Talk:History of Microsoft SQL Server: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:34, 15 September 2020

Latest revision as of 11:08, 3 February 2024

(14 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject Databasesbanner shell|class=List |importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Microsoft |class=ListDatabases |importance=Low}}

{{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 68 ⟶ 77:

:::::::::::::::::::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%;">—&nbsp;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>&nbsp;