Talk:Loveland frog

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Loveland frog article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Ohio Start‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Possible explanation

One of the possible explanations in the article mentions the possiblity of this cryptid being a mis-identified alligator but notes extreme suspicion of alligators being in Ohio. I live in Cincinnati, Ohio which is just west of Loveland and want to remind readers that Loveland (and Cincinnati) are located on the SOUTHERN border of Ohio which is the Ohio River. The Ohio River goes down to the Missisippi River- where there are plenty of alligators (even indigeonous as close as Memphis, TN)- so it is not impossible for an occasional alligator to wander on up the Ohio River every so often; there have been several gaters that I know of being captured within my lifetime in the waters of the Ohio River and it contributary rivers/stream/creeks/oxbows - just Google "Cincinnati" and "Alligator" and you'll see what I'm talking about. Also, Cincinnati, unlike the majority of Ohio, is within the Humid-Subtropical climate and it is possible for a gator to survive winters here should it find a suitable micro-climate in a nice remote stretch of riverbank. Ohio, particularly the Cincinnati area, is not located in the Tundra. :-). P.S. there are about three or four types of lizards that live here in Cincinnati so it can't be that inhospitable. Regardless, thanks for the really cool and fun article. Later Gater, Paul

Innsmouth?

Shadow over Innsmouth anyone? I know that there's not much of a point in mentioning theories but this certainly reminds one a little —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.116.39.63 (talk • contribs) .

... Thats exactly what I was just thinking. The ancients walk among us apparently. I'm buying a shotgun haha —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.153.134 (talk • contribs) .

This article clearly is the same as the Loveland Lizard and needs to be merged. Cameron 16:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Loveland Lizard" entry was deleted due to copyright violation. However, we should probably still bring in the data mentioned in the original About.com article "The Top 10 Most Mysterious Creatures of Modern Times" (see entry #8) that it was copied from. 151.197.51.123 22:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge These two articles clearly describe the same (largely discredited) cryptid; no need exists for two separate articles. KevinOKeeffe 06:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Clearly two separate articles on the same (dubious) thing. Nareek 04:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lovelandfrog.jpg

Image:Lovelandfrog.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Multiple issues'

I noticed that this article really only contains 3 lines as of this message. I've added a reference to the opening line, and now every assertion made in the article seems to be covered. 7 years later, and I think it's now possible to retire the needs additional citations tag. As for notability, I am surprised the question was ever raised, significant sources exist out there for this and are easy to find. Ryan shell (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

This article is way too short and needs o be expanded. The article is is only composed of a long lead section and should be split off into separate sections and should include: Eyewitness' description of the creature, a history of sightings, theories (if any), and appearances/references in popular culture. The image used in the article is awful and should be replaced with an eyewitness sketch of the creature. All of these changes and additions need to occur in order for this article to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards of a well developed and properly sourced article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest specific independent reliable sources for your suggested expansion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some higher quality WP:FRIND sources so as to be less reliant on the Skeptoid source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now someone has tagged the article as "incomplete" again. Care to use the Talk page to be more specific? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate information regarding the Loveland Frog

I have attempted to edit the Loveland Frog wiki page twice due to inaccurate information. Both times it was changed back by LuckyLouie. I have cited the wiki cryptidz page "http://cryptidz.wikia.com/wiki/Loveland_Frogmen" which has the exact story which was verified for the last 40 years. Due to a recent article in 2016 which has Officer Mark Matthews recant his previous and originals statements this wiki page for the Loveland Frog has this new article listed as the "actual events". I feel the author of this page should take in consideration verified facts from witnesses in this story instead of a recant of events from Officer Mark Matthews. It appears Matthews would just like to wash his hands with this story due to public pressure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.185.145 (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of new users make this mistake, so don't feel too badly. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an open platform or a place to right perceived wrongs. The encyclopedia's policies require that editors cite reliable sources for article content. A crytozoology wiki is not a reliable source as defined by our policies WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:USERGEN. There is no single "author" for Wikipedia articles, it is a volunteer effort by many contributors who agree to abide by community-endorsed policy guidelines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]