Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Databases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Databases / Computer science  (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of database related articles 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Computer science.
WikiProject Databases
WikiProject Databases
Main / talk
Main / talk
Writing guide
Main / talk
Main / talk
Main / talk

edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Databases:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Other : *Database-related articles need to have their talk pages tagged with the {{WPDATABASE}} banner.
    • Fix template parameters. Note that some articles have the parameter class in the template {{WPDATABASE|class=|importance=}} listed as rating= instead of class=. I have fixed several but there may be others. One place to look: Category:Unassessed Database articles which yielded at least one: Talk:Object database MeekMark (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Assess currently unassessed articles and provide notes for areas of improvement on talk pages. You can find a list of unassessed articles at: Category:Unassessed Database articles SqlPac (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)



Put a few basic templates together. Will add a todo list later. Need to start assessing articles. SqlPac 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Portal, etc.[edit]

Have requested help in setting up a portal. Started marking articles with the WikiProject Database template. I have verified there are over 100 articles that should be added to the project, and over 50 that should be stubbed at this point. SqlPac 04:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Shouldn't this be called "WikiProject Databases"? "WikiProject Database" sounds like a database about wikiprojects, while the other sounds like a wikiproject about databases, IMO. -- -- intgr #%@! 16:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I recommend the move also. Aquarius • talk 17:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I didn't realize it wasn't in parallel construction with other projects like WikiProject Dogs. Makes sense to me. I'm not familiar with moves though. Any and all help is appreciated. Thanks. SqlPac 05:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
sqlpac you are a normalizer. I'll bet you know the answer by heart, when your client asks, "Why is the table called CUSTOMER when there are many customers in that table? Shouldn't it be called CUSTOMERS?" // Brick Thrower 07:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 ;-) SqlPac 01:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The name is flat-out wrong. The project isn't about one or more databases -- data -- but about database management systems. It should be called "WikiProject DBMS" or "WikiProject DBMSs". Jklowden (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I visited this page to read the definition of ""Data Integrity"" and found a good one. If this is to be about databases/databasing, then that is not clear. The discipline of ensuring that data has integrity to the proper level of granularity is a subset//part of ""Data Management"" or "Information Management". Suggest separating DB management from this ""Data Integrity"" definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

POLICY DEBATE: Use of source code and other examples in articles[edit]

Someone started a policy debate concerning the use of source code in articles, that might directly impact several Database articles. See below for details:

I have opened a debate on the use of source code and other examples in Wikipedia articles. It seems that many pieces of example source code etc. currently in Wikipedia violate Wikipedia policy, so we need to either clarify or change the situation. Depending on the result of the discussion, this may result in a number of source code examples being summarily removed from computing articles!

Please reply there, not here, if you wish to contribute.—greenrd 10:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.SqlPac 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What to include[edit]

I found this project during a lull in a class I'm taking. I identified a few articles and added the project template. Should this project include public databases (like IMDB)? I think not, but haven't given it enough thought to be adamant. I do believe that the project should include articles on database systems (like ORACLE, IDMS).

How do I discover which articles are already included in the project? Is there a page that automatically lists all articles involved?

Should the included articles be tagged with the WikiProject Databases Category?

Finally, I need to learn more about wikiprojects and try to remember my Wikipedia logon.

Indeed, the wikiproject is about database software and infrastructure rather than specific databases. (The connection from "databases" -> "database software" seems so natural when you're a programmer that I hadn't even realized there is a different interpretation.)
You can see articles that already have the wikiproject banner at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:WikiProject Database. Alternatively, the Category:Databases category tree is probably more up to date about articles that exist in Wikipedia. -- intgr [talk] 20:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Importance in template[edit]

After reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Databases/Assessment I believe that a lot of articles are currently mis-categorized or are at least inconsistent. Some database products are Category:Mid-importance Database articles such as IBM DB2, while IBM Informix and Oracle database is considered Category:Top-importance_Database_articles. Given the criteria noted in the assessment article, I propose no database product be considered "Top" importance. Further, I feel that IBM DB2 is a far more significant product in terms of history, contributions, etc. than Informix. I am going to put

