Talk:Data domain

Remark
Is adding a link to the company not allowed? It seemed to make sense since I came here looking for information on the company. There is an entire page on other companies, like Microsoft, etc. I just thought it made sense to add the link to the company of the same name.

Please comment here before removing the relevant link.
 * I disagree that an external link to the "Data Domain" company is relevant to this article. This article is about the concept of "data domain" in data management and database analysis. It is not an article about companies that have products that relate somehow to data domains (which would be thousands of companies). The fact that the company has a name that is the same as this concept is definitely irrelevant.
 * The proper way to handle the issue of the same name is to 1. Create a new article about the Data Domain corporation, 2. Create a disambiguation page, and 3. Add a disambiguation statement at the top of this article. I am about to do these things and remove the link you added to this article.
 * Also, please sign your comments on talk pages by adding the 4 ~ at the end of your comments. JD Lambert 19:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, you now have a stub article for the Data Domain company here. JD Lambert 20:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The link to 'Reference table' is contextually irrelevant.
 * This Wikilink is contextually relevant based on the 3rd paragraph (at the time I posted this). The 'Reference table' article is poor and either needs to have it's content merged into other articles or split into one article for each topic (with a disambiguation page). But for now, the link is relevant.
 * Also, please sign your comments on talk pages by adding the 4 ~ at the end of your comments. JD Lambert 19:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Introductory example is out of date
Currently the example says ''..a "gender" column. This gender column might be declared as a string data type, and allowed to have one of two known code values: "M" for male, "F" for female...''

This might have been a good assumption last century, and even many places in the world today. But it's increasingly out of date, depending on the application. For selecting gender pronouns, M or F will often suffice. But for describing a person's identity, it's just not good enough, and the omission is offensive, as some people identify as intersex or transgender, not male or female, and certainly not "unknown". Nepal issues official documents with three options: male, female, and other. I think some social gaming apps also accommodate these populations in a similar way.

Rather than open the article with something that could be interpreted as yet another time we ignore them, it could (a) include the Other option, (b) include more specific options like intersex or transgender, (c) explicitly limit the scope of the gender to pronoun-selection in the user interface, or (d) use a different subject-matter entirely. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)