Talk:Many-to-many (data model)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Many-to-many (data model). 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/20120815165131/http://book.cakephp.org/1.3/view/1044/hasAndBelongsToMany-HABTM to http://book.cakephp.org/1.3/view/1044/hasAndBelongsToMany-HABTM
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 02:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Proposing to remove an extraneous example[edit]
The following edit [1] removed a paragraph added by User:FULBERT. User:FULBERT then reverted it.
I have just come across the page, and I am inclined to agree that the paragraph in question is irrelevant. I am not sure if there is a Wikipedia policy that I can quote to support this opinion. The paragraph seems like a conversational aside, a tangent or a pointer to a different topic rather than an example which sheds light on the concept under discussion.
IF it could be established that many-to-many relationships play a central, highly significant, widely discussed and important role in the analysis of the impact of AI systems, then I would agree that the paragraph should stay, perhaps in a section of its own. But many-to-many relationships are truly ubiquitous. They occur everywhere one looks, and the books-and-authors example already present on the page fully captures the concept. There is an embarrassment of possible examples, and to include this particular one involving medical AI smacks of unfamiliarity with the sheer breadth of the concept. It is an unencylopedic addition to the page.
Currently, googling "AI many-to-many" in fact returns many hits discussing many-to-many language translation systems, FWIW. Theoh (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. I just did the same thing and saw that @FULBERT then brought the link back. This has nothing but tangential relevance to this article Benmoss925 (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)