Talk:97.5th percentile point

message: I was trying to find the exact value of this number and this article was really helpful - Thanks! 194.83.139.137 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: The article starts off as follows: "1.96 is the approximate value of the 97.5 percentile point of the normal distribution used in probability and statistics." Isn't this wrong? Shouldn't it say: "1.96 is the approximate value of the 97.5 percentile point minus the 2.5 percentile point of the normal distribution used in probability and statistics." 1.96 is meant to represent 1.96 SDs, not 1.96 SDs plus the 2.5 percentile point. Or have I misunderstood something?  — DemonicPartyHat<SUP> talk</SUP> 23:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error in leading sentence 

message: Is it 95% or 97.5% ? The text and picture seem to disagree.
67.90.236.98 (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This depends on if you are looking at a one-tailed or two-tailed test. 95% lies between -1.96 and 1.96, 97.5% lies between -infinity and 1.96.--Salix alba (talk): 22:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: As far as I know the 95% confidence interval corresponds to +/- 1.96 * SEM and not 1.96 * SD as it is stated in the article. As I am not a statistician, I have not edited the article. Aseedb (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: SD or SEM ?

message: I think that, in Mathematica, the correct function should be either
InverseCDF[NormalDistribution[0, 1], 0.975]
or
Quantile[NormalDistribution[0, 1], 0.975]
147.96.218.108 (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks. Qwfp (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematica 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. Although multiple titles and even deleting the entire page were suggested, the consensus is obvious that "1.96" is a bad title because the article isn't about the number 1.96 itself. A new RM may be proposed to hone down the title later. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 1.96 →  – I understand that this article is about the number, not necessarily the point itself. However, as per WP:NCNUM, "article titles consisting exclusively of both arabic numerals and separators (like hyphens) are discouraged for content pages. They should be either redirects or disambiguation pages." I find the title of this article to be quite unusual considering the topics that other numbers' articles usually cover, and that this one is narrowly about statistics. I would be potentially open to 1.96 (statistics), or Z-score of the 97.5th percentile as alternatives, but I think as it is, it's not clear that "1.96" is the clear, unambiguous name of this concept. Any other thoughts? - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 23:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 May 2022