User talk:Froggydarb/Archive1

User Page	Talk	Photography	Maps	To Do

Froggydarb's Talk Archive1 (May-August 2006)

Archive 1

Have a croak

Posting notes:

Please do not edit this page.
This is one of my talk page archive, please post your message here.
If you wish to comment on a topic on this, or another archived talk page; copy and paste the entire topic to the bottom of my talk page and add your comment.
The rest of the instructions are there.

Thank you! -- Froggydarb ^croak

L. barringtoniensis

The difference in calls is one of the major problems that were stated in the paper. It was one of the things that need to be studied (as well as morphological differences) before they can classify Species C. It is a very complicated little species complex... :) --liquidGhoul 00:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions on what is the same species is irrelevant. It is what the evidence points towards. According to that paper, there are many problems with the seperation of L. barringtoniensis and L. pearsoniana, the main one of which, is that according to genetic testing, there is too little variation between them. It is also stated in that paper that the morpholgical differences between Species C (which is L. barringtoniensis, L. pearsoniana combined) and L. phyllochroa is not properly studied. Therefore, when you find a frog which you think is L. barringtoniensis or L. pearsoniana, it could be L. phyllochroa. When you found those species you recorded you probably mis-identified it. You were probably correct in identifying it according to the keys that were present at the time, but they are incorrect. It is pretty strong evidence towards only three species, what is neccesary now is the interpretation of this evidence to figure out what species make up these three species, and what their morphological and call characteristics are. This study has not been conducted yet. --liquidGhoul 02:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur White is acknowledged in this paper for providing some of the specimens. If you talk to him about it, he may be able to explain it to you (if he has read the paper). Also, what year did you talk to him about it?

Secondly, call alone does not a species make. It could easily be a sub-species within the same species. If you were to write a scientific paper about seperating the L. phyllochroa species complex into four species based purely upon calls, it would never be accepted. Especially after genetic testing has shown there are only three. There are many things which are required for the seperation of species. The major one is whether two species from the suspected differing species can breed and produce reproducing offspring. There are other things, and with the help of genetic testing, many species have been broken up, and many merged. Limnodynastes tasmaniensis has two very different calls. In the north, it is a machine-gun like call, in the south it is a "tok". These two differently calling groups are not seperated upon this difference.

I don't understand what your problem is with this, but at the moment (until another study is done, and things are more conclusive), we should have all four species with their own article, but stating clearly that there is evidence for the merging of L. phyllochroa and L. barringtoniensis, and that the morphological and call differences within the species group may be wrong due to lack of studies on the frog. Your opinion, as well as anyones, as an editor is not valid in the article, as it is against two policies with Wikipedia: 1)NPOV and 2)NOR (read up on them please). --liquidGhoul 06:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I wasn't saying that the articles contained that, I had just assumed you wanted to remove those statements when you brought the issue up again. --liquidGhoul 08:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with liquidGhoul that the four articles are fine how they are, the two species in question both contain a taxonomy sentence which explains what is needed is needed to be explained, so until someone publishes more information from studies on this species complex, then it may require changing, but until then I think that the articles are good how they are. Tnarg 12345 08:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your FPC

Hi. Regarding Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Litoria pearsoniana. I assume since you removed it from the listing on WP:FPC that you want it closed early? It isn't being overwhelmingly opposed by any standard, so I figured I'd verify to make sure that is what you wanted. Personally, I'd let the nomination run its course, but it is of course up to you. Cheers! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and closed it out by listing it on Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/May-2006. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images in articles

Don't replace an image in an article unless there is good reason. This may be that the old image is of far lower quality than the new one, it has a bad licencing, or it does not fit within the article. You can change the taxobox photo if the new one is superior in quality, but place the original photo somewhere in the article.

Your recent addition to Dainty Green Tree Frog replaced the original photo when it was, in my opinion, superior to the new photo. Secondly, the old photo illustrated something really well (the yellow stripe) which is not shown well in either of the photos you contributed. That stripe is of high importance, since it is the distinguishing feature of the frog.

