Template talk:Statistics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Statisticians
Should the template include notable statisticians? I think it may be too much, but what does everybody else think? Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 08:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- If we do, we should probably only include the top five or six or so. --Arcadian 11:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem relevant to me. The purpose of the template is to make it easier to navigate to related topics, and I think it's unlikely anyone will want to navigate from t-test to R. A. Fisher. --Zvika 11:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- It sounds like a good idea to me, but perhaps it could be it's own navbox?
[edit] More topics for navbox
Could topics like Bimodal distribution and Binomial distribution be included? They seem to be already included in the ProbDistribution navbox, but that navbox is very large. Rhetth (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Link to project
Apparently, links to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Statistics in this template violates WP:SELF - WikiProjects should not be included in articles or on their templates. I have removed.—G716 <T·C> 01:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Split?
This template has become quite large, and as WP:NAV says, "a large template has limited navigation value". I suggest splitting it into several smaller templates on each sub-topic. (We could draft them as sub-pages of this talk page to start with, e.g. Template talk:Statistics/Experimental design.) We could also consider a "Major topics in statistics" navbox to give an overview, in the same style as e.g. Template:Number theory-footer, Template:Applied-footer etc. Thoughts / volunteers? (I'm not taking this on on my own..) Qwfp (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Quite large" is, of course, relative. This template is bigger than a breadbox ({{Mathematics-footer}}), but not as big as a Mack truck ({{HIVpharm}}, {{Medicine}}, {{Influenza}}, {{Compression Methods}}). Personally, I think that it's ok at the moment, but I would support removing the "History" section (that I added by don't own) and the "Publications" section to keep the template from becoming list cruft. I'm not sure that some of the possible sub topics are big enough to rate a separate template. If this idea moves forward, I'll be willing to help out. Regards—G716 <T·C> 01:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- We could make it collapsible: {{Herbs & spices}}—G716 <T·C> 01:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- or collapsible, with autoshow groups: {{ProbDistributions}}—G716 <T·C> 05:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- We could make it collapsible: {{Herbs & spices}}—G716 <T·C> 01:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- We could use {{Least squares and regression analysis}} as one of the sub-topic templates.—G716 <T·C> 05:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sample size estimation
Any thoughts on the relevance of the first three items under this heading: Null hypothesis • Alternative hypothesis • Type I and Type II errors • Statistical power • Effect size. I would suggest dropping them entirely as they aren't needed elsewhere in a brief list of topics. Melcombe (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
