Talk:Aquarium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Aquarium is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Aquarium appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 28, 2005.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Zoo, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.

This article is within the scope of the Aquarium Fishes WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Could someone please write somwthing on freshwater aquariums? I need it urgently.

Contents

[edit] Popularization of Aquariums in Europe

I've heard that different types of livebearers (mollies, swordtails; no hybrids) were taken to Europe in the early 19th century in tin cups. Anyone have a source that might support this claim? (SeanMcG 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

No. Look for the date of the first scientific description of the guppy. Some early shipments from the mid-Amazon were made by steamship. More satisfactory were the early air flights. The first neon tetras went to Paris in the 1930s. Here's a good source for the livebearers. --Wetman 01:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review comments

Here is the discussion on Peer review regarding this article:

It's a lovely article, and very useful, but could someone please write something about freshwater aqaria? I've done lots of work on this article (several weeks ago at this point), but would like some feedback on it, specifically on organization and what information might be better relegated to other articles. Also, I harbor fantastic dreams of featured article-ness, so any help in moving in that direction would be greatly appreciated! Bantman 02:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • It still seems a bit sketchy. I'd like to see more info about problems: new tank syndrome, breaking-in aquaria, ammonia/nitrate conversion, how biological filters work, pH buffering, aquarium cleaning, mulm, stocking (fish per m3) etc. It should introduce aquarium concepts and issues, not just provide an overview of different types. A diagram of a home aquarium would be very useful. And lots more photos: this is the perfect venue for beautiful aquarium images. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've added in a section on tank ecology adressing the nitrogen cycle and biological loading. I agree re: pictures and diagrams, but I don't have any myself and doubt my ability to actually produce them. Please, anybody out there, contribute! Bantman 21:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yep, that's looking a lot better. Try Public domain image resources#Fish or pdphoto for aquarium fish images, otherwise Google for public domain images—there's a fair number of academic resources for wildlife. (Unlike weight training, dammit!)[[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 03:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest two areas for change. First is under the "Aquarium Design" paragraph, in the "Filtration System:" bullet. I would replace "nitrates" with "nitrogenous wastes" (like ammonia and nitrite). The biological filtration provided by the vast majority of commercially available filters do little or nothing to reduce nitrates. This is pretty clearly indicated in the "Nitrogen Cycle" section.
Speaking of the "Nitrogen Cycle" section (para. 2)...based on the literature available (such as here, here, and here), it appears that Nitrobacter has been replaced by Nitrospira as the key player in the reduction of nitrites.
If I should be making these changes myself, I apologize. I've not yet edited a page for which peer review has been requested. Red Goat 00:37, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions and excellent references. I have made the appropriate changes, and you have also kick-started the next effort for the page - references! Bantman 04:12, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
I think the lead would benefit from a little more along the lines of "an aquarium can vary in size from a small household goldfish bowl to a massive structure which holds xxxxx billion gallons of water, etc..." and "use can vary from hobby and educational to scientific experimental applications etc..." Obviously the preceding isn't the text to use, but such would round out the lead a bit better IMHO. Vaoverland 03:42, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
Interesting article. I quite like it! Issues I'd like to see resolved, though, before it becomes FA status are as follows:
  • The lead section needs expanding, especially for an article of this size. My suggestion is to very briefly summarise pertinent top level sections and add another paragraph to it. For instance, a few sentences on the history of the aquarium would be good, then a few sentences on the info you have in "Modern Aquaria", then stuff on Aquarium ecology would be nice.
  • There are too many bullet points in the article. I would suggest converting many of them to prose.
  • Are the sections organised well? For instance, I initially thought the section "Modern Aquaria" should go into the history part. Put then I realised that it's dealing with facts about aquariums. I think the page needs a bit of reorganisation, but I don't know enough about the subject matter to help here.
  • I have added Sydney Aquarium to the list of aquariums.
  • Sources: surely you used more than one source? There must be aquarium books about if there are several million enthusiasts. Also, when you cite your sources try to use the Wikipedia format.
So this is interesting and seems be well researched. I can see a lot of time and effort has gone into it! But I think it still needs a bit more work. I think this will most definitely get there though. It might even get to the main page. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
TBSDY, I've tried to address all of your points. I would like to invite all you Wikipedian aquarists out there to please contribute some pictures of your tanks! Also, I've put down a few references, but I'd appreciate help from others contributing works they've found helpful, as I know there are tons of books out there on the topic. I'd appreciate another look at the remodelling work I've done to see if the text can be fixed up some more. Thanks. Bantman 03:03, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
Wow! That's fantastic work... you really have taken all my suggestions on board! I think that's awesome :-) However, it almost makes me feel churlish for saying this, but now the lead section is too long. Doh! Can we shift it to no more than three info packed paragraphs? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You flatter me :) I've done my best to craft the lead section into three not-overly-long paragraphs, added a couple pictures from other wiki articles I linked to, and made some other very minor edits to the text. I greatly appreciate all your help. Is there anything else that needs cleaning up before moving to FAC? I hope that once it's there we can get some pictures of people's home aquaria contributed, and perhaps an illustration of the nitrogen cycle (the one from that article isn't appropriate), or a schematic diagram of a home aquarium. I, for one, am hopeless with the graphics end of things. Bantman 22:59, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
I think the article is really good. I re-read the 3 lead paragraphs, and while they are a bit long fro a lead section, there is no fluff. They left me wanting to read the whole article. Vaoverland 06:56, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minimum size proportionate for a fish