As a general rule, if an animal article has a good photo, there is no real need to upload another, unless a feature of the frogs physiology is not shown in the original. For example, in Spotted Grass Frog, I asked Tnarg if he could add a photo of one with the orange stripe down the centre, as the original photo missed this. This does not mean replacing the original, just placing the new photo in the article with a caption stating what the photo is encapsulating. --liquidGhoul 08:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I understand the copyright of the image. It comes from flickr, which gives you the possibility to choose which licence to place your image under. This photo was placed under Creative Commons 2.0, and that is one of the exceptions that the Upload page talks about. Secondly, I am not breaking WP:NOR I got that from the key in Tyler, Grigg and Barker's 'A Field Guide to Australian Frogs'. Just because it is not the only distinguishing feature, does not mean it should be ommited. People come to the article, and would like to know what the yellow stripe looks like. There is vartiation within the speices, and it cannot be illustrated with a photo of the same specimen. If you have a problem with licencing, there are procedures to delete them. Just taking them out of the article is not the way to go. I like your photo, it is important to the article, as it has the blue ring. Let's just keep it the way it is now. I was telling you for future reference. --liquidGhoul 11:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cane Toad pic

Thanks for the Cane Toad pic, it is heaps better. --liquidGhoul 09:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FPC

Don't get too down about the whole FPC process. It is very, very hard to get a frog photo through to FP. It took me lots of tries, here, here, here (still don't understand this one, it is one of my favourites) and here (someone else nominated it, I completely missed the whole voting process, though I would have opposed it myself). I decided that the only way I was going to get a frog photo in there, was if I went out, and really tried. I took the advice of every one of the failed nominations, and took this photo, which got a huge vote of support. So, they are generally trying to help, it just sounds a little harsh when you usually get a lot of praise for your photos. --liquidGhoul 23:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just a thought. Most people don't think frogs are as beautiful as we do. Weird eh... :) --liquidGhoul 23:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a lot of people do like frogs, but it is just their taste as to whether they are beautiful. They will actually try and give you pointers, because anything which is away from the norm (flowers and birds) is great for the diversity of the FP list. Whereas, with the males of L. wilcoxi, it is just another frog, nothing special. Same probably goes for L. gracilenta, and the photo has to be of incredible quality, almost perfect. I think males from L. wilcoxi are some of the most beautiful frogs in Australia, along with some of the Mixophyes genus. I am glad you don't hate them, because the FPC people are good people. My photography has improved greatly since I have been contributing to Wikipedia. --liquidGhoul 05:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It works by consensus. So, basically, it is not just the vote number that counts, but also the discussion. If the votes are >80%, it will generally get through, but if it is borderline (65-70%), it is much more dependent on the discussion. If it is <60%, it will most likely be opposed. This is how all votes work on Wikipedia, it is generally a good idea to understand the process, (i.e. read Wikipedia:Consensus). --liquidGhoul 05:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cane Toad

I moved the Similar Species section to Taxonomy. You may want to merge what you have written with what I wrote (similarites with Bufo), and remove the 2nd Australian bit. Thanks --liquidGhoul 09:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I want them both, I just want them in the Taxonomy section. You have repeated the Australian bit twice. I am guessing because you didn't see me move them. --liquidGhoul 11:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --liquidGhoul 11:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I am saying. Just merge the extra stuff that you wrote about similarities within Bufo that I had missed. --liquidGhoul 11:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Featured picture candidates/Snail-WA

Hi Froggydarb,
Hey! Keep calm! Of course I'm not going to ignore you. Dunno if you'd noticed but I tend to let the messages on my page build up for a couple of days and answer them all in one go (unless it's important). I use Photoshop for all of my adjustments, including sharpening. --Fir0002 www 09:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scars

I found this Litoria fallax in my garden last year. --liquidGhoul 10:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lechriodus fletcheri tadpole.jpg

Hey Brad I seriously don't think that this tadpole is acctually Lech. fletcheri, I know i thought it was when we found it, however looking at that image compared to some of my own and ones and the ones in the tadpole book there are some key differences. By that stage the tadpole (if L. flectheri) should have barring on the legs and it looks as if there is toe discs forming, L. fletcheri have a complete lacking of toe discs. The tadpole should also be much clearer on the side and the gold flecking makes it look a lot more like L. phyllochroa or something. I'm guessing its probably a sick L. phyllochroa tadpole, iI know the body shape makes it look like fletcheri, but remember that stripey tadpole at the frogmobile that looked as if it was full of air-could be the same condition.--Tnarg 12345 10:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New photo is much better.--Tnarg 12345 10:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the thing"

Genetic analysis resulted in the monophyly of a clade consisting of Bryobatrachus nimbus and Crinia tasmaniensis. This could result in these two being split into a different genera, but that requires further research to differentiate them from the rest of Crinia. Taxonomic rules dictate that since B. nimbus is of the same clade as C. tasmaniensis, the newer genus is dissolved, and the species are placed into the older genus (Crinia was created in the 1800s, so there is no competition there). --liquidGhoul 11:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Hehe, thanks for that. It occasionally happens. --liquidGhoul 08:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big-eyed Tree Frog

