentoined here and I do not believe they were based on INGRES, as is claimed.
I do know that SQL Server did begin as a version of Sybase, that is correct. I do not know that Sybase was a version of INGRES, as is claimed, but it may be.
It is my belief that Informix shares no heritage with INGRES, (IE: no common code) and was an organic outgrowth of Informix's early products, which were development languages. Of course people familiar with INGRES maybe have worked on it. (That is not the claim being made here, though.)
I am equally sceptical about the Non-Stop SQL Claim.
I'm going to do a little checking up, but I may delete or rewrite this paragraph. If someone is invested in keeping these claims here it would be helpful if they would source them.
24.22.76.36 ( talk) 20:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Since everyone so far is pretty dubious, I'm moving the actual text here. If anyone wants to find some solid sources and/or rewrite it to be more accurate, feel free to put it back in the article. -- Beland ( talk) 05:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Many of the people involved with INGRES became convinced of the future commercial success of such systems, and formed their own companies to commercialize the work but with an SQL interface. Sybase, Informix, NonStop SQL and eventually Ingres itself were all being sold as offshoots to the original INGRES product in the 1980s. Even Microsoft SQL Server is actually a re-built version of Sybase, and thus, INGRES.
Perhaps there should be a mention of Microsoft Access following "1980s Desktop Databases" section. More readers are likely to have experience with Microsoft Access than dBASE and below its GUI Microsoft Access supports SQL. Then explain limitations of Microsoft Access (ie. number of simultaneous users) and introduce enterprise databases such as Microsoft SQL, Oracle and IBM DB2 and open source databases MySQL and PostgreSQL. Jim.Callahan,Orlando ( talk) 23:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Who on earth added that nonsense right at the start that all databases consist of rows and columns? I expect this was some ignorant school child inserting what they were told by an equally ignorant school teacher. This article seems to be a constant struggle against people who have never read a book or scholarly article about databases, but think they know it all. Sigh. Mhkay ( talk) 13:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
It should be "The data is", not "are". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.174 ( talk) 21:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I changed all occurrences of the first to the second, per reference. [1] Peter Flass ( talk) 13:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
References
Either discuss it in the article or remove the redirect, so perhaps an actual page about it could be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.46.192 ( talk) 13:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
From the lede:
the most popular database systems since the 1980s have all supported the relational model as represented by the SQL language
I find that hard to believe given the NoSQL trend/hype of the last decade. CouchDB, MongoDB, Apache Cassandra, etc., all qualify as DBMSs as defined in this article, but don't support the relational model or SQL.
More generally, the lede seems rather slanted towards SQL. Does anyone have a reliable source that quantifies the popularity of SQL/NoSQL? On NoSQL, I found this web page that purports to show that at least in terms of number of major systems, RDBMSs are now in the minority. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 18:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
(see Implementation section below) is repeated twice, but no section with this title can be found — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velocipedus ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
How is it possible that the word databank is not even mentioned in this article? The difference between the two or the lack of one is badly explained in that article. -- Espoo ( talk) 05:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Database. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I am reasonably minded Database management systems (DBMS) should be split from this Database article to separate and clarify the concepts and to avoid undue weight. This would likely be a contraversial split. The predicate restricting this article to DBMS controlled databases is likely inappropriate, (although it is broken at one point) especially given its a level-4 vital article. Id' go even farther to say article with this name should have a broader and summarising view of the subject broadly covering the scope of the Outline of databases page. We should surely be asking is the article compatible with Microsoft Access, Apache derby, Embedded database or is it over-focusing on internals or databases like Oracle or DB2 to the omission of a user view of a database like say Wikispecies ? I currently calculate I don't have the bandwidth or energy to pursue this. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 12:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
"the term database implies that the data is managed" < always? not true. Is manged or was manged, may be managed, will be manged? For example database on CD ("CD Database" = 7,070,000 results). The data data 'is' not manged at all. Is just as is, with no possibility of any management, since is in fixed read only form. Proposed change> "the term database +may+ imply that the data is managed". Eventually the word 'may' can be replaced by other worded conditional statement. 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 07:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
"The structure of a database is generally too complex to be handled without its DBMS" < there is one circular one false assumption. False: that structure is handled, while it is true, only: too complex database structure is difficult to handle. Circular: 1 the database has already 'its DBMS' 2 can not be without 'its DBMS'. Proposed change >"some too complex structurally databases cannot be handled without a DBMS" 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 07:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
"A database is not generally portable across different DBMS," < If the database is prepared accordingly to standards can be loaded in plenty of DBMSs (virtually in any). What is not portable are database binary file/device harvested in binary form from memory or storage device. the simplest if one copy data file from MSSQL will not work on MySQL and vice versa. But dumped properly can be ported without a problem to any standard DBMS. Proposed change > A database binaries are not generally portable across different DBMS. Eventually to consider variant of: database binary file, device, binary representation. 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 08:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
"A way to classify databases... contents,... ... Another .. application area, for example.........." < May give drowned in ...examples... impression of completes which is very false. Paragraph is silent about major division in databases classification: relational databases versus object databases . Most of the article >99%? is devoted to relational and from this 99% most is dedicated to DBMS . DBMS is not a database. DBMS. DBMS has its own article. DBMS is a system used to manage some and not all databases. Proposed change > A cut cluttering examples, B add info contrasting relational databases versus object databases.
