Talk:Reef aquarium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aquarium Fishes (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Merge into Marine aquarium[edit]

These two articles share much common information, with Marine aquarium having the most detail. I think they should be merged. Thoughts or ideas? Mmoyer 18:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, the two articles should be merged. This site [Wiki] is intended as an collaborative encyclopedia and not an instruction manual on any topic (there are other Wiki’s for that). Therefore, it is likely one person may be interested in on as the other. Maxxumless 12:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. QuinnHK 01:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree, the reef is a secction of the sides of island, not in the middle of the ocean with nothing to live in! Also, marine is not a section on the sides of the island, it's in the middle of the ocean! so, i conclude, they should be different things in WIKIPEDIA. erwright96
  • I disagree... reef aquariums have a lot of specialized needs that fish-only marine aquariums don't have. Besides that, the intensity and knowledge needed for reef aquarium keeping is far beyond that needed for fish-only aquariums. The later is more truly a "hobby" while the former could almost constitute it's own "culture." SM, 5:17 April 24, 2007
What are these specialised needs SM? Could you clarify your point re: culture vs hobby, I'm unusure how it relates to the merge. MidgleyDJ 10:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
As compared to fish only, reef aquariums require increased control of lighting, flow, pH, akalinity, calcium, and magnesium to maintain the appropriate water conditions in order to grow the selected specimens. Large polyp stony (LPS) corals such as euphyllia can survive and thrive in unstable water conditions and with poor lighting. For example, a frogspawn can thrive with a calcium level below 400ppm, varying alkalinity, and with low to medium water flow. However, small polyp stony corals (SPS), such as montipora or acropora, typically require a stable calcium level above 400ppm, stable akalinity of 9-11 dKh, and medium to high flow. Maintaining chemistry stability in an SPS aquarium usually (not always) requires the use of calcium reactors, dosing equipment, etc. Regarding culture vs. hobby, I'll use this analogy....hobbyists interested in fish only tanks typically acquire specimens from local fish stores or through internet sources. These hobbyists may be impressed by a tank covered in nuisance algae if the fish specimens are the predominant feature. To the fish only hobbyists, a yellow tang may not be much different than a naso tang, except in coloration. Those deep into the coral culture trade frags with others of equal interest, seek out specialized specimens with a confirmed lineage such as Tyree corals, may attend the IMAC convention, etc. Just an opinion on why not to merge the article. ChicagoPimp 16:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi ChicagoPimp - I still dont see why I merge would not be a good idea. Marine aquariums contain marine animals (just as freshwater aquariums can contain cichlids, plants-only, "biotype"). I'm not even going to discuss this culture vs hobby issue as it sounds like NPOV to me. An expanded marine aquarium article can address the issues you raise. Remember this is an encyclopedia article on what a marine aquarium is, not a how to guide. MidgleyDJ 05:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a third article to consider, nano reef. - (I see that the term pico reef also exists - personally, I'm rather miffed that there isn't a femto reef. :) Femto 10:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I also think they should be merged. MidgleyDJ 12:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
See my comments on Nano reef. However, this has been tried just a few months prior and we decided it best to improve the individual article. Both are specialized fields that could easily fill the respective articles. No merge is neccessary as evident in prior discussions. Dark jedi requiem 16:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The broader point here is that there isn't one single "good" article, and too many average articles divided by fine and esoteric distinctions (i.e. difference between Pico and Nano!) The same can be said for the marine/reef issue.
Hi DJR, I cant find the discussion about merging this article into Marine aquarium can you point me too it? Either way, currently we have two articles on two parts of the same topic! MidgleyDJ 19:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would we want to merge reef & marine? They are two different types of systems. --Geckofrog 14:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

GeckoFrog, How are they different? The lighting and filtration differs, otherwise it's an aquarium containing saltwater. A Marine aquarium contains marine animals (that can be fish only, fish and invertebrates or invertebrates only). There are considerably different lighting and filtration for "planted aquariums" but they are still simply freshwater aquariums without fish (or whose primary focus isnt fish) and should be dealt with at the freshwater aquarium article. Same applies to cichlid aquariums, biotope aquariums etc. The aim should be to improve Wikipedia articles to featured article status - the best way to achieve this for now is with one good article (compared with the three poor articles we have currently). If, in time, this high quality article becomes too big - I suggest it then be broken into separate articles. MidgleyDJ 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
MidgleyDJ, I can understand that we want it to be "featured", however a reefs main focus is the corals not the fish. But like you, I want it to be a featured article as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geckofrog (talkcontribs) 13:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
Gecko, to most lay people "marine aquariums" contain marine organisms. I understand the distinction in the hobby but think we need to address this in an expanded Marine aquarium article. MidgleyDJ 21:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree that reef aquaria can be addressed in the marine aquarium article. The content of these two articles are substantially the same. I do not think that the use of more specialised equipment in reef aquaria is reason for two articles. This would be like saying that we need a seperate article on every different "school" of aquarium filtration that also include the "common" elements. It is fine having an article on the Berlin method, but it is not necessary to have all the general information that is common to all other schools (i.e. you need a tank...) At the moment both these articles are average, and can be improved by concentrating on the one single article. marine aquarium --smcskim 03:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Finnish Wikipedia got their Reef Aquarium article to featured status, I don't see any reason why we can't do it for this page. I am currently working on List of marine aquarium fish species (you can view my progress at User:FireFly5/MarineFishList if you so desire) but I volunteer to work on this article after I finish with that one (hopefully by the end of the summer... it's taking a longer time than one might expect!!) FireFly5 09:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Disagree - the goals of the two hobbies are not even the same. With marine fish aquariums, the goal is to have a successful artificial system to maintain marine fish and select invertebrates in good health. The goal of a reef tank is to establish a natural ecosystem in the home which is as self sustaining as possible. Marine fish keeping is a science at this point in that the steps to reach a succussful system are finite, documented, and reproduceable. Reef systems have not advanced to that stage yet. I for one would not want an article that mentions wet/dry filtration to include reef systems as you would never use one with a reef system. Now someone will come along and disagree with that statement and be just as correct and thats my point - most of marine fish keeping can be stated as fact. Reef keeping is mostly opinion still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

need to add info about protein skimmers[edit]

there is no mention of protein skimmers, calcium reactors, etc


This section of the entry is misleading and should be cleaned up[edit]

" Power output available to the hobbyist can range from a meager 9 W fluorescent lamp to a blinding 1000 W metal halide. Lighting systems also vary in the light output produced by each bulb type--listed in order of weakest to strongest they would be: T8/12 or normal output lamps, compact fluorescent and T5 high output, VHO, and metal halide lamps. To further complicate matters, there are several types of ballasts available: electric ballast, magnetic ballast, and pulse start ballast."

"Power output available to the hobbyist can range from a meager 9 W fluorescent lamp to a blinding 1000 W metal halide. "

A 1w or even less LED is also available and so are stadium lights for a price. What i'm trying to say is what is the point of the statement?

"Lighting systems also vary in the light output produced by each bulb type--listed in order of weakest to strongest they would be: T8/12 or normal output lamps, compact fluorescent and T5 high output, VHO, and metal halide lamps."

There is no quantitative data to support this statement. Did the author personally measure and compare the light outputs of each of the lighting systems mentioned? If not, is there a study that is not public domain information and cannot be referenced? This above statement needs to either be removed or it needs a lot of editing.

"To further complicate matters, there are several types of ballasts available: electric ballast, magnetic ballast, and pulse start ballast."

I do not find it complicated that a ballast is electric, unless the author meant electronic. Also it needs to be clarified that the author is talking about metal halide ballasts and if so, neglected to mention "probe-start" ballasts.

This entire section serves to mislead more than inform. Further, an encyclopedia should not be a place to voice personal opinions and prejudices. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.97.233.249 (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

If you're asking for someone's permission to do it, you've got it. Go for it. FireFly5 07:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

remove old contested statement[edit]

In recent years, advancements in our knowledge of the reef coupled with more refined reef maintenance techniques have allowed the reef tank to become much more accessible to the hobbyist.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}

Please not return this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 21:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

More trivial, than questionable, isn't it? What aquatic knowledge hasn't advanced in "recent years"? It would be more useful to say what especially has advanced. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)