Template talk:Databases

message: It links to List of relational database management systems twice. I tried to fix that, but my change was reverted without explanation. Can anyone explain why? Indeed, the article has been added to lots of topics; it would've been a good idea to review the template before publishing it so far and wide.
Here are some other problems; I'd fix them, but the reversion of my previous edit and the large "do not change" comment are a little to intimidating:
*There's no seperator between "Relational Model" and "Relational Algebra" in the "Concepts" section.
*The template links to "DB2", which is a disambiguation page.
*The link to "ODBC" redirects.
*"Referential integrity" is missing.
*"Relational database management system" and "Distributed database management system" seem like they belong under "Types of implementations" instead of "Concepts".
*Seems odd to abbreviate "DBMS" when "database management systems" is spelled-out elsehwere.
*A couple of links in the "SQL Topics" area go to articles whih are tiny; one of them (UNION) is up for merging.
*The "Components" section seems a little inconsistent. "ODBC" isn't a database component. Some of the things listed are objects in a database's relational space, while others are features of its implementation.
Let me know how this project is proceeding. --Mikeblas 02:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Surrogate key" is missin', too. -- Mikeblas 02:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This template needs some help.

message: With no objections, I've split "Components" to "Objects", and put "objects" under the implementation line. "Referential Integrity" and "Surrogate Key" still aren't in the template.--Mikeblas 21:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no objections, except maybe for "JDBC" as its a type of ODBC and relates more on the java side. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 21:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Components and objects split

message: I've added "partition". How should "Materialized view" be added? With a dash, after "View"?
-- Mikeblas 14:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should logical schema be linked in the "Concepts" list"? -- Mikeblas 14:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what about result set? -- Mikeblas 19:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Missing 

message: I want to add it after all other comparisons. Any objections? --GreyCat
: Seems like a good idea to me. Might wanna fix the formatting, like
:: Comparisons: relational | object-relational | SQL Syntax
: instead of just adding another pipe.
:--Mikeblas 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Larsinio has made another change without discussing it here. I guess that big comment in the source isn't too effective!  What I was thinking of is shown at Template:Databases/Comparisons. -- Mikeblas 00:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason i made the change the way I did was to keep the SQL related items together. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 13:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not keep the implementation-level items together? -- Mikeblas 17:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Make the change its not a big deal. In the future try not to create subpages with the templates. as there will eventually need to be a WP:TFD for the subpages . --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding [[Comparison of SQL syntax]] 

message: The current list of database software implementations is:
Caché | db4o | dBASE | Firebird | Helix database | DB2 | Informix | Ingres | InterBase | Microsoft SQL Server | MySQL | OpenLink Virtuoso | Oracle | PostgreSQL | SQLite | Sybase IQ | Sybase | Teradata | Visual FoxPro
Are all of these notable enought to be listed?  Cache, db4o, Helix, and Virtuoso seem to have too little market or mindshare to be worthwhile including in a global template.  The template shouldn't try to be an exhaustive list of all DB programs.
Comments?  Georgewilliamherbert 20:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What databases to include in the template 

message: I've redesigned a copy of this template on my scratch page, in a way I believe improves the way the products are listed. Discussion is welcome, of course, this page is on my watchlist. Feel free to use it, or improve upon it further. :) -- Limn 17:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me - I suggest we use it! Alex Jackl 08:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the new one does look better.  I suggest we use it as well! Cgsguy2 16:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do agree as well. It's much clearer. I would also add MaxDb (see my previous comment above) Mbaudier 12:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we go ahead with implementing Limns redesign of the template. Unless anyone objects, I think this should be done asap. As far as I can see, there are some DBs missing from the list at Limns page, which are in the list in the current template, namely: Paradox | eXtremeDB | Filemaker Pro  | Greenplum  | H2   | Microsoft Access  | Mimer SQL  | MonetDB  | Oracle Rdb  | Perst   | UniVerse. Also, the Candidate key article is not in Limns table. These should maybe be added in? Jerazol 08:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested redesign 

message: Isn't it odd that this template links to "ACID" but not to "Transaction"? I think there might be an issue about inclusion of concepts, too, aside from the product list. -- Mikeblas 18:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does link to Transactions, but in the Objects list. I'm not sure who decided this distinction, and I'm not sure why a transaction is considered an object. Jerazol 13:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh! There it is! -- Mikeblas 13:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACID 

