Talk:Oracle

message: http://www.digitalbuilder.co.nz/Society_SubconciousLanguage.asp
I heard something weird and I thought it was true, I have Schizoprehnia so I will not say for sure it is true, but merely learn what I can from it.
:The link doesn't seem to work for me.  What's the point, exactly?  MasterXiam 02:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Oracle of Ancient English 

message: I removed ancient Macedonia from the sentence about semi-Hellenic countries.Most historians agree that it was a Hellenic one.--Hectorian 12:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Hellenic 

message: I would imagine that most people (like 98% or so) doing an internet search on Oracle intended to find Oracle database.  Are there any objections to reversing the default so this page becomes Oracle (prophecy) and Oracle points to Oracle database?  As a compromise Oracle could point to the disambiguation page.  I'm posting this here because I figure this is where the objections are most likely if there are any.
:Surely the Oracle Corporation and database were named for oracle, as defined in this article.  As you correctly note, if you search Google for "oracle,"  the first many pages are devoted to Oracle Corporation.  However, note that Google does not distinguish capitals.  However, in dictionaries and encyclopedias "Oracle" refers to Oracle Corporation; "oracle" to the prophetic source.  If you search for "oracle" in a dictionary you will get a definition similar to the one in the lead paragraph of this article.  People who want to know what an oracle is will want to find this article.  On the other hand, people who search Wikipedia for "Oracle Corporation" or "Oracle (database)" will get the company and the software respectively.  That is as it should be. 
:There is a disambiguation for the Oracle database listed at the top of the article, which makes it easy for folks to switch to that article if they've mistakenly come here.   I would be strongly opposed to a change in the way the articles are referenced.  It would make no sense, based on what I have just outlined. Sunray 05:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I'm late to the discussion (very!), but it seems to me that most people doing a web search for "Oracle" would be looking for the database, while most people searching Wikipedia specifically would be looking for this article.  So I think we should cater to the latter crowd.   --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 07:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Surely the Oracle Corporation and database were named for oracle" - not true. Accoring to "Softwar" (ISBN: 074322504X), the corporation was named after the flagship product, but the database was named after CIA "Project Oracle". CIA was their first client, they were interested in a RDBMS, so they built it.
See this for a shorter version: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/05/20/MN209661.DTL  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.40.140 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oracle database

message: I removed the text:
:In the 3rd century, the oracle (perhaps bribed) declared that the god would no longer speak there.
because it appears to contradict Famous oracular statements from Delphi, which records prophecies from the 4th century.  I replaced it with this from Pythia:
:Its last recorded response was given in 393 AD, when the emperor Theodosius I ordered pagan temples to cease operation.
Neither claim is referenced, so verification is needed. -- Beland 00:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was not moved per discussion (non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting histories of closure 

message: Something should be added about Dorje Shugden oracle. Maybe this ?
or that ?
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.205.190 (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Tibet 

message: select ename sal from emp;  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.5.45 (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  select ename sal from emp; 

message: Discussion moved from User talk:Bkonrad as this is about this page.
I have reverted your reversion of my edit of the hatnote for Oracle. The corporation is only one of a number of other uses of the word and does not belong there. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have reverted it back. The corporation arguably could be the primary target -- and hatnotes with multiple links are commonly used in such situations. Hatnotes are intended to help readers and it is extremely likely that a reader typing "Oracle" in the search box is expecting to find the corporation. Forcing them through an additional link is unhelpful. See here here and here for previous discussions. The hatnote appeared to address most concerns. older ≠ wiser 18:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The suggestion that the company is the primary sense is astonishing. On what basis do you make such an eccentric claim? DionysosProteus (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the archives. Do a google search for "Oracle". Look at the page view statistics for the respective pages. older ≠ wiser 19:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  And how do you propose to separate out the common usage from the corporation in a google search? And you need to read WP:HAT more carefully. The relevant statement in Wikipedia policy is:
"When a term has a primary meaning and two or more additional meanings, the hatnote on the primary topic page should link to a disambiguation page. 
 may be used for this."
The example provided to illustrate proper use is:
This article is about the mazelike labyrinth from Greek mythology. For other uses, see Labyrinth (disambiguation).
As you can see, the version of the hatnote that I have edited on Oracle is the correct version. Accordingly, I have restored it. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

