Talk:Generalized chi-squared distribution

Suggestions
Melcombe, this is a great start. I would suggest renaming this to "Generalizations of the chi-square distribution". Then we could have sections on various types of generalizations. We could also include gamma, Erlang, and noncentral chi-square as other sections, with main templates for each of those sections, and also a section for the generalization currently in chi-square distribution. The idea is that then someone looking for a particular generalization of chi-square could come to this page if he doesn't remember exactly what a gamma distribution is, and quickly get pointed in the right direction. What do you think? --Zvika (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My search for online uses of the term suggested that many people are using the term the (my emphasis) generalized chi-square distribution (without giving a specific form or reference) which suggests that there should logically be an article with that title, just as for other distibutions. Perhaps another split/rename should wait until there is something more detailed about formulae for the distribution, etc.. But I do like the suggestion. Melcombe (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to make sure I understand, what do you think about the second part of the suggestion, i.e., having a section here for each type of generalization, including gamma and the like? --Zvika (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My second preference would be for separate articles "Generalizations of the chi-square distribution" and "generalized chi-square distribution", with the first containing your suggested collection of material and the second restricted to what the literature refers to as the generalized chi-square distribution. My first preference would be to have a section "Generalizations of the chi-square distribution" (with the material you suggest) in the chi-square distribution article itself. Melcombe (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But in that case, shouldn't the lead of this article reflect the fact that we think that there is only one generalized chi-square distribution? The way it reads now makes it sounds like there are many generalized chi-square distributions and you arbitrarily chose one of them. --Zvika (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)