Talk:SQL Server

Best disambiguation page ever :)--LucidGA 01:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What qualities does it have that makes it stand out from others? Courtland 00:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first off the links to MS products should be removed. Those /are/ SQL servers. That leaves the DBMS that uses an SQL query item. Psychcf (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable exception to the 1-blue-link rule

Hello, Mwtoews

In revision 784357378, you said linking to SQL is a "reasonable exception for breaking the 1-blue link rule". So, you are saying that there is a very good reason for this blue link even though it causes trouble for Dabfix tool? Alright. You've got my attention. I am listening. Blow me away.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I normally don't advocate diverging from guidelines (one blue link), however I regard this as a reasonable exception since "SQL Server" is a frequently used vague term that may refer to the two blue links with equal emphasis (SQL and database server). However, if tools treat guidelines as rules, we can either pick one of these blue links or split this into two entries. +mt 21:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generic entry for "SQL server"

Since one of the first edits of this disambiguation article 21 years ago (here) there has been an entry stating that the common nouns "SQL server" may generically refer to any database server that uses SQL. There is potential confusion with what a "SQL server" is (e.g. here). Evidence that this disambiguation entry has been useful is shown here and here. With an average of 40 views per day, this entry has remained in this disambiguation article, with perhaps a few re-wordings or what term(s) are wikilinked (see previous talk section), and an odd praise in the first talk section in this page. A handful of editors have disagreed to the disambiguation style (again, previous talk section). A few editors have disagreed with the statement in some way, and would rather remove it. Why? +mt 10:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, we're talking about this statement: "SQL Server may refer to: Any database server that implements the structured query language (SQL)." First, the point of policy and exempting it:

The age of a statement doesn't automatically give it merit. Regardless of how old it is, it's a unsubstantiated personal opinion. That said, disambiguation pages aren't supposed to contain substantiated facts either. c.f. WP:DAB. Three editors before me have said this too. Look above for one of them.
40 views per day isn't evidence of usefulness; it is a record of the number of times that readers have been mislead! If I were to mimic your sensationalism, I'd say "It is a heinous crime for which you've been responsible since 2017." I will cover them below.

Second, the evidence: The two external links that you've supplied outside parentheses are examples of combative users who refer to this page in combative, furtive ways to further their own point of view. To wit:

In your first link, an Stack Overflow question, users backslash17 and marc_s are arguing over what "SQL Server" means. Ironically, backslash17 is citing the content of this page to say the exact opposite of what you've been championing so far. Apparently, depending on how you look at this page, SQL Server could or could not mean "any database server that [...]"
Your second link, a VBForums page, is just another argument between clueless people. User Elroy uses "Oracle SQL Server" by mistake. Another user, "dilettante" comments that "There is no 'Oracle SQL Server.' There is an 'Oracle' database server and a 'SQL Server' database server." After that, the same scenario as Stack Overflow repeats itself. Elroy and DataMaster cite this page and its unsubstantiated opinion piece in oblique ways to champion opposite views, not realizing that the statement over which they are fighting might have been written by nobody worth their consideration. DataMaster regards the entirety of our disambiguation page as evidence against the single unsubstantiated opinion in it.

Overall, the disputed statement is:

Unsubstantiated (c.f. WP:V and WP:RS)
Doesn't belong to a disambiguation page, even if strongly substaniated
Dangerously abused in at least two forums, Stack Overflow and VBForums

I am more than ever convinced that it doesn't belong here. Waysidesc (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally joining the discussion in this Talk page! My point for the length of time the entry was there is to show after tens of thousands of views, this is the first critique of it's existence, thus is unusual. I'm not the first editor to add the entry, and probably not the last. My usual role is to enforce MOS:DAB guidelines, or the odd exception where it makes sense. I don't want to waste any more time on this topic, so I don't have anything further to add. Consensus for a single entry on a disambiguation article is rare (I've never seen it), so I'm going to let this article stay as it is, and see where it goes. If another editor or more re-adds the entry, you might need to leave it alone too. +mt 20:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]