Talk:Robust regression

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Statistics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or join the discussion.

Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

The example section appears to discuss an example without actually presenting the example. Ideally there would be both a graph and the associated source code used to generate the graph.

The graphs used to be there. The page was vandalized - someone deleted the images. I've got bored of keep having to undo edits that lower the quality of articles, so I've given up. Tolstoy the Cat 16:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've almost got over being annoyed at the page being vandalized. I intend to add an example (a different one) back in. I'll do it over the next few days. Tolstoy the Cat 18:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This entry needs a lot of work. I've made a few minor changes; will add more later if I have time. TPR —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Errors in variables model[edit]

I don't think they should be merged. The only real connection I see is that the errors-in-variables model page uses the word "Robust" in one of its headings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolstoy the Little Black Cat (talkcontribs) 12:47, March 14, 2007

I agree - it certainly shouldn't be merged. Also, the original errors in variables page really needs to be greatly expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 05:15, April 17, 2007
I agree that a merge would be a very bad idea. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed both tags, since the consensus is against it. --GargoyleMT 13:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuisance to criticize without capability to improve[edit]

As often the critics is bound to nothing but averaging. Is that the path to excellence? You could well replace the 'jargon' and the 'citation' tagsas well as the merger proposal with a 'stupidity' tag. Please contribute or stay out. Wireless friend (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)