 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Missing completely at random page were merged into Missing data on 12 May 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
.svg){kind=small} |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Ironically, this article is missing information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.90.156 ( talk • contribs)
The section on questions to ask about missing data seems more appropriate to an undergraduate research methods text than to an encyclopedia. Randomactsofaffect ( talk) 18:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Macr86 ( talk) 02:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Missing values → Missing data — I believe 'missing data' is the more common term than 'missing values' for this topic in statistics. E.g. compare number and citation counts of Google Scholar hits for articles with "missing data" in the title to hits for articles with "missing values" in the title. -- Qwfp ( talk) 10:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
A remarkably quick closure of a so-called discussion. An obvious question would have been, and still is, what to do about
Category:Missing values .
Melcombe (
talk) 14:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, this was closed too quickly. It is not the only (or the most) controversial close by this editor. I agree with Qwfp's reason for the move, though. I'd support moving the category too. -- Avenue ( talk) 22:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have place a cfr request for renaming the category. Melcombe ( talk) 16:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The reference list starts off with numbers and then goes to dots. I don't know how to fix this, but it doesn't look right. PeterLFlomPhD ( talk) 20:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)