This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of database related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Please consider removing the table, it is clutter and difficult to read. Think magazine or newpaper articles when writing in Wikipedia; think readability. Also consider removing any bullets for the same reason. Bullets make reading more difficult and a chore. Again, think readability. Readability implies a narrative flow, not the disjuncture that tables and bullets impose. Adding readability requires more effort in order to compose meaningful sentences and transitional phrases, but is very important for an activity like article writing. For good examples of readability, read any article from a major news site like cnn.com. Put yourself in the reader's place: would you like your reading to be easy and pleasurable or a boring/difficult chore? Articles that are easy to read get read. Remember, Wikpedia is not a technical manual but essentially a series of articles.
I like the table. Actually it was the table I was looking for, when searching Wikipedia for this article. --Pukeye 09:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Well - if you like it and it serves your need I guess that's what counts. GJG
I completely disagree with the original table comment. A picture is worth a thousand words and a table, though not a picture, must be worth 500. I say dump more of the boring, dry narrative -- add more tables. In fact, to the converse of the author's statement, if you don't want your writing to be boring/difficult, break it up regularly with other elements (pictures, tables). Jeez, who needs more boring samples of the non-scintillating writing dosed out by the ilk of CNN 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)