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)

ok 103.185.218.94 (talk) 08:38, 22 October 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)

RFC: 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)

• Yes - Etymology is useful historical information, and valid for an encyclopedia to discuss. We do so in many articles, and should. This one is no exception. Fieari (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Have you ever read WP:NOTDICT? If you look at many other encyclopedias, this information is downplayed or omitted, because it's information about the term, not the thing itself—which is what we're actually trying to proportionally describe in the article. Top-level "Etymology" sections are so abundant across many articles because frankly, those articles are often poorly synthesized and etymological information is comparatively easy to regurgitate undigested. Starting an article or essay with "The OED defines X as..." is a hack move because it usually says so little, and it's a shame that it takes up the top of so many articles where it's simply not important for the general reader. One sentence will very often do. There are comparatively few cases where a full section can actually be justified given a survey of all the material written in RS about a subject. Coming from someone who loves historical linguistics and lexicography, if you're going to plainly state Etymology is useful historical information I'm going to ask you to prove it on a case-by-case basis. Remsense ‥ 论 06:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

it's simply not important for the general reader. - Stop assuming that what you find not important is actually not important to readers. To me, as a reader, the etymology section is very important - it is one of the main things I use WP for, often. If it is not important to you, you can just jump it outright. Barely concealed WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments do not fly. --cyclopia^speak! 09:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Quite the contrary—like I said, I really enjoy language and all its trappings. Linguistics is probably my single most read subject, and probably what I'll be pursuing a doctorate in during the next decade. I haven't mentioned that because it's totally irrelevant, and you're ignoring the actual substance of my argument, which is that a section-length divergence into the world of historical linguistics and lexicography is unwarranted in most articles that are not directly related to those fields if you honestly weigh all the reliable sources and don't just jam in easily-sourced paragraphs without caring about whether it contributes to a coherent, well-balanced whole you can actually read through—like one would like to be able to with an article, ideally. "Just scroll down" is an argument totally lacking in merit, as well as problematized by empirical data: most people don't read these articles for very long, and what they do read is very often confined to the lead and the first few sections, so we should probably try to prioritize what's actually core to the topic according to its domain.Remsense ‥ 论 10:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not care if you like linguistics: the problem is that you do not like such sections in articles, and this is exactly "the actual substance of your argument", sadly: a section-length divergence into the world of historical linguistics and lexicography is unwarranted in most articles that are not directly related to those fields. It doesn't make any sense to state that it'd be unwarranted in articles not related to those fields, no more than stating that a section on biological classification wouldn't be warranted in articles about biological species unless it's an article about taxonomy. And oh, I do care whether it contributes to a "coherent, well-balanced whole": that's exactly what I think about such sections. They are needed to create that coherent, well-balanced whole, instead of leaving a gaping hole.--cyclopia^speak! 14:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There are domains of academia, each with their own universe of expected concepts and approaches. A math article should largely be about math. It is often poor writing when the entire opening screenful of an article about math is about linguistics instead. In fact, it is always poor, unfocused writing unless there is enough material in the reliable sources that bridges the two disciplines when discussing this topic. I am sorry that having a sense of focus and discipline to this end makes some uncomfortable, but Wikipedia editing is an exercise in technical writing, not creative writing or essaying. Remsense ‥ 论 14:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you really have a hard time understanding the difference between a "domain of academia" and how encyclopedic coverage works. "Focus and discipline" have zero to do with this - it's a matter of understanding what we're doing here. A comprehensive encyclopedic article about histograms has to cover all aspects of the concept of histogram, not only the strictly statistics-related ones. Our article about dinosaur covers also the popular culture aspects of the topic, not only the palaeontological ones. That because an encyclopedia article has a broader, different scope than a technical review. While for sure an encyclopedia article is not creative writing, it is also not technical or academic writing. If you believe we are here to write technical articles, you are mistaken. We are here for the general public.--cyclopia^speak! 16:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• I have read that page. It does not forbid etymology outright, it merely says that dictionary information is not the primary purpose of an article. That doesn't mean that an article doesn't define what it is talking about... an article certainly does! It just does more, and with a different context. It is similar with etymology. Etymology can be a useful part of a wikipedia article, but even here, we do it a little differently than a straight dictionary entry-- we discuss the etymology, put it into context, show disputes and different ideas. We are comprehensive and look at the subject from a different perspective than a dictionary... but that doesn't mean we are forbidden from including useful information alongside everything else. Fieari (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  It has to be weighted in terms of the subject at hand: it often amounts to a prolonged tangent into the concepts and framing of linguistics, which is simply inappropriate to be put at the top of many articles that are otherwise unrelated to linguistics. There are no articles not primarily concerned with history or linguistics where I should see a link to Proto-Indo-European, for example. Remsense ‥ 论 07:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes but move and trim. I don't have an issue with the content in theory, but it is a little overlong and its placement at the top of the article is incongruous. It is nice for an interested reader, but not the first thing most readers will want on reading this article. I'd keep but put it last or near last. After applications at least. I also think this Pearson's term is sometimes incorrectly said to combine the Greek root γραμμα (gramma) "figure" or "drawing" with the root ἱστορία (historia) "inquiry" or "history". Alternatively the root ἱστίον (histion) is also proposed, meaning "web" or "tissue" (as in histology, the study of biological tissue). is redundant. An etymology section is not the place to wax lyrical about what the etymology isn't. The way it is currently presented leads the reader to think there's some sort of uncertainty over the etymology, when in actual fact it seems to be unambiguous - but you have to read two wrong etymologies first to get there, Void if removed (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Agree to cleaning up some of the terms. In addition, I think it's worthwhile to have an etymology of what a histogram is, considering its historical significance to statistics and normal distributions. Takipoint123 (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, no trim needed. This is exactly the kind of information our readers will probably want. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)