As needed much more setup, to move all DBMS related stuff to DBMS article, is proposed too. It will require to turn off some bots since cutting moist of article is needed and such bots will editing work turn difficult. All the software names, divisions: commercial/OpSo and counts, in lede are related to DBMS and not to database so should go bye-bye too. 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 08:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to make it explicit and clear: I oppose text movement from here to the DBMS article for the sake of completeness of this article. As I already said, the DBMS article needs to be expanded (possibly using the Implementation section here for text and ideas) to qualify as main DBMS article, rather than cutting this article short; and more:
-- Comps ( talk) 17:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Personally I think the article should be shortened: per WP:SUMMARY this article should really be an overview and leave as much detail as possible to sub-articles. Since May 2011 (when Comps started putting a massive amount of work into the article) it's grown nearly fourfold but without significantly changing scope: in a way that's a good thing, as it should make it straightforward to split the new content out to sub-articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
For me this is a Database article. As explained in the article, databases are implemented by DBMSs and thus inseparable. Details of DBMSs are given only in the implementation section. These are minimal detail to make the article as complete as needed, to give a satisfactory explanation how Database requirements are met. I mentioned above that a Database management system article exists, and should be the main one on DBMS, to avoid redundancy in Wikipedia. It is also tagged as Main article in the Implementation section. The DBMS article should be expanded considerably to meet the role of main DBMS article. Some overlap between Database and DBMS articles is unavoidable, and it is OK. But the emphasis is different. the DBMS article should be a substantial expansion of the current Implementation section in the Database article.
This question was asked by an editor, and the above is my answer. -- Comps ( talk) 15:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I now see that the new section abobe exactly discuses this. I overlooked when writing. -- Comps ( talk) 16:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
This question was raised by two editors in a previous discussion.
The current definition of a Database in the article is by a set of usability requirements that a database should meet (in order to qualify as a database. This is my opinion). The requirements are very flexible each, and can be implemented in different levels of quality. They are common and well accepted goals for any Database (see modern texts; all that I know). All of them are met to a great extent by all existing popular DBMss in the market, both Proprietary, and Open source. Thus it is logical that they should be met to some degree in order to qualify a data collection ("for one or more purposes...") as Database.
The editors mentioned above would like to have a broader definition. I think that the definition is sufficiently broad, and exactly convey what knowledgeable people mean when they say "database". Any broadening introduces the danger of qualifying strange systems as DBMSs (the requirements are also induced on the DBMSs; a DBMS-Database duality exists), and their data collections as databases. The term Database is often used for data collections that do not qualify for me as databases, and also have been used in names of prods (especially in the past) that very partially meet the requirements, and thus do not qualify for me as DBMSs and their data collections as databases.
