Talk:Database/Archive 3

Article Improvement August 2018
I've spent a few days looking at this article and believe it really needs a rework. One key issue is this is the root article for databases and therefore Make technical articles understandable should be an important objective for the wider audience. Some issues I have are:
 * The current constraint of the article to DBMS controlled databases is overly restrictive for the root article
 * Technical discussion on DBMS dominates the article and the expense of general database discussion. I am personally inclined regret to that the merger from Relational database management system took place but the state of the articles prior to merger meant something really have to be tried.
 * The summaries where the main article elsewhere are often too long
 * The article at points is biased towards the corporate enterprise databases an the expense of others.
 * There are various statements throughout which are biased, outdated or just plain wrong.

I currently have on loan the Connolly/Begg book which is suitable for sourcing a lot of items (ISBN: 978-1292061184).

Ideal world I'd set up a page and try things asking collaboration. In practice I'll try a series of sprints/pause, mainly because I may have to stop at any point.

Plan A:


 * Sprint 1: Refactor article gathering DBMS together under single level one heading (this will include history). Some Heading changes.  (Examples to Classification; to Languages under Database Access, both can be developed later).  No content changes
 * Sprint 2: Move DBMS definition from lede to its own section. Rework the lede as need to cover that.  Point inbound redirect links to Database Management System to the DBMS Section.
 * Sprint 3: Introduce structured content early, probably in form of structured work expansion/rework of the Applications/Classification section, examples of corporate, personal and embedded databases.

