Talk:Ecological pyramid

Untitled

If anyone has any better pictures, please use them. As I stated in the picture descriptions, I am no artist when it comes to computer graphics.--Marty 10:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page appeared to be more or less cut and pasted from the external link. As such it made reference to things that were not in this article (a previous example with aphids and trees was alluded to half way through, for example). In addition to this apparent plagiarism, the distinction between mass and energy in trophic pyramids is not the significant one. The important distinction is between pyramids which show the mass (or energy) at a single point in time (g or cal / m^2) versus those that show productivity or turnover (g or cal / m^2 / year). The article as previously written confused these two ideas. I have rewritten it accordingly, and may work on it some more to reduce the phrasing similarities with the linked page. Cheers, Justinleif 00:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Castilloalanis00.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New figures

I like the new figures! Thanks, Gailwin. Tertiary, however, is misspelled in the figure (as terciary). Also, the article probably doesn't need both versions, since they differ only in their titl. Cheers, Justinleif 17:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Spelling in both diagrams

Please change the spelling "terciary" to "tertiary" in both diagrams. -- Wavelength 07:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling used in charts

In the charts, the word "tertiary" is still misspelled.--Editor2020 (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Pyramid of Energy sh zould vxzxvcxvxxredirect here.

food pyramid

The revert of all my careful and well sourced copyedit efforts has returned an introduction that is incomprehensible to most readers.

As bad is the fact that now the article title again violates WP:RECOGNIZABLE. The revert argument "the article is also about ecological pyramids of productivity" doesn't provide a reason for not having an article called "food pyramid" with some addition in parentheses (such as "ecology" or "food chain") to distinguish it from food pyramid (nutrition). If information about ecological pyramids of productivity doesn't fit into an article with a title such as food pyramid (ecology) or something similar, then it needs to be put in a new, separate article.

The terms now listed first in the article are not in even the largest general dictionaries (see onelook.com) and completely unknown to probably more than 99% of readers and probably to more than 90% of people with a bachelor's degree. Most people have heard of food chains and many have heard of the associated food pyramid, so Wikipedia policy clearly requires an article on this topic. --Espoo (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't follow due process. You should move pages like this only after you have read the relevant guidelines, WP:Moving a page and WP:Requested moves. These state that you can move the page yourself if the "desired move is uncontroversial and technical in nature (e.g. spelling and capitalization)", but if "someone could reasonably disagree with the move" you should follow the process for requesting a potentially controversial move. That means opening the issue up for discussion on the appropriate notice board as well as the talk page of the affected article.

You say you made "careful and well sourced copyedit efforts". But you provided only one source, and that was a dictionary. You seem to think Wikipedia science articles should be guided by populist dictionaries. However, much better sources can be found in peer reviewed journals and academic textbooks. The issue is not whether ecological pyramids are sometimes called food pyramids. The issue is what is the most appropriate name for the article.

You seem to favour "food pyramid" because you think it sounds familiar. I invite you to examine the first 100 google hits on the term, and see how many of them are to do with ecological pyramids. By my count, every single hit is about nutritional pyramids, and only two hits even mention the ecological concept of a pyramid (one a thesaurus and the other a dictionary). The same pattern continues if you examine further google hits. To hit pay dirt, you must google on "ecological pyramid" or "trophic pyramid" or "energy pyramid". For relevant sources, examine these hits in Google Books, and for yet better sources again, examine these hits in Google Scholar. Yes, the article can be better written. But the issue of the moment is explaining why I reverted when you awkwardly and inappropriately changed the name, without seeking consensus, to Food pyramid (food chain). --Epipelagic (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

What is the purpose of the italics throughout the article? I don't see such usage anywhere else in Wikipedia. --Polinizador (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures mismatch sections and captions

By Mass and By Population numbers, the first one seems like an accurate description of what was below, but the one that says population numbers shows biomass and seems like it should be where the other image is ThatOneLooksSoSad (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]