I strongly believe the current definition should stay. -- Comps ( talk) 16:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The firs sentence is frequent in sources. (and may be the definition) The > 75% in lede is about DBMS. Including all the "prods"(products?). Lets cut at start the DBMS prods. If we move out Oracle (and all other along) out of lede putting the art in shape will be easier. 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 07:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
(skip discussion in this section, treat it as ref data base for use in art)
Here is area about to chose S and draw what to put in art. If one want to put pro versus contra for S&Q please use number to refer to each one. Add another in section above if needed to draw arguments for discussion. Try not use your "head only" words but use pointer to citation for each thesis adding S&Q when appropriate. 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 12:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
About the ref finally spell out by user Comps. Firstly is good to see it now completed. Now discussion about it reliability and methodology may follow. The results, do they are a original research made by Fortune? (probably GR). How market share were number were calculated. Do the figure include hardware sales and It support (let say yes)? If the hardware and other profits are accounted can this ref stay as is now? Obviously os db to run have to run on some hardware, and its IT cost too . Proposed change < delete all the sentence about software DBMS and move it to DBMS article 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 10:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
In the last three weeks I have spent more time on the article than in the 6 moths since I started to work on it on May 6 until tree weeks ago. Since I started I have made a reog, rewrite, and expansion, and the article has grown from -26K to ~103K. My intention was to make it a quality article. The last three work weeks I consider useless and a waste of time. This is due to continuous warring against nonsense, to keep the article from being ruined, with people with no understanding in the area (many mistakenly feel experts since databases are all over...), with awkward logic, and with excess time. It also has involved personal attacks on me and my integrity. It is a shame that Wikipedia cannot stop such behavior that causes a complete chaos in the work of developing this article. Until this is resolved I cannot afford wasting more time here, and regretfully suspend my participation. -- Comps ( talk) 17:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
"The term "database" refers both to the way its users view it, and to the logical and physical materialization of its data, content, in files, computer memory, and computer data storage. This definition is very general, and is independent of the technology used. " < rewrite
It's not mentioned in this article as consumer database management software. 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 21:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that this article is way off track. A database can be a simple paper folder file storage system, while a relational database is an electronic database that uses relational principles. IMO most of this article should be moved into the article relational database because there already is an article on just that subject. A file system such as DOS is considered a database. An RDBMS such as Oracle is considered a relational database. Why all this overlap? // Mark Renier ( talk) 07:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. "Database != Relational Database" is absolutely correct, and this article is general and applies to all database types. Thus no sense in moving it or portions to an RDB article (you may copy/use relevant portions). It is true that historically much of the development of the area was done in the context of RDB (due to its success and popularity), but also other type existed, exist, and are invented as we discuss. What is written here is also applicable to RDBs, but the general subject of databases (described in this article) is much larger than the specific subject of relational. 65.96.201.116 ( talk) 23:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
There are more specific articles for a lot of the material in this article. It is more appropriate to move the specific stuff into the specific articles. Database is a less specific (more generic) term that should be a cover article for all of the specific types, each of which have their own article already. Most of the sections in this article already acknowledge this fact by having the section headers that point to the more specific information. Don't do work here, at the more general level, that actually should be at the more specific level. For example, text entries on this article that apply only to relational databases do not apply to network databases; therefore the material is too specific for this article and belongs in the specific article relational database. This article is about database in general; if there is text here that is specific to relational databases, move it to that article, there is already an article just for that specificity. If you do not agree to move specific stuff to specific articles, then we need to merge the specific articles back into this article, because there is duplication of effort in both articles which is not only misleading, it is wrong. In simplest terms, here are the differences. Note that each subject already has their own article. My contention is that somewhere along the way, someone decided to start adding the specific info into this general article, and that the specifics should be moved into those specific articles.
So riddle me these:
I could go on and on about how these changes are necessary; please speak up if you want more examples. // Mark Renier ( talk) 03:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a good Database article (and users give it good ranks). I have been teaching Databases for years in Academia, and this article is the best summary I know. You (Mark Renier) know SQL and maybe more database material, but you do not seem to get what this article is about: It covers at a very high level almost the entire database space, and quite well. Some sections may need expansion and enhancement, but almost none can be dropped without harming the article's completeness. If you can add anything important, it would be nice, but to start tearing it apart is really bad. On the other hand, other WP database articles' quality is not satisfactory, and if databases are your passion, you can put your efforts there, and try to improve them. Regarding your new tag comment, condensing was requested for number of named sections, and not for content. I think that the multiple sections in the TOC and hierarchy help a great deal in reading the article and looking for a specific subject, and thus this tag is completely unnecessary and can be removed. Also your tag is unnecessary: This article is not a random collection of links, as you describe it in your tag comment. This article is well built, with a very logical order that cover well a huge space of many dimensions relevant to the general database subject. 65.96.201.116 ( talk) 16:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Not to my opinion. This is an important part of the Database article, and provides a very short answer to how the Database requirements, the subject built in the first sections, are met. This answer, conclusion, should be an integral part of the article.