text: And you also should read not only WP:HAT, but WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB a little more carefully. The practice is used in cases where there may be multiple topics that are very prominently known by the title. For example, consider the hatnotes at Washington, Cambridge, Brandenburg, Bone, A, Bock, Crystal, etc.  There not only is a special purpose template  for that purpose, but  also supports multiple parameters. I suggest that you self-revert your ill-advised edits -- if not because you are wrong, then because you have violated WP:3RR. older ≠ wiser 14:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Firstly, you are the one to have violated the 3RR. Secondly, take a look at Apple, which provides the most appropriate comparison. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Narrowly defined, 3RR is more than three reverts within a 24-hour period. You are the only one of us that fell afoul of that hard limit. The difficulty at Apple is that there are actually so many other prominent uses there is little point to listing them all. Oracle is a quite different situation, as the edit history and talk page show. You should revert your edit as there is ample precedent for similar types of hatnotes (despite your narrow mis-reading of WP:HAT) and the hatnote was arrived at by consensus at the talk page in the course of discussing a page move. Your preferences and idiosyncratic interpretation of guidelines should not overrule consensus. older ≠ wiser 16:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You reverted at: 16:18, again at 19:13, and for a third time at 00:08, all within a 24hr period. You violated the 3RR and the only reason I did not report you is that a hatnote seems to me to be too insignificant an issue to warrant it. There are many other uses of the term "Oracle" as well, which is why the comparison with Apple is apposite. Your attempt to suggest that I have "misread" or "interpreted" WP:HAT is patently nonsense. The policy is clear and unambiguous and there is an equally clear precedent with Apple. Your parochial desire to promote the company should not override established Wikipedia policy. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  3RR is more than three. Although to be honest both of us were in flagrant violation of the spirit of 3RR. In any case, you are mistaken about WP:HAT. There are numerous counter-examples to your narrow interpretation. And WP:HAT is an editing guideline, not policy, in any case. The strictness with which you seek to interpret it is a fallacy of your own creation -- the page itself indicates it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. The comparison with Apple is not very applicable. Of all the things identified on Oracle (disambiguation), only the company (and it's database) and the prophetic sense are even remotely contenders as primary topic. and arguably, based purely on page view statistics and search engine hits, the company (or its database) are arguably the primary topic for the term as both have higher raw statistics in their favor than the prophetic sense. I'm not saying the company should be primary, if anything, it would indicate that the disambiguation page would go at the base name. But with Apple, in contrast, not only is there the fruit, but the computer maker (and it's iconic namesake computer products) and the Beatles-related enterprises (both the corporation and the record company). All of those would be contenders to be primary topic. And the Apple Bank also has a relatively high profile. But rather than create an excessively cluttered (and possibly POV) hatnote, it makes sense in that case to refer only the to disambiguation page. In fact, for a very long time, until 27 June 2009, the hatnote said This article is about the fruit. For the electronics and software company, see Apple Inc.. For other uses, see Apple (disambiguation).  But to Oracle, the rationale for having a hatnote that specifically links to the other primary topic is that it provides a less inconvenient navigation for the many people for whom the software company is what they were intending. older ≠ wiser 21:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote in [[Oracle]] 

message: I deleted the flagged line about Dalai Lama consulting Dorje Shugen before fleeing Tibet; the dramatic story of him consulting Nechung Oracle before fleeing Tibet is well-known from his autobiography. I also added some information about other oracles that I don't know how to source: it was told to me directly by the Secretary to HH the Dalai Lama, but it's not been printed anywhere yet. Perhaps I'll try to get a brief article about it published somewhere soon and come back to add the source; in the meantime, maybe it would be best to flag it as "citation needed" and leave it be, if anything, until I can come back to it. It's definitely the truth though.Yonderboy (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tibetan Oracles

message: The tradition of the oracles of the Latter-day Saints does not seem to meet the definition of oracle in this article. The description given is as follows: 
:"They are the revelations from God (Acts 7:38, Romans 3:2, Hebrews 5:12.) They are the living prophets who recieve revelation (2 Samuel 16:23, 1 Peter 4:11.) And they are the holy or sacred places in which prophets recieve revelation (1 Kings 6:16; 8:6, 2 Chronicles 4:20.)
It seems to me this refers to an interpretation of scripture rather than a "prediction or a precognition of the future" (as the article's definition of "oracle" intends). Nathan Oman, in an article entitled: "'The Living Oracles': Legal Interpretation and Mormon Thought" discusses this in reference to a quote from William Blackstone: "The judges in the several courts of justice... are the depositary of the
laws; the living oracles...” "The Living Oracles" of the Mormon tradition are thus normative, rather than predictive. I've removed the section of this title from the article. However, if I've got something wrong, let's discuss it here.  Sunray (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Latter-day Saints

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oracle. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205234136/http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/nechung_hh.html to http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/nechung_hh.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Currently the lead section begins with the line, "An oracle is a person or agency considered to provide wise and insightful counsel..."
Is 'agency' really the right word here?? Seems odd. --Twomatters (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Section