Talk:Nano reef

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Protein skimmers

"Protein skimmers are not usually recommended in Nano reef tanks because of their removal of trace elements. Normally, in larger aquariums, this is not an issue; however, in the small confines of a nano reef, even slight changes in trace elements can cause a tank to crash. "

Can you provide a reference? If so, I'd be in favor of including the above. Many LFS reef specialist store run skimmers in their nano tanks.

Mmoyer 01:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serious concerns

I've just made a somewhat radical edit to this article here in response to what I consider some serious concerns about the content. In sequence:

No reliable sources are cited. This is grounds for deletion.
As a result of the lack of reliable sources, the article is filled with vaguely qualified and essentially unverifiable claims. Like: what is the maximum size of a nano, or of a pico? To my knowledge no reliable authority has passed any judgment on this. This is a big problem for WP:V and WP:NOR and once again grounds for deletion.
Some stuff makes my eyes cross. Like "commercial availability of actual seawater"? Since when? I haven't heard of this yet, and I'd really like to see a reliable source tell me how I can find some. Other eye-crossers include references to "pure biology", as though biology has somehow split into two different fields of research, pure and contaminated.
Finally, the external links. Wikipedia is not a directory. It is not a place to spam your favourite forum, because if you do, you end up with external links section half as long as the article itself.

What this all amounts to is that this article is in serious trouble. I understand the importance of getting information about this niche hobby out to the world at-large, but without reliable sources to back it up this article does not belong on wikipedia. Unless we can substantially cleanup this article I'm afraid it's headed the way of deletion. BFD1 17:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns are valid. I added a reference for commercially available boxed seawater (I've been using it for about a year). Regarding maximum sizes of nano and pico reef tanks, well, the terms are in widespread use (just use your favorite search engine), but there are no precise definitions. Can't that just be stated in the article? I am open to suggestions. As for external links, I agree that spamming is bad. Any external link should enhance the users understanding of the topic, so I am re-adding ReefCentral.com, since they are the largest english language online forum for reef aquarists (no, I am not an active participant or operator of ReefCentral). Mmoyer 14:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link about the seawater, that's cool! I note your point about widespread use of the terms and the lack of precise defitions. The problem is that wikipedia aims to be a place of precise definitions, so there is a fundamental disjunct here that I don't think the article can possibly get around at this stage.BFD1 16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ::I am re-removing the external links; according to WP:EL, links to forums are normally not allowed. Can you find any sort of special reason for reefcentral.com? Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; didn't realize quite how HUGE it is. I think it ocunts as an exception. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 16:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure reefcentral counts as an exception... If we readmit it, we are treading a slippery slope. I recently deleted all external links from Marine aquarium for this reason, and it seems that the move met with some consenus. Anyway, I'm not too bothered by the links section of this article; I am much more concerned about the lack of reliable sources.BFD1 16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a primary reference for the definition of "Nano Reef", which should give sufficient reason to drop the WP:AFD. Mmoyer 18:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

This article, along with Reef aquarium, should be merged into one quality article at Marine aquarium MidgleyDJ 12:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been attempted, as evident in the discussion on the article's old proposed merge and deletion page. The consensus was not only not to delete, but also not to merge. Please read that page for more information on what we've agreed to do. Dark jedi requiem 16:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DJR - I dont think the AfD is a resounding consensus re: merging the article. I agree that there are specific issues related to keeping a small reef aquarium. But I fail to see why they cannot be dealt with in a section in either Reef aquarium or a future-reefkeeping section in Marine aquarium. MidgleyDJ 19:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming no one objects - please speak up if you do - I am going to merge this article into Reef aquarium. MidgleyDJ 06:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]