Talk:Loveland frog

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Innsmouth?

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lovelandfrog.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  'Multiple issues' 

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

text: These infoboxes are being removed because they're usually redundant, contain misinformation, or are otherwise inappropriate. Infoboxes are handy for articles about, say, vehicle models, but less so when there's any level of complexity involves, such as in the case of folklore-related topics. Cryptozoology-related articles are currently under heavy scrutiny on the platform. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

text: How about a compromise? No superfluous infobox, but we use section headers, per WP:SUMMARY summary style, and a summary of the article per WP:LEAD (that includes pop culture). - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inaccurate information regarding the Loveland Frog 

message: , please explain your rationale for deleting this image: 
It's on the corresponding page for all the other language versions, so why isn't it good enough for this? Re: your edit summary, I didn't add it because it's "funny", I added it because there's no reason to not have an image if one is available on Commons. And what do you mean Triangulum is an "unknown artist"? They've done plenty of artwork that's on many other pages, why not this one?
--Qualiesin (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Loveland frog.png seems to have been generated for some cryptozoology catalog, e.g. it includes a scale drawing of the creature compared to a human. What measurement this is based on I can't imagine. We'd do better to find an illustration that is more explicitly an artist's impression of the legend. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The image is one in a cryptozoology series by an artist who imagines wikipedia is a field guide for monster-spotting ; ) In any case, I've cropped the cheesy human/monster scale. It may be enough to mask the stink of pseudoscience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

text: This image emphasizes the fringe aspects of this article. Ask yourself: Why would we choose to include an image of a giant, humanoid frog rahter than an iguana? We're not here to sensationalize the material within the article, especially in any way that can be seen to be WP:PROFRINGE. Wikipedia is not a compendium of pseudoscience and sensationalism. Come on. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: It’s real
It is in my house 2601:4A:401:B0E0:40B3:7BA9:8D4A:9453 (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I saw it 

message: Put a police name is Sharkey sought a creature on the road in their police truck and it was a human frog or a humanoid frog it was walking the police station was a rose a frog  human and another police man shot the creature with a gun and it showed that it was in a Guana but it wasn't in a Guana it was a lovely frog man sometimes called the Loveland lizard 2601:603:4C81:AA40:3036:4AE7:4289:CF82 (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The story of the Loveland frog 

message: So a animal  that stands up to 4 feet  The police Shockey and Matt saw a frog  shot  The creature and he showed the dead animal it was a iguana but it wasn't iguana it lost tail it's a frog man or the lizard man 2601:603:4C81:AA40:CAF:55D3:3C55:A915 (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frog 

message: Regarding the supposed revelation that a Moeller student was responsible for the 2016 prank: I read the citation, and it's a humorous school newspaper article about a student dressed as a frog. It mentioned the 2016 incident, but it doesn't claim that a Moeller student was responsible.
In reviewing this article's history, it looks like the claim was originally inserted in the article by an anonymous editor on October 27, 2020. User:Trevor Sinclair asked for a citation on December 25, 2020, and User:Ixfd64 made a good faith effort to provide one on June 15, 2021, with the revision comment, "not sure if school newspapers are considered reliable sources, but this is the best I could find."
Unfortunately, the citation doesn't back up the claim. I did an extensive search to find an alternative source, to no avail, so I'm going to remove the claim. —16:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moeller Prank? 

message: Why is a random song about the frogman significant? There's a bunch of other songs about the frogman on Spotify (which it cites) that have more plays than it, so what's so significant about this one? 86.21.208.77 (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song link 

message: I'm kind of a found footage horror movie nerd, and am currently watching one called "Frogman." I looked up said frogman to see if it was a real thing or just made up for the movie (they stop by signs featuring the frogman, leading me to think it was real) and noticed that the Loveland Frog entry was missing any mention of the movie. 
So I added it. 
It's my first real addition to Wikipedia, I think. So if I screwed up in formatting or something and someone knows how to fix it, feel free. Andrewjustinhollins (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The movie, "Frogman."