Talk:Weighted geometric mean
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Move?
[edit]Why not just move this article into a subsection of geometric mean's article? -- IbexNu (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, but there are a few things to consider. There are eight other interwiki languages that share this specific topic. Also this article complements weighted arithmetic mean. +mt 04:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see what the links to other wikis have to do with anything, but I think a merge is the only sensible option here and will do so in the near future. This is very short, and has remained very short over a span of 15 years. And it's not just the length, it's the fact that this is only a very slight generalization of the main topic, not sufficiently different to need a separate article. The main article isn't overly long and could very easily accommodate this as a separate section, as is common for lots of mathematical topics which are slight generalizations of the main article. Just because there's a separate article for the arithmetic mean (which makes sense given its length and breadth of content) doesn't mean there has to be here. We're perfectly free to handle each differently. Turning this around, if this already were just a section at the main article, it's hard to see how someone could argue for splitting this off into a separate article like it is now. If someone ever thinks they can expand this to the point where a standalone article seems warranted, they can always split it back out. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Deacon Vorbis: I´m in favor of this. I will add the things you reverted here to the main geometric mean article as this article really goes in depth, my little chapter should´nt disturb too much there.
- @Deacon Vorbis: You have read my points on you talk page. I have added an explanation in the edit summary for the geomtric mean article too and even adjusted the tone. Please consider my explanation there before reverting it again. I know you mean well too. If you have a lot to do then please take your time. King regards --TranslationTalent (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see what the links to other wikis have to do with anything, but I think a merge is the only sensible option here and will do so in the near future. This is very short, and has remained very short over a span of 15 years. And it's not just the length, it's the fact that this is only a very slight generalization of the main topic, not sufficiently different to need a separate article. The main article isn't overly long and could very easily accommodate this as a separate section, as is common for lots of mathematical topics which are slight generalizations of the main article. Just because there's a separate article for the arithmetic mean (which makes sense given its length and breadth of content) doesn't mean there has to be here. We're perfectly free to handle each differently. Turning this around, if this already were just a section at the main article, it's hard to see how someone could argue for splitting this off into a separate article like it is now. If someone ever thinks they can expand this to the point where a standalone article seems warranted, they can always split it back out. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Recent edits
[edit]@TranslationTalent: You're going to have to give me some time to get you a more detailed explanation. I know you mean well, but I'm doing like five things at once here, and as I said in my edit summaries, there are significant problems with the additions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
possible citation
[edit]It's a little bit more of a specific case of this formula, but could page 8 of this source be a useful citation here? FeatherPurple (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)