Talk:Aquarium

	Aquarium is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 28, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted May 6, 2007 Featured article review Demoted August 14, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Zoo This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries 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.ZooWikipedia:WikiProject ZooTemplate:WikiProject ZooZoo articles Aquarium Fish articles 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.Aquarium FishesWikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium FishesTemplate:WikiProject Aquarium FishesAquarium Fishes articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Aquarium therapy page were merged into Aquarium. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (July 2018)

I would like to point out that the function of an air pump as stated in the third paragraph under Design, is to circulate the water and thus providing more airation rather than airating the water as to be presumed in the quote form the article: "Air pumps are employed to adequately oxygenate (or in the case of a heavily planted aquarium, provide carbon dioxide to) the water." in case of CO2 disolved CO2 is used. I have not edited the article itself because I do not have sources and would like to put this edit up for discussion Czar 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another edit that perhaps should be made: Under 'Aquarium History', the article claims that ancient Romans first kept glass aquaria. There's no citation for this, and I can't find any evidence of it. (I've actually done as much research as my university library can offer.) It appears to me to be unlikely that glass was being manufactured in ancient Rome at all, much less for aquaria. Does anyone know more about this? I'm no expert, just an obsessive researcher.

Is an aquarium under 150 litres really a mini aquarium? I would say a 140L aquarium would be considered by the average person to be very large, 60Lto 100L is around average? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:2B88:5700:C9F3:D176:7E1E:B836 (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article assumes that aquariums are predominately for keeping fish. However many hobbyist keep primarily planted aquariums, which may have only some or even no fish. The classifications section should include planted vs live fish aquariums. Applecommander (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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

weight training, dammit!)[[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\^talk

]] 03:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)[reply]

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)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Using "aquaria" as a plural is silly. Aquarium is the sort of word that has been incorporated into English for such a long time that it obeys English rules when it comes to the plural form. It should be "aquariums" everywhere. I would change it, but knowing this site, it would be reverted immediately without any argument why. 2A01:E0A:DC:3360:2C87:6078:5DD1:7882 (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Monterery bay aquarium - representative and striking. - Bantman 22:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Whoops, I guess I missed that there already is a

List of aquaria. Nevertheless, I still support a separate page for public aquaria. Ginkgo100

Exactly. This article called "Aquarium" should be called "Home Aquarium", and all the public aquarium information in the article culled and moved into Public Aquarium article User:wpostma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.14.38 (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wow, you're right that

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

"*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)[reply]

I added a cleanup template to this ever-expanding section. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links (

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)[reply]

I've removed the section on the "MAT system" for calcing bioload. I'm concerned about the original research aspect of it (see

A number of sections of this article should, in my opinion, be merged into Fishkeeping. They are sections regarding care of inhabitants of the aquarium. Not about aquariums per se. Does anyone object to this? MidgleyDJ 10:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the environmental impact section, I mostly agree that the current information can be discussed in Fishkeeping. However I think the Ecology section should stay, or perhaps be in its own article. It is true that it isn't about the aquarium machinery, but the species selection and ecology phenomena happen if you actually use aquariums for their intended purpose, making it rather important. Reef aquarium, for example, involves more than just maintaining fish, but also corals. Though not listed as an aquarium type, some people choose to have invertebrate specific aquariums as well, which may count as another type of species selection. MiltonT 14:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the articles Fishkeeping and Aquarium should be distinct. I'd suggest Aquarium be about public and research aquaria, and the issues concerned with these (e.g. tourism, breeding endangered species, keeping sea mammals in aquaria, etc.). The Fishkeeping article should be restricted to the hobby. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquarium is ambiguous on its own, in the context of the table of contents of an encyclopedia. I think Aquarium should be a disambiguation page. "Public Aquarium" is a whole article. "Home Aquarium" is another. User:Wpostma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.14.38 (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edited my previous comments in this section for brevity, as no objections to these edits noted. Joevanisland 02:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "...is a vivarium in a container" to remove aquarium as vivarium which is itself in another container. Removed "captivity" as redundant/animals in an aquarium can't be in the wild. Removed defining fish-keeping as the keeping of fish (self-evident/defined through link). Removed reptiles as kept in aquariums on the following logic an absence of water would make defining a glass container as an aqua-arium instead of a terra-arium illogical, and conflicts here defining aquarium as submerged environment. People make terrariums out of "fish tanks" but they don't house reptiles in "aquariums". Fixed the latin. Changed wording on heaters "designed to act as thermostats" to heating elements that incorporate thermostats to regulate them. Respectfully, Joevanisland 02:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago, the article made mention of spreadsheet programs being used in place of the general guidelines like the "inch per gallon" rule. Why was this taken out? It is definitely true that some aquarists are doing this, so why shouldn't wikipedia mention it? Will someone please help me understand why wikipedia is ignoring this emerging resource? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.99.147 (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this would need to be documented in a

undue weight on a topic that is not considered mainstream. Also, most links and sources are deprecated if they're unduly self-serving (such as being an advertisement for Excel or Quattro). If you believe it very important, dig up a source and cite it; if it's mainstream, it should be easy to find such a source. WLU (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, thank you for the reply. Also, it was originally posted with sources: [1] and [2]. The latter source links to a thread that includes a posted paper with additional sources of its own to justify the spreadsheet concept. Was there a problem with these sources? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.102.61 (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this article get to at least Good status, preferably back to featured. So, I've requested a Peer Review to give me an idea of what needs to be done... L'Aquatique[talk] 19:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

I wanted to ask for some help in determining if a link to The Aquarium Wiki would be appropriate or not. Obviously links for specific species of fish are relevant but I'm unsure of a link on this page.

