Talk:Automated machine learning

Is this article "too technical" to understand?
I'm not sure if I understand the purpose of these cleanup tags on this article. Can you explain why you added them here? Jarble (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies if my tags were unclear. The way the lead is written, using terms like "dataset amenable for machine learning" seem to distract from what the Automated Machine Learning actually is. I've worked around machine learning plenty of times, but I am in no way an expert. Perhaps it's simply the lead does not summarize well enough to communicate concisely what the article is talking about?
 * Also, what originally drew my attention to the article was the long list of external links to companies/organizations that specialize in machine learning. It seems to be turning into a link farm more than an article.
 * Thanks for following up. - PabloMartinez (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

== This blog do not clarify the difference among machine learning ,deep learning and it's heading topic automated machine learning ,does automated machine learning has has a auto tuning feature .The application domain is also not discussed in comprehensive manner ==

This blog should be revised Amrendra kumar karn (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Worthless blog
Confusing statement Amrendra kumar karn (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

List of AutoML tools
regarding your reverts, can you, please, cite the rule that prohibits creating a list of tools in Wikipedia? There are plenty of articles like that in Wikipedia already: UML tools, List of raster graphics editors, List of software for nuclear engineering, List of theorem provers, etc.

Also, please, note: unlike in some of such lists, which reference primary sources, my list references only secondary reliable sources. I was careful to include only tools which are mentioned in such good quality sources. And some of this literature is specifically dedicated to the topic of comparing different AutoML tools.

I think, it's pretty obvious: if there is a body of scientific literature about some topic, that topic can and should be covered in Wikipedia. Even if in a form of a plain list. --Amakuha (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Standalone lists of notable articles are a far cry from embedding a list of tools into an article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it should not cover anything and everything that can be sourced. MrOllie (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please provide a specific rule that makes you think that deleting well-referenced material from Wikipedia is OK. I read the rule WP:NOTCATALOG and I didn't find anything in there that prohibits to list software tools on Wikipedia. --Amakuha (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please provide a specific rule that makes you think that deleting well-referenced material from Wikipedia is forbidden. You've been on Wikipedia for long enough to know that sourcing is not all there is to it. MrOllie (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's very simple. Content is added to Wikipedia according to notability guidelines. The main notability rule is presence of "multiple reliable independent secondary sources". I believe, the content I added is notable, as it has a body of scientific literature dedicated to it.
 * There are also WP:DEL-REASONS that the person deleting something should cite. Otherwise, the deletion action looks unfounded.
 * And, please, don't make it WP:PERSONAL. --Amakuha (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability applies to the creation of entire articles, it does not apply to content within an article. Similarly, the deletion policy you have linked is about the deletion of entire articles. MrOllie (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right. There is WP:NLISTITEM which, basically, says that items on the lists inside Wikipedia articles do not necessarily have to be notable by themselves (see WP:LISTCRIT). This is rather a relaxation of the notability requirement specifically for the lists.
 * In the case we are dealing with, "Comparison of AutoML tools" meets WP:GNG and so not only a section of the main article is warranted for this topic, but a entire new list article (even if individual AutoML tools might not meet WP:GNG). And the question of whether this information must be in a separate article or come in a section of this "parent" article is whole other question.
 * However, how can this topic grow into a separate list article if you keep deleting this section from the "parent" article without providing any good reason? --Amakuha (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My reason is that this Wikipedia article (like most Wikipedia articles) is not improved by including a list of related tools. We're not making a directory here. A list of names of tools does not help to explain this topic to the unfamiliar reader who is our primary audience. I do not believe that this list should grow into a separate list article, so difficulty in accomplishing that does not particularly bother me. MrOllie (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Wikipedia is a reference material which is used, in part, by professional software developers like myself. Seeing a list of tools with references to scientific articles comparing these tools would help me in my professional work (e.g., to find a tool that would best fit my needs). This is kinda whole point of list articles and comparison articles for software tools on Wikipedia.
 * In my eyes, it still looks like your deletion is unwarranted. Let's agree to revert your edit? Or do you prefer arbitration by a third party? --Amakuha (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a resource to help you find a tool that would assist in your work, that is the essence of WP:NOT. I continue to disagree with your addition of a list to this article. MrOllie (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe, this opinion is mistaken on two arguments.
 * Firstly, the listing was not "simple". It was part of an article about a kind of software. Thus "encyclopedic merit" was shown.
 * Secondly, WP:NLIST specifically says that it's not necessary for these tools to have their own articles. Lists about topics, which don't have stand-alone articles, are all too common on Wikipedia. Some examples:
 * List of datasets for machine-learning research
 * List of minor planets: 24001–25000
 * List of Friends and Joey characters.
 * Finally, as I already said, the list deserves to be a stand-alone article. Per WP:NLIST: "...a list topic is considered notable ... if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".
 * However, I accept this ruling and will avoid listing software examples here directly. --Amakuha (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * However, I accept this ruling and will avoid listing software examples here directly. --Amakuha (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age
— Assignment last updated by Fedfed2 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

A section on misconceptions
I believe the term AutoML somehow takes away the nuances associated with ML development. Would it make sense to add a section to also describe that AutoML != One click ML development? Thatgeeman (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)