Talk:True frog

	True 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move True Frog

I think this should be moved to True frog, as common names (except for birds) are usually not capitalised. I cannot move it there myself, as True frog is taken up by the redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiquidGhoul (talk • contribs)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Having gotten no objections, I am going to move this, though I am unsure of the appropriate capitalization myself. As it is a family of amphibians, rather than a species of birds or mammals, I am inclined to favor the suggested lowercasing. Dragons flight 04:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct, It should be “True frog” not "True Frog”

Improvement Drive

Frog has been nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Help us improve it and support Frog with your vote on WP:IDRIVE. --Fenice 07:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC) ggfdykiuiuyiruiuyytfryhyfjhjh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.41.81.219 (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False frog

There should be some description in the introduction about what distinguishes "true frogs." See Eudicot for an example. --Belg4mit (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC) ffddtyisryi dyitditdddd346737347e347343576373736363====================0=======================================oo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.41.81.219 (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lithobates

After our discussions on the dispute resolution board, I am assuming it will close at this point. The part of fixing this I said I would do is the hierarchy. I have already fixed made alot of changes on Wikispecies, these were in progress during the discussion here hence I left Wikispecies out of the discussions here. However, you can if you look at genus Lithobates on Wikispecies see a list of the effected species by recognising Lithobates as a genus. On Wikipedia this will only effect the taxobox, unless the species is listed under its scientific name as a page name. So I can start with fixing these taxoboxes, including the one for Lithobates. It would be good if @Ranapipiens, HCA, and Micromesistius: could decide on the text for the Lithobates page as it would seem one of the ideal places to explain the issues here. I will wait for your responses before doing anything. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 13:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh btw I tested for Lithobates in among redirects, there are roughly 10 species listed by the scientific names, most of the members of the genus are listed by common names, this will make our work a lot easier as only pages with scientific names as the title need to be moved. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 15:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this. Why would you list all these species as Lithobates? This seems to be counter to the solution that we've discussed. The species are overwhelmingly consider part of Rana. My understanding was that we would retain the species as Rana, but list a reference to a secondary name, as was done on Northern Leopard Frog.Ranapipiens (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think we really resolved the central issue in the moderation - we agreed that there should be discussion of the taxonomic complexities on higher-level pages like this, but didn't actually resolve which scientific name Northern Leopard Frogs should be called. But I also have only half been paying attention due to RL work. HCA (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No what I proposed and I thought you agreed to was put them all back into Lithobates and put it back to genus until a real consensus was achieved, you must have misunderstood me. However make very clear discussion of the alternative proposals. They really are not overwhelmingly part of Rana. We cannot have a genus sitting as an orphan page and I did specifically talk about the necessary hierarchy and the taxoboxes. If Lithobates is genuinely synonimised with Rana in the future it will become a redirect. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 15:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so your aware, one thing in the future that is being worked on right now is the complete linking of all the data for the wiki's through Wikidata. Wikispecies, as of today, is now fully linked to Wikidata. Hence both have to use the same dataset for taxon names. They both use Lithobates hence Wikispecies now uses it for taxoboxes. The future concept for the taxobox is to migrate to the auto taxobox once it is fully enabled, it will draw its data from Wikidata. This will make all Wikipedia's use the same taxonomy for species, among many other data points not relevant here. This is a far more professional appearance for Wikipedia. It is not that I do not believe you that eventually Lithobates may be sunk again, but for the moment the evidence does not support it as a prevailing view. Can you not just accept this for now, put in the explanations you want and wait for prevailing usage to change. One book does not set a prevailing view, particularly when there are others that say different, including upcoming titles such as Peterson's Guide which is intending on using Lithobates. As soon as that comes out it will be the latest review will you accept that? With the same vehemence you have been pushing Duboit? Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 16:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo...Lithobates? HCA (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]