message: I think there's already some concensus that the existing template is too large. I've put together a smaller version at User:Mikeblas/databases which doesn't use quite as much space. Is there any objection to switching to that layout? -- Mikeblas 12:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I don't see it justified to switch to a layout which is, imo, a lot less readable than what we have now, in order to save 140px of screen space. I think what we've got now is fine, as long as we're able to prevent the database products section from expanding beyond control. Jerazol 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 140px is a linear measure; shouldn't you should be thinking about area? -- Mikeblas 12:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not get to hung up on my highly inaccurate attempt at illustrating why I don't think we should use your new layout. The point is, I don't agree that there is a problem that needs fixing. Jerazol 12:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hung up? I'm just trying to understand your opinion. -- Mikeblas 13:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okey, my opinion is that we should not switch the layout, ie. I object to switching the layout.Jerazol 13:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I guess it's more accurate to say that I'm trying to understand the reasoning for your opinion. But maybe it's not worth the effort. -- Mikeblas 13:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasoning was explained in my first reply. I think your proposed layout is a lot less readable than what we already have, and I don't think the modest savings in space makes up for that.Jerazol 13:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I certainly agree that the current template is huge, but your draft indeed reduces clarity present in the current template. Perhaps we can break it into smaller boxes where only relevant sub-boxes are shown on articles — the only example I know is , which transcludes sub-boxes like ,  (wow, that list is worse than the database products list ever was). This would increase relevance as well as reduce the size and number of links. Live examples can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography#The main crypto navigation box. -- intgr 13:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I see the loss of readability -- the text is the same size and the same font. Project Metalworking does different boxes, similar to what I think you're demonstrating with the crypto stuff. That can work, but it takes a bit of work to avoid confusion over which project subset template gets placed in which articles. Do ya'll want to go for that approach instead? -- Mikeblas 00:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the metalworking navboxes work similarly in concept. -- intgr 19:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Slight adjustment to sample at User:SqlPac/databases to make bottom half look more like the top half of the template.SqlPac 14:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, go for it. I have no objections at least. Jerazol 15:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give it a couple of days and if no one objects I'll change it on Monday.SqlPac 16:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's a step in the right direction, but it's not much smaller. It's still mostly whitespace. -- Mikeblas 16:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me, just be bold IMO. -- intgr 17:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be boldSqlPac 22:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. :) -- intgr 22:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you :)  I subscribed to be bold until I was corrected around 17 April 2007 myself:)SqlPac 01:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smaller Template 

message: Since there were no objections to my post on Friday, I went ahead and modified the template slightly.  Basically eliminated the third section at the bottom of the template, combining it with the second section.  Also rearranged the bottom section to reflect the same format as the top section. SqlPac 18:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, having to tilt your head to read them is an obvious loss in usability IMO. -- intgr 20:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the problem with most things you could do to save space on it.  Short of actually eliminating something from it completely, just about anything else you can do will affect readability...  Ah well... SqlPac 00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slight adjustment to template

message: Suggest adding Codd's 12 rules to the template - possibly under the Concepts sub-heading. SqlPac 15:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add [[Codd's 12 rules]] to Template

message: I'm going to try completely reorganising this using template:navbox. The current version is fiddly and very markup-heavy. Chris Cunningham 11:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. What we may lose in diagrammatical clarity I think we make up for in brevity and standardisation. Comments? Chris Cunningham 11:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that's a big improvement, with negligible loss if any in clarity. This template still needs more work, though, on its logical organization of topics. Also I think it would be best simply to sort the entries within each section. - JCLately 16:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's more about Databases, not Database Management Systems now. Title should be changed, and it should be included on pages such as Relational database. 129.255.123.137 (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rethinking this template 

message: I recommend that the template NOT blindly put articles that use it into :Category:Database management systems as that category is currently very large and some work has been done on subcategories to break it up. For example, I don't think that the articles on SQL keywords and clauses should be put into this category. So, I propose that a new parameter be added to the template such as add category to indicate whether the category should be added. If not specified, the default would be to add it to the category to retain backwards compatibility with existing behaviour. Also, why is it sorting every article it adds to the category by "*"? RedWolf (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Second that, or is there a standard for which articles upon which this gets placed?  A number of vendor-specific DBMS's, notable or not, include the template, perhaps the only article including it should be the ones explicitly linked from the template? Cander0000 (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Database management systems 

message: See article by Tim Berners-Lee  "The semantic web data model is very directly connected with the model of relational databases (...) Indeed, one of the main driving forces for the Semantic web, has always been the expression, on the Web, of the vast amount of relational database information in a way that can be processsed by machines.". This appears to clearly belong on the template. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: semantic web

message: A knowledge base is usually implemented on a database, but so does every other system that has lots of text that needs to be queried, like inventory management applications. I couldn't find sources stating if knowledge bases are actual databases per se. Not sure if it belongs on the template, Ramu50, can you present some source explaining the link between knowledge bases and databases? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Knowledge base

message: This just looks a concept related to databases, even if it's very loosely related... It probably belongs on the template. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Information architecture

message: This relatively new editor has, just today, taken it upon himself to 
* remove the SQL section from this template
* replaced the references to this template with references to the SQL template on about 20 SQL-related pages
This may or may not be a reasonable thing to do - I'm not an SME here. But somebody who is an SME needs to take a look at this activity and see if this obviously highly motivated person needs to have a bit of brake applied. Particularly since his contributions show utterly no participation in Talk pages for any of the SQL-related pages. Jeh (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears the Template:SQL is a relatively new development, but it has been incorporated into all of the SQL commands articles.  It looks like a good thing because it provides some add'l references for SQL as a language.  The question is to continue to list popular SQL commands on this template are not?  Since not all databases are relational and/or use SQL, perhaps its not as good a fit here. Cander0000 (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent activity by [[Special:Contributions/The Fortunate Unhappy|The Fortunate Unhappy]] ([[User talk:The Fortunate Unhappy|talk]])  

message: It is not immediately clear to me what is the difference between the two templates Template:Database and Template:Databases which have very similar names. Do anyone have any suggestion on how to clarify that? Sauer202 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Database compared to Template:Databases - what's the difference?