  • From Top: IBM Informix to Mid, PostgreSQL to Mid; Oracle database to High, MySQL to High.
  • From High to Low: (These articles are on companies providing database products; not terribly important): Teradata, Sybase, Oracle Corporation
  • From Mid to High: IBM DB2

MeekMark (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review started[edit]

Btrieve has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are 21:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Btrieve has achieved featured article status. Congratulations guys! Excellent work! SqlPac (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Several articles added to project[edit]

Several unassessed articles have been added to this project, mostly data warehousing and business intelligence articles. A lot of these articles have been designated as having problems with neutrality, confusing content, and citations and references. Some examples of high visibility articles that have been added include Extract, transform, load, Data mart, Star schema, and a lot more.

Most of these articles are currently unassessed by this project. If you have a few spare minutes why not pick an article or two, give it the quick once over and help us assess them and jot a few quick notes for improvement?

It would also be a huge help if we could get some Business intelligence and Data warehousing subject matter experts, or anyone else with something to say, involved to help clean these articles up. Thanks everyone! SqlPac (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Roll back into Wikiproject CS[edit]

I propose that this WikiProject be rolled back into Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science as a task force. There doesn't seem to be a necessary critical mass of participants here, which means that related articles are missing out on project infrastructure. This project itself does not appear to have gotten much done in terms of organizing or improving articles -- which is not a judgment against the participants, but I think those articles could receive more of the attention they deserve if there were more eyes on them. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Hardly any activity here. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme[edit]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Database[edit]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Uncertain data up for deletion[edit]

There are some papers on databases with uncertain data, so I figured someone here may improve the article. VG 22:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Logical data model, Logical schema and Semantic data model[edit]

Hi, I wonder if you guys could take a look at these three articles. I wonder if the subjects of these articles are one and the same or if they are different. I just made a proposal to merge them in the Logical data model article, see Talk:Logical data model. But I am not so sure here. Thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group[edit]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:03, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

I have set up article alerts (hopefully correctly), and it should kick in soon. I have also subscribed to the WolterBot cleanup listing thingy. Jwoodger (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

SyBase Replication Server[edit]

Replication Server was prodded for deletion. (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi, is there an infobox for online databases? If so, where? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Headbomb has offered help in constructing such an infobox, but as I am not really a database person, I'm not sure what should be in it. My main interest is bibliographic databases. Suggestions welcome. --Crusio (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have been thinking a bit about what kind of things should be in such an infobox. Please have a look at my sandbox and feel free to add/edit. --Crusio (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I also have a visual model up here, although none of the fields are active links. Please feel free to add/edit as well. I asked Headbomb for help with it, but s/he never took any action and the talk message was archived. Clifflandis (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_Bibliographic_Database has been created. Clifflandis (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting a Popular Pages report[edit]

I've requested a popular pages report for WikiProject Databases. Clifflandis (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The report is now up. A popular pages page has been created and should be populated with the data soon.Clifflandis (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot[edit]

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Databases/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Databases/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The Unreferenced BLPs are now found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Databases/Unreferenced_BLPs.
thanks for correcting this. I refactored what I wrote so it is clearer now. Okip 01:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Database articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Database articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing[edit]

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Cloud database entry[edit]

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, please let me know if this is not the right place to discuss this. I'm thinking about writing an entry for cloud database - see for example Amazon Relational Database Service and NoSQL. A subsection with this title already exists on Database and deserves an entry of its own. I have some experience with these types of solutions and I have a lot of sources on hand, but I need some guidance, and wanted to consult with folks on the project if it seems to be a notable subject. What's the best way to proceed? Can I put together a suggested outline for the entry and show you for feedback? Anne.naimoli (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Restructure proposal[edit]

