Talk:Frog/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Gallery 1.1 Next try 1.2 Another try 1.3 German wikipedia frog gallery format

Gallery

I will post the gallery in here. Could people please identify the frogs before they are placed back. I think I can identify the "Australian frog", but most of those are European or American, and I do not have the resources. This includes scientific and common names. Thankyou. --liquidGhoul 06:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Woops forgot to add it. --liquidGhoul 04:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If "tiny little frog" is North American, it is definitely a Hyla. I would put money on H. cinerea, though H. cinerea and H. squirella can be tricky at times.Pstevendactylus 04:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian Frog	Tiny frog (Hyla sp.)	Edible Frog (Rana esculenta)	Grey treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis versicolor)
Indian frog	Purple or pignose frog (Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis)

I think I should start a new gallery. Most of these photos are small, and non-descriptive. I like the Rana esculenta, that can stay. If anyone has large, good quality photos of non-Australian frogs, that would be great. Between Fir0002 and I, Australian frogs are probably covered. Frogs of different types and locations would be great, e.g. some poison darts, tree frogs, burrowing frogs, true frogs etc. --liquidGhoul 13:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There nothing wrong with having more than one gallery. This one is a nice size for 800*600 screens. - Samsara 14:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure on what's the currently correct scientific name of the grey treefrog - H. crysoscelis, versicolor or crysoscelis versicolor. It also seems to be sometimes referred to as "grey toad", although that's strictly the common name of Bufo bufo. - Samsara 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The "grey treefrog" is actually two species, both H. crysoscelis and versicolor. They're a weird genetic complex, and basically the only ways to tell them apart are by genetic analysis or by call. For all photo ID purposes, it could be eitherPstevendactylus 04:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Next try

Eastern Banjo Frog (Limnodynastes dumerili)	South American Red-eyed Tree Frog (Agalychnis callidryas)	Marsh Frog (Rana ridibunda)	Painted Frog (Discoglossus galganoi)
Fire-bellied Toad (Bombina bombina)	South-east Asian Horned Frog (Megophrys lateralis)	Parsley Frog (Pelodytes punctatus)	Edible Frog (Rana esculenta)
Stoney Creek Frog (Litoria wilcoxi)	Purple or pignose frog (Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis)	Dart poison frog (Dendrobates pumilio)	Golden toad (Bufo periglenes)
Green and black poison frog (Dendrobates auratus}	Hypopachus variolosus

I would like to get a new photo for the taxobox, that is why I have put the pobblebonk here.

R. esculenta seems to go by three common names: Edible Frog, Green Frog, Common Water-frog. Maybe edible frog is nice because the article doesn't yet mention the edible aspect of frogs. Also of interest will be the fact that R. esculenta is a hybrid of R. ridibunda and R. lessonae. - Samsara 14:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The German article has a huge, well-annotated gallery: [1]. - Samsara 03:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

They are not all the greatest photos (some are brilliant though), but that is very impressive! That may be a better way to have the layout as well, because the current one is a little clunky, and we can add lots more photos. --liquidGhoul 04:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I just had to add this image, it is the most beautiful frog I have seen. --liquidGhoul 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I just changed the taxobox image to my White's Tree Frog photo. It is the first frog photo so far to reach feature picture status. I was also going to add the gallery, but it is so ugly and clunky. I decided not to until I can find a better way to format it. Does anyone have any ideas? I will have a look around wikipedia for examples of well formatted galleries. --liquidGhoul 11:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep the Purple Frog - it's such a gem of a species! And the picture is of good quality. (Have moved it forward to the "new" gallery.) - Samsara 01:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the photos of Dendrobates pumilio and Bufo periglenes to the new gallery. Pstevendactylus 03:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. I'm guessing as a herpetologist, you would have quite a few frog photos. Do you have any more poison dart frogs, and do you have any photos or glass frogs (a translucent species preferable) that you could upload? Also, isn't the common name of Dendrobates pumilio the Blue-jeans Frog (or something similar)?

I have hundreds of frog photos, but most of them are slides (I'm oldschool). I've got more dendrobatids in digi form, but no good glass frogs (I'll work on it). I'm averse to listing common names for pumilio. The only common name I use for the frog is "rana roja," since it's only common enough to have a name in Spanish-speaking countries. The herpetoculturists would be better sources for this info, but I see it listed as "strawberry dart poison frog" or "blue jeans" (or any other name for the many color patterns in this variable species.Pstevendactylus 14:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, we have a problem with the placement of the images on the right. If you look at my sandbox page in Internet Explorer, large gaps are left at the top of the sections, especially the first one. So, I don't think it is feasible. --liquidGhoul 22:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Just came across this. It looks like the besat way to format it, as it adapts to screen resolution, and shouldn't leave gaps. --liquidGhoul 22:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Another try

That's likely to succeed if we crop all photos to the same size, and make the text long enough to cover a set number of lines, otherwise you get puzzles like this (and this is after twenty minutes of trying to get them to line up properly):

If it doesn't look odd in your browser, try Firefox 1.5 for Windows! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 00:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I took out the photos that are already in the article. No need for duplication. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 00:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't just look crap in Firefox 1.5! Check out my sandbox User:LiquidGhoul/Frog gallery experimenting, I have made it work, however they do no line up on the right, which makes it look a little poor. However, I think it is still the best option so far, as it works in IE as well as Firefox. --liquidGhoul 00:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I just had a look at that. Any chance you can make them a bit smaller? That was my main problem. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 00:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that, I will just do it later, as it takes a while. How high would you like them? --liquidGhoul 02:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Do I still have to do it? That looks pretty good! --liquidGhoul 00:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's in the article already! Please comment. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 01:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Crap!! I didn't even realise. :) Anyway, I have changed the pobblebonk image. Fir0002 took this a while ago, and didn't update the frog article. I think it is a better photo. Also, is there a technical reason the other photos haven't been added (IE complications or something), because I would like to bulk up the gallery a bit. --liquidGhoul 04:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the Golden Toad and the Hypopachus variolosus (although we need a common name) photos. --liquidGhoul 04:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Found a common name, Sheep Frog seems the most popular. --liquidGhoul 04:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

German wikipedia frog gallery format

Well, this is how it's done on the German wikipedia. - Samsara 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be easy for me to write a script that converts one kind of gallery to the other if there's interest. - Samsara 20:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I do like it like that, but there is the problem of the current images on the article. What will happen to them. Will the gallery just go around them, or will they be moved to a different position?

Yes, I hadn't thought of that problem. I just tried it and the "gallery" pictures will overlap the existing ones, which is not good. This could be alleviated in two ways:

• Careful placement of "gallery" pictures
• Reducing thumbnail size (currently 190px wide)

Samsara 01:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also just noticed that these kinds of thumbnails are one of the things that upset page rendering in Firefox 1.0.7 (e.g. placement of "edit" buttons). I have several bugs filed on this, but it seems that people are unwilling to fix them, since Ff 1.5 is now available. - Samsara 01:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We may have to wait until there's more text, or just insert a few pictures now that could have captions to go with the text (e.g. a Dendrobatid for the "poison" section etc.) - Samsara 01:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the Eucalyptus article, I have changed my mind on the formatting of the gallery. I don't think it looks all that bad now. I hope they will change the Mediawiki software so the gallery width is dependent on the screen resolution though, because I still don't like that users with 800x600 resolution have to scroll across. --liquidGhoul 05:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)