Talk:Marine aquarium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Fishes and is associated with the Fish Portal.

This article, though generous in the information it provides (I provided the history), needs to be cleaned up to English that is acceptable for Wikipedia and an Encyclopedia context.

Contents

[edit] Salinity and specific gravity

Can someone knowledgable redo the part in the "Water Testing" section that deals with salinity and specific gravity? Mainly noting that SG is temperature dependent and getting correct values for the ppt. Usually the number given for reefs, at least, is 34-36 ppt (see here eg.http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-05/rhf/index.php). The range for saltwater given in the article is 28-32 ppt.

[edit] Scientific Bias in Marine Aquaria?

I believe the bias I see in nearly all the marine aquarium articles on Wikipedia disappointing. The science behind marine aquariums is not in any way shape or form 'more advanced' than the science behind the freshwater aquarium, specifically the freshwater planted aquarium. Freshwater planted aquariums have advanced greatly, implementing the use of carbon dioxide through diffusers/reactors, the careful balance of fertilizers (nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium), regulation of plant appearance and growth through lighting/fertilization, and even substrate choices. In many ways, planted aquariums are every bit as difficult to maintain as the reef. I think the language should be modified to account for that.

"The science behind marine aquariums is not in any way shape or form 'more advanced' than the science behind the freshwater aquarium, specifically the freshwater planted aquarium"
Yes, it is. 85.138.0.158 18:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern and you should feel free to edit out unreferenced or unverifiable sentences as you discover them, according to WP:NOR and WP:V. As for this particular marine aquarium article, I could find no mention of marine aquariums being "more advanced" than freshwater ones. BFD1 23:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The original observation was made about three months ago and corrected at that time. The author did not time/date stamp his comment. Kuru talk 23:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Makes sense now; thanks. BFD1 23:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Language Edit.

Completed the major language edit I requested myself. -Exsequor

[edit] gee, I hope I did this right. minor changes/additions

Here is something I think needs a review:

"A Marine aquarium is an aquarium that keeps marine plants and animals in a contained environment."

It would be more correct if it read:

"A Marine aquarium is an aquarium that keeps marine algae and animals in a contained environment." While it is true some aquarists keep plants, like mangroves and eelgrasses, algae are not plants, but... well, algae.

I think it would be nice if all units (gallons) were also in liters. There is one (am I being picky? :) ). See first sentence under Marine fishkeeping history.

I would also add as reference for further reading:

A PocketExpert Guide to Marine Invertebrates, by Ronald L. Shimek Aquarium Corals: Selection, Husbandry, and Natural History, by Eric Borneman

External links might benefit from these: www.reefs.org www.advancedaquarist.com www.reefkeeping.com

Last edit added a store (tropicalfishstore) to the linksection. Is that allowed ? Seem like marketing to me. Cygnus78 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaned up commercial links

The External links section was getting to be bloated with links to commericial shops. I tried to be conservative with my deletions, but someone who is more knowledgeable in this area might be able to whittle down further to the best external sources of information. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mergefrom Reef aquarium

The article on Reef aquarium is much smaller and less detailed, but shares much in common with this article. My thinking is that it should be merged into this one. Thoughts or ideas? Mmoyer 18:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I say no, absolutely not. Reef tanks and marine aquariums are increasingly different, and if I read an article on reef tanks, I don't want to dig through alot of useless information.

I concur. Reef aquaria are a very specific - and more complex - subset of marine aquaria that deserve special mention. The much broader article on marine systems, while accurate, doesn't really do it justice, and the separate article is well-warranted, imho.

I agree with the motion to merge. The Reef aquarium article is in bad shape. Take the good bits, add it to this article, and scrap anything that is not rigorously referenced or just plain redundant. Furthermore, while it is possible to have a marine aquarium that is not a reef aquarium, it is not possible to have a reef aquarium that is not a marine aquarium. As such, reef aquaria should be captured in the marine aquarium article. Treat it as a subset, give it special mention, give it justice - you can do these things within the broader article on the Marine aquarium. Readers will benefit greatly from the merge - for one thing, it will give them a chance to discover that "reef" and "marine" are not synonymous. This would be a good thing. BFD1 23:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. No clear concensus. If the two articles were to remain separate then I'd probably want to see some of the redundant material removed from Reef aquarium and a reference back to this article as the main. Still, I really think they could be merged cleanly and all the links cleaned up, and I concur with BFD1 that it would be much more reader friendly. Also, it's been two months and only three opinions posted. Thoughts?? Mmoyer 02:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Got your usertalk message, however I'm here because of some spamlink - I'm a complete outsider to the topic, I'm afraid. But maybe an outside view is just what you need. I'd merge the content from nano reef into reef aquarium, this should give it enough volume as a distinct subtopic to marine aquarium. Femto 18:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that this article link to Reef aquarium as a subset of marine aquariums. Even the term Reef aquarium is somewhat misleading since there are may 'types' of reef aquariums (due to species compatibility and care requirments). To discuss all of the subsets of marine aquariums in this article would make it very lengthy. Aernoth 23:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I just removed all external links for the reason that they seem indescriminate and unnecessary to the article. What is their purpose? What do they add to the article, and is their addition in keeping with Wikipedia's stated objectives and policies? Some criteria need to be examined before we readmit links to forums or non-peer-reviewed articles into an "external links" section. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory nor is it a collection of indescriminate information. Moving forward, why don't we use this talk page to reach consensus on the inclusion of select external links on a case-by-case basis. By being more selective we will set a positive example which discourages any old anonymous user from adding a link to their brand new fish forum to this article. Thanks and let's get this right! BFD1 22:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to add a link to Wikipedia's External Links guideline. BFD1 22:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Solid reasoning. In case this needs a second opinion or moral support, here it is. Femto 12:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Added an external link to the relevant marine section of {{dmoz}}. MidgleyDJ 21:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subjectivve statement

"an effect prized by aquarists" on the issue of glimmer lines produced by metal halides.

how many aquarists were polled? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.97.233.249 (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC).