Talk:Exploding whale

Guts?

Not exactly the most scientific term available.

"The explosion threw guts and chunks of whale flesh over 800 ft..." How about "The explosion threw chunks of whale flesh over 800 ft?"

I have long thought that exploding whale was an odd article title

It feels like there is a problem with the grammar. I am quite tempted to merge beached whale and exploding whale - so in effect exploding whale becomes the "methods of disposal" section. Beaching is a fascinating scientific topic - and I wonder if a bit of science might do a bit to shore up the slightly more "ripley's believe it or not" nature of some of this article. Pcb21| Pete 20:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. I definitely oppose this merge. Exploding whale is a totally seperate article to beached whale. Firstly, not all beached whales are exploding whales, while it may be the case that not all exploding whales in future will be beached whales (though currently, this is not the case). Also, the Exploding whale article is quite good enough on its own and has enough info to justify this, and a beached whale article would do well to detail info about beached whale and include a section called "Exploding whales" which has a main article: exploding whale and then its text in summary form. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think this section should be merged with beached whales as well. This should at least be described as Large Marine Carcass Disposal or soemthing. The article title is too silly sounding right now. -Forcefieldmaker87 october 10? 2007

This has been said before. The answer is "no", we won't be doing that. This is a very popular article. You would be totally going against consensus to do this. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

two topics

The explosion of a whale by explosives cannot really be called an exploding whale. You can blow up anything that way. It might go a little further down in the article as a piece of unrelated trivia. DGG 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I had not realized from the discussion above and the FA renewal just completed that this article is part of internet history and culture. So as strange as it seems...--Filll 22:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense... if it explodes through the use of explosives, then I'm very much afraid that it's an exploding whale! - 61.9.203.206 12:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. A whale that explodes through the use of explosives is an exploding whale. It is also what the news report is known as on the Internet, and it's what Dave Barry called it. The most notable incident of this happening was in Oregon, and to be honest it's the whole reason that this article was created in the first. Honestly, the comments I read some times. Next I'll hear that black is white. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Exploding Whale" fits the definition of 'to explode' but is still somehow... off. That's like having an article for "Exploding Bradley Fighting Vehicle." Yes, the whale exploded, but in most cases it seems to not do so of it's own accord- the proximal cause would seem to indicate that the whale was 'exploded' in a passive sense (other than the one example of gas-buildup). Still, since this is such a popular article I can't imagine toying around with it's name would come to much good! Epthorn 19:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

They blow up a whale carcass in the movie "Reno 911!: Miami"

I just learned that in the new movie, Reno 911!: Miami the characters blow up the carcass of a dead whale (fake, of course). The whale is found on Miami's South Beach, no less. I'm guessing that this may warrant mention in the "In Fiction" section of the article.

I've already posted an entry at TheExplodingWhale.com that includes some still frames from the movie trailer.

Toastk 04:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What??

"Don't write about Exploding Whales, because we already have." EvErMoReNeVeRmOrE 23:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Exploding organisms

Template:Exploding organisms has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Watch page

Just out of interest, exactly how many people have this on their watch list? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well I do, but AFAIK there is no easy way to find out who else is watching. Andreww 17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• It would be an interesting feature; to see who's watching who. —M (talk • contribs) 18:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"killing" wrong word choice!

The section "other incidents" (which is a vague section heading to beign with) refers to the whales as being killed by explosives several times. This is not accurate. The whales were already dead so having their bodies destroyed by explosives could not kill them again... This section needs heavy editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forcefieldmaker87 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect :-S

Why The F**k does Exploding Wales redirect here? Wales != Whales. Exploding Wales should redirect to an article or article section about explosions in Wales. M0ffx 22:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah... I see that you have detected one of our infamous pranks on Jimbo! Way back in the day, somebody (I forget who) created an article called Exploding Wales - and article about what happens if you make Jimbo mad enough :-) In honour of the humour of it all, we decided to keep the article, but setup a redirect to this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dam this article is hilarious, whales arn't meant to explode! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.132.218 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent masses of sperm whales

Florence, Oregon, USA: ... a 14 m (45 ft 11 in), eight-ton sperm whale ...

Tainan, Taiwan: ... a ... sperm whale, measuring 17 m (55 ft 9 in) long and weighing 50 tons ...

These two masses are inconsistent. There is no way that two sperm whales of a similar length can have such disparity in the masses. Both masses are probably incorrect, because the sperm whale article suggests that sperm whales have masses between 14 and 41 tons. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 02:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Cooper's opinion

Paul Cooper, the explosives expert, mentioned in one of his short courses on explosives engineering that blowing up carcasses into tiny morsels for scavengers is a fine way to get rid of them, but the rule of thumb is that you need a mass of explosives equal to the mass of the carcass. Half a ton of dynamite for an eight-ton whale is grossly inadequate. On the other hand, eight tons of TNT would be a bit tough on the local glazing.

Since I can't verifiably link Cooper's comments, I don't think that they belong in the article. But I thought this might be of interest for the talk page. 192.12.184.2 (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

New section needed

New section ("In popular culture") needed.

Items for this section:

1) Fallout 2

2) The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

etc.

Can somebody make it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterius (talk • contribs) 16:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

None of those examples add enlightenment to the topic, and tend to attract drive-by useless trivia. See WP:TRIVIA. —EncMstr (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoax?

I think this is either a hoax or a very bad joke. --75.10.49.208 (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a copyright violation so Wikipedia shouldn't link to it, but you can easily find the 1970 television clip with a Google search on exploding whale video. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's neither. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyedits ... and more

I don't really know how some articles get FA. Be that as it may, I've copyedited the carp outta this article -- trimmed some of the blubber, you might say. Or not. ;^D The only real change I made to the semantics was to remove the dimensions given for the whale in Tianan City, since those dimensions were not cited (I think... I was not rigorous in checking), and (as noted above) they are suspect. I also rearranged the order of stuff somewhat.

Oh, ok. I made a major change to the lede, if you must know. (lol) Controversy, anyone? As far as I'm concerned, the phrase "exploding whale" refers to the internet meme event in Oregon. The fact that other incidents also fall under this rubric is certainly notable, interesting, and encyclopedic, but this article (I think) should say what it says now: that 'exploding whale' most often refers to the Oregon incident. BRD if you disagree, but I'd also appreciate a comment here if you do so. Eaglizard (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You really should check when that was made FA. It was like 2 or 3 years ago, and since then it's changed hugely, and the standard of course has risen. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC) (the original author)

I think it remains featured because it's now an indelible part of Wikipedia culture. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 03:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured quality?

I know this article has sentimental value, but is it really up to today's featured article standards? Tisane (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, in my opinion, it's not. This article achieved featured status in 2004, when Wikipedia was much smaller. This article is not even comparable to other featured articles such as Cougar and American Airlines Flight 77. -xwingsx- (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)