Content deleted Content added
Paul.wehland (talk | contribs) |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "List" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Databases}}, {{WikiProject Microsoft}}. Tag: |
||
| (33 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Microsoft |importance=Low}}
}}
== External links modified ==
Line 16 ⟶ 18:
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 05:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
== Genesis ==
What is this sentence supposed to mean? It switches tense and meaning halfway through with a run-on clause *and* a parenthetical!
On June 12, 1988, Microsoft joined Ashton-Tate was fighting for their desktop product dBASE while Sybase created a variant of Sybase SQL Server for IBM OS/2 (then developed jointly with Microsoft), which was released the following year.
[[User:AnotherHowie|AnotherHowie]] ([[User talk:AnotherHowie|talk]]) 10:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
== Code Names ==
Line 50 ⟶ 59:
:::::: So far we have discussed [[WP:ELYES]] #3 which you cannot deny that this External Link complies with. This External Link also does not violate [[WP:ELNO]] #11 for the reasons we agree upon listed above. [[WP:ELMAYBE]] #3 also applies here, we agree on that point, correct? What are your other specific concerns beside these? [[User:Paul.wehland|Paul.wehland]] ([[User talk:Paul.wehland|talk]]) 13:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::::No, we don't remotely agree. It violates [[WP:ELNO]]. ELMAYBE 3 is for webdirectories, such as the late DMOZ. This is obviously not a web directory. Is this your site? - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 14:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
::::::: OK, so we agree on [[WP:ELYES]] #3. Which number on [[WP:ELNO]] do you think it violates? [[User:Paul.wehland|Paul.wehland]] ([[User talk:Paul.wehland|talk]]) 15:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)▼
::::::::I'll be happy to continue to answer your questions, but not if you ignore mine. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 15:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
::::::::: The Extended Link in question, that contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues or amount of detail, does not belong to me. It is not my site. [[User:Paul.wehland|Paul.wehland]] ([[User talk:Paul.wehland|talk]]) 17:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::Thank you for answering. This should not be linked per [[WP:ELNO]] point 11 - this is someone's self-published personal site. I also don't agree that the link is necessarily accurate. The whole problem with self published material is that it hasn't been fact checked by anyone, so we have no guarantee of accuracy. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 17:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::: This EL does not appear to be a [[Personal web page|Personal site]], as it does not "contain content of a personal nature" or as "a space for personal expression". The content pertains directly to the build version of SQL Server, not a personal nature. Each entry in the External Like is sourced, and linked back to the Microsoft site where one can download that particular "supported" build. (Obviously you cannot download 15+ year-old builds.) Given the detail of this External Link, accuracy, and the speed at which it is updated it is almost certainly maintained by some script/bot automation, and not a human maintaining this list. Is there a particular inaccuracy that you found on this EL list which makes you question the accuracy of the entire link? [[User:Paul.wehland|Paul.wehland]] ([[User talk:Paul.wehland|talk]]) 18:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::Your interpretation doesn't match with the way the guideline is usually interpreted. It's a personal site because one person wrote it and put it up. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 18:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::: It is not an interpretation, it is the definition of a [[Personal web page|Personal site]] as defined by Wikipedia. We are using Wikipedia's rules and definitions here. Please read the definition of [[Personal web page|Personal site]], no where does it define a personal site as your definition of "It's a personal site because one person wrote it and put it up." The guidelines you have presented is [[WP:ELNO]] point 11. Since the EL is not a [[Blog]] by Wikipedia's definition, nor is it a [[Personal web page|Personal site]] as per Wikipedia's definition, nor is it a [[Fansite]] by Wikipedia's definition. Therefore, [[WP:ELNO]] point 11 does not apply to this EL. [[User:Paul.wehland|Paul.wehland]] ([[User talk:Paul.wehland|talk]]) 18:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::No, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do not necessarily follow the definitions given in mainspace articles - if they did, we'd have to control edits there as tightly as we do the policy pages, which is obviously not the case. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 18:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: If we follow the policies, guidelines and definitions linked to said policies and guidelines, then the EL is in compliance with [[WP:ELNO]] point 11. Or, if we do as you wrote above and choose to not necessarily follow the policies, guidelines and definitions, then all bets are off, and it doesn't even matter if the EL is in compliance with #11, or #1 - #10 any of the other points. Because in that case it doesn't matter. So which will it be? Follow the policies, guideline, and definitions? Or choose to not "necessarily" follow the policies, guidelines, and definitions? Either choice leads to the same conclusion; that the EL is valid. [[User:Paul.wehland|Paul.wehland]] ([[User talk:Paul.wehland|talk]]) 15:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::That's not remotely what I said above. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 16:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::We need a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes, implemented as a procedure or protocol. We have principals and protocols at [[WP:POLICY]]. What you describe of: "not necessarily follow the definitions given in mainspace articles", does not achieve that. What you describe is opinion, not policy. The WP:ELNO #11 policy is clear and references definitions that have been maintained since 2005-10-18 and has more than 770 edits <ref>https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Personal_web_page</ref>. In these 15 years, there has been plenty of time and re-work to define a personal web page. I do not see anywhere your definition of a person web page as "[a] person wrote it and put it up." If I have missed it, please point it out to me. If that was indeed the definition, then all non-automated websites would be a personal website. I think for too long you have operated under a [[Formal_fallacy|Logical Fallacy]] while removing edit after edit across Wikipedia. Instead of trying to improve Wikipedia, you engage in [[WP:EW|edit warring]] and vandalism because of your logical fallacy(s). I challenge you to try to improve Wikipedia, not through constant deletion of links, but rather through [[Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup|templates]], so that other editors can fill in the blanks. Do you accept the challenge to improve wikipedia though [[WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM]]?<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Paul.wehland|Paul.wehland]] ([[User talk:Paul.wehland#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paul.wehland|contribs]]) </small>
