Talk:Relative species abundance

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ecology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Statistics Low‑importance This article 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Are there really some people who are not offended by something like the following?

${\displaystyle \alpha \,\!x}$, ${\displaystyle {\alpha \,\!x^{2} \over {2}}}$, ${\displaystyle {\alpha \,\!x^{3} \over {3}}}$,…,${\displaystyle {\alpha \,\!x^{n} \over {n}}}$

I changed this to the following, which is standard usage both within Wikipedia and elsewhere, both before Wikipedia existed and in the present day:

${\displaystyle \alpha ,{\alpha \,\!x^{2} \over 2},{\alpha \,\!x^{3} \over 3},\dots ,{\alpha \,\!x^{n} \over n}}$

Also, obviously when you write

x + 2 = y

where

x is the number of eggs

[etc.]

the word "where" is NOT the beginning of a new sentence; it's part of the same sentence that was already underway. I've seen this weird usage only in Wikipedia, in which a period follows the equation, then a capital initial W is used in "where". Are there people who think it should be done that way, or is that some weird sort of absent-mindedness somehow induced by Wikipedia?

The redirect Gather relative abundance data has been listed at