Talk:List of statistical software

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Statistics Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

I think the software list from the main statistics article should be merged into List of statistical packages. It's of limited relevance to the main statistics article. Not sure of the protocol for this so I won't do it myself!

Comparison of statistical packages[edit]

(Table by User:Alexeysim06 moved to Comparison of statistical packages)e='font-size:12.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>++

This is a good starting point for Comparison of statistical packages & I encourage you to refer to Help:Table to clean this up and start that article. This will need to be broken up into smaller tables, internal wiki-links should be used for all product names & the external URL column should be removed. The price should probably be the MSRP. The "package type" column is a bit awkward, as is the use of two pluses for some fo this. But, as I said, this is important information. --Karnesky 20:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments! I've started comparison chapter, but have some problems.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexeysim06 (talk • contribs)

I've wikified the ANOVA portion. Please look at the formatting & use this for the rest of the table. Also, please move discussion to the talk page of the comparison. --Karnesky 18:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like another categorization would be whether the software can be run on the internet or must be installed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.111.5.34 (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add-ons[edit]

Any thoughts on a good treatment for things that are "add-ons" rather than stand-alone, things. For example would it be good to have grouped lists of add-ons for R and Excel, rather than having them in the main lists? I guess the same question arises in the "comparison" article. Melcombe (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Wikipedia:Merging

I propose that List of statistical packages be merged into Comparison of statistical packages. The content of the List article is mostly already listed within the Comparison article's tables. Any missing information could be easily transferred from the List, staying well within the context of the Comparison. To be thorough, all that primarily needs to be added to Comparison from List is a new column for a synopsis of each package. And adding any packages not already in the Comparison, of course. JimsMaher (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea! It is not clear to have 2 lists involving different softwares, these article should definitely be merged. DavidBr (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]