I posted a proposal to restructure on the project page, which came from the discussion at WT:COMP. I think there's general consensus to do something, and I'm not attached to the specifics. Please edit boldly or discuss here. – Pnm (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is quite close to what I had in mind. Two comments:
  1. I would at some point like to create a few broad taskforces/fields for WikiProject Computer science (think "Algorithms & data structures", "Programming languages", "Databases", ...) mostly to get better article (assessment) statistics. So eventually a database article could be tagged with {{WikiProject Computing|databases=yes}}, {{WikiProject Computer science|databases=yes}}, or both.
  2. More problematically, there are a lot of articles tagged with this project that concern actual databases or datasets. These articles often fall neither under Computing nor Computer science, but under some other project like Biology, Chemistry or Books. It is unclear to me whether these articles were ever intended to be in the scope of this project or whether they were "accidentally" tagged because they often contain the word "database" in their title. Your proposal does not address this issue, nor do I currently have any good suggestions on how to resolve this.
Ruud 00:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding #1: makes sense to me. The question is: would it be better to automatically populate a category with the intersection of "databases" and "computer science", or to separately tag the articles as database-related and database-and-CS-related? I posted options 2 and 3 on the project page.
I prefer option 3, which going forward will be easier to understand. It doesn't allow setting an "importance" level for database theory (separate from the importance levels for computing, databases, and computer science). Do you think it's necessary to be able to do that?
Let's discuss specific datasets and whether they're in the scope of databases and/or computing in another thread. I think we can make that decision independently of this one – though it would be convenient to decide before we get to phase 2 when we have to go through all the articles. Maybe at WT:COMP? There are implications for whether domain-specific websites (e.g. C-SPAN Video Library) and other articles on domain-specific software or computer-related topics should stay in computing's scope. Currently most websites and software articles are in computing, though articles like Rage comic are not. – Pnm (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
All three proposals look reasonable to me. I would have to study them a bit closer, but in fact I think they might actually be equivalent in the sense than one could always change one into the other at a later time with a small bit of template programming. Have you considered the interactions between templates of articles that are already double or triple-tagged with Databases and Computing and/or Computer science? —Ruud 17:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, good point. Since we'll need to review and adjust all the talk pages anyway, I thought it could be done manually. But on second thought it might be less confusing to have the bot ignore those articles, and handle them manually instead. After the bot runs, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:WikiProject Databases will give us a shorter list to work from. – Pnm (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I've modified the bot instructions to address that. You're right: it's easy to change between options 1 and 3 in the future. I think changing from 1->2 or 3->2 is still possible, but it will require reviewing all the articles again. So the question we still need to decide: shall we tag articles separately as being databases, computer science, and CS-database-related, or shall we derive "CS-database-related" from the values of "databases" and "computer science"? – Pnm (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not a lot of interest in this discussion. Let's move forward with the merge. If you've no opinion about separately categorizing database theory articles on the CS side of things right now, let's proceed with option 1. – Pnm (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't object ;) —Ruud 16:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unique Identifiers[edit]

So, there's a new project which may be of interest to some here. It arises out of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#UID_interface_to_Wikipedia, a proposal to make wikipedia articles available by their unique identifier - for instance by their PubChem number. Umm. For reasons which should be all to obvious to anyone interested in computational access to information. And those two pages are all I have to show you, but I live in hope of input from you to take it all further. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


I just created SQL:2011 but information is hard to find cause the real standard is payware. Maybe someone here has knowledge to share? --Ysangkok (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
Wavelength (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Topic Organization Needed[edit]

Currently, there clearly exists a confusion regarding the relationship between a database and a database management system. The two are not the same, and never were. We must not allow this confusion to continue, and we must clean up the articles to put them in the correct categories.

I would suggest that we first create the basic category listings. Then I would suggest we try to fit the existing articles on these subjects into the right category and/or rewrite or divide up the articles into more common sense arrangements.

Further, each category needs a history section that would include the changes over time regarding definitions. Some people are purists who wish to stick with original intent and meanings, and some people are contemporists or modernists who like the use of slang words and contemporary thought on these subjects. They both need to be accommodated.

