Template talk:Modelling ecosystems

Template should follow navigation template standards
I fixed the following problems, however the changes were reverted. Please explain why, and indicate what was problem with proposed fixes or suggest other ways to fix these issues.

Zodon (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Suppressing the navbar (v d e) links makes this template much harder for editors to get to in order to view or edit it.  Having the v d e links is standard for templates.
 * 2) When this template is collapsed it appears as 2 headings, rather than the standard single heading.  This, combined with the lack of the navbar links makes it quite confusing.  (It looks on a page like two navboxes.)  Most navboxes collapse to a single entry.
 * 3) Navigation templates are supposed to be kept small in size - to that end, items should not be duplicated.  Duplicates of Ecological niche, Ecocline, Modelling ecosystems should be removed.


 * This template is so huge that it should probably be split (navigation templates are supposed to be at least moderately small). Splitting it into two (along the obvious dividing line between trophic and the rest) would easily solve issues 1 and 2 above.  It would also remove one of the duplications noted in number 3.  Zodon (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarify structure and labels
I revised the template to clarify the labels of some of the sections and to clarify the structure of the sections. However the changes were reverted. Please explain why, and suggest ways of addressing the problems.

Specifically:


 * Should not assume that the user is familiar with the technical jargon of a particular area. When it is easy to add clarification (without unduly expanding or complicating the template or tampering with article titles) it makes sense to do so.  Hence additions that trophic means food related, and that the component involved in "Landscape ecology" is space (or geography) help clarify the template.


 * The distinction between "other components" and "other" is not at all clear. Since the heading for other components actually links to non-trophic networks, changing that section name to other networks makes the distinction between the sections clearer.  (Changing the section name to non-trophic networks would also be a way of handling this, and would follow the principle that pipes should be avoided in navigation templates.)


 * Since there are two sections that deal with species (Species and Species Interactions), grouping them together, with a subheading for interactions, makes it clearer that both those sections deal with the same component.


 * This template may be too large - at best it is borderline.Navigation templates Introducing line wraps in the title means they take less space, leaving more space for the content.  This helps address the size problem a little.  Zodon (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed reformulation

 * Well this is certainly a radical remodelling of the template. But can you explain why your changes are significant improvements? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think WP is missing a template on general Ecology topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.101.125.249 (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed... but that is not a reason to pull apart the ecosystem template. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Clarify title
Can you please clarify this title. I and I think most readers will have no idea what it means or what contents to expect in this navbox. Thanks, Tom (LT) (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)