Wikipedia naming conventions is that the most common name of something is used for the article name. The only place I've seen L. vermiculatus referred to as a Amani Forest Tree Frog is in older books, it is much more widely referred to simply as the Big-eyed Tree Frog, especially in the exotic pet trade. If the name conflicts with another species, the standard policy is to use a disambiguation page, as with green tree frog, not use a more obscure name. -Dawson 15:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of amphibian families

It might be best to split the List of Amphibians into the three different orders. At the moment, it is just repeating a lot of information already within Wikipedia. Also, it would be good to keep things consitent, and have all the orders of amphibians and reptiles having their own lists. Whether this be a seperate list as with Anurans, or a list within the article, as I would like to see in Amphisbaenia, would depend on the length of the list. I reckon the salamanders would make a great list, as a lot of the families have photos to represent them, but caecilians could probably be within the article, unless the article gets of sufficient size to split it. The List of Amphibians page would be best to have as a disambiguous page, directing people to the specific family they wish. --liquidGhoul 07:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family maps

Great! Thanks. --liquidGhoul 02:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the code, the servers are having some trouble at the moment. It occurs pretty regularly. I can't really tell when it will be resolved, it depends how big a problem it is. --liquidGhoul 07:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:List of Anuran families, there is a list of all the families. If you are about to start a map, check the list, bold the one you are about to start, and strike it out once it is uploaded. This is to prevent more than one person working on the same map at one time. Thanks.--Tnarg 12345 10:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting

When you create an article, could you please create the required redirects? Here is an article on it. Basically, redirect from the scientific name, and any other common name of the frog. If the other common name is already in use, there are other avenues to take. Also, when it comes to frogs with "Tree Frog" in their name, redirect from the same common name, but with "Tree Frog" spelt "Treefrog". I have gone through all the Litoria articles, and created the neccesary redirects, but have not done any other genera. For the articles you have created in other genera, please create the redirects. Thanks --liquidGhoul 11:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Froggydarb/Australian Frog List

Great list! I never thought of doing it with genera, it is looking pretty complete! It says that you will be uploading an Assa darlingtoni photo soon. Do you have one, cause that is pretty cool. They are one of the frogs I would love to see. --liquidGhoul 13:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is possible to use that photo as it is copyrighted. It also isn't the same as the Purple Frog image, as that frog is much more rare, and is in a country which does not have a large population of Wikipedia contributors (especially English speaking ones). Although it is hard, it is possible for someone to get a free photo of a Taudactylus frog. --liquidGhoul 09:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't notice that! It should be fine then, as it is not stated otherwise. Make sure that you attribute Richard Retallick, and give a link to the paper. --liquidGhoul 13:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:vocal sac

Thanks for the photo. The one I had put up there was only temporary. I was sure one of you guys would have a photo, as you have red-eyes for pets. --liquidGhoul 09:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Snail-WA froggydarb-edit 01.jpg

Hi Froggydarb!
Now that this nomination is over, do you mind if I delete your edit? It didn't gain support and is not used anywhere else. Thanks! --Fir0002 09:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks! Done --Fir0002 09:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your animal distribution maps

Could You add the sources for the data that You used in making those distribution maps, as I assume You did not just invent it. Thanks feydey 11:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the image's page, under Summary. feydey 12:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! _{P.S. You missed one: Image:Mixophyes distribution.png.} :p feydey 22:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: range maps

All of the sources for my distribution maps are included in the references in the aritlce of that animals range map.--Tnarg 12345 04:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorrigo

I will try to go frogging, I really want to. I would love to hear the good places to go. But would Assa be out at the moment? It says in A Field Guide to Australian Frogs that they breed in late summer, and with such a cold winter this year, I doubt anything but the winter frogs will be out. --liquidGhoul 05:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --liquidGhoul 09:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wollemi

Would you be able to create references as soon as you use them. That way we don't have to catch up at the end. Thanks --liquidGhoul 09:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Panoramas

Hi Froggydarb,
I use Arcsoft PanoramaMaker to stich my panos with. --Fir0002 11:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:35509749 913878ce39 b.jpeg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:35509749 913878ce39 b.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. liquidGhoul 07:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry bout this, but even though it is under Creative Commons, you have to make sure it is still usable for commercial purposes, which this image is not (check out the licence on the Flickr page). --liquidGhoul 07:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't apply to every website, for example, a government information site or something. But, Wikipedia cannot use non-commercial images because it is planned to release CDs (even though the money goes back into the project, it is still legally commercial). So Frogs Australia Network could probably use the image, but unfortunately not us. --liquidGhoul 09:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cane Toad

