Talk:Green and golden bell frog

message: 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)
replies: text: Yep I'll have a look. -- Froggydarb croak 08:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yep, would of done that any way :) -- Froggydarb croak 08:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that alright? -- Froggydarb croak 08:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population sizes

message: 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)
thread_title:  taxonomy 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Population loss vs. population decline 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Second largest frog 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  History Merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  chytrid fungus 

message: I am finished copyediting the article, I think. I love these frogs! I have adopted this article. Brainmuncher 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. I changed a few things later (under a different name). RedRabbit 18:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyediting

message: 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)
thread_title: Evolution?

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060508031008/http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/references.php?id=6077 to http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/references.php?id=6077
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720054221/http://frogsaustralia.net.au/frogs/display.cfm?frog_id=132 to http://frogsaustralia.net.au/frogs/display.cfm?frog_id=132
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041201153837/http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/references.php?id=13180 to http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/references.php?id=13180
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720054221/http://frogsaustralia.net.au/frogs/display.cfm?frog_id=132 to http://frogsaustralia.net.au/frogs/display.cfm?frog_id=132
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720054221/http://frogsaustralia.net.au/frogs/display.cfm?frog_id=132 to http://frogsaustralia.net.au/frogs/display.cfm?frog_id=132
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]]