File talk:Population curve.svg

Wouldn't it be better to have this graph on a logarithmic scale? The granularity with this scale is pretty useless for anything other than seeing the overall trend.

anybody know where the data behind this chart is? I once saw this chart with discriptors of the peaks and valleys aligned with catastrophies (war, pest, ...) but I have never been able to find it again

-

I think that this graph is misleading. It should've been shown from like 500 BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.133.33 (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I agree, it is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.128.206 (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

-

Insignificant, I know, but I find it hilarious that description tag in the SVG file says "Usage share of Netscape Navigator." 68.59.28.147 (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The main use of the graph is to show the overall trend and that is what makes it's content especially relevant to the lead of the overpopulation article. I think that the use of a logarithmic scale would be totally inappropriate.  That kind of scale might be appropriate in an article related to fertility rates or birth rates but not when getting population levels in perspective.  Gregkaye (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Time frame
Its suggested above that the time frame used is misleading. I guess there are advantages to any time frame used. For instance: the 10th millennium BC marks the beginning of the Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic periods. Neolithic time, beginning about 10,200 BC, starts at roughly the same time. Perhaps alternate start dates might include: ~3300 BC, the beginning of the Bronze Age or ~1200 BC, the beginning of the Iron age. I personally don't think that a time scale would be misleading as long as it is indicated clearly. Gregkaye (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)