Talk:Exploding whale/Archive 2

whoda thunk

the article is interesting to read once found, but who would ever think to look for it? It is hard to imagine someone saying he needs information on exploding whales and enter it in wikipedias title box.

Not all articles here are necessarily intended to be found by typing the topic in the search form. This article is linked to directly by many other articles, including Wikipedia:Unusual articles, and that's perfectly sufficient. -- FirstPrinciples 04:33, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Best. Article. Ever. --Chr.K. 17:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German / European Copyright Laws

Hy there,

is there any way to get some pictures that aren't copyrighted under European laws. The Wikipedia admins over here are quiet annoying in this respect and don't allow "fair use". --L-Cain 09:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks to Wayward

I'd like to thank Wayward for doing the note conversions. Thanks! :-) I did notice an issue we weren't aware of in that you can't use {{ref|<1>}} because it comes out like this - <sup class="plainlinks nourlexpansion citation" id="ref_<1>">[1] and not as we want it - ^[2]. Nonetheless, a great job and one I was dreading :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I got a little ahead of myself before fully understanding the note system. But thanks to your invisible note in the article—which I copied to a file—I think I've got the hang of it. —Wayward 06:14, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Translate me!

I reckon that this article, one of our gems, should get translated into many languages. Voice your support over on meta if you think its a good idea. Theres a subpage at es:Animal explosivo#Ballena explosiva. --Thewayforward 12:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New text... can we get a source?

The IWC text in the lead: what is the source for this? - 203.134.166.99 08:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to this report in the Sydney Morning Herald,

Carol Esmosas, spokesman for the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, said the use of explosives was recommended for such cases by the International Whaling Commission.

I suspect Carol was wrong. I can't find any reference to this on the IWC website or elsewhere. I think it should be changed to say it is common practice unless it can be referenced. --Alicejenny 11:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the same incident as reported in the Bild link below, although (WARNING for those who have just eaten) the German magazine has much more graphic images... -- ALoan (Talk) 15:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another whale in South Africa blown up!

See [3]! - 203.134.166.99 08:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding snake

SFGate "Python Explodes After Eating Alligator"

The snake apparently tried to swallow the gator whole — and then exploded. Scientists stumbled upon the gory remains last week.

Time for a new exploding animal ? :-) bogdan | ^Talk 20:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the link to Exploding animal; I don't think it's encyclopedic at this point. —Michael Z. 2005-10-5 22:27 Z

From the pictures in the paper, it looked more like a rupture than an explosion. Pcb21| Pete 10:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid reporting. :-) bogdan | ^Talk 11:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

35th Anniversary this week!

The 35th anniversary of the Exploding Whale is THIS WEEK -- NOV 12, 2005. I'm somewhat new to the Wikipedia community, though not at all to the Exploding Whale! I operate the hackstadt.com EW site, which is becoming TheExplodingWhale.com this week in conjunction with the anniversary.

Anyway, it would be cool if we could get the Exploding Whale entry as a "featured page" on or around the anniversary date. Anyone know how to streamline this process since it's just days away???

Any other ways we can highlight this exemplary Wikipedia entry???

It was featured already, but it is on the front page's anniversary section! --Kizor 13:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon's whale was a SPERM WHALE, not a gray whale!

I am surprised that this has not been addressed before!

Oregon's exploding whale, for many years, had been reported to be a Pacific gray whale. However, in Paul Linnman's book ("The Exploding Whale and Other Remarkable...") it is revealed that it was actually a sperm whale. For those of you with the book, please open to Chapter 7 ("What Is It and What Killed It?") and follow along.

In researching the book, Linnman contacted Dr. Bruce Mate, a marine biologist at the Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport, OR. In an amazing twist of fate, Dr. Mate -- then a 24-year-old grad student -- was on the beach working on his Ph.D. project the very day they blew up the whale. Bruce had wanted to "get into the animal [and] retrieve its stomach contents, gonads, and such," but his request was denied by officials at the scene. Three decades later, when asked by Linnman what kind of whale it was, Mate says that while we may never know how it died, it was -- in no uncertain terms -- a "very large, male sperm whale."

Now, I see in the article's intro text a comment saying, "YES! It WAS a gray whale - stop calling it a sperm whale