Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 17:43, 14 December 2024

Main page	Talk page	Members	Templates	Resources
WikiProject Statistics v t e

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Statistics and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 3 months

How many uncited articles are not yet tagged as uncited?

I am not competent to estimate this myself but I assume you guys are if I can find info such as the number tagged each month. If this is the wrong place to ask for a statistical estimate where should I ask please? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which countries/territories should be included

List of countries and dependencies by population - (This article is listed as Mid-importance on the Statistics WikiProject.)

A difference of opinion has arisen on which countries/territories should be ranked on this article. Specifically, whether all countries/territories should be ranked, or only UN member states.

The section is titled "Sovereign states and dependencies by population". From this title, it's unclear whether disputed states / territories (e.g. Taiwan, Kosovo, Palestine) should be included.

The previous version of this article excluded disputed territories in the ranking, but also excluded dependencies (despite the section title). Presumably this decision was made by a previous editor, because dependencies are not UN members, and only UN members were ranked in the previous article version.

Column 1 of the table retains the UN member-only ranking, which was the only ranking shown in the previous version of this article.

My recent edit added column 2 to the table, which ranks all countries/dependencies.

I opted to keep both columns rather than replace, to take a more conservative/inclusive approach. Discussion has been on whether to have only 1 ranking column, and if so, which to rank. One editor reverted the article to UN members-only ranking without discussion, but I have restored both columns and requested further discussion on the talk page.

Would appreciate more input from others as this seems quite an important topic. Please see "Ranking" on the talk page: Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population. Snowpeek (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probability paradoxes or counter-intuitive problems

I published an article in Chance ( https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/N2ZHDVNZTCGQBQWTN5ZQ/full?target=10.1080/09332480.2024.2415844) citing flawed reasoning in these types of problems: they ask for the probability of an outome of an event that has occurred but answer with the probability of that outcome before the event has occurred. I edited Bertrand's box paradox - Wikipedia with the correct answer. But since the correct answer contradicts a history of the classical answer, my editing violates the Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing. How do I address that (if possible0 to correct what's currently in Wikipedia?

