Talk:Relational database management system

Neutral Point of View

Including marketing information in the main body violates NPOV by promoting the companies named over those that are not. Marketing information is not "market size" either, which raises a question about the purpose to having the section. It is possible that market size is important in a technical article but, if it is, needs to be part of every technical article and needs to contain similar information. Certainly, market size is more important to people with a marketing interest than to an interest in the subject overall. But its standalone value is questionable.

To put this information into perspective, it should be cross-referenced with technical differences in the named products.

To keep NPOV this should be put into an appendix-like section close to the end of the article, if any of it is retained.

Kernel.package (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This was referring to an older version of the article, but I did just re-add market share information. I'm evaluating different database options, and was looking for this information to get a sense of which software is popular, has community support and knowledge base, etc. The data I added is from a different source than the old version, and it includes not merely company revenues but also open source deployments and whatnot. We also now have Comparison of relational database management systems for feature-by-feature comparisons. Hopefully this will be as useful to others as it was to me. -- Beland (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

More People Use MySQL than there are people who know about Oracle's commercial database

The market share data presented in this article is idiotic. And so are surveys by Gartner, InfoWeek, or whatever other lets-take-a-poll-of-enterprise-users-only-and-treat-what-they-say-as-representative-of-the-other-99%-of-database-users polls. Here, in the real world, outside the tiny Fortune 500 bubble, we use MySQL/MariaDB, PostgreSQL, Mongo, SQLite, Derby, and many more. Doorzki (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Definition?

Where is the definition? It starts off by saying who created it and where and that it's better than other types of systems and so has replaced them, but where does it actually discuss what it is and how it works aside from the diagram? That should be the first information. The history of it should come later.75.128.143.229 (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I see it's towards the bottom. Why the bottom?75.128.143.229 (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

See Talk:Relational database#New merger proposal. Sasha1024 (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

R with possbilities?

Following the merge I left out R with possbilities out the Redirect category shell. This is because while a return to article is possible, and the merger would not have gone ahead if it didn't, I would suggest anyone attempting to return this to article out of redirect should consider the following carefully:

• If returned to Article status it will immediately become a high to top important article for some wikiprojects. So the article needs to be well on its way towards a class B article. A stub, start or basis Class 'C' article will probably not be sufficent.
• The article must integrate and related with other related articles and not become a content-fork.
• In practice this really means a draft that is pre-agreed by discussion. Anything less is likely to be at high risk of being reverted to a redirect.

This is particular to reduce the risk of redirect->stub improvement attempts. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)