Arjes (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that such a link would be very desirable. The External Links section is the place to do it. For that matter, I wonder if some further interaction with the Aquarium Fishes Project would also be useful? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I am going to look into having more reciprocal links between there and here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively new to Wikipedia (around a year active maybe) and have always loved maintaining an aquarium myself. Being familiar with the material, concerned about the quality of the article, and interested in learning/practicing some of the finer points of Wikipedia, I intend to attempt to bring this article back up to Good/FA status. Any help/input is appreciated. Cmiych (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I know my biggest weaknesses will be dealing with images and referencing format. Help there is especially appreciated. Cmiych (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would question the statement "it became popular after ornate aquaria in cast iron frames were featured at the Great Exhibition of 1851". Apart from the fact that the word aquarium wasn't invented until 1854, I can find no mention of this in anything connected with the Great Exhibition, though I have no great knowledge of that or aquaria. Both Ward and Warrington had experimented with them by this time, but a proposal in 1850 to Regent's Park Zoo wasn't considered until 1852. There is a reference to an aquarium at Crystal Palace in the 1902 encyclopedia, but that probably was constructed much later. Does anyone know? Chris55 (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word aquarium first came into use in the cultivation of plants. On September 1st, 1806, J. Taylor, 39 High Holborn, published a dated plan of an aquarium built at Whiteknights in Berkshire for the Marquis of Blandford. This plan was included in the book Plans, Elevations and Sections, of Hot-Houses, Green-Houses, an Aquarium, Conservatories, &c... by George Tod,, advertised in The Times, London, on February 12th, 1807.

The meaning of the word was extended to include aquatic animals on July 10th, 1852 in a paper about Robert Warington's work entitled The Parlour Aquarium in Chamber's Edinburgh Journal, No. 45, Volume 18, New Series p.22 (Editors: William and Robert Chambers). This was brought to the attention of Philip Henry Gosse, who published a paper himself in the October 1852 issue of The Annals of Natural History, entitled On keeping Animals and Marine Plants alive in unchanged Sea-water (p. 263). He used the word aquarium in his first paragraph, and again the following year seven times in his book A Naturalist's Rambles on the Devonshire Coast, one example having been put on paper in December 1852.

In 1854, on page 256 of the first edition of his book The Aquarium (page 250 in the second) Gosse talks about his decision to make use of the word. He says: I have adopted the word Aquarium ... The term had already been in use among the botanists, to designate the tanks in which aquatic plants were reared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridgford (talk • contribs) 18:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting adding this to the article, perhaps at the beginning of the history section. I think that would be a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many types of Aquarium fish.Did you know that the goldfish can live a lot of time without the filter?These are some aquarium fish:parrotfish,angelfish,goldfish,gabies,platties etc...Some fish live in the top of the aquarium and some live in the bottom.The fish that lives in the top are gabies,platties,anglefish etc... the fish that live in the bottom are lobsters,crabs,succers and catfish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.232.211.24 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously disagree. In reality, "cleaning" is a stressor on fish. Huw Powell (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that now moot, since that section has been deleted? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So a filthy aquarium is best for fish is it? Note the phrasing - it does not refer to the process, just the state of having a cleaned aquarium. In any case, there are ways of cleaning aquaria without causing undue stress - it is simply a matter of learning what they don't like. Short term mild stress is much better for the fish than long term stress caused by poor water quality, and if decaying organic material is not removed water changes only have limited effect.

Do you want to be more specific about your reasons for removing that section? Talking about errors is fine but unless you say what you think they are we can't consider them. On the information presented at the moment I'm tempted to revert. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Obviously, I'll leave a direct answer to Huw, but I'll just make a few observations of my own. I don't have a big problem with the material having been removed, but my reasoning is based on

WP:NOTHOWTO. I was a little annoyed to have wasted time looking for that quote on the page, only to find that it was already gone and didn't need me to spend time trying to fix it. Anyway, it really doesn't matter what editors, including me, think is best fish care, but I'm guessing that Huw means that too much cleaning disrupts the nitrogen cycle etc, whereas the previous wording on the page meant not to let waste etc build up too much. Of course, "properly" is in the eye of the beholder. If the sentence ends up getting returned, my suggestion would be to change "properly cleaned" to "properly maintained". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