It is perfectly OK to enhance the DBMS article ( Database management system), and even to copy text from the Database article if helpful, but is is a big mistake to harm the integrity and completeness of the Database article. In the DBMS article the copied text should be expanded and elaborated. 65.96.201.116 ( talk) 20:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, move it! DBMS section is specific to relational databases only, and not to object databases, database management systems, hierarchical databases, nor network databases. In fact there is already a whole separate article JUST for that subject. Standard wiki procedure is just to include a single paragraph on how that article applies to this article, with a section header that points to that information. Right now it is a mistake because the article duplicates information already found elsewhere. // Mark Renier ( talk) 03:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The article has been advocating the idea that "a Database is a collection of data managed by a DBMS" to meet certain quality requirements. This is the idea supported in all the database professional text books that I know. This idea has evolved since the database concept came into use. Some people use it in more general ways, where the extreme approach calls a "database" any collection of data. This is simply incorrect according to the people who invented the concept and the people who do development and research in the area. Generalized use may deserve a sort comment in the article. Changing the article to take this general view is misleading and a mistake. 65.96.201.116 ( talk) 21:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The tag includes the following text:
This text is incorrect and misleading:
The only agreement I have here is about the term "Broad concept."
Though the article may need some enhancements and expanding in (few) empty sections, it is in general very good, well describes this complex and broad subject in a logical way (even the TOC is useful as a directory), and useful to anybody who is interested in databases. It is a good introduction which provides a broad view of the subject. Following the links (including main articles) readers can get dipper into specific sub-subjects.
I have taught databases in Academia for many years, and would recommend to my students and others reading this article. This improper tag should be removed. 65.96.201.116 ( talk) 13:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The article has accumulated several tags. Please do not apply changes related to subjects under discussion.
65.96.201.116 ( talk) 21:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a pretty poor article. It seems to ramble around the subject with no sense of direction or purpose; and it seems to have little sense as to what information is important and what isn't. It seems to be written by people who don't have a clear picture as to who they are writing for - who is the reader and why are they reading it? It's not an easy article to write so I don't blame anyone (and if it were easy then I would try to do better). I've been tracking it for years and (quite apart from the high level of vandalism) many of the contributions seem to be by people with a very weak grasp of the subject - I suspect from students, perhaps even schoolchildren. The lack of citations doesn't worry me too much since most of the facts are uncontroversial. So I can't propose easy answers, but please don't delude yourself into thinking that it can't be improved. Mhkay ( talk) 17:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, firstly, there's a lot of poorly-written English. Almost every sentence suffers. Here's one chosen almost at random: "Accordingly its supported data collection needs to meet respective usability requirements (broadly defined by the requirements below) to qualify as a database." I know what it's trying to say, if only because the article says it about four times in different places, but it's a very inelegant way of saying it. Here's another example: "The database concept has evolved since the 1960s to ease increasing difficulties in designing, building, and maintaining complex information systems (typically with many concurrent end-users, and with a large amount of diverse data)." That's jus muddled thinking. How do you ease a difficulty? Why have the difficulties been increasing if database technology has been easing them? If the concept has evolved, then what was the concept at the beginning and what is it now? Almost every sentence raises more questions than it answers, mainly as a result of convoluted prose.
Secondly (as noted) there's an awful lot of repetition.
The article ties itself in knots dealing with the difference between a database and a DBMS. It's not difficult, why make such a meal of it? A heading like "Evolution of database and DBMS technology" just raises questions and complications - there's no difference between database technology and DBMS technology.
The long list of "database type examples" is dreadful. It's a bucket into which random odds and ends have been thrown. There's no attempt here at a coherent taxonomy, which is probably why the word "examples" has been added.
The overall structure is totally illogical. Why is "Types of people involved" a subheading of "History"?
Then we get a list of "functional areas": "The functional areas are domains and subjects that have evolved in order to provide proper answers and solutions to the functional requirements above." A vain attempt to provide coherence to a structural ragbag.
So: you asked for a critique. In summary: (a) the structure is very poor, (b) the writing is very poor, (c) there is a lot of repetition, (d) it's too long for its purpose. The saving grace is that most of the facts are correct and the opinions uncontroversial. Mhkay ( talk) 22:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
It's a shame that you are so reluctant to listen to constructive criticism. Listening to critics is how people improve. Mhkay ( talk) 22:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't see any point in attempting to improve the article myself. I would start by changing "data" to be a collective singular, which is almost universal usage in computer books (if it's plural, then it makes sense to ask "how many data are there in your database?"), and someone (you?) would immediately revert it. I've edited this article to improve it in the past, and the improvements have disappeared within months. Mhkay ( talk) 16:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Mhkay in that this author just not listen to criticism. He's using Wikipedia as if it were a means to publish a book. This is no place to publish books nor scholarly articles nearly as much as articles with ENCYCLOPEDIC knowledge: you reduce your big subject matter into a few dabs here and there in a short, concise article. Frankly, if you cannot do that, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. Go publish elsewhere. Just because the subject is large, complex or important does not mean an encyclopedic article about it has to be. If you cannot summarize effectively, don't blame the subject matter: blame yourself for being so brain-bound (like muscle-bound) that your subject matter has command over you instead of you having command over your subject matter. Your replies to everything on this page only proves your inability to listen and understand any way other than your own.
