Talk:Oracle Exadata

This is one of the least user friendly sites that I ever encountered - and I am working in the IT branch. You guys make it almost impossible - at least for me - to follow your guidelines, just to publish a single tiny link with additional information on your Exadata page. Pardon me, but I don't have the time to study your cryptic guidelines for more than 15 minutes - which I did, but without success in "being compliant". Kind regards Uwe Hesse

By its very nature, Wikipedia has a number of guidelines for style and substance in the articles. Most of these guidelines are to ensure a level of quality in the articles and others are designed to maintain a common look and feel to the articles. Though you don't specify it in your message above, I presume that you attempted to add the link http://uhesse.wordpress.com/exadata/ to the article and it was then removed.

First, the link was placed in the "References" section of the article. This 'broke' the section which is designed by template to display citations within the article itself. I suggest that the link you posted would go better as a "See Also" or "Further reading" link. You will see that there is a section for that in the article. However, the second point is that the link appears to lead to your own wordpress page dealing with the subject. While the information on that page may well be valuable, links to editor's personal pages are discouraged. Wikipedia policies against original research and external links prevent editors from including material that they have created. Wikipedia requires reliable, third-party references.

I'll concede that many of the policies and guidelines are confusing to new users. I hope that you continue to contribute! Wikipelli ^Talk 13:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article says nothing about what's special about Exadata

A decent article about Oracle Exadata ought to hit on the distinctive features of the product such as offloading, which enables the database software to filter data at the disk level to fulfill the query. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that this article needs to have information on the Exadata Mark 1; for some reason Oracle would like to remove any trace of it from the internet, almost as if they're ashamed of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.24.148.8 (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it needs to present all three models. This is not a product guide, and would be hopelessly out of date if it tried to be.The X2 is now obsolete, so all those details could just be a summary. W Nowicki (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Objective Sources

The only references are to Oracle. (Or "citation needed".)

This makes the article pure marketing, not objective. There should be a criticism section.

Oracle has a documented history of incorrect marketing claims. The article's "10x faster" claim is false, for example.

I will find sources when I have more time.

174.61.182.129 (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Exadata x8-2M.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]