As most of you don't know me, my opinion is based on my experience as someone who has kept aquarium fish for 15 years, made a living from breeding aquarium fish, has worked in the industry and I dedicate much of my spare time to helping beginner fish keepers. Out of all the internet resources I have seen people use, this is the single, most common one which I have seen to causes problems for beginners because it provides information which is actively incorrect and is blindly accepted (through no fault of the resource) as true by many people. I realise that many resources have questionable or incorrect information and all should be taken with a pinch of salt, but this one seems to be based more on "opinion" than "fact". I also support not listing any other stocking calculators, instead pointing people to resources where they are more likely to learn about the species and their requirements. Kat (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me, and I've self reverted. I think you make a very strong case, and I was unaware of a lot of this. I generally try to review edits about ELs with a view to the fact that, sometimes, editors who don't know much about a subject apply

WP:IAR, but you have definitely persuaded me that this wasn't the case here. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

"Introduction of glass panes around the year 50 allowed Romans to replace one wall of marble tanks, improving their view of the fish." This is historically impossible.--Wetman (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing your comment, I looked at Roman glass#Tesserase and window glass, and it seems like it could be consistent with this being possible. Is there sourcing that goes otherwise? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be best to remove the image altogether. I understand Tryptofish's concern, but unless it's clearly stated that the aquarium is overstocked, the image and the caption are severely misleading. Surtsicna (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding why I made this edit: [3]. Partly because of

WP:NOTHOWTO, and partly because I'm not really convinced that it is overstocked, I don't really think we need to remove the image, and I don't really think the revised caption is misleading. There are plenty of successful aquariums that have that level of stocking, although they need to have sufficient filtration and water movement. The two tetra species, and the rasobora, are compatible, and they each exist in nature even more crowded together than in the photo. But I did just make an additional edit, changing "heavily-stocked" to "very heavily-stocked" to attempt to address your concern, by drawing attention to the level of stocking. Is that good enough? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

It is better, but I am not convinced that the aquarium is not overstocked, or that the image is not misleading. The tetras' natural habitat are much larger bodies of water, and though the shoals are certainly larger as well, I highly doubt the number of fish is greater than the volume expressed in liters. The caption says nothing about filtration and water movement, and the image does not help explain just how that ecosystem doesn't collapse. By putting it in the Biological loading section, we are actually suggesting that it is an example of a properly stocked aquarium. I don't feel too passionate about this, though. I simply could not help noticing the issue, which could have escaped me had it not been in the Biological loading section. Surtsicna (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I was reading the Aquarium page, and noticed that the content of the history section was the same as this. Since everything was cited in the wiki article, would that just be a sign that the external link just plagiarized from the wiki article? ZachofMS (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just came upon this now. The link above is now a dead link. Putting the text of the section into a search engine yields a lot of mirror sites, that copied from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around. Looking at the URL of that dead link, the title appears to be "history-of-aquariums-according-to-wikipedia", and the website is a blog. That being the case, I'm confident that the other site also copied from us, and that the content here is not a copyvio. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The plastic frame built onto the top and bottom of smaller aquariums is not purely decorative. It's main purpose is to stabilize the tank. The bottom will alleviate the problem of the tank being on a surface that has inconsistencies that could crack a plate of glass or split a seam of silicone. The top trim keeps the front and back glass panes of rectangular tanks from bowing excessively under pressure of the water - this can also cause a pane to crack or seam to split.

I don't have any articles stating this so I don't know if this info can be added directly to the article, but it's slightly irresponsible to leave the article giving the impression that the trim is decorative. From time to time people attempt to remove or modify these trim pieces with this very thought in mind. ("It's only decorative.") The results of a cracked glass pane or split seam can be dangerous as well as damaging. Mccabem (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aquarium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721184332/http://www.aquarium-coffee-table.info/ to http://www.aquarium-coffee-table.info/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aquarium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722221227/http://www.parlouraquariums.org.uk/Papers/b%20AQUARIUM%20HISTORY/History%20Papers/Parlour%20aquarum.htm to http://www.parlouraquariums.org.uk/Papers/b%20AQUARIUM%20HISTORY/History%20Papers/Parlour%20aquarum.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090309175603/http://www.reef-one.com/technology/benefits-of-acrylic.html to http://www.reef-one.com/technology/benefits-of-acrylic.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080812031730/http://www.cs.tut.fi/~ace/macquarium.html to http://www.cs.tut.fi/~ace/macquarium.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090703164658/http://www.reef-one.com/Technology to http://www.reef-one.com/technology

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aquarium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20141216154536/http://fish.schou.me/ to http://fish.schou.me/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per

Thanks for taking this to talk. Maybe this is a bit of

WP:IAR, but what I really think is important here is to keep things clear for readers. I've been at this page for a very long time, and these things really have been coming up. Would an alternative be to split this up into multiple hatnotes? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure which are or arent supposed to be in a tank but I thought I'd mention it here since I couldn't find anything about it in the article. Lightly salted7 (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]