Thankyou. 20:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have now completed Sprint 1 and refactored the article (no content changes) and will now pause for a while. I will add the need to add a little prose start of the Data access section.  I also am aware eventually I am likely to use Connolly/Begg's definition of DBMS to add or clear things from that section.  But for the moment a pause.  Comments welcome.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure making the distinction between database and DBMS makes a lot of sense. For example, what is there in the core history of DBMSes that's not a core part of the history of databases generally? A pile of data isn't very exciting without some way to access it, and the way the data is organized is always closely related to the DBMS, or at the very least the type of DBMS. -- Beland (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your comments. I see the data as import in itself, and I believe there is content that can usefully be written than concentrates on the data, application, automated feeds and dataset extraction while treating the DBMS/Database system as a black box, and that such content can be of use to less technical users.  I'd tend to agree that if you asked by to rattle of a history timeline of databases I'd actually rattle off a timeline of DBMSs.  In the timeline of Database some events such as the theoretical work are not directly focused as the DBMS.  On review there view history section best needs to move back out of the DBMS section to top level so I've just done that.  I'll proceed with Sprint 2, but not before late Saturday or Sunday, which will help scope the DBMS section ... (I'm only able to access intermittently before then for short replies/fixes etc).  ThankyouDjm-leighpark (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How would you propose splitting up "Performance, security, and availability"? Most of the material there seems like good info to have in the main database article, and especially things like storage arrangements and transactions which to me seem like core topics. -- Beland (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The basic idea first to use Begg/Connollys 8(from Codd)/(plus 2 of their own) and perform a two gap analysis(both ways). Handle and resolve any gaps.  The more techie stuff stays where it is.   Important topics to go to an overview section summarised non technical language, easily said not always so easily done.  A key objective is to try any achieve goals of 'Make technical articles understandable'.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that doesn't really answer the question of which subtopics belong with "database" and which belong with "DBMS". Without having the book in front of me, I'd say if "database" covers "data that is stored and how that data is arranged" and "DBMS" covers "how that data is accessed and manipulated", it seems to me that all the subtopics have to do with both sides, which is why I didn't split them up.  Note that (to pick a random competitor) the encyclopedia.com article on databases also just discusses both at the same time.
 * You said above you didn't think this article should be limited to "DBMS controlled databases". I assume you're talking about something like SQLite? Certainly this article should cover all databases, and the fact that some exist without DBMSes can certainly be noted and examples given. If we're doing that then I think we definitely wouldn't want to put "Performance, security, and availability" under DBMS, since those are considerations for serverless databases as well. A bunch of sentences may want to be reworded to reflect a broader array of possibilities, though databases running as services with DBMSes are a big part of what there is to say about databases.
 * Making the article more accessible I think is an orthogonal problem. What I would do for that is to put the "Applications" section before "History", and add a new section before History that gives an elementary-school example of a SQL database and for diversity some type of non-SQL database. -- Beland (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks, generally expect to take on board most of your points last tomorrow.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Over the course course of 24 hours I have come totally round to moving "Performance, security, and availability" backup up to the top level for the reasons you suggested and perhaps more besides and have done so. I have a desire to call the section something other than "Performance, security, and availability" and would prefer to use the term "Database Features" and to add specific "Availability" and "Performance" sections to approach from the reasoning for these features.  But I need to refocus on the 'Sprint 2' and "Database Management System" which I intend to do tomorrow morning.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, cool. "Database features" sounds like a good and more concise title.  It might also work to simply promote all the subsections of that section to be top-level sections, since they're mostly major topics, but whatever you think is best. Should "Database management system" go under "Database access"? -- Beland (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Overslept. Good feedback.  Using 'Database features' makes we want an 'availability' and 'performance' sections within it ... these concepts being explainable at a minimal technical level with an overview of technique used to overcome (e.g database copies).(  hmm Database concepts might be an interesting alternative heading?? need to think and can be changed anytime).  Adding 'Application (program)' and some on API's under 'Database access' (actually database interactions).  The 'Materialized views' and 'Relication' may be able to be covered under Performance/Availability and may not need a top level heaving.  I'm inclined to defer move decisions until after some content addition at the moment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)  I've done a bit today .. not much.    I need to keep/working on that DBMS section.  Will need a section on Non-DBMS databases … something cardindexes, books calling themselves databases, and e.g. use of spreadsheets as a database.  My have spurt tomorrow morning or evening.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)  I am doing sprint 2 at slow walk rather than a sprint.  apologies.  Hope to continue tomorrow.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've sort of finished sprint 2 and possibly have limited time for a short while. I'm open to suggestions: section movements, renames, discussions, etc etc.   Of note there are subsections on Availability and performance that are needed (I think I have good ideas and approaches for these and they are self contained) and for a non-DBMS database section (card indexes, books called database and use of e.g. spreadsheets as databases).  I have emphasised use of 'application' as the application interacting with a database, and tried to avoid using that word in other contexts.  I've just reworked the lede to focus majorly only on defining "database" as per the article to a redirect to "database managment system" section is possible.  I no longer have a desire to more DBMS to its own article.  And another library book is in for me do I dont have to keep citing Connolly/Begg only (Hopefully).  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The lede - October 2018
I just noticed a minor edit on the lede (lead section) ... then said to myself ... this is too complex in this position and the best option was to remove it. I feel we certainly need to be trying to get to a lede that is self contained so that it makes suitable reading for an 8 year old who looks up database and doesn't want to go any farther. And having removed that sentence I can now see the paragraph on 'Database Management System' contains too much complexity! I hope to look at that in the next while, and perhaps carefully tweak some things out of that into the body. I admit to being a C-Class editor but I'd like to see the lede on this important article brought up to 'A' class ... and I am very sure that is not simple.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC) After walking away for an hour I was able to think of a second sentence that was able to mention design and modelling in a more simple way, and yet in a way that allows say people with MS Access etc to be able o skip the formal design if dealing with a handful of tables. That also gives the lead paragraph more that one sentence which is a better balance for the lede. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

