Talk:Green and golden bell frog

Green and golden bell frog is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 11, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 2, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
August 12, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 6, 2022	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

Australia: Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Green and golden bell frog is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Amphibians and Reptiles Mid‑importance

	Green and golden bell frog is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Population sizes[edit]

I removed a sentence about the large populations in Sydney area. If we want this type of info to be non-trivial, it would be best to list all the large populations in Australia. I remember reading a list like this (I think it was less than ten sites), so the info is out there. --liquidGhoul 07:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I'll have a look. -- Froggydarb ^croak 08:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and try to be non-specific. We don't want people disturbing them unneccesarily. The brick pit is fine (as it is well known), but otherwise just state the town/suburb. --liquidGhoul 08:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, would of done that any way :) -- Froggydarb ^croak 08:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that alright? -- Froggydarb ^croak 08:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rana-GGBF comparison[edit]

It'd be good if the two pics that I put in the table could be combined into one JPG so that they can share a normal thumbsized image with a good caption describing the similarites. The GGBF photo should probably be rotated so that they are in identical positions.--Peta 06:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a go. -- Froggydarb ^croak 07:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They can't be rotated to be in identical postions though. -- Froggydarb ^croak 10:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

90 degress counter clockwise and they'd be pretty close.--Peta 11:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theres one that isn't rotated; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Litoria_aurea_Rana_comparison.jpg should it be vertical or horizontal?

If you rotate the ground slants. -- Froggydarb ^croak 11:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better horizontal. Also, to link to images, just put a colon (:) in front of the Image part. E.g. Image:Litoria aurea Rana comparison.jpg. --liquidGhoul 11:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, still learning, lol. -- Froggydarb ^croak 11:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There we go. -- Froggydarb ^croak 11:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

taxonomy[edit]

IMPORTANT: Why is the genus listed as Ranoidea instead of Litoria? The revision of Ranoidea was controversial and does not seem to be widely accepted? The genus is universally known as Litoria in scientific literature, so making no mention of the "old" name in this article s very unhelpful. This feels like Wikipedia is being used to "push" a particular taxonomic hypothesis, which is not appropriate. At the very list, correct scientific practice would be to note Litoria as a synonym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7422:BB00:C440:DACC:1488:BD32 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this section is coming along well, however one key point needs to be made clear. Why didn't the species remain in Rana? If there are many similarites, with this species and the Rana genus why was it moved to Litoria. I think that should be made clear in the taxonomy paragraph.--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 06:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population loss vs. population decline[edit]

Population loss: can be interpreted as loss of a population
Population decline: decline in numbers of a population; this could be the total population.

The second term is more general. Make sure that when you say "population loss", you do mean only complete extinction of individual local populations. Cheers. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second largest frog[edit]

This species isn't second largest australian frog. The Giant Barred Frog is considered the second largest, and some consider it the largest. -- Froggydarb ^croak

I had another go at it, now that the situation is clear. You may also find reading WP:MOSNUM interesting, if you haven't done so already. For instance, I would encourage consistent use of "centimetres" vs. "cm" throughout the article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History Merge[edit]

Could an admin please delete the Green and Golden Bell Frog article and move this article back to its original title. Gdo01 02:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this page back from Green and Golden Bell Frog (animal) already, is that what you mean? A history merge was not necessary, because no real edits took place while the page was moved, so I simply deleted the talk page edits and vandalism that did. Let me know if you have any questions. Prodego ^talk 02:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm just used to the term being known as a history merge. Didn't know what else to call it. Gdo01 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A history merge would be were two (or more) page's edit histories have to be combined. They are a bit more difficult to do properly. This was just a simple page move. Prodego ^talk 02:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the merges. I was initially confused by the "hi i moved the page" message left by that user... Sidar 05:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

chytrid fungus[edit]

Altered references to B. dendrobatidis. Previously the descriptor read "the chytrid fungus" which I guess is like saying "the frog amphibian" urgh! MidgleyDJ 07:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is just the common name among frog people. When you say "Chytrid" to lay-people, they won't understand what you are talking about. When you give them the binomial, it is even worse. Fungus obviously helps to clarify. I can understand the frustration though, common names can be very nonsensical. I like the change. Thanks. :) --liquidGhoul 08:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting[edit]

I am finished copyediting the article, I think. I love these frogs! I have adopted this article. Brainmuncher 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I changed a few things later (under a different name). RedRabbit 18:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution?[edit]

Do you think that the Litoria aurea evolved from Rana catesbeiana because their genes and spatial appearence are very similar to each other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.34.244 (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: already moved. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green and Golden Bell Frog → Green and golden bell frog –

Change to sentence case species common name as specified in WP:MOS. WolfmanSF (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. This would be a big change. Check out the other members of Category:Amphibians of New South Wales, which mostly use title case, except for Latin names. If you feel this move is appropriate you should start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. It is likely that hundreds of frog articles would wind up being moved if people agree with you. To verify that the standard is in flux, look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Common names and see what it says for capitalization of birds and dragonflies. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like where it says "Do not apply such capitalization outside these categories"? Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – but a mass move of articles is needed, so a big multi-RM or an RFC at a project might be a good idea. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Green and golden bell frog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020[edit]

As part of an effort to review old featured articles, I've read over the article and noted quite a few instances where updates are needed to comply with current FA standards.

First paragraph body not cited
Issues with overly long paragraphs, possibly underlinking and punctuation in the ecology and behaviour section. There is an unclear sentence fragment: "very low"
The conservation section will probably need to most thorough rewrite, with many sources from around 2005. The first sentence "The numbers of green and golden bell frogs are estimated to have declined by more than 30% in the past 10 years" has a 2004 source.

If these issues cannot be addressed here, the article may be taken to Wikipedia:Featured article review, where it can be delisted if issues remain unaddressed. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]