This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Statistics Low‑importance This redirect 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 Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The content of the Randomized block designRandomized block design page was merged into Blocking (statistics) on 9 January 2018, and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article, please see its history.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors: [[Blocking (statistics)#Randomized block design]] The anchor (#Randomized block design) has been deleted. The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

"engineers at a semiconductor manufacturing facility want to test whether different wafer implant material dosages have a significant effect on resistivity measurements after a diffusion process taking place in a furnace" Is that Really the simplest example that we could of come up with? wouldn't something like pigs on a farm be better?--Hypo Mix (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for this! pigs on a farm, please! 69.229.153.102 (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very close to one in the "external links section": http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pri/section3/pri332.htm

Is this page a copy of the linked-to-page page, or is the linked-to-page a copy of the Wikipedia page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerkmonster (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 July 2009

It seems like a lot of DoE articles copied material from the NIST handbook, which has a lot of errors itself. (Before I fixed it, there were similar paragraphs on "computer generated" design in the optimal design article, which were also flawed.) You may wish to warn the Wikipedia Statistics project about the plagiarism issue. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that publications of NIST are not in the public domain? Btyner (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copying or paraphrasing (without giving clear credit) is plagiarism, although I suppose that plagiarizing public-domain documents need not be legally actionable. (Having a NIST-bug at the bottom of the page stating that the article incorporates NIST material is inadequate, imho.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Plagiarism:

Material from public domain and free sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed. The text may be treated as copyright material in which case attribution should be made in the same way as it is for copyrighted material. But the source can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim providing it meets the Wikipedia content policies. If this is done then be sure to cite the source, and attribute the work through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page.

The NIST-PD attribution template conforms to this guideline. Please see Category:United States government attribution templates. Best, Btyner (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, and apologize for writing without familiarizing myself with the Wikipedia guidelines, with which this article complies. Thanks for your good humor. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I guess I hadn't internalized the guidelines. Thanks for the discussion. Jerkmonster (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate, the other is more developed Yikkayaya (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that they should be merged, but note that Blocking (statistics) is a more general concept, and that Randomized block design is a specific (common) application of this general statistical method. Therefore, suggest a merge in the reverse direction, keeping Randomized block design as a section and simplifying it to avoid duplication. Klbrain (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Klbrain (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]