Template talk:Databases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Databases page.

Contents

[edit] This template needs some help.

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)

"Surrogate key" is missin', too. -- Mikeblas 02:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coponents and objects split

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)

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)

[edit] More Missing

I've added "partition". How should "Materialized view" be added? With a dash, after "View"? -- Mikeblas 14:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Should logical schema be linked in the "Concepts" list"? -- Mikeblas 14:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
what about result set? -- Mikeblas 19:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the Database Product listed includes everything.Because I found Cognos Database also exits.

[edit] Adding Comparison of SQL syntax

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)
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)
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)
Why not keep the implementation-level items together? -- Mikeblas 17:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
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)

[edit] What databases to include in the template

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)

I believe that MaxDB should be included. This is one of the few SAP compliant database and one of the very few open source enterprise database. True, that the current version of the article sounds like advertisement. Maybe that's why it is not included? I can try to find the time to improve this article. Mbaudier 14:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested redesign

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)

         Looks good to me Will henderson 18:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me - I suggest we use it! Alex Jackl 08:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the new one does look better. I suggest we use it as well! Cgsguy2 16:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

[edit] List of Database products

It seems this list is continually getting added to, with more or less notable products. Should there maybe be some sort of criteria for what is included in this list? For instance the link to Alpha Five, which is basically a sales pitch for that particular product. Jerazol 07:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What kind of criteria do you have in mind? What you see so far on Alpha Five was not intended to be a sales pitch, it's what I dug up for two editors that were repeatedly marking the article for deletion due to lack of nobility (which they no longer dispute). PeetMoss 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

PeetMoss: Nobody was "marking the article for deletion" — the {{notability}} tag is not a deletion tag, but a cleanup notice. It would help if you actually read what it says before reverting repeatedly.
As for a criteria for the list, I agree that we need one; the navigation box is too big already as it is. But I can't see any obvious places where to draw the line. -- intgr 17:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a suggestion that can help make Wikipedia a more inviting community Intgr: don't bother editing articles unless you're willing to go a little further then a game of tit-for-tat when confronted or when your actions are questioned. The obvious is not always so obvious to others. You may also want to note: "if you actually read it" is a statement that suggests a high degree of arrogance on the part of the party making the remark. PeetMoss 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Considering the massive influx of vanispamcruftisement articles, sometimes even drafted by marketing departments (I've been directly contacted by a few, Wikimedia Foundation is dealing with them daily[1]), I personally think Wikipedians aren't being ruthless enough when it comes to articles about companies and products. I seriously cannot see why would an encyclopedia need to cover hundreds of different database products, as opposed to for example, generic academic articles about databases; but let's drop that argument, it's not leading us anywhere. -- intgr 18:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I find the company/product articles extremely useful when it comes to learning about the development and evolution of databases, whether they are notable or not. PeetMoss 19:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like you would be looking for something in the lines of "history of database managements systems", rather than "Alpha Five" then. It is fine to mention non-notable products in such an article if they are indeed relevant to the history of databases. -- intgr 19:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I think a good criteria would be to only include links to articles that aren't stubs. I'll work on this today ... -- Mikeblas 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good start. -- intgr 18:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. In addition, the article to be included, should maybe have reached a certain maturity with contributions by a number of editors. EXtremeDB is an example of an article which I think should maybe be excluded on the basis that it's so far only been edited by a sole editor. Jerazol 19:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for chipping in, Jerazol. I've gone through and removed stubs, including tagging a few. I think I've also got to the point where the template is included on all the articles that are actually in the template, which wasn't the case before. -- Mikeblas 21:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Rather then pick and choose which one's are in this template I think it would be better to simply include a link to an article listing all of them, stubs or not so people will continue to expand on the articles. PeetMoss 19:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, such an approach doesn't scale. There are lots of DBMSes, and listing them all would make the template intrusive. I don't see inclusion or exclusion from this template as a significant motivator for the improvement of articles. Perhaps a better approach would be to remove the list altogether, and let the template focus on pure database management topics without vendor or product involvement. After all, there is already Category:Database management systems and List of relational database management systems to collect products; perhaps the template should link to those, instead. -- Mikeblas 20:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I was suggesting the same thing. I don't understand the point of providing links to particular DBMSes in this template. Because it doesn't say otherwise I assumed I was looking at the complete list of database products with articles or stubs that I could contribute to. The following link is all that is needed in this template: List of relational database management systems. PeetMoss 14:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
So, how about something like this: User:Jerazol/tmpldb. This way, we reduce the size of the template as well as solving the problem with the ever expanding productlist. Jerazol 16:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, just like that but add: "List of relational database management systems". PeetMoss 20:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That is the "Relational" link at the bottom, right next to the Object-oriented link.Jerazol 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm for getting rid of the product lists. The proposed template is still very large, though, because it's full of whitespace. -- Mikeblas 18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's see how this works out, and if necessary see what we can do to further reduce the size.Jerazol 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The criteria recently used to purge certain database products from the template list seems quite arbitrary to me. So, you want to cut an article if only one editor has contributed to it? If another editor chimes in on one of these pages, they're back on the template?
How about criteria based on the DBMS's level of innovation (that is, it offers something new rather than being an also-ran in an over-populated category)? Or the size of its user community, or its growth/adoption rate? You may respond that these criteria would be difficult to apply. That points to the fact that this list should strive to be inclusive -- it calls itself a list of databases not a list of the biggest and oldest databases or databases whose Wikipedia articles are authored by more than one editor.
Really, I think if such a list is going to exist, the Wikipedia user community is served better by a list that illustrates the breadth and depth of this technology category.
And, by the way, I am in favor of the list continuing to exist. It is a way for interested parties to discover "what else is out there" when they are investigating a technology. That is a major benefit such a template can provide. What's the harm of a broader list, that it will consume a few more square centimeters on the PC screen? It's at the very bottom of the page, after all -- that's hardly intrusive.Ted nw 21:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, such a list will eventually become a beast. A template like this shouldn't form the dominant part of a page. Besides, the list is still easily accessible, through the links to "list of (rdbms|ordbms)" in the same section.Jerazol 07:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You write, "the list is still easily accessible" -- that assumes the list will be moved off the template, correct? Is this going to happen?24.19.89.253 Ted nw 18:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, through the links to list of OO/Relational databases. Jerazol 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ACID

