Talk:Oxygen tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

History needed[edit]

OK, somebody needs to realize the tanks are used for more than diving... Some more history would be welcome. Trekphiler 04:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

List of types[edit]

Also, a listing of types, sizes and capacities would be handy. How much does a medical oxygen A tank hold? D tank? E tank? dafydd 00:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

in spacecraft ? the tank would be at least DD. Mion 01:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


The item shown in the photo accompanying the article is a gas cylinder, not a "tank". A tank is a vessel used for storing liquids such as water and crude oil at ambient pressure, open to the atmosphere, and often having no top on it. — QuicksilverT @ 23:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You would think so, wouldn't you? However, common (ab)use over many years of the term "tank" to mean a compressed gas cylinder has led to the situation where we can no longer sensibly insist on the original meaning. FWIW "diving tank" gives about 292,000 Google hits, not one of which fits your definition. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for images from feedback[edit]

There have been requests for images through feedback. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


I suggest merging "bottled oxygen" into "oxygen tank". My understanding is that it is difficult to have a complete encyclopedia article about one without mentioning the other, and the difference between the terms can be covered in a sentence or two in the merged article. --DavidCary (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge and redirect seems appropriate. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 02:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


Hi. An editor deleted the list of notable people who used an oxygen tank. Saying it was more appropriate for it to be in the oxygen therapy article. I'm not sure that that is right. Because the articles refer to oxygen tanks. But in any event, he deleted it but did not move it. So I have. But I am still not sure he is right.--2604:2000:E016:A700:4D12:7DAA:6E35:44DA (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that the list is any more appropriate there than here. Wikipedia has certain conventions about what content should be in articles and there's a summary of what editors have generally agreed that Wikipedia is not at WP:NOTEVERYTHING. You'll find that sections along the lines of "Notable people who had something to do with the subject of this article" tend to be rejected. The content of an article is expected to help a reader's understanding of the topic, and I don't think that knowing that John Huston, John Rudometkin and Chloe Temtchine had the need for an oxygen tank (or more likely, oxygen therapy) at some point helps anybody to a greater understanding of oxygen tanks. I appreciate that you might hold a different view, but you'll probably find little support for it among the editing community. --RexxS (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't see how the fact that person X was born in Philadelphia (and may not have even lived there after birth) - and is therefore on a list of people from Philadelphia - by that thinking "helps anybody to a greater understanding of" Philadelphia.

Or the fact that a person was born on June 4 "helps anybody to a greater understanding of" June 4.

But lots of people read those lists. It interests our readers.

Obviously, people are interested in these things. Perhaps to see who shares characteristics with them. A person using oxygen might be interested in seeing who else, who is notable, used an oxygen tank. Or for example how Temtchine dealt with having to use one all the time, but dressing it up, and giving it a comic name.

It is actually much more relevant than these random lists that we already have.

I think, since the sources all refer to people using oxygen tanks, and this is the article on oxygen tanks, some of which are used for exactly the same purpose, the list belongs here.

How do we involve other people who are expert on list issues in this discussion? Thanks. 2604:2000:E016:A700:B93F:2923:6612:C78F (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you about "helps anybody to a greater understanding of" Philadelphia and June 4 (Yes, we have an article on every day of the year, for reasons that are almost incomprehensible to editors nowadays). I wouldn't vote for having that sort of trivia in any article. You might be interested in the guidance called WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS. Basically, even if there's a bad idea somewhere else in Wikipedia, it doesn't mean we have to repeat the mistake here. I don't agree that the list you propose belongs anywhere on Wikipedia. If you don't believe me about what the consensus is on these sort of articles - and there's no reason you should - then the only place I think you'll have any chance of finding experts on list issues is at WT:WikiProject Lists. Drop them a line, pointing to this discussion. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi. Thanks. I'm not sure what to say. Thanks for taking the time.

Here is what confuses me. Your first reason was based on a rationale. That a list of this type has to be one that "helps anybody to a greater understanding of" the topic. And that this is a community view.

But then I pointed to the lists that only exist because this is obviously not the community view when they consider those lists. If that were the case, you and others would delete the article on "June 4", for example. You don't. Because you don't apply that as the test. There.

I read the other shit exists article. It is interesting. But it does not say that other shit exists is Not a valid argument. It says something else.

