Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics

WikiProject Statistics
Main page	Talk page	Members	Templates	Resources

Machine learning bar

As the WikiProject with probably the most articles transcluding this template, does anyone here have a view on the possible conversion of Template:Machine learning bar to a footer template? This sidebar has annoyed me for some time but the last comment on the template talk page (also expressing the same opinion) is two years old. Since this affects quite a lot of articles I'm hoping for at least some clue that this change wouldn't go against a contrary consensus before going ahead... Bigbluefish (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the difference between sidebar and footer. For example Economics has both. But it seems fine as is. Wqwt (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If we could measure how many people use that economics sidebar for navigation I doubt we'd find it is being used much at all. How do you get to an article on evolutionary economics and after reading the lede end up navigating next to an article on national accounting? And like the machine learning bar, it is much too prolifically transcluded for a subject-overview navbar with a thematic illustration. How can it be a helpful introduction to an article on, for example, the income–consumption curve, for the most prominent graph, appearing alongside the lede, to be a graph of supply and demand curves? Bigbluefish (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Add references as task

I've noticed a pervasive problem in Wikipedia math articles, including in statistics, is that many pages are largely unsourced and possibly original research. I think adding references should be added in Article-related tasks. Wqwt (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Uniform probability distribution graphs

Hello everyone,

I've been looking to several probability distribution articles on Wikipedia, and I'm surprised to see that the rendering of each probability and cumulative density function is not uniform, which can be unpleasant when you are trying to compare two functions side-by-side.

There's a lot of distribution to cover, in my opinion the most common ones would be:

• beta
• binomial
• Cauchy
• chi-squared
• exponential
• F
• gamma
• geometric
• hypergeometric
• log-normal
• logistic
• negative binomial
• normal
• Poisson
• Student's t
• uniform
• Weibull

I'm not an expert at data visualisation, and I have no preference over what style to use, as long as it is consistent accross all distributions.

Best regards,

Zatyra (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You might be better off discussing this at Template talk:Infobox probability distribution where there was a sizeable discussion that unified them to some extent in 2005. The dataviz landscape has changed a lot since then so to properly standardise them now is a great idea. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Mean squared prediction error

I asked this on the article’s talk page but got no response. Throughout the article Mean squared prediction error, shouldn’t every summation sign and every instance of $\sigma ^{2}$ and ${\hat {\sigma }}^{2}$ be multiplied by 1/n? And how about in each of the two right-hand side terms of the first equation in the Estimation section? Loraof (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead and changed it. Loraof (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)