Talk:Oracle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Delphi
It seems the scholastics have been through here. I pulled up the first version of this page, which deals clearly with the most famous oracle of all, that of Apollo, at Delphi. Since then, that specific topic has been moved to the last-mentioned page, while a whole constellation of articles on this oracle or that have been written.
I don't argue that good content has been added, but I find it overprecise, perhaps imprecise, to discuss all oracles as though they were merely their sibyls. The Oracle was not a crazy woman raving in a room; she herself was considered unimportant by her contemporaries, a mere conduit. The Oracle was the voice of the god Apollo, high in the Pantheon, and taken very seriously indeed.
I see no reason for this radical revisionism, but I lack the time and patience to pick a fight over this, overhauling the entire complex of articles. I do insist on a simple link to the only Classical oracle most readers have ever known. โ Xiong็talk* 14:58, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
[edit] Oracle Corporation
Should a link be added to the Oracle Corporation? I think, in modern times the word "Oracle" actually refers to the company, almost as often, or as often, as the prophetic Oracle. - Tejastheory 01:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Doesn't the disambiguation link serve to do that? Sunray 08:29, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- On further reflection, I agree that it may be best to provide a link to the corporation, and have done so. Sunray 09:08, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
-
- But surely it doesn't make any sense to have the infobox for the Oracle Corporation on this page. I've removed it. 69.140.12.199 19:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- It does if you consider that the vast majority of the people searching for 'oracle' are actually intending to search for 'Oracle', as in the company Oracle or the Oracle Database โThe preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.87.1.171 (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
-
[edit] The Oracle of Ancient English
http://www.digitalbuilder.co.nz/Society_SubconciousLanguage.asp
I heard something weird and I thought it was true, I have Schizoprehnia so I will not say for sure it is true, but merely learn what I can from it.
- The link doesn't seem to work for me. What's the point, exactly? MasterXiam 02:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the default result for the serach Oracle go directly to the disambiguation page, as it is likely most users searching for oracle are actually looking for information on the company/database Rtcpenguin 21:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Semi-Hellenic
I removed ancient Macedonia from the sentence about semi-Hellenic countries.Most historians agree that it was a Hellenic one.--Hectorian 12:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Oracle database
I would imagine that most people (like 98% or so) doing an internet search on Oracle intended to find Oracle database. Are there any objections to reversing the default so this page becomes Oracle (prophecy) and Oracle points to Oracle database? As a compromise Oracle could point to the disambiguation page. I'm posting this here because I figure this is where the objections are most likely if there are any.
- Surely the Oracle Corporation and database were named for oracle, as defined in this article. As you correctly note, if you search Google for "oracle," the first many pages are devoted to Oracle Corporation. However, note that Google does not distinguish capitals. However, in dictionaries and encyclopedias "Oracle" refers to Oracle Corporation; "oracle" to the prophetic source. If you search for "oracle" in a dictionary you will get a definition similar to the one in the lead paragraph of this article. People who want to know what an oracle is will want to find this article. On the other hand, people who search Wikipedia for "Oracle Corporation" or "Oracle (database)" will get the company and the software respectively. That is as it should be.
- There is a disambiguation for the Oracle database listed at the top of the article, which makes it easy for folks to switch to that article if they've mistakenly come here. I would be strongly opposed to a change in the way the articles are referenced. It would make no sense, based on what I have just outlined. Sunray 05:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