Yet another rule of the thumb used by aquarist for dealing with biological loading and to create a self sustaining ecosystem in an aquarium is the cubic principle. This is also a rule of the thumb, like the 1 gallon per-inch rule of the thumb (generally used). However neither of them has been empirically validated, (which is why they are rule of thumb). And hence maybe both could be mentioned instead of just one.

The cubic principle:

The minimum gallons of water for a fish in a home aquarium is the cube of the fish in inches. Thus if the fish is x inches, then the total number of gallons needed for the fish is x 3 gallons of water. Eg: for a 5 inches fish, the minimum number of gallons for the fish is 5 3 = 5x5x5 = 125 gallons.

The minimum distribution of water for a single fish is x 2. Thus if there are 125 gallons of water in a home aquarium or fish tank, then the number of 5 inches fish that can be put in the fish tank is x3/x 2 = 125/25 = 5 fishes. Similarly the number of 4 inches fishes that could be put in the same tank would be 125/16 = 7 fishes, or one could put combination of 2 five inches fishes and four 4 inches fishes.

The minimum length of the tank for a fish is 1 feet for every inch, so the minimum length for a 1 inch fish is 1 feet, while for a 5 inches fish is 5 feet. Robin klein 20:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Robin, This is a general article on aquaria, and I believe that it is not appropriate to discuss several rules of thumb on this subtopic. In this case, the most common (which is thoroughly obvious by checking reference websites and books) suffices, as it is merely an illustration of the broad topic of biological loading. If you'd like to include your rule somehwere, I'd suggest:

  1. finding a reference to substantiate it (otherwise we don't know that it's not your personal rule of thumb that you invented, which is both non-notable and original research... two reasons not to include anywhere on wp);
  2. starting a new article to discuss it in, with a link from the aquarium article, so that it can be discussed in appropriate length without becoming overly large and detracting from the main article; and
  3. figuring out a better way to describe it... the current language is very confusing and probably misleading.

Bantman 01:18, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thinking this through based on air-water gas exchange and fish requirements, fish flesh (weight or volume) should be proportional to the surface area of the tank. You can tweak that a bit based on fish activity, plants, and I believe pH. You can greatly increase the fish if you have a cold-water aquarium (cold water holds oxygen better) or air-breathing fish like the Siamese fighting fish and dwarf gourami. AlbertCahalan 07:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Caption

I went ahead and added a link to China in the caption of the koi pond photo. I decided to link to the People's Republic of China, rather than China (which comes up as Chinese Civilization) just because it parallels with the Japan article, which is about the modern nation of Japan. No problems there? NPPyzixBlan 22:28, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical fish

Currently Tropical fish forwards to this article. Does everyone like this? Shawnc 14:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Tropical fish probably deserves its own article -- the term presumably includes fish found in tropical enviornments around the world, and not just those involved in the aquarium trade! - Bantman 19:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The assumption was probably that the term is typically used in the context of an aquarium. It's been made into its article, for now. Shawnc 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

I know Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, but should we discuss the usage of plural form in this article? Do we REALLY want to be using "aquariums" in addition to "aquaria"? Shouldn't we just pick one and use it exclusively? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I have no strong feelings on the matter, if both terms are equally acceptable and in common use, there's no harm in using them interchangeably. I'd be happy to hear a more enlightened opinion, however (backed by a style guide, all the better!). - Bantman 20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, you want me to do legwork and find a style guide that covers this!?!?!? ;) Heh, I just figured that we should mention at the top that there are two plural forms (as we do) but then pick one and stick with it throughout the article body. The flip-flopping back and forth is sort of irritating. Actually, the only place "aquariums" seems to be used is in the link section at the moment. Maybe I should just Be Bold and get rid of them. In fact, I think I shall. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top image