I would like to receive feedback on this issue. Thanks. KitchM (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Academic Journals Database[edit]

This article is at AfD and the input of editors with expertise in this area would be welcome. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Restarting the engine[edit]

I can hardly believe this had a "defunct" tag on it. Databases are a critical part of computer infrastructure, and Wikipedia is no exception. They may be in the background, but we should have decent coverage of them nonetheless. If anyone's watching this page, I would invite them to help out at getting this going again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Centralization and standardization of examples relating to transactions/MVCC/isolation/integrity[edit]

I think there is an excessive amount of articles relating to this. They all do not reference each other, and they all have their own independent examples.

What do you think? --Ysangkok (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Severe Altibase spam[edit]

It appears that some users (at least,, Os81paul, Golferchung) have been adding spam links to database-related articles, pointing to Altibase websites (, Please shoot on sight if you see these appearing on your watchlist. There also appears to be significant wiki doctoring on the Altibase and ALTIBASE HDB articles. -- intgr [talk] 22:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge: Consistency (database systems) and Data consistency[edit]

I've opened a discussion at Consistency (database systems) on merging Data consistency into it, and would appreciate any input. Thank you. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Blockchain databases[edit]

Databases of the concatenate chain model, blockchain databases (originally "block chain", and now most commonly spelled "blockchain" in most sources), have been a thing since 2009, when they were innovated as a part of the Bitcoin protocol.

They originally had one principle use case: value transfer of digital currency.

The number of blockchain databases proliferated after 2013, with many of them cloned off of the bitcoin open source software, and most of those quite non-notable. By 2014, significant extensions were underway to service additional use cases, and the term "blockchain 2.0" began to be used in the media to describe the newer functionality. By early 2016, many blockchains databases were up and running that were not built off of the bitcoin code base at all. Perhaps more importantly, industry adoption is accelerating, as blockchain databases are now being used by many large corporations including IBM, UBS, Deutsche Bank, Santander, Microsoft, etc.

Importantly, one of those databases, Ethereum, is a second-generation public blockchain that began running in July 2015, and fairly reliable researchers are describing it as a type of a world computer, with an odd set of properties, that could make it an important advance in not only database technology, but also computing technology.

I'm writing this here to invite any interested people from the Wikipedia database community to come and join in, learn from published sources, and then help improve Wikipedia coverage of this rapidly advancing technology space. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

RFCs on citations templates and the flagging free-to-read sources[edit]


Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings WikiProject Databases Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Databases/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Databases.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Databases, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Project status[edit]

Hello, I came across this wikiproject and have been trying to get my head around its current state. There doesn't seem to be much recent talk on the talk page, there's a semi-active tag on the project page and 'restructure proposals'. Just waving to say hi and see if people are still active here or whether other projects might be worth looking up instead? Swoophle (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

So it looks like restructure proposals suggest looking into Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_science but I can't find a mention of database on those pages other than links back to here?? Swoophle (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Swoophle: Yep it's dead. Very few WikiProjects serve a purpose anymore other than to clutter up talk pages with gigantic WikiProject banners. -- intgr [talk] 19:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey intgr, I see, thanks for letting us know. So it seems to me the best way to contribute is via individual article talk pages then? Swoophle (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Swoophle: If you're still around and looking to be helpful, I'd appreciate if you could:
  • Add the {{WikiProject Databases|class=|importance=}} template to talk pages of database-related pages. There's a lot of both database software pages and database theory/implementation related pages that aren't being tracked as part of this project. You can wrap multiple banners with {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= <banners> }} to make them less obtrusive.
  • Take a look at the popular pages, and see if there's anything you can do to improve the lower-rated ones, or assign ratings to unrated articles. Linearizable (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Request to update the Teradata article's "Technology and products" section[edit]

Hello. I am a Teradata employee tasked with suggesting updates and other improvements to the company's Wikipedia article. I'm not editing the article directly and I'm looking for uninvolved editors to review my second edit request to update the "Technology and products" section. You can view my request here: Talk:Teradata#Request_to_update_.22Technology_and_products.22. Is someone at WikiProject Databases able to assist with this particular request? I've also posted a request at WikiProject Companies. Thanks. Dodds_Writer (Talk · Disclosure: Employee of Teradata) 23:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dodds Writer: I'll take a look sometime over the next couple days. Linearizable (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Linearizable (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)