Talk:MonetDB
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Khazar2 in topic removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later. |
Neutrality
editParts of the article read as if copied from marketing material. We should try to formulate in a more neutral way and cite more non-MonetDB related sources (e.g. truely independent performance assessments). Martin Rehker (talk) 10:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. Better yet, it should mention more details rather than some extremely shallow marketing stuff. For example, when it says it exploit CPU cache, it should mention on what kind of query, and how/why this exploit is beneficial. As for CPU-tuned vectorized query execution, it does not sound new and lacks the detail (which would differentiate itself). This article lacks citations as well. This page a lot of potential to be a interesting read. 98.176.182.171 (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
editI've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
- There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
- It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
- In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)