An editor recently switched the top image for the page from the monterey bay aquarium picture (which he moved further down the article to the public aquaria section), and replaced it with an image from the Georgia aquarium. Although both are representative, I think the monterey aquarium pic is more striking and thus better suited for the top image. But, I wanted to take a straw poll and see what image people think should be the top one. - Bantman 22:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Monterery bay aquarium - representative and striking. - Bantman 22:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Georgia Aquarium. Sorry, that was me. ;) I do think that both were good, and I'd be happy to leave it at the top, but I guess I'm biased towards the GA Aquarium pic. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 03:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Georgia Aquarium - Ocean Voyager Tunnel Jan 2006.jpg. I think this is the best of the lot, the people in your other Georgia aquarium are too prominent --Fir0002 22:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Public Aquaria

Since public aquaria are large facilities that are very similar to zoos (in the U.S., both may be accredited by the AZA) and since they seem to be becoming more common, I think public aquaria should rate their own page. Also a list of public aquaria could be included. Thoughts? Ginkgo100 23:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I guess I missed that there already is a List of aquaria. Nevertheless, I still support a separate page for public aquaria. Ginkgo100

[edit] Self-Maintaining Home Aquarium Merger

I am suggesting that any useful or relevant information that might be found in the "Self-Maintaining Home Aquarium" article that isn't already in the "Aquarium" article be merged, and the "Self-Maintaining Home Aquarium" be deleted as it seems redundant, and extremely un-encyclopedic to me. I am very new to Wikipedia, and therefore am hesitant to do it myself. ONUnicorn 21:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're right that Self-maintaining Home Aquarium is not a good Wikipedia article. In particular, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual (see Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not. Rather than merging with the already-long Aquarium article, maybe S.M.H.A. could be moved elsewhere, like Wikibooks. Ginkgo100 04:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mr. Ginkgo - there is very little to salvage from that article. Even if Wiki was a how-to; that's fairly pedestrian how-to. My vote would be to keep Aquarium as is, and propose deletion fo SMHA. Thanks for pointing that article out - interesting that it's been here so long. Kuru talk 04:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Reference Removed

"*http://www.ems.org/marine_aquarium_trade/aquarists_profile.html Retrieved January 10, 2005."

Dead link, and nothing that I could see at the site anymore that related to anything to do with aquaria, but information on what appears to be a Washington Lobbying group. Feel free to delete this reference to it if there is no redeeming value. Mccabem 01:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links section

I added a cleanup template to this ever-expanding section. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links (WP:NOT, and according to WP:EL, these do not fall under the guidelines of occasionally acceptable links. Most of these links were added to promote various sites, most often by spammers who are not registered users. I propose removing the section entirely, or alternatively, leaving a maximum of two or three of the best. WP:EL also suggests a link to a list of links would be more appropriate than hosting the list on Wikipedia. Ginkgo100 13:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the external links sections should be removed altogether from the site. Although some of the links currently posted are quite good, many are sub-standard and a few are simply commercial link farms. Wikipedia has an excellent Google pagerank on this page, so it's quite valuable to tropical fish websites to be in the Wikipedia list, but it's too complex to try to rate them all. Through my own two tropical fish sites (which aren’t in the listings), I'm aware of 32 information sites, 11 fish profile sites, 39 online stores, 27 forums and 85 tropical fish clubs. You can easily find the best ones by searching for “tropical fish” on search engines, so there’s no need for Wikipedia to provide this service.Tim
I chose five sites based on my own subjective criteria of professional appearance, content, and minimal advertising. If anyone wants to cut them down further, I have no problem with that. If anyone wants to add a link, I am likely to revert it. Sorry, spammers. There's no justification for making this article a link farm. --Ginkgo100 23:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MAT System

I've removed the section on the "MAT system" for calcing bioload. I'm concerned about the original research aspect of it (see WP:OR) since there were no cites and I could not locate any easily. I'm also not sure we need a real long 'how to' section for that topic in any case. Let's discuss here a little more before re-adding it. Kuru talk 18:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/q/u/Talk%7EAquarium_8b3d.html"