Talk:Toad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amphibians and Reptiles Portal
Toad is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use amphibians and reptiles resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Frog??

Why is Toad in the category Frog? Weird. What about putting it in amphibian? 20:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


[edit] The League of Gentlemen (comedy)

I reverted to the previous version, because the text does not belong in a biological article, but is part of the plot the above mentioned comedy. The removed text was inserted at the appropriate place within the text of the comedy. JoJan 08:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 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)

[edit] Renaming

Should we rename this article to "true toad", as toad is too broad a term, and is used on many species of frogs. The term "true toad" is also used at the beginning of the article. --liquidGhoul 15:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frog?

The article really should come right out and make it clear- is it or is it not a kind of frog? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 13:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Read the latest subject in Talk:Frog. Read the section on taxonomy in Frog. If you would like that repeated in this article, fell free, it is a wiki... --liquidGhoul 14:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhalps we could put something about how Agatha, from the Eragon universe, attempted to prove how 'toads' don't actually exist, just as some worthless trivia people can impress their friends with... Thunderflame ([[User talk:Thunderflame|talk]) 15:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toad vs. Bufonidae

I understand this is a sensitive issue to some, but when I searched "Bufonidae," this article came up. I would suggest a "toad" article (such as this one) that refers to "toads" in a general sense (including "false toads," such as narrow-mouthed toads and fire-bellied toads), along with a SEPARATE article for the "true toads," i.e. Bufonidae.Pstevendactylus 01:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Rename this article true toad and change Bufonidae to redirect there; let toad redirect to frog. Sound reasonable? Or we can have a separate article that says something like "this is not what you're looking for, look here or there". Sort of disambiguation in a smartass way. I prefer the former. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The phrasing "true toad" is not used in common language, the only place I've seen it used is in taxonomic lists. If someone is looking for information they're not going to be looking for "true toad", they're just going to be looking for "toad". If they get redirected to frog, they're going to have that much further to hunt to get to the info they're looking for. I think it should stay as is, and that this article should discuss the differences between the families referred to toads, and perhaps why some of them are referred to as toads, as opposed to frogs. Having links to articles on the family and subfamily names is already done for many other animal groups and that wouldn't hurt either. -Dawson 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
While I don't exactly disagree with leaving things as they are, I'd just like to point out that everything should be crystal clear to the reader by the third paragraph of the intro to frog. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Assuming someone would even read frog when that wasn't what they were looking for. Toad should remain a seperate article, and have a paragraph mentioning the same kind of thing at the top of it for clarity. As is, it kind of mentions it, but only vaguely. -Dawson 16:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Pstevendactylus, I'm coming round to your view now. It would be good to have an article on "popular toads" separate from proper Bufonidae, if only to take advantage of the photos (see my recent edit summary). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree also. If you search for toad, something similar to this comes up, and then a seperate one for the Bufonids (probably called "true toad"). --liquidGhoul 07:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
There really needs to be two seperate atricles True Toad (ie. Bufonidae) and Toad (in general). It doesn't make sense having more than 1 family on this page, I mean just because Hylidae and Hyperoliidae are both tree frogs doesn't mean you put them on the same article.--Tnarg12345 08:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, there needs to be two articles. Froggydarb 08:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing this article isn't just on Bufonidae, True toad should not redirect here neither should Bufonidae I will make a new article for True toad now and remove the redirects from true toad and bufonidae.--Tnarg12345 11:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Use what used to be here, look at the history. --liquidGhoul 12:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Problem solved. I've gone and made the True toad article, I just copied and rephrased relevant parts of this article. It's only a start and can be expaned.--Tnarg12345 12:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warts

Yes, but do they give you warts?--Corinthian 13:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be a no. --liquidGhoul 14:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you give a toad a wart? --Corinthian 14:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Papillomaviruses, which cause warts, are pretty species specific. It is highly unlikely you could give a toad a wart. :) --Dawson 15:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Warts are caused by an internal viral infection. Therefore, it is impossible for warts to be caused by an external source, such as a toad." -- This description is really strange to me, especially the use of "internal" and "external". Ref to the article "wart" in wikipedia: "Warts are common, and are caused by a viral infection, specifically by the human papillomavirus (HPV) and are contagious when in contact with the skin of another." I suggest changing that to HPV-related explanation. Tomlee2060 (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stub

I've marked this as a stub. Just look at the Frog article! I think we still needs loads more over here.--200.44.7.192 23:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Frog is a featured article, so yes it is very good. But, this is still not a stub, as there is a decent amount of info. Also, in the future, could you use amphibian-stub instead of biology-stub. --liquidGhoul 04:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure where I should ask this...

I was walking last week in the woods and I happened to come across what I'm pretty sure is a toad. Is there anywhere specific I could ask on wikipedia and find out exactly what type of toad it is (so the photos I took of it go in the right article)? Obviously I'd need to upload the images first, but I'm sort of unclear on that process as well... - Salur 23:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The best places to ask would be the talk pages of WP:TOL and WP:AAR. --liquidGhoul 23:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

> This article struck me as a stub as well. Where is the information on reproduction, habitat, diet, etc. that I think would be especially relevant in regard to articles on animals

[edit] is Imaninja actually a toad?

Is it a toad? or is it some moron editing wikipedia? along with imgonnakillaninja. it's all stupid

Removed. Unreferenced claims; Must be a hoax. JoJan 09:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

i have a project on toads and i can't find any info. focused on the whole concept of frogs

[edit] Taxobox picture

Should nt the type species Common toad be the one in the taxobox? Billlion (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)