Talk:Microsoft SQL Server Compare Tools

Oh, come on...

Does anyone really think that this is better than this? I don't think that the guideline WP:EL about external links is really meant to tell people to take out all the links to the relevant company pages on which the table is based, then replace them with a note about "unverifiable" information, simply because they appear in a table as external links rather than as numbered references. That's a minor format issue. We have policies like WP:POINT and WP:IAR for a reason - because a guideline is supposed to be an aid, not a straitjacket. Wnt (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

External Links

This article needs to be tidied up to remove any additions without references or articles and change the External links in the body of the table to references. I did most of this with Comparison of database tools which I believe now looks a lot better and better complies with WP:EL. If anyone has good reasons why this should not be done speak now... otherwise I will start working on it. Vrenator ^talk 10:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing out links

Hello. I don't think you should edit out links. I think you should add more. People will click on the links because that is where they want to go. They don't want to go to a 'that page doesn't exist on wikipedia page', and they probably don't want to have to go down to 'references' to click the link either. Probably worth remembering what the HT in HTML stands for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.21.227.234 (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Trouble is that is against WP:EL - Wikipedia is not a collection of links which this page has become. Of course there should be additional references for those without links already but as it is this article is just wholesale SPAM. Vrenator ^talk 16:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How is something that lists SQL Server Compare tools and gives a reasonably detailed account of their functionality 'SPAM'? When people search Google for something like 'SQL Server Compare Tools' I think this article comes up first. What would you rather that they saw? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.21.227.234 (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I would rather they saw an encyclopaedic article which is properly sourced. There are so many listings here which are red links (no article) and have no references to back them up. Anyone can put any old rubbish here as it stands and it is completely unsubstantiated. There are many other far better comparisons on Wikipedia which don't have the external links. BTW what is your interest in this page as you don't have a Username and these are the only edits from your IP? Just curious.Vrenator ^talk 16:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said - I'm the Atlantis guy (singular). I added my tools here because I thought that would be useful to people. And, by all accounts (especially from the comments I get) it was. I think your (not necessarily personal) viewpoint is a shame - as I think the people that come across the page mostly are looking for exactly what they find. Maybe the 'Performance' bit gets a bit subjective. But I just can't agree with the fact that an on-line encyclopaedia should try it's level best to ignore the tenets of the web and try to be a paper-based one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.21.227.234 (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a Conflict of Interest Vrenator ^talk 10:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say most of the people on this page have added their own tools to it. How else would they appear? Also I don't think I have gone outside of the COI rules at all - I have not lied or embellished in any way - simply added factual content to the table.89.21.227.234 (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Matt Whitfield

You raise a valid point, "most of the people on this page have added their own tools to it" - this only corroborates my initial point. This article is being used to promote products using external links which is not allowed. See WP:SPAM - by users with a COI. Vrenator ^talk 14:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I just don't agree with you. Nobody has edited this page and put 'this product is awesome' or anything like that. Simply provided a list of links in good faith which actually help people to find what they want. Just because there are links doesn't mean that anything is being promoted, it simply means that the various people who have built up the page over time thought that a link would be useful to people. As the editor in the first comment on this talk page says - it's not necessarily making it better by removing links. If you removed the performance bit because it's unverifiable then I would have no problem with that. If you, in all honesty, feel like you aren't going against IAR by making the page harder for people to use by following EL, then fair enough. I just always think it's a shame when a 'one size fits all' rule is applied to the detriment of those places where it is applied.89.21.227.234 (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Matt Whitfield

And the body of WP policies would seem to not agree with you. Hot on the heels of the Search Engine Optimization industry is the grass-roots marketing crowd who use vehicles like WP to quietly—but pervasively—push their agenda. They never say "this product is awesome"; they simply put the product and vendor name into a WP article for the exposure it provides. Once on a WP page, information is copied to a myriad of "me-too" sites and picked up by virtually every search engine on the planet. Wikipedia's stature and reputation give even misinformation a respectable appearance and a boost toward the top of the search engine results list.

After all, where else can you get top-line search engine placement for free? How many people are selling that service? I bet the number is substantially greater than zero, and the practice constitutes abuse of the WP project.

Because WP articles are consulted by so many students, researchers, etc., and because WP is not a search engine, we have an obligation to keep advertising, promotion, and paid-for speech out of it. Commercial shilling is not encyclopedic and cheapens the entire project by calling into question Wikipedia's objectivity and trustworthiness.

Anyone with goals other than improving the encyclopedia likely has no business editing Wikipedia pages.

To answer a question posed above, the items I want to see in Wikipedia are those that people would put here without inducement of any kind, be it financial, social or otherwise. Scholarly works are only trustworthy when they aren't incented by anything other than the desire to publish a high-quality, accurate encyclopedia.

I'm still looking at it, but my initial impression is that this article may be providing information best left to commercial search engines. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 12:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough really. If you think the whole page isn't right for the encyclopaedia, then that's a different thing to saying that the format of the page should be x, y or z. Unfortunately now people who are searching on Google get redirected to a completely irrelevant page.

As a boot-note - there are actually good people left in the world, who add their information to pages like these simply because they've put in a lot of effort and they think people might find it useful (like me). If that makes me a 'spammer' in the eyes of Wikipedia then I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, shame as though it might be :) 89.21.227.234 (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Matt Whitfield

Not to worry--the GoogleBot will straighten things out in short order. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Complete unencyclopecic mess

I've changed it to be a redirect to Microsoft SQL Server. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, nothing more than a WP:SPAMHOLE violating WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is simply not a place for indiscriminate list or WP:LINKFARMS.--Hu12 (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)