Talk:Relational database/Archive 2

message: I've moved in the changes from my rewrite, for which there was no opposition, and at least one encouragement to be bold. Corresponding to this, I moved the talk page discussion to an archive. The entirety of the old discussion can be found there. I look forward to your constructive criticism so that we can make this page better. McKay 05:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing was deleted, as was evidenced by your revert. The rewrite was announced and discussed here. No one commented. Now that you are here, I expect you to express your concerns with the rewrite. --Ideogram 12:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A great deal of the deleted "hard work of many others" was mine. And you may have noticed that I encouraged and helped in the rewrite. WP:BOLD is a widely accepted guideline. Furthermore, drafts of rewrites to pages are not allowed in article space (see "Disallowed uses #1"). I think McKay might preferably have used a Talk subpage instead of a user subpage, but I think the route he took is better than the one you suggest for a major rewrite. I would strongly support going back to McKay's version. JA, you say nothing at all about what you feel is not in the new article which was "lost" from the old article. We're not going to stay on the current revision forever, so if there's some important point you'd like to keep you should say what it is.--Craig Stuntz 12:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Concur with Craig My decision in using my userpage for the rewrite (over a talk page), was that I would be doing the bulk of the work in the rewrite. McKay 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New page

message: Finally, we get a reasoning attached to the changes. I've reverted again based on the following reasons:
#the wikipedia article "boolean" doesn't capitalize uniformly
#google "define:boolean" top five (that loaded) didn't conclusively upper-case. i.e. in each of the the top 5 hits (that didn't 404), they either used "boolean" in lower-case form, or all items in lists that "Boolean" was in, there were other capitalized words that aren't normally (e.g. "Integer" or "Bookshelf" ).
McKay 00:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this context, I agree with you. I would use 'boolean' as an adjective, and 'Boolean' as the name of a datatype. RayGates 02:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Boolean]] 

message: The last line of this section read:
:All reduce functional dependencies, and therefore, various kinds of data duplication, and therefore ease of correctly modifying the data. 
I.e. All reduce ... ease of correctly modifying the data.
I don't think that is what is intended. I have amended it accordingly.
RayGates 02:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normalization 

message: All in all, I think that Jon's revert was not mutually agreed upon? McKay 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he didn't ask, so it's hard to say what people "agree" on. Only three others (you, me, Ideogram) have commented so far. For me the biggest consideration is not what various editors agree on, but rather which version of the article (or combination) best describes the subject. I've asked Jon to explain which bits of the original he felt were valuable and appropriate here but not adequately covered in the rewrite, but he hasn't answered yet. --Craig Stuntz 15:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: "JA: Blanking pages is not being well-behaved, period. Ideogram was not even here way back in Jan-Feb-Mar when I worked this page up as a tutorial. When I left off active work on the page, it was mostly being fine-tuned by folks who were experts and who recalled the planning discussions that we had had, so it seemed like it was in good hands. That does not appear to be the case at present, and a quick scan reveals many howlers that are just plain wrong, plus all the stuff that belongs somewhere else. Jon Awbrey 18:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One example