::::::::::::::::::Again, I do not agree that this link meets the standard given in [[WP:ELYES]]. Kindly do not lie about my opinions again as you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Microsoft_SQL_Server&type=revision&diff=978593674&oldid=978554585 just did in the article]. Given your motivated reasoning and consistent misreading of my comments, I am starting to get the feeling that talk with you is futile - but make no mistake, there is no consensus to include this link on this article. Do not add it again, and do not claim that I support your additions of it. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 21:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::I'm going to request a third editor come to break the logjam. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 21:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::I got here from [[WP:3O]]; this whole thing seems a little strange to me. I don't get the point of talking about all the implications of the policy in a general sense, when the actual link is right in front of our noses and we can just click on it to see what it is. Policies against linking to certain types of external websites are, as far as I can tell, based on the observation that tons of ''uninformative'' and ''irrelevant'' stuff tends to pile up if it's not kept under control. That's what makes it spam. I've looked at the link, and while I don't work with Microsoft's SQL Server specifically, I do work with a lot of software where a list like this would be extremely helpful. It's not like the site is even trying to sell you anything -- I guess the presence of ads means that the owner of the blog is getting half a cent whenever someone goes to the link without adblock on, but honestly, I think that anyone who clicks that link expecting a list of all Microsoft SQL Server lists is going to get exactly what they wanted. It's hardly taking advantage of anyone, and it's providing information that's extremely relevant to the subject of the article (''and'' wouldn't be proper to include in the article). It's hard to understand what the problem is. [[User talk:Jacob Gotts|{ <small><math>\mathbb{JPG}</math></small> }]] 23:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
<s>{|style="border-top:solid thin lightgrey;background:transparent;padding:4px;"
|[[Image:Searchtool-80%.png|15px|link=]] '''Response to [[WP:Third opinion|third opinion request]]''':
|-
|style="padding-left:0.6cm"|While a list of builds seems useful, the link fails [[WP:ELNO]]-11 being a blog, and possibly criteria 3 as well (sqlserverbuilds.com/ has a security error when accessing, on the blogspot link I got messages on a social media network tracking me). In keeping with ELNO this link should be removed, but a better link with similar information could be useful [[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 07:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
|}</s>
:I loaded it with adblock on and adblock off (Firefox on Debian) -- there are ads on it but I don't think there's anything beyond that. If carrying advertisements qualifies something to be [[WP:ELNO]], I think we might have a bigger problem, to wit: http://nytimes.com might need to go on the blacklist. As for ELNO11, I'm not sure what is supposed to make it a blog, other than the fact that it's a webpage hosted on blogspot, which isn't covered by any perennial sources list as far as I know. I think that restrictions on external links make a lot of sense vis-a-vis potentially introducing bias into many subjects that articles get written about, but ''version numbers and packages for database software''? Is there any possible way that this could be biased? It's either correct or it isn't. (And if a respected, notable SQL expert wrote a curl script to scrape this page every day and FTP upload it to a prestigious website that wasn't on blogspot, would the information become more trustworthy?) [[User talk:Jacob Gotts|{ <small><math>\mathbb{JPG}</math></small> }]] 20:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
::<s>{{re|Jacob Gotts}} I think ELNO-11:<blockquote>[[Blog]]s, [[personal web page]]s and most [[fansite]]s (negative ones included), except those written by a [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|recognized authority]]. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|Wikipedia's notability criteria for people]].)</blockquote> is clear on precluding this link, unless an argument is made for the author being a "recognized authority". Maybe there should be an exception to the guidelines, but that is a discussion for the guideline itself.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 09:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)</s> strike sock
:::While the site does have "blog" in the URL, it's not stuctured like a blog. The articles are not chronological and the existing pages keep being updated rather than new posts when new versions are released, so I'm not conviced that ELNO 11 applies to the site. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 12:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
::::The reason for ELNO 11 is not the format the information is presented in, but its self published and unverified nature. I think that does apply here. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 12:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
After 4 months of discussion, it appears that the consensus is 2:1 to keep the external link. (For: [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]], [[User:Jacob_Gotts]]. Against: [[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Paul.wehland|Paul.wehland]] ([[User talk:Paul.wehland#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paul.wehland|contribs]]) </span>
:Consensus is not voting. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 22:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
== Express Editions ==
Should the page be updated to include references to "Express" versions? Or is it enough to safely assume that each version has it's corresponding "Express" edition?<br><br><br>
▲::::::: OK, so we agree on [[WP:ELYES]] #3. Which number on [[WP:ELNO]] do you think it violates?
| |||