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)

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)
Oh! There it is! -- Mikeblas 13:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smaller Template

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)

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)
140px is a linear measure; shouldn't you should be thinking about area? -- Mikeblas 12:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
Hung up? I'm just trying to understand your opinion. -- Mikeblas 13:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 {{crypto navbox}}, which transcludes sub-boxes like {{crypto hash}}, {{crypto block}} (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)
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)
Yeah, the metalworking navboxes work similarly in concept. -- intgr 19:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe now that the "Database products" section is so much smaller it would make sense to make it a sub-section of "Implementations of database management systems" like "Types of implementations" and "Components" are. Also, the three sub-sections might be re-arranged, with the larger group "Types of implementations" could be moved to the bottom. Just something to make it take up a little bit less space, and maybe make it a little easier to read... Sample here: User:SqlPac/databases SqlPac 03:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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)
Sure, go for it. I have no objections at least. Jerazol 15:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Looks good to me, just be bold IMO. -- intgr 17:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't be boldSqlPac 22:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected. :) -- intgr 22:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Added "Null" to Topics in SQL

With no objections, I've added Null to Topics in SQL.SqlPac 14:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, since this template is quite widely used, it's a good idea to suggest changes here, so that others have the opportunity to object before you make the change.
As for including NULL, in the template, I have no problem with that, but wouldn't it fit better under the "Concepts" heading? Had the article been purely about the SQL NULL keyword, fine, but the article also includes the concept of null "values" in a database. Jerazol 17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Adding it under "Concepts" heading sounds fine to me. I didn't know how widely this template was used, but now that I do know I think I need to decline making the change you recommended above and defer to anyone else who wants to take that particular risk. Thanks. SqlPac 19:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slight adjustment to template

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)

BTW, if space is at a premium, has anyone considered doing something like this? Sample Template. I'm no graphic artist, so this is not the best that could be done, just a random idea for maybe saving a little space on the template. SqlPac 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, having to tilt your head to read them is an obvious loss in usability IMO. -- intgr 20:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Add Codd's 12 rules to Template

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

[edit] Object-oriented DB vs Object-relational DB

Comparison of object-oriented database management systems is confused with comparison of object-relational DMS. Perhaps both categories need to be added

[edit] Proposed reorganization of the Databases template

Currently this template begins with a rather large section entitled "Concepts", which contains a somewhat strange intermixing of what I think would be better divided into 2 sections. The first of these should be entitled something like "Subtopics" or "Major subtopics", and the second could be called "Concepts".

Under the new "Subtopics" or "Major subtopics" heading, I'd include the following subset of what was previously listed under "Concepts": Database models, Database storage, Relational model, Distributed DBMS, Relational database, Relational algebra, Relational calculus, Database normalization, Referential integrity, Relational DBMS

Under the new, pared-down "Concepts" heading, I'd include the remaining items from the original "Concepts" list: Database, ACID, Null, Primary key, Foreign key, Surrogate key, Superkey, Candidate key

One addition I would propose to the "Major subtopics" heading is Transaction processing, for which ACID really is not a satisfactory substitute. For that matter, I wouldn't object to deleting ACID altogether from this template, since it really is an acronym for 4 separate concepts, and it's a readily accessible subtopic of transaction processing. Likewise, I don't have any great fondness for including "Transaction" under the "Objects" section, again because it's pretty trivially connected to the major subtopic of transaction processing. I see that there was some previous discussion about this, and I was going to add my remarks there, until the larger need for splitting up the whole Concepts section dawned on me. - JCLately 03:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rethinking this template

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)

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)
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)