Talk:Data validation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Data validation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Security C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

C

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as High-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Medicine Start‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Not a very good article. What about checksums and CRCs? Reed-Solomon codes? Some links to these items would improve the article. (No I don't have the time or inclination to do it myself!)

84.9.80.145 07:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may not be a doctoral thesis, but it's not so bad as a starting point to get casual collectors of data to think about data validation as a topic worth considering. I am surprised when students present (and do the stats for) a data set with one or more data points that clearly must be incorrect. Then comes the fun about what choices one has to rectify the fault - another topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.19.222 (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about "reality check" - a person looks at the data and evaluates if it is really true?Nichlas (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

h1jn Gagansheen kaur (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

h1jnb2k qay Gagansheen kaur (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Language 185.151.252.11 (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure

I have just added another check. I suggest that the format of the main list be changed to use <dl> markup as follows:

Item: Description
Another item: The other description

This leads to much better final HTML (view source) and requires much less wiki markup too (click 'edit'). Someone is going to come along at some point and say that Wikipedia articles should not be presented mostly as lists, but should be refactored into prose. Then there is the matter of citations and references. They're v. important too, and there are a lot of unreferenced statements here. (I know - I just added a few more) --Nigelj (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that Secure input and output handling be merged into Data validation. It's pretty obvious just from the articles' names that they pretty much overlap each other. Secure input and output handling seems to deal with details far more than Data validation, which looks like a long list. However, Secure input and output handling seems not to cover all the stuff covered in Data validation. Both articles don't contain a lot of information (maybe too less), so I don't think that article length will be a problem. Theme (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additions and improvements to article

The second paragraph in the introduction is missing an important noun (or maybe a gerund). I would fix it but I don't know what the noun is. It reads: "This is distinct from, which..." it should read "This is distinct from NOUN, which..."

Looking at this article, there are specific areas that are amenable to improvement. Here are some notes ...

include suggestions already in the talk page
include validation contexts for XML and validation schema
tie-ins to the security article for possible merge
include distinction between auto-correct and user-correctable validation scenarios

dr.ef.tymac (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is based on the computer science methods/point of view. From a field engineers (metrology) point of view a lot of additional information could be added. Data validation is essential when assessing measurement data see data quality assessment DQA. A lot of different methods and rules should be mentioned in the article (or a separate "Data validation - in metrology" article see e.g. ^[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Jacques Wiborg (talk • contribs) 08:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.epa.gov/QUALITY/qs-docs/g9r-final.pdf

Merger proposal

Proposed merger from Presence check into this page. The concept that page seems to hint at is already expanded at Data validation. Cander0000 (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- "Presence check" can become a redirect to this, which explains presence check (under validation methods). Eman235/talk 03:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal 2

Validation rule should be merged into this article and become a section of it, it is tiny, this article is hardly big and having these 2 articles as separate makes no sense at all. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

missing 18+ video

I came here to see the 18+ video about data dictionaries, but the URL is empty :-( "Data dictionary". video 18+. Missing or empty |url= (help) 5.158.162.136 (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Proves the Progenitor of Validation Rules was Invented in the Nineties Somewhere in Redmond

"The Validation rule or check system still used by many major software manufacturers was designed by an employee at Microsoft sometime between 1997 and 1999.

The method is to check that data follows the appropriate parameters defined by the systems analyst."

What does this refer to please? If the information were more specific, and properly referenced, it would be interesting to read, otherwise it is just a tease and regrettably should be removed altogether.

Is it really the case that "THE system still used by many major ..." can be traced to one specific Microsoft initiative? Wow. Since much software uses few if any Microsoft application components (e.g. those based on JAVA, PHP, Python, CGI, Perl ...) this is quite a claim.

Atconsul (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.epa.gov/QUALITY/qs-docs/g9r-final.pdf

[1]