This article is huge and does have too many sections to be an ENCYCLOPEDIC article about databases, more that just a cutout from some textbook about databases that you like so much. All you want to express about a topic that you worship so much could have been better accomplished by an overview article about databases, and then a number of well-written detailed articles that relate nicely to this overview article and support and be supported by it, instead of cramming it all into a single article, and so derived articles look a lot more repetitious than they need to be. Finally, remember: the key word is ENCYCLOPEDIC. Not thorough, not super complete. That is for textbooks. Not for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamp90 ( talk • contribs) 05:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Where vacuum exists in the Atmosphere, air is sucked in. Where vacuum exists in Wikipedia (lack of active experts), the clueless and illogical are sucked in (I'm trying to be polite...). Databases are very common. Everybody is familiar with the term, and too many are not aware of the extent of the area and consider themselves experts. It includes many areas of expertise, and a non expert should not mess with article text's meaning. I checked and found that the article was bad until mid 2011, and then got a good boost by experts. However, they do not seem to be active lately, and the clueless try to takeover, unaware of the harm they can cause. Some tags are unnecessary, and many comments here do not make sense. 209.144.63.76 ( talk) 23:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
At the risk of further complicating an (apparently) already overly long article, I find myself wondering why the hierarchical X.500 data model is not described here among the major database types. Unlike the original hierarchical DB developed at IBM, already listed on this page, the X.500 model is still alive and well, and a key part of most network infrastructure around the world. Highlandsun ( talk) 16:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed in a comprehensive treatise there would be some justification in including it. But we ought to be saying less, rather than more; we need to focus on what's most important. X.500 as a data model is interesting, but it's only really a variation on the "hierarchical" theme, and although in principle it is general purpose, it has never really made an impact (or tried to do so) outside a niche application area. Mhkay ( talk) 22:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
X.500 is not a DBMS data model. It is a series of computer networking standards covering electronic directory services. It is true that it involves a data model, and its implementations require some (embedded) DBMS technologies, but it is out of the general Database realm. This article deals with the major subjects pertain to databases and the major milestones in this area. In particular it does not cover the almost countless special cases of database (or "almost database") utilization. 65.96.201.116 ( talk) 23:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
What is that line at the beginning of the article. "See mostly erased Talk:Serializability#Commitment_ordering discussion. User:Ruud Koot lying about User:Comps sock puppets. User:Ruud Koot is also an idiot: good science wins eventually. 209.117.47.248 (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)" Jedieaston ( talk) 21:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
This article, at least the summary, uses lots of weasel words like "often" or "especially" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.233.9.72 ( talk) 19:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The "Database type examples" is quite long. Perhaps there could be a general summary in this article, with the detailed descriptions given in another linked article. I would be willing to do it. Shandong44
Well, I managed to get this article down from over 100K to around 56K by eliminating a lot of redundant content and pushing out excessive detail to subarticles. There is still some rambling and excessive detail for an overview article to take care of, but length is no longer an emergency (so I removed that cleanup tag). The Applications section in particular could probably use a complete rewrite. Once this article and Database management system are cleaned up a bit more, I think it would be an improvement to merge them. The distinction between the logical data part and the surrounding system that makes it work in the real world is rather awkward, and we end up talking about both in both articles since they are so interrelated. The distinction can just be mentioned in a "Terminology" section. We need to be careful that the result of the merge is shorter than just the sum of the two articles, though, because otherwise it would be too long. But, we should be able to reduce a lot of redundancy by combining parallel sections on history, functionality, transactions, data models, and terminology. -- Beland ( talk) 20:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I attempted to split the unweildy section 6 into two parts, the first concerned with architectural principles of database technology, the second more concerned with development processes. It wasn't a perfect split, but I was hoping it could lead to a more structured approach. Someone has reverted the change and lumped it all together again, which makes it look like a ragbag with no structure at all; the lack of focus is evident in the difficulty of finding a title and introduction that says what the section is about. Mhkay ( talk) 09:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I moved the below here from Talk:Database management system because it is unresolved. I tagged the problem sentence in the article itself to point here. -- Beland ( talk) 07:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The article includes this paragraph, which has no references associated with it.