Hi Froggydarb,
Thanks for your edits on this nom, however they did not gain support and are not used anywhere else. Do you mind if I delete them? Thanks, --Fir0002 00:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks --Fir0002 00:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Vote on Huntsman Spider

Hi Froggydarb,
I've uploaded an edit which specifically addresses your concern. Could you please update your vote? Thanks, --Fir0002 07:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a background that you would like? --Fir0002 09:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... you'd prefer something like this: Image:MG 0053.jpg? - That being the b/g you'd have gotten if I hadn't put up the white sheet of paper. --Fir0002 12:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just the point, that is the habitat of the huntsman spider at the present time. Buildings etc are very much a habitat of huntsman spiders in (rural mainly) Australia. In fact a month ago I found thousands of little spiders behind a picture frame - a female had raised her young there. So I don't follow your reasoning. --Fir0002 02:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it does make white/gray preferable... --Fir0002 05:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To quote a comment on my user talk "Are you just going to ignore me?" --Fir0002 07:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well wether it will go through or not is really immaterial to this conversation. I"m just trying to show that there is nothing wrong with the b/g, in fact the b/g is a strong point. You yourself didn't like the "natural" background, so as far as I can see, your vote is groundless. --Fir0002 09:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your original comment was that you didn't like the white bg. So I left the comment on your talk page so that you could see the alternative image. After you didn't like that one, I asked if there was a bg you would approve of. You answered the natural one. So I uploaded what the natural one would look like - and you can't exclude that environment from it's habitat because it doesn't fit your definition of natural - the Huntsman spider as mentioned above is common in households. --Fir0002 09:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can understand that, (although I disagree that the white b/g lowers encyclopeadic value). Glad we got it threshed out --Fir0002 09:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping frog

Hi! I was just looking at your pictures and I think you should nominate your Red-eyed Tree Frog sleeping picture for a featured picture! (If you haven't already...) I would support it! Cab02 22:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map request

Hi, I was hoping you might be able to make me a distribution map for the Emu article, showing the distribution of the 3 subspecies. I'm not sure where you got your frog distribution information- and if that source extends to birds - if not let me know and I can look for a suitable template. Thanks.--Peta 02:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing online - I'll send you a scan this afternoon if I find anything in the library. Thanks again.--Peta 03:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your base is great. I can only find books with a general distribution map, nothing with subspecies.--Peta 04:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got one more article to chase at lunch time - if I can't find a subspecies map then a general map will be fine :) --Peta 01:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No luck here with a subspecies map.--Peta 02:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, would you have access to Emu eggs or feathers to photograph?--Peta 02:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a neat one last week showing distribtion and dividing it into breeding areas and non-breeding areas, I'll try and scan it and get it to you this afternoon. There is one on the commons in german or dutch, but I have no idea what it actually showing or where they got the data.--Peta 01:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you email me, and I can send you a scan - I can't work out how to attach things to the email user form. Thanks.--Peta 23:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine as is, I don't think we need to add the breeding information. About the egg diagram, I was hoping you could make a copy with a scale based on the dimensions further up the page, and leaving out the extinct moa. It'd not vital though and I don't mind if you don't want to do it. Thanks again. --Peta 12:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

adelotus spawn photo

Hi Brad, I hope you don't mind but I switched the image of the Tusked Frog spawn, my photo clearly showed a lot more of the unpigmented eggs, which is distinctive for this species, therefore I thought it was better for the article.--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 12:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Froggy

This Barnstar of Life is presented to

Froggydarb
for his beautiful and
extensive contributions to amphibians-related topics
Croak! :)
Phaedriel
19:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Dear Froggy, since I'm usually not around the articles that you edit, I had not found your page until now - and let me tell you that, in five minutes, you managed to spark my interest in frogs! (well, at least for a moment ;) But seriously, I do see you've spent a great deal of time and effort developing and enhancing our resources on these topics that you so obviously love - and for this reason, seeing your "Awards" section sitting there, so empty, is a tremendous injustice. So please, for your wonderful contributions and your great efforts, here's a token of my gratitude to you - I hope you like them, because I do love what you've shared with us. If you ever need my help, or if you just feel like talking, please don't hesitate to visit me, k? Big hugs! Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 19:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]