Talk:Aquarium therapy

Therapy inappropriately connected to Feng Shui
I'd prefer to see this section go away completely, the "wealth and fortune" claims aren't scientifically valid (and therefore do not belong in an article about a medical therapy. rhyre (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Article revision
All the old sources were outdated and are mentioned in the Cracknell article (not in the Jackson study, as my edit note stated), justifying their removal and the associated text which was too detailed for such preliminary studies. The existing content now is based on limited sourcing, and there do not appear to be any WP:MEDRS-quality reviews on this subject to justify it as a medical therapy. A Google search, however, reveals that the Wikipedia article is widely cited or plagiarized to support the idea of aquarium "therapy". The article may be considered for deletion because it is unlikely to be improved by high-quality sources. --Zefr (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for cleaning this up. I think it may be a reasonable approach to put a sentence or so about how people find it soothing (as opposed to delivering a specific health outcome) to observe aquariums in Aquarium, and then make this page a redirect to there. I think that serves the content reasonably and avoids the hassles of a second AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As the Aquarium article doesn't mention the relaxing effects, it seems reasonable to create a subsection there with this article's content, requiring a merge process, which can be done boldly per WP:MERGEPROP. --Zefr (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

✅:,. I did not give it its own section, because I do not think it merits that much weight, and I omitted the last part, about elderly people, because the source really does not focus on aquariums that much. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge to aquarium
I saw on WP:MED that this got trimmed and merged to aquarium.

I checked out the article before trimming. I regret losing about 8 sources here, even if they were summarized as part of a better-written and later review article. Still - the sources did need to be interpreted by a review, and the content was not so good, and there were complaints dating from 2010 and no one is laboring for this topic. The outcome of merge seems right for now.

I expect that eventually this article will be remade but that seems like a problem to address in 5-10 years.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  01:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it may perhaps be true that this will become a standalone topic in the future, but I'm glad that you agree that the merge was a reasonable approach for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)