missing classification
I miss the distinction between DEDICATED (in any manner server-based) and NON-DEDICATED DBMS (local only DB, flat-file-based (DBase) or relational (ACCESS, SQLite)) 193.96.224.73 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Symbolism
I think there should be a reference to the symbol, which is commonly used to represent databases in charts. I also found the explanation to what is exactly the origin and meaning of it here and here. It can even just appear in the leading paragraph as the description of the images. Galzigler (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not against it, I just don't think it is an important symbol. I am not sure that a stackoverflow.com answer is a good enough source for this. It might be possible to find something more academic/journalistic. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously. That is the reason I didn't make this edit yet. I was hoping someone may have a more reliable source to use for this, because I couldn't find one. I think about adding the images to the article without the description until this issue is resolved, since if for a while they won't be in use they will be deleted. Galzigler (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am far from convinced there is the symbol. I know of perhaps fours different forms (at least), some being more relevant to particular diagrams rather then others.  I suspect different standards may use a different standard symbol.  Stackoverflow responses can be dodgy ... some can be great ... others are simply looking stuff up in wikipedia or voicing an indivuals opinion. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @ .. I've chosen at this point to revert your addition. A combination of: two side by side icons in one image in the lead is too messy especially with neither removing nor relocating the previous image; the caption may be trying to claim too much which is essentially your opinion, and thirdly there are other candidates for that icon.  There are various candiidates for the database icon ... for example in  ...  (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dc09/25bd6d879f6b867806f8badfc70d2e30b4a4.pdf is a possible indicator that is an accepted standard ).  Additionally  is currently indicating license problems needing.   Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no definitive database symbol, but even this should be mentioned if the article goes over how databases are represented in diagrams. I'd say the main issue here is that there is no reliable source for any claims about what symbols are used and what is their origin. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Codd
Returning to this article after a number of years. It's better than it was -- a lot of the cruft has been removed -- but some of the history seems to be invented rather than based on what actually happened at the time. I'm particularly struck by the second para of the section on "1970s, relational DBMS" which completely mis-states the motivations for the relational model. The cited inefficiencies of linked lists are (a) nonsense, and (b) not part of Codd's stated rationale; he was absolutely not concerned with efficiency. I'm going to try and improve this, Mhkay (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC) s

And this statement is just a childish blunder: "The relational part comes from entities referencing other entities in what is known as one-to-many relationship". The term relational has nothing to do with cross-table relationships. Codd used the term "relation" rather than "table" or "entity", and he used it in the mathematical sense (see Binary_relation). The relations in the model are the tables, not the implicit relationships between tables. Mhkay (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Global databases for illnesses in newborn infants
Almost all nations collect information on illness and causes of mortality in newborn infants, but there are no global databases to consolidate this information. The projects described in the Global Newborn Society described in Draft:Akhil Maheshwari seeks to correct this deficiency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhuma1971 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. -- Calidum 19:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Database → Database (computing) – To better reflect the current scope of that article; database would remain as a redirect to Database (computing); a hatnote would alert the reader: "Database" redirects here; for the general concept, see "Data". We already have separate articles for Data and Data (computing). Then the categorization could be similarly refined, moving Category:Databases to Category:Databases (computing), leaving in the parent Category:Databases general instances such as Category:Databases by country and Category:Databases by subject. fgnievinski (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No rationale provided?  Not even sure what to argue against, just hypothetical musings about redirects and categories.  The "general concept" of the word "database" is...  a database (aka this article), not data, they're different words.  It is very rare that "Foo" redirecting to "Foo (disambiguator)" is the correct call, so not clear why you want to intentionally set a situation like that up. SnowFire (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * the rationale was given in the first sentence: "To better reflect the current scope of that article". Database starts with: "In computing, a database is an organized collection of data stored and accessed electronically from a computer system." There is a broader concept of databases outside of computing, as amply exemplified in the categories listed in the proposal. fgnievinski (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In Category:Databases, the articles do seem to be computing related. Can you give examples of non-computing databases?  - Jay (Talk) 03:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Im my opinion it basically depends if one cares to enscope manual filing systems within the scope of database systems. Glancing at at (Colloney/Begg:0201708574) I feel not.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The computing term has been the primary topic for decades. J I P  &#124; Talk 02:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Strongly.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per JIP.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the computing term is clearly the primary topic  Mysterymanblue  22:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Databases has been nominated for renaming
Category:Databases has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2021
Lack of some sources in the database management system page. want to add themArpitaGulyani (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Living Concrete (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)