Talk:Exploding animal
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Exploding animal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Exploding snake was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 March 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Exploding animal. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Should the article exist?
The template and category are funny, but as an article, it reflects a term best known inside Wikipedia itself- see 211 Google hits minus Wikipedia. CanadianCaesar 05:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Some of it is interesting, but the category is full of enthusiastically written but un-encyclopedic stories. For example, "Exploding snake" is just the regurgitation of a single news-wire story. —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 05:53 Z
- I've no problem with the subarticles; exploding snake may not be tremendously notable, but for the purposes of building upon a weird and wacky project started with exploding whale, a BBC story is notable enough for me. It's just exploding animal, itself, that bothers me. Where's the sources? CanadianCaesar 06:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Never mind. User:JJay found a source so I rewrote it. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 20:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Why does this article exist? We don't need an article on exploding animals that includes things like blowing up a whale with dynamite. We could include every animal if the only requirement is that is will blow up if near exploding dynamite. If there were animals capable of naturally exploding that did so on a fairly regular basis, that would be different but as it stands now this article doesn't really serve a purpose and ins't terribly encyclopedic. - Kuzain 08:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Bah! This category is hilarious! Why remove it? Why can't we ever have any fun at Wikipeidia! Kip the Dip 14:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't take more than a quick glance to see that this section has absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Please delete, it really drags down the quality of the site. (69.155.110.115 09:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC))
The only thing on this article that doesn't belong in an internet encyclopedia is the reference to kamakazi dolphins (there are no extant sources to confirm actual use of this application of military dolphins). This article is a interesting summary of a topic that includes relationships to human physiology, zoology and a bizarre but often used method of disposing of whale carcasses. The fact that the title doesn't get many hits on google is absolutely irrelevant. Wikipedia is not Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.186.217 (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
See Also
I removed some content from the see also section because it was either already in the template at the bottom or was a red link. 71.31.154.237 16:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
An unfortunate phraseology
Given the subject of the article, I find this unfortunate:
"One of the most famous cases, well-known because of footage being spread across the Internet..."
Yes. Spread by the explosion, I assume?
WikiReaderer 22:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thats real funny. I bet the Germans did not find the exploding frogs funny either. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Koalas
I heard someone claim that koalas are prone to explosion (due to their consumption of eucalyptus leaves, which contain volatile oils), but haven't been able to google any reliable sources confirming or denying this claim. I suspect it's a myth, but is anyone else able to come up with reliable sources? Andjam (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Merge? Huh? Just.... argh!
So, rather than an article about why and how animals explode, we have an article with: a 3-sentence intro of "Exploding Animal" covering the generalized multi-species why's (natural or external influence) and how's (decomposition, dynamite, doomed defense). Then we have a lovely interlude of 3 paragraphs... not about incidence in a specific species (as in for example the sub-articles, like, say: exploding toad), but 3 paragraphs about a specific animal, not specific species mind you, a specific animal, a single one-time-only snake, that exploded. (Granted, the alligator adds interest much like the Turducken fascinates when the holidays roll around...)
- ¶-1: We intro the Pythogator, found in 05 in the 'Glades, no head... We have some un-supported theories of why it happened, a little bit of OR about the food chain and who sits where, and then on to:
- ¶-2: a full paragraph devoted to those noted-biologists and Peabody award-winning journalists at Snopes.com and what they think maybe could'a perhaps somehow (you-don't-know anyway) happened.
- ¶-3: the crowning glory, a paragraph that has nothing to do with the subject of the article - exploding animals - at all; but instead is sort of an an update on the state of the Burmese Python and its ongoing immigration in the U.S. today.
And then inexplicably we come back around to: Causes of explosions of animals. Although, if you look at the contents box, everything that follows appears to be discussion of the Pythogator. Seriously- check it out.
I mean, huh?
Some might say I'm late to this party, that there was a whole "delete" discussion/debate in which I did not participate so who am I to come along now and criticize. Oddly, that's my point exactly. I noticed that debate, read the article, decided quickly I didn't care about it, and moved on. Suddenly an article about which I do sort of care, this one, has drastically changed, been turned into something I find ridiculous and way below WP standards and that I think is so poorly structured as to be itself suddenly a valid target for deletion. But why?
The article that people were notified was targeted for deletion, whose validity and value were discussed and debated, was for all practical purposes untouched by it all: enter the former article title? get this page. Search the article subject? here's the article. The Pythogator even has its own, self-referencing listing in the footer (with the species listings).
The article Exploding Animal, which had nothing to do with the Pythogator or the inherent stupidity of an article written about a freak single-instance event, and had nothing to do with its deletion, and about which discussion was not invited, and which was not subjected to or subject of a delete debate, the article Exploding Animal is the article which out of nowhere suddenly discovers it has a "National Enquirer" article sticking out of its abdomen, and that's really really bizarre to me.
Sorry.
--Snozzwanger (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Python
Why is this paragraph in here? "The news report highlighted the concern held by wildlife biologists that the Burmese Python might spread across the Southern United States, where it finds a suitable climate, and become prohibitively expensive or wholly impossible to eradicate. This would threaten native ecosystems and vulnerable species. Breeding populations from escaped specimens or specimens released by overwhelmed owners are found already in the Everglades, the Big Cypress and on Key Largo.[2]" it has nothing to do with exploding animals. 166.137.4.32 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)