Should The Profile For Cardinal Tetras Be Changed At All?

[Tokis-Phoenix]

This is something i have been thinking of for a while now- a little while back a member on the forum did a thread concerning the keeping of cardinal tetras and wanted some info on them. As usual, amoungst one of my first searchs to get him some good info for cardinal tetras, i went to the forums fish index and found this article;


http/www.fishforums.net/Cardinal-Tetra-t71825.html

Certain things i noticed which i think may need changing in the article though depending on others opinions here;

a. The article advises a minimum shoal of 3 cardinal tetras- but personally, i think a minimum of 6 should be advised since these are shoaling fish. In large tanks 50gals or above i would advise at least 8-10, and in tanks 140gals or more i would advise at least 15-20 cardinals minimum.
b. There is no minimum recommended amount of gallons for keeping cardinal tetras in the article, personally i would recommend at least a 12gal/20inch long tank for keeping them.
c. There is no recommended temp for keeping them in or ph, nor much info about habitat etc. Practialfishkeeping has some info on them concerning info like this;

http/www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/...?article_id=212

I still replied to the member needing info on cardinal tetras in the thread, i hope my info was accurate/good;

http/www.fishforums.net/Cardinal-Tetras-t195146.html


What do you think? Quite often when i search through the articles in the fish index on the forum, i don't often come across inaccurate info or un-advisable advice, but i often feel that a lot of the existing articles on fish could be much improved on in many areas, this being one of them.

What do you think?

 

[geo7x]

This is something i have been thinking of for a while now- a little while back a member on the forum did a thread concerning the keeping of cardinal tetras and wanted some info on them. As usual, amoungst one of my first searchs to get him some good info for cardinal tetras, i went to the forums fish index and found this article;


http/www.fishforums.net/Cardinal-Tetra-t71825.html

Certain things i noticed which i think may need changing in the article though depending on others opinions here;

a. The article advises a minimum shoal of 3 cardinal tetras- but personally, i think a minimum of 6 should be advised since these are shoaling fish. In large tanks 50gals or above i would advise at least 8-10, and in tanks 140gals or more i would advise at least 15-20 cardinals minimum.
b. There is no minimum recommended amount of gallons for keeping cardinal tetras in the article, personally i would recommend at least a 12gal/20inch long tank for keeping them.
c. There is no recommended temp for keeping them in or ph, nor much info about habitat etc. Practialfishkeeping has some info on them concerning info like this;

http/www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/...?article_id=212

I still replied to the member needing info on cardinal tetras in the thread, i hope my info was accurate/good;

http/www.fishforums.net/Cardinal-Tetras-t195146.html


What do you think? Quite often when i search through the articles in the fish index on the forum, i don't often come across inaccurate info or un-advisable advice, but i often feel that a lot of the existing articles on fish could be much improved on in many areas, this being one of them.

What do you think?

I agree points 1 and 3 which you gave. But I dont think point 2 is that much of an important one. Alot of the articles dont have recommended tank sizes, and i dont think its essential for them as the opinion of tank size varies alot and it depends on alot of other factors that cant be included in an article as everybodys tanks are different in terms of stocking, filtration etc etc...

 

[Erised]

Don't read this as a personal attack, I'm just seeing this come up a lot and I'm getting kinda tired of people wanting 'standardised' information. The profile section does not have rules for information that needs to be included, and I like it that way.

While I understand how it can be frustrating when information is left out, the fish index is meant as a guide for fish keeping and not as an 'read this and you know all'. I can't say it bothers me when information is left out, if all the information available about that species of fish would be in there the forums would be pretty much dead. Plus it's written up by members, not people who study/gather information for a living

If you feel certain information needs to be included, why not reply to the post with the information you feel needs to be added as well? That way the original piece does not get edited (I know I wouldn't be very happy if my information got edited without asking me, it would feel too much like not being appreciated for what you did and getting flaws pointed out to you) yet the information still gets given. Plus you get the credit for it that you deserve that way.

 

[lljdma06]

Don't read this as a personal attack, I'm just seeing this come up a lot and I'm getting kinda tired of people wanting 'standardised' information. The profile section does not have rules for information that needs to be included, and I like it that way.

While I understand how it can be frustrating when information is left out, the fish index is meant as a guide for fish keeping and not as an 'read this and you know all'. I can't say it bothers me when information is left out, if all the information available about that species of fish would be in there the forums would be pretty much dead. Plus it's written up by members, not people who study/gather information for a living

If you feel certain information needs to be included, why not reply to the post with the information you feel needs to be added as well? That way the original piece does not get edited (I know I wouldn't be very happy if my information got edited without asking me, it would feel too much like not being appreciated for what you did and getting flaws pointed out to you) yet the information still gets given. Plus you get the credit for it that you deserve that way.

Erised has made some fair points. Being able to add new updates and better quality photos is probably the reason why the fish and plant index are not comprised of closed threads, but rather threads we can certainly expand upon if we have something to contribute. I know I have added pictures and commented on my personal experience for some of the species of fish without editing the content of the original post.

 

[Mr Miagi]

Rule 5: Do not hijack other peoples profiles, if you disagree with any of the information given please contact a moderator and explain what you find is wrong and if possible give sources that back up your belief.

Perhaps copy and paste you original post to the moderator of the Characin forum, ie. Lateral Line! See what he thinks about your proposed idea!

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Rule 5: Do not hijack other peoples profiles, if you disagree with any of the information given please contact a moderator and explain what you find is wrong and if possible give sources that back up your belief.

Perhaps copy and paste you original post to the moderator of the Characin forum, ie. Lateral Line! See what he thinks about your proposed idea!

Cool i will pm Lateral Line then now about it

 

[Lateral Line]

The profile section does not have rules for information that needs to be included, and I like it that way.

It does actually. If you look at the stickied post at the top of each, it does say that posts should follow the format and may be edited.

Generally, as in this case, the OP's post is not altered, rather an obvious <Mod edit> is added with additional information. We regard this as a better approach then simply rejecting the profile.

Equally, we prefer to have the information in the first post of the thread, for that reason, generally the threads in the profiles are short. If the reader has to wade through pages of opinion, they tend to not bother.

Extra pictures, if they contribute to the thread are usually welcome however.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Thanks for editing the profile Lateral Line .