Talk:Darwin's frog

message: Why am I reading news articles claiming the species has been wiped out by a fungal infection of the skin while the status on this page is merely Vulnerable?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because apparently the article is out of date.  I added the info, but I don't think the infobox should be changed because  still lists them as threatened.  Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isn't clear which species is extinct: it uses the common names "Northern" and "Southern," but, which is used for which species?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the Northern.  I found another source that's more clear, and have changed the reference to use that source.  Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced what I presume was your most recent information, as it still seemed to indicate that this species (R. darwinii) was likely extinct, when it is R. rufum that hasn't been seen since 1980. Both species are referred to as Darwin's frogs, creating some confusion. I also cited the original open-access study, rather than the National Geographic article; in general, I would be cautious citing modern-day Nat Geo as a credible source. Agyle (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thanks...I guess I didn't read the article closely enough.  Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was less clear than the journal article, and it looks like around a third of mainstream media articles based on the study confused the species in some way, reporting things like both species are now officially extinct, and many blogs and youtube videos then parroted these articles. Agyle (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Extinction

message: Both Rhinoderma darwinii and Rhinoderma rufum are commonly referred to as two species of Darwin's frogs. Some form of disambiguation between this species (R. darwinii), and the family of both species, may be warranted.
The species R. rufum is typically referred to as Northern Darwin's frog, or Chile Darwin's frog.
The species R. darwinii is typically referred to as Southern Darwin's frog, or simply Darwin's frog.
Agyle (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the alternate names to the articles, but I think we should go a step further.  (See below). Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name disambiguation? 

message: :Edited the article by moving sections to fit the frog outline. Citations needed for habitat and distribution section.Britneys99 (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Behavioral Ecology 2022

message: Starting off, this is a very strong article that is quite aesthetically pleasing, with organized sections and subsections and lots of helpful visuals. Since there were so many images, some of the text was misaligned, so I fixed some of the spacing. I also added subsection titles under the “Characteristics” tab to organize the different topics being addressed. I added “Size” and “Coloration” subsections. I also added some subsections under the “Parental Care” section. The author started talking about different hypotheses for two different aspects regarding parental care, so I thought dividing them up and labeling them would make it easier to understand. I divided the two sets of hypotheses up into “Possible hypotheses for foster brooding” and “Possible hypothesis for the loss of tadpoles in metamorphosis.” Other than that, I did not have any other recommendations, and this was a very strong article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:200:561:14A2:11B5:6055:F9BA (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Behavioral Ecology Peer Revieq