Talk:SQL Server Integration Services

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disadvantages[edit]

I'd like to remove the "Disadvantages" section, as both claims are unreferenced and vague.

1)Developement by click and drag. While the primary use of the designer is to draw data flows and task flows, the object model is documented and can be driven by any developer writing in a managed language. Also, some users have written their own packages directly to XML.

2)Geared towards tradtional programmers, not database developers. This is quite vauge; do "traditional programmers" click and drag? What are "traditional programmers"? How would the product be geared more towards database develoeprs? Are database developers really the target for a data warehousing tool?

If someone can clarify or reference these assertions, they're finte to stay -- but I don't think they're viable right now. --Mikeblas 19:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it entirely. It's probably better to say nothing at all than to be vague almost to the point of being meaningless. Warrens 22:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, the article for this commercial product reads rather like it's manufacturer's whitepapers; for example, I tagged "fast and flexible" with "needs citation": fast compared to what? Determined flexible by whom? Pete St.John 18:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unofficial site"[edit]

I've removed the phrase "SQL Server Integration Services unofficial site" from the link to SQLIS.com in my most recent edit. There are many unofficial sites, this one does not deserve the sole indicator of "unofficial site". So I've changed the text to indicate that it is simply, SQLIS.com.

Brammp 15:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tags[edit]

I've removed the intro tag, as I don't :11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the fastest ETL tool available now ? Suggest removal or clarification[edit]

This assertion in the opening paragraph is marked as requiring a citation. I'd go further and suggest that we drop it. It's unsubstantiated and is also unclear. Do we mean it's the fastest tool for SQL server, the fastest tool anywhere? What's the criteria for fast in this context? Fast development, fast execution, fast to learn? Rob Burbidge (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting[edit]

Is a "Troubleshooting" section required? I don't think wikipedia is a trouble shooting resource tool for ssis.Mithrang —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link cleanup discussion[edit]

I had this encounter with an anonymous user user while removing some excessive external links yesterday. Additional comments are welcome. These kinds of technology articles attract far too many external links, sometimes many links from the same domain, and commercial products are included. Those problems exist in this article. Dawnseeker2000 14:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

______________

SQL Server Integration Services[edit]

Hi, that you have been a SSIS developer for any length of time means little here. We're constructing an encyclopedia based on established policies and guidelines. The reasons for removing the excessive external links in that article have been stated in my edit summaries and follow those guidelines, specifically WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:EL. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 15:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links are pretty easy to add to an article and WP editors are constantly required to keep these items in check as the lists grow rapidly and often times the links add little value to the article. That's my argument here with the SQL Server Integration Services article. We're writing an encyclopedia, so the article would better serve everyone with more prose that adequately describes SSIS. A few select links are fine, but they are not our focus, and often times the Open Directory Project (links are what they do) has a category that we can link to that fits neatly into our External Links section. The articles are specifically about content and links are an accessory of sorts.
People that contribute to WP articles that have experience in a certain field are extremely valuable, but if the contributions from such an experienced professional boil down to adding links that may contradict WP's own policies regarding article development, that would constitute a problem. These policies have been shown to you, yet you continue re-adding the excessive list of links. Again, doing this is very easy, but I would challenge you to actually write something that would enhance that article's ability to provide useful information. It will take some effort on your part, but would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again, Dawnseeker2000 16:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Dawnseeker2000[edit]

Recommendation to you: if you believe you are good editor, take your time to review the chronology of each and every link, when did it appear and how long has been there. There have been links there for years. And you now come and decide you have the higher ground to make broad statements like the ones above, saying the links have been growing out of hand. That is patently untrue as I have been following this page for years. Let me repeat your argument doesn't make any sense. It is good when someone accepts he made a mistake. Accept you are making mistake with your erasing here. It is very easy to erase content. Even easier than including links.

Links are not content. The words are the content, and that's what the article needs, along with reliable and secondary sources. Links are an afterthought and many times the links in articles just aren't necessary. They're not our focus and much of the time they're just not necessary. That the links have been on the page for years is not a reason to keep them. Dawnseeker2000 16:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second Answer to Dawnseeker2000[edit]

You live in 21st century and that's what makes wikipedia so powerful - HTML and hyperlinks. Your argument would make sense, before the web was invented. If you want to do regular encyclopedia go and work for Britannica. If the links didn't have any value, why have any links at all? That's how pathetic your argument is here. Now let's raise the bar higher and talk specifically about each and every link you remove:

  • SQL Server Integration Tools - you may see this is commercial offering. But this company offers many free tools and information. This company is run by book author by the name Brian Knight. You can search for yourself how many books he has published for SSIS. This is reliable authority.
  • SSIS Scripts - This is link to free scripts for use by SSIS developers. The scripts are completely free of charge and can be used by any SSIS developer. COZYROC is one of the first third-party developer of SSIS components and technologies. You can research for yourself COZYROC. It is quite known in the SSIS community.

Please carefully review my comments and information I have posted above, before erasing the links again. Thank you!

The encyclopedia is not here to help small enterprises. These are spam and are likely to be removed again. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 19:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence of Features.[edit]

To the non-specialist, the following sentence makes no sense:

The SSIS Import/Export Wizard lets the user create packages that move data from a single data source to a destination with no transformations.

The logical implication of with no transformations is that the Wizard doesn't change the data. Even if what is being referred to is format conversion, in general (ie. non-specialist) terms this is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.20.233.141 (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BCP Merge[edit]

Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulk Copy Program closed by Premeditated Chaos I will attempted to perform a non-[[WP::UNDUE]] merge per WP:PROMERGE as person of last resort if necessary. If no-one has merged after a suitable time please ping me. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: I have merged the lead sentence. The rest seems like technical jargon that would be undue in this article. Anarchyte (talk • work) 09:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchyte: Thankyou for performing a reasonable competent merge, however I am concerned the required level of quality I would have hoped for was not achieved and to a degree I wish you have left it for someone else. I will now likely feel I will have to revisit this myself which is not what I wanted to do. Fuck! Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: I don't understand why you're upset. If you want to edit the content, go right ahead. Nothing is stopping you. Anarchyte (talk • work) 12:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bloody hope was someone was going to do a better job ... as it is fucking down to me. fuck! Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: It's hard to merge good content from a terrible article without degrading the destination article. I've added a better source for the Sybase information. No need for the vulgarities. Anarchyte (talk • work) 15:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SQL_Server_Integration_Services&oldid=1205405996"