Talk:CUBRID

Possible sources

I don't know if these sources are enough to justify a deprod, but may contribute toward it:

1. Three page description in Methods and Tools independent and in depth, but more like a white paper than a news source or journal
2. database-management-systems.findthebest.com/compare/8-43/CUBRID-vs-PostgreSQL Comparison of CUBRID vs PostgreSQL at findthebest.com (no link provided because this site is apparently on Wikipedia's blacklist)

--Mark viking (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those are any use (I'd read them already, but not at the first site). The first is self-published, and widely copied across the web, but like most of their self-published stuff about CUBRID it's poorly written and just doesn't communicate anything significant about the product. The second is trivial crap.

A much more interesting one seemed to be here, architects.dzone.com/articles/cubrid-broker-story, as it explains some of what this "broker" layer is about, and why the product is "interesting" (if not notable). However that one turns out to be a reprint of http://www.cubrid.org/blog/cubrid-life/the-cubrid-broker-story/, so is again SPS. It's no surprise that both of these republishing sites are already blacklisted here either. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I clearly didn't look deeply enough into the first source. I agree, they aren't suitable for notability. --Mark viking (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

--User:kadishmal 16:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I've rewrote this article. Let me know if it sounds less crappy. I've tried to remove all subjective information and provide more details about how CUBRID differs from other database systems.

"all subjective information" was a bit of an overstatement, IMO :). I've made some modifications to the article, but it still needs some touching up and refs. Rimio (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The Q&A article regarding the name[1] is refering to the Wikipedia page as it's information source, so it can't be used in the wikipedia page as a reference.Rimio (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of one-source and third-party tags

I've removed the one-source and third-party tags from the article. The article now concentrates on the architecture and features of the DBMS. As far as I can tell the junk is gone, and I've tried my best to support whatever I've contributed towards this article with references. Many of the sources are still from within the project's website (e.g. manual, release notes), but I believe that is acceptable as it is very, very hard to document features only from third party sources. I've used a local installation of CUBRID and the WebQuery online demo (see external links) to verify most of the features claimed in the article.Rimio (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CUBRID. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116120151/http://www.cubrid.org/license to http://www.cubrid.org/license
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119054728/http://www.cubrid.org/manual/ to http://www.cubrid.org/manual/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)