Thank you for any help. Kicab (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <noinclude>{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics/Tabs}}</noinclude>
 {{Talk header|wp=yes|WT:WPSTAT|WT:WPSTATS}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|
 {{WikiProject Statistics}}
+}}
 {{User:MiszaBot/config
 |maxarchivesize = 100K
@@ Line 11: / Line 13: @@
 }}
+== How many uncited articles are not yet tagged as uncited? ==
-== Consistent notation of the quantile function ==
-I noticed that different notations are used to denote the [[quantile function]] of probability distributions. The most common ones are <math>Q(p)</math> (e.g. [[Tukey lambda distribution]]), <math>Q(u)</math> (e.g. [[Dagum distribution]]), <math>F^{-1}(\cdot)</math> (e.g. [[Kumaraswamy distribution]]), and <math>x(F)</math> [[Laplace distribution]]. In other cases, the quantile function is redubbed as "random variate generation", and described as a transformation of a standard uniform random variable (rv), i.e. <math>U \mapsto X</math> (e.g. [[Burr Type XII distribution]]).
-Although I realize that this is similarly the case in the literature, I believe that arbitrarily inconsistent notation like this, can be very confusing to readers, especially newcomers. But unlike the published literature, here, the notation can be made consistent.
-I don't have a strong preference myself, but I (usually) prefer <math>x(F)</math> over <math>F^{-1}(\cdot)</math> nowadays, since both <math>Q(\cdot)</math> and <math>F^{-1}(\cdot)</math> have no standard for the name of the parameter (I've seen <math>p</math>, <math>q</math>, <math>u</math> and <math>y</math> used in different places).
-I can also see that standard uniform transformation notation, e.g. <math>X = -\log(1 - U)</math> for the standard [[exponential distribution]], could be a good choice, but only if it is described as being the "quantile function", and not ''only'' "random variate generation". [[User:Jorenham|jorenham]] ([[User talk:Jorenham|talk]]) 14:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
-:If we were going to try to standardise, I would prefer Q(u), particularly because it leads naturally to q(u) for the density quantile function. But note also that adopting a standard on Wikipedia would make it inconsistent with the way the quantile function is usually presented in the literature for some distributions. [[User:Newystats|Newystats]] ([[User talk:Newystats|talk]]) 02:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
-::Coupling the QF notation with that of the QDF makes sense to me.
-::I guess that notational inconsistency with the literature is inevitable. I even stumbled accross a <math>G(p)</math> today (C.L. Mallows, '73).
-::Perhaps it's a good idea to explicitly list the common QF notations on the [[quantile function]] page? [[User:Jorenham|jorenham]] ([[User talk:Jorenham|talk]]) 02:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
-== Should R not be listed as of top importance? ==
-I see some statistics software (e.g. Minitab) has an importance of mid-importance, but there's nothing for R, which I don't think reflects the importance R does have. [[User:Drkirkby|Drkirkby]] ([[User talk:Drkirkby|talk]]) 15:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
-== Notability of [[John H. Wolfe]] ==
+I am not competent to estimate this myself but I assume you guys are if I can find info such as the number tagged each month. If this is the wrong place to ask for a statistical estimate where should I ask please? [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 17:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
-The article [[John H. Wolfe]] has gone through a PROD, but still has issues as it is based on one secondary textbook claim that his work on [[model-based clustering]] matters. It was created directly by a novice editor ([[User:Stat3472|Stat3472]] 33 edits). The article model-based clustering supports him as the inventor, but whether this is big enough for notability is unclear. Comments on the talk page please, perhaps better than AfD. [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 09:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
+== Which countries/territories should be included ==
-:094746 [[Special:Contributions/102.213.69.202|102.213.69.202]] ([[User talk:102.213.69.202|talk]]) 13:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
+[[List of countries and dependencies by population]] - (This article is listed as Mid-importance on the Statistics WikiProject.)
-== Conjugate priors: raise importance to Top or at least Mid?  And needs expert attention ==
+A difference of opinion has arisen on which countries/territories should be ranked on this article. Specifically, whether all countries/territories should be ranked, or only UN member states.
-I am not a statistician but I need to understand conjugate priors for my research.  Depending on what the scope of ``its field" is meant to be in the Wikipedia guidelines for importance rating, it seems to me this should be anything from a Top to a Mid priority article, but not a Low priority article as currently rated.  Here is a quote from a wikipedia page that characterizes
+The section is titled "''Sovereign states and dependencies by population''". From this title, it's unclear whether disputed states / territories (e.g. Taiwan, Kosovo, Palestine) should be included.
-At [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria]]
+The previous version of this article excluded disputed territories in the ranking, but '''also''' excluded dependencies (despite the section title). Presumably this decision was made by a previous editor, because dependencies are not UN members, and only UN members were ranked in the previous article version.
-Top priority is described as:
-Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia
+Column 1 of the table retains the UN member-only ranking, which was the only ranking shown in the previous version of this article.
-I think that conjugate priors fall into this category. (I find the priority critera on this page too vague, however.)  Anybody who reads the literature on the theory or the application of Bayesian statistics is likely to run into the term fairly quickly.
+My recent edit added column 2 to the table, which ranks all countries/dependencies.
-Another page, which I have closed and haven't been able to easily track down, has the criterion:
-Top importance articles:  ``Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field."
+I opted to keep both columns rather than replace, to take a more conservative/inclusive approach. Discussion has been on whether to have only 1 ranking column, and if so, which to rank. One editor reverted the article to UN members-only ranking without discussion, but I have restored both columns and requested further discussion on the talk page.
-Well, if ``the field" is Bayesian statistics, I think it's extremely important, and certainly has achieved international notability.  This is probably so even if the field is statistics generally, although in that case perhaps it's not ``extremely important", just important.
+Would appreciate more input from others as this seems quite an important topic. Please see "Ranking" on the talk page: [[Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population]]. [[User:Snowpeek|Snowpeek]] ([[User talk:Snowpeek|talk]]) 05:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
-In any case, the article badly needs clarification because the definition of conjugate prior is vague (due to vagueness in what's meant by a ``family" of distributions), and the tables, which look to be very useful if accurate, and also look to have received substantial and appreciated attention to improve the accuracy, appear potentially inconsistent with the definition, in that the classes to which they assign prior and posterior distribution are often different, and they don't supply any wider class to which both belong, while earlier in the article, conjugate priors (for a given likelihood function) are defined as ones for which the prior and posterior both belong to the same class.
+== Probability paradoxes or counter-intuitive problems ==
-If the consensus is that the article should be included as a subsection under a Top importance artilce ``Bayesian inference" or ``Bayesian statistics" that could be sensible, but I think the extensive and valuable tables might be a bit unwieldy in the general article so probably the current status as a standalone article, with perhaps a brief paragraph on conjugate priors and a link in the Bayesian statistics page  (currently missing!), would be best.
+I published an article in ''Chance'' ( https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/N2ZHDVNZTCGQBQWTN5ZQ/full?target=10.1080/09332480.2024.2415844) citing flawed reasoning in these types of problems: they ask for the probability of an outome of an event that has occurred but answer with the probability of that outcome before the event has occurred. I edited [[Bertrand's box paradox#The paradox as stated by Bertrand|Bertrand's box paradox - Wikipedia]] with the correct answer. But since the correct answer contradicts a history of the classical answer, my editing violates the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing]]. How do I address that (if possible0 to correct what's currently in Wikipedia?
-Thanks for any expert attention you can give to this article!
-:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [[User:MorphismOfDoom|MorphismOfDoom]] ([[User talk:MorphismOfDoom|talk]]) 19:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
+Thank you for any help. [[User:Kicab|Kicab]] ([[User talk:Kicab|talk]]) 16:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)