Talk:Exploding animal

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)

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)
 * I agree. Someone needs to do this. --46.239.69.144 (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Found this contradicting source: . See whether you consider it reliable. Maëlan 15:45, 23 January 2018 (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)

I second that, I think. What did you say again? --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:24, 18 September 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)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

So I fixed it. I couldn't help myself --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Should this whole section be in the article? It doesn't really seem like an explosion, more of a ripping/rupturing. Any opinions?


 * When I saw a "Python" subheading, I thought people were talking about Monty Python's Flying Circus, which the words "exploding animals" certainly bring to mind. "It's four o'clock.  Coming up next on BBC 2, the penguin on top of your television set will explode."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.156.96 (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge
Articles for deletion/Exploding donkey merged to here by User:Evosoho Ikip (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Because of the significant number of such attacks, I have moved this section ot a new page Animal born bomb attacks.AMuseoAMuseo (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This link is correctly Animal-borne bomb attacks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Russian mine dogs? Still?
Regarding the Russian mine dog, the reference at Soviet-Empire.com cannot be considered authoritative and does not provide supporting references.

Consider instead adding a 'see also' to Wikipedia's own page on Anti-Tank Dog, which has much better sourcing. Although it too refers to soviet-empire.com, it also refers to several text books and gives more details about specific engagements in WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.127.171 (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Exploding animal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029125043/http://www.perp.com/whale/ to http://perp.com/whale/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206195359/http://www.afa.org/magazine/1990/1090bat.asp to http://www.afa.org/magazine/1990/1090bat.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091128222159/http://www.peta.org/feat/arafat/ to http://www.peta.org/feat/arafat/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504164945/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Focus/GH12Dh02.html to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Focus/GH12Dh02.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Remove "exploding cow" section, move exploding rat to weaponization?
Honestly I can't see these two sections having their own sections or even being in the article. They both rely on one source and they did not explode due to a natural cause (the cow from the detonator, and the rat not even at all). I could make a case for the cow being moved to "causes of explosions" and the rats to "weaponization", but these two sections being significant enough to have their own sections is a no for me. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)