"Many of the people involved with INGRES became convinced of the future commercial success of such systems, and formed their own companies to commercialize the work but with an SQL interface. Sybase, Informix, NonStop SQL and eventually Ingres itself were all being sold as offshoots to the original INGRES product in the 1980s. Even Microsoft SQL Server is actually a re-built version of Sybase, and thus, INGRES. Only Larry Ellison's Oracle started from a different chain, based on IBM's papers on System R, and beat IBM to market when the first version was released in 1978."
I have first hand knowledge of several of the products mentoined here and I do not believe they were based on INGRES, as is claimed.
I do know that SQL Server did begin as a version of Sybase, that is correct. I do not know that Sybase was a version of INGRES, as is claimed, but it may be.
It is my belief that Informix shares no heritage with INGRES, (IE: no common code) and was an organic outgrowth of Informix's early products, which were development languages. Of course people familiar with INGRES maybe have worked on it. (That is not the claim being made here, though.)
I am equally sceptical about the Non-Stop SQL Claim.
I'm going to do a little checking up, but I may delete or rewrite this paragraph. If someone is invested in keeping these claims here it would be helpful if they would source them.
24.22.76.36 ( talk) 20:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Since everyone so far is pretty dubious, I'm moving the actual text here. If anyone wants to find some solid sources and/or rewrite it to be more accurate, feel free to put it back in the article. -- Beland ( talk) 05:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Many of the people involved with INGRES became convinced of the future commercial success of such systems, and formed their own companies to commercialize the work but with an SQL interface. Sybase, Informix, NonStop SQL and eventually Ingres itself were all being sold as offshoots to the original INGRES product in the 1980s. Even Microsoft SQL Server is actually a re-built version of Sybase, and thus, INGRES.
Perhaps there should be a mention of Microsoft Access following "1980s Desktop Databases" section. More readers are likely to have experience with Microsoft Access than dBASE and below its GUI Microsoft Access supports SQL. Then explain limitations of Microsoft Access (ie. number of simultaneous users) and introduce enterprise databases such as Microsoft SQL, Oracle and IBM DB2 and open source databases MySQL and PostgreSQL. Jim.Callahan,Orlando ( talk) 23:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Who on earth added that nonsense right at the start that all databases consist of rows and columns? I expect this was some ignorant school child inserting what they were told by an equally ignorant school teacher. This article seems to be a constant struggle against people who have never read a book or scholarly article about databases, but think they know it all. Sigh. Mhkay ( talk) 13:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
It should be "The data is", not "are". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.174 ( talk) 21:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I changed all occurrences of the first to the second, per reference. [1] Peter Flass ( talk) 13:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
References
Either discuss it in the article or remove the redirect, so perhaps an actual page about it could be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.46.192 ( talk) 13:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
From the lede:
the most popular database systems since the 1980s have all supported the relational model as represented by the SQL language
I find that hard to believe given the NoSQL trend/hype of the last decade. CouchDB, MongoDB, Apache Cassandra, etc., all qualify as DBMSs as defined in this article, but don't support the relational model or SQL.
More generally, the lede seems rather slanted towards SQL. Does anyone have a reliable source that quantifies the popularity of SQL/NoSQL? On NoSQL, I found this web page that purports to show that at least in terms of number of major systems, RDBMSs are now in the minority. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 18:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
(see Implementation section below) is repeated twice, but no section with this title can be found — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velocipedus ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
How is it possible that the word databank is not even mentioned in this article? The difference between the two or the lack of one is badly explained in that article. -- Espoo ( talk) 05:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Database. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I am reasonably minded Database management systems (DBMS) should be split from this Database article to separate and clarify the concepts and to avoid undue weight. This would likely be a contraversial split. The predicate restricting this article to DBMS controlled databases is likely inappropriate, (although it is broken at one point) especially given its a level-4 vital article. Id' go even farther to say article with this name should have a broader and summarising view of the subject broadly covering the scope of the Outline of databases page. We should surely be asking is the article compatible with Microsoft Access, Apache derby, Embedded database or is it over-focusing on internals or databases like Oracle or DB2 to the omission of a user view of a database like say Wikispecies ? I currently calculate I don't have the bandwidth or energy to pursue this. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 12:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)