Wikipedia talk:Importing a database

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

copyedit[edit]

I don't actually know enough about the database problem to add much, but I've done a light copyedit. —valereee (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First takeaway ...[edit]

Sure, there's no harm in writing an essay. But until some relevant provisions are written into guideline/policy/MOS, it's meaningless. The Lugnuts and Dolovises of the world will just ignore it, as they militantly ignore anything in favor of ratcheting up their edit count/article creation tally. Ravenswing 15:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping we end up with an essay that becomes well-enough regarded that we can turn it into policy via an RfC at some point? —valereee (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Combine?[edit]

These two seem very similar, should we combine?

Use a variety of reliable sources - Do not simply use the same single source for hundreds of articles. This can result in these articles having the same point of failure if a problem arises with that source or if Wikipedia's inclusion criteria change. If the subject of your article is truly notable then more than one reliable source will have given it significant coverage - find those sources and use them. Do not simply expect other editors to find them for you.

Future-proof your articles - Writing large numbers of articles that just barely pass Wikipedia's inclusion criteria as they presently stand will result in them all potentially being deleted at a future date if Wikipedia's inclusion criteria become more strict, as they have tended to do over the history of the project. —valereee (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

Copying this from ANI, where it'll probably be archived soon.

As a reminder, here's the last time this came up (that I'm aware of): Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_73#Adding_one_new_thing_to_the_current_SNG_text, opened by Masem. IMO it was in the wrong place, as I mentioned in there, and it was closed as no consensus, but I wonder if it's time to revisit it. I've had mixed feelings about placing this problem under the heading of the bot policy, but ultimately if we're going to require "authorization" as part of this rule, there is already an authorization system built in there. If that process proves inadequate, it can always be spun off, but might as well try it. The relevant sections are WP:MEATBOT and WP:MASSCREATE. Maybe the best next step would be for FOARP to draft an RfC (or open a section for drafting) on the talk page of that essay? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]