Category talk:Database management systems

discuss the criateria paradox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.60.103 (talk • contribs) 07:18, September 27, 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization proposal
There are (at least) two categories for database technologies: Category:Databases and Category:Database management systems. Articles seem to have been placed in one or the other, or both, arbitrarily. Both categories include a template, pleading for reorganization.

I propose that Category:Database management systems be used exclusively for individual database software packages, and that Category:Databases be used for all other articles that relate to computer databases, including articles on general database technology, database books, database authors, etc.

This would involve:
 * 1) Making Category:Database management systems a subcategory of Category:Databases.
 * 2) Moving all articles that refer to specific database software packages (e.g. Oracle Enterprise Manager, IBM DB2, MySQL, Microsoft Access, etc.) into Category:Database management systems.
 * 3) Adding notes to the top of each category to clarify the distinction.

Please comment. I will begin reorganizing on Monday, January 7, 2007 if there is no significant opposition. Tim Pierce 14:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Database management systems (DBMSs) would logically be a category of database. Though realize, purists may tell you that products such as mySQL, in fact databases and nothing more.  That is they have a storage engine and (in the relational world) a relational engine.  The other tools used to manage them phpMyAdmin would be considered DBMSs?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cander0000 (talk • contribs) 17:28, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Comment on proposal
I agree with the proposal. I would suggest to have more sub-categories for types of database management systems. For example, for deductive database systems and active database systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjatuvt (talk • contribs)


 * One reason why this category is so large, as warned by the banner at the top of the page, is that the template automatically categorises the page which transcludes it to this category, regardless of how careful one might have been to use a sub-category instead. --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Attention
I've cleared out quite a few articles that were really Application software, Databases. The vast majority of what's left appear to be legitimate DBMS products, related tools, or important DBMS concepts. Any other ideas to refine this category? Cander0000 03:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorting
Why are so many articles classified under * instead of under their first letter? Riki (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Library Management
[[Media:]]Example.ogg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.4.69 (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)