Talk:Histogram

Archives (Index)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Criticism of histograms

The article would benefit from mentioning the many valid points of criticism of the histograms. Also there lacks some information on the uncertainty of the histogram. It would be fair to mention some alternatives to histograms (e.g. empirical cdfs, kernel density estimates) Troelspedersen80 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Wrong figure caption

One of the figure shows the effect of choosing different bin counts for the same data, and the labels say "Bin width = 3", "Bin width = 8" and "Bin width = 29". First, it is not 8 but 6. Second, it is not the width of the bins which are set to 3, 8 and 29 but their number. So they should say "Bins = 3", etc. Andras Vanyolos (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Square root rule and Excel

The reference to Excel using the square root rule is quite old. Recent versions of Excel, since 2016, use Scott's rule https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/office/create-a-histogram-85680173-064b-4024-b39d-80f17ff2f4e8#bkmk_scottrefrule. Furthermore, the reference currently provided is not to official documentation, just to some notes by an economist which says "The general rule Excel uses is equal-width intervals with the number of intervals approximately equal to the square root of the number of data points." but there is no reference given to any Excel documentation here either, nor demonstration that Excel did use this rule in 2007. The documentation to legacy versions which would be relevant does not mention what rule is used to select the number of bins https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/office/create-a-histogram-85680173-064b-4024-b39d-80f17ff2f4e8. I propose simply deleting this section, since using the square root of the number of datapoints is unmotivated by any theoretical consideration and doesn't seem to have actually been used as claimed. WikiNukalito (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Etymological minutiae

@Cyclopia:, I hit enter too early so I'll elucidate better here. The passage is sourced, but it makes a short section out of of comparative minutiae when considered in the scope of the article, which is about the concept, not the term. This could be a bit tacked on to what was there, but it's a slightly egregious clutter at the top of the article as given before; see WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Remsense ‥ 论 10:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We routinely cover the etymology of non-trivial terms -this has little or nothing to do with WP:NOTADICTIONARY. The section, while being succinct, also covers not only the linguistic origin, but the history of the term (and the concept). It is treated in sources, it is clearly relevant to the historical understanding of the concept, that you do not like it is not a good reason to remove it. Etymology sections also routinely appear at the top of the articles; I have no qualms if we want to move it, but let it be known it would go against common practice. cyclopia^speak! 22:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

We can cover the etymology in exactly one sentence, perhaps a clause added to the sentence spun out from the original material. The added details add nothing but misdirections and fluff to what was an adequate explanation. We mention briefly what the etymology is, but why on earth should we add several sentences about what the etymology isn't? Most of the contrived section isn't even about etymology.Remsense ‥ 论 22:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It also has plenty to do with WP:NOTADICTIONARY, which discusses why encyclopedias and dictionaries differ—one primarily discusses terms, the other discusses the concepts they describe. Of course, etymology is part of the extant discussion of concepts, but most etymology sections in articles are frankly egregiously overrepresenting said discussion in sources because it's surface-level minutiae that's easy to regurgitate. For most articles presently with an etymology section, a balanced survey of the RSes would exclude such a section.Remsense ‥ 论 00:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The added details add nothing but misdirections - Sorry, what? "Misdirections" in which sense? Is there anything factually misleading that I missed?

why on earth should we add several sentences about what the etymology isn't? Because it is good practice to reference common misconceptions and correct them. It is a service to readers.

Most of the contrived section isn't even about etymology - Can you point me to what parts of the section are not about etymology? I see just part of the last sentence that could reasonably be construed as being more history than etymology.

In any case it doesn't look like we're going to agree, so I wonder if we can get some more outside input. I'll post a RfC. cyclopia^speak! 08:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Because it is good practice to reference common misconceptions and correct them. It is a service to readers. In this case, it is effectively wasted space, as the misconceptions are corrected by the plain statement of the correct conception. Nothing substantial is lost by not mentioning the ways how other people don't know it.

I've made my case, but I'm willing to let it go instead of making you post an RfC if you disagree. Remsense ‥ 论 08:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Should a section about etymology be included?

There is a debate about the appropriateness of the current "Etymology" section. Should the current information be kept or should it be trimmed? cyclopia^speak! 08:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You're free to demure on this if you like, as I won't pursue it further. Remsense ‥ 论 08:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Seems WP:DUE to include information about the origin of a tool in an encyclopedic tool. This isn't a pure dictionary info, its more of an origin and popularization of the tool section. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

See, an origin section is perfectly reasonable. Remsense ‥ 论 14:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)