Here is what it says: "you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do ... exist... While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."

Thats very different. I did give you more than one reason, and the fact that other similar lists exist is I would say part of a cogent argument. Read as well my point about Temtchine, for example - her entire coverage in the US and the UK - just read the articles - is largely based on the fact that she is pursuing a career while on an oxygen tank. The press thinks this is worth focusing on. Also, individuals who need to use a tank will I would think find this of great interest. Just as much as they would find it of interest that someone was born on June 4 ... no, actually more, if it matches their circumstances, which brought them to the article.

Might you reconsider? Thanks for thinking about this.2604:2000:E016:A700:C5EF:6A7:2C9B:78EC (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is called Oxygen tank, the subject is the containers for storing and dispensing oxygen and generic uses for such containers. This means that the article is about what oxygen tanks are, how they are made and how they are used, not specifics about who uses them. An explanation that oxygen tanks are used to carry compressed oxygen around for persons on oxygen therapy is within scope of how they are used. A list of people who require oxygen therapy, no matter whether they are themselves notable, is in my opinion, out of scope. If the person is notable, the article about that person is the place to mention that they use an "oxygen tank" (in this case a portable medical oxygen cylinder) to transport oxygen for the therapy they need. Linking to this article from the biographical article for further explanation of the term is entirely appropriate. Filling this article with the names of every notable person who has had good cause to use stored oxygen, for whatever reason, is not. It would be equally out of scope to list specific organisations which use oxygen tanks for oxygen storage, though in scope to mention industries which make extensive use of them for that purpose.
Wikipedia is not the press. it is an encyclopedia. There is an article on this which you may read for more detailed explanation if the difference is not clear enough. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand, frankly.
I agree, I also don't think that you understand. To understand takes a bit of effort, and does not usually happen overnight. Understanding might come through reading some of the large number of articles in the project namespace. That is articles prefixed with Wikipedia: There are hundreds. Each one will provide a little more understanding, but you can go a long way by just reading the ones on policies and guidelines. Try WP:Consensus, WP:Five pillars and WP:Manual of style for a start. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

This is far more relevant than the lists on dates, with notable people. And you are aware of those lists. And don't see fit to delete them.

If you want to have the lists on dates deleted, go ahead and recommend them for deletion. I work mainly on diving and biology related articles. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

And I again ask - have your read the coverage on Temtchine? Her entire coverage in the US and the UK, which leads to her notablity - just read the articles - is largely based on the fact that she is pursuing a career specifically while on an oxygen tank. Her humor in addressing the problem. How she gets through it.

I have read the Wikipedia article on Temtchine. I am not even slightly persuaded that her situation justifies mention in the article on oxygen tanks. The article on oxygen tanks is about oxygen tanks, not about who specifically uses them. How she deals with life is relevant to the article on herself. To put it another way, an oxygen tank may be important to the subject Chloe Temtchine, but Chloe Temptchine is not at all important to the subject Oxygen tank. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you not, if you came to this page, because you had to use such a tank, be interested in knowing her story. I certainly would.

No. I use oxygen tanks moderately frequently, and have no particular interest in knowing who else uses them for the same purposes, it is just not interesting. More to the point, it is not relevant to the scope of the article. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Aren't we here as an encyclopedia to service readers? In accord with your rules -- and as I pointed out, this fits quite well into the thinking of otherstuffexists acceptable arguments. 2604:2000:E016:A700:EC6E:91F9:7A5A:5021 (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Read the rules again, you are missing the point. This is an encyclopedia, information in an article should be relevant to the subject of the article, not a collection of trivia. When information is outside the scope of an article, we create another article if the new subject matter is also sufficiently notable. This is why there are millions of articles, not just one huge article. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
If you think that a list of notable people who are dependent on oxygen therapy is sufficiently important to exist on Wikipedia, you can either request the creation of such an article, and provide evidence that the subject of the article is sufficiently notable to qualify for inclusion, in which case someone might find it interesting enough to create the article, or you could register as a user, and create the article in your user space. Then, if and when it is good enough for inclusion, it will be transferred into mainspace. The third option is to register, work on Wikipedia for long enough to be able to create an article in mainspace, (not an onerous requirement) do it yourself, and defend the article if it is recommended for deletion. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)