This article is an outline, a type of article that presents a list of articles or sub-topics related to its subject in a hierarchical form. For the standardized set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines. Outlines are within the scope of WikiProject Outlines, a collaborative effort to improve outlines on Wikipedia. For guidance on building and maintaining outlines, see Wikipedia:Outlines.OutlinesWikipedia:WikiProject OutlinesTemplate:WikiProject OutlinesOutlines articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
List updater
In subsection A below, listed are articles which are missing from the Catalog of articles in probability theory. They were found by looking in the categories in subsection C. One can add more categories to be searched to subsection C, see some suggestions in subsection D.
All this process can be restarted by clicking on the link at the bottom of subsection E.
Please note that anything around here is editable, but please don't modify the lines of the form
The bot will look for potential additions to the Catalog of articles in probability theory in this list of categories. You may add any other categories to this list, for example from subsection D below. Use the format [[:Category:XXX]] (the colon (:) shows up twice!).
It takes a while to understand the meaning of codes, esp those in parentheses. Also, the logic/hierarchy/purpose might be not clear at the first look. For example, the bsc accompanies every entry in "Basic notions" and looks like a mere abbreviation, so like a redundancy. The codes in parentheses in this section say nothing unless one reads through all the catalog.
As far as I can tell, the codes may be viewed as cross-references or labels that enable us to assign a couple of categories to any single entry (without repeating it on the page). The author may want to explain (here or on article's page) his intentions in this regard. This could be useful for further development.
I think we could also add an alphabetical index of codes with a few words of introduction / basic explanation. Is it possible to edit manually the first section (or add a new one) or it'll be overwritten by the bot?
We can remove the codes from "Catalog". They are really unavoidable only in "Source". In "Catalog" they can say something, but maybe too little. Namely, (1) if an article belongs (say) both to Markov processes and to Gaussian processes, it is marked "Gau Mar" in both occurrences. Also, "Mar (F:D)" says that it is (probably) about a Markov chain with a finite number of time instants and a finite state space. Still, if it is more confusing than helpful, we can remove it.
About an alphabetical index of codes etc. I think, we should first decide whether to remove the codes from "Catalog" or not, since further decisions depend on this first decision.
You may edit manually the first section (or add a new one); I shall bother to ensure that it will not be overwritten by the bot. It seems to me that here the explanations should be short; long explanations can appear elsewhere and be linked (like "How_to_edit" is now). But still, feel free to disagree. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. Now, I see that a double code results in double entry on the page (I mean non-parenthetical codes). So they seem to add nothing to the actual content and might be safely deleted. However, the codes in parentheses give some additional information, 'tags' or 'categories'. Since it's easy to suppress it at any time, we may want to keep it for a while (maybe there'll be more input from others?). In this case, a short explanation or an index at the beginning would be in order. But if you think all the codes may go away right now I wouldn't oppose either. It's up to you.
Yes, double code results in double entry, but why "add nothing"? If you browse the "Markov" section and see "Gau Mar" you do get some additional information, namely, that probably this article is about processes that are both Markov and Gaussian. Still, you may say that it is more confusing than helpful, but you should not say that it is of absolutely no help. Maybe you just seek something about relations between Gaussian and Markovian; of course, you can compare the two sections, but this is more tedious. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another option to think about: to suppress "Mar" within the "Markov" section, but retain "Gau" and others; and similarly in other cases. By the way, the parenthetical codes are already suppressed in the "Stochastic calculus" section, since they all are automatically "(U:C)". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough for "Gau Mar"; after all, regardless the number of occurrences of an entry, these are the "cross references" I positively mentioned too. The option of leaving only additional "categories": "Gau" in the "Mar" section and vice versa looks very interesting. What about a short explanation for parenthetical codes, something like "The codes in parentheses refer to number of variables involved and the type of the distribution. For example (...something...). The list of codes can be found in the table of contents". As to decision whether the codes are more useful or more puzzling, I'd stay neutral (keeping the status quo, waiting e.g. for more input from others).
OK, I'll add the short explanation for parenthetical codes. Now, what about "simple" (not parenthetical) codes? Should they be explained, too? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The simple codes are IMHO easier to understand, as their appear together with the explanations at the top of ToC and in first headings. I add a short sentence, but feel free to change it or even revert. Some ambiguity arises from the fact that in the ToC/headings the simple codes appear in parentheses too... (so maybe we'd better use "/" or something else).
Maybe "codes of the form (X:Y)" instead of "parenthetical codes"? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this formulation: The codes of the form (X:Y) refer to number of random variables involved and the type of the distribution. For example (2:DC) means: two random variables, discrete or continuous. Other codes are just abbreviations for topics. The list of codes can be found in the table of contents. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it (as you can see on the page). We spent a few of Kbytes for discussion, but IMHO the concise intro is a good outcome :)
"Another option" discussed above is now implemented; abbreviations of topics are suppressed within their "home" sections. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reversion of rename
I have reverted the change of name to "List of probability theory topics" which was listed by someone as being "uncontroversial" (and then acted on in good faith). But this name-change clearly needs to be discussed. My reasons for opposing it is it that the contents are not a simple list, nor are even close to being one. There are complex coding issues for anyone trying to maintain the contents. The use of the name "List of probability theory topics" would prevent the creation of such a much-more-easily maintained list. If anyone does wany to renmae this then let's have a proper chance for others to discuss this by initiating a "controversial" move request. JA(000)Davidson (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Useful?
Is it useful to keep an article like this? It looks like it's hardly possible to keep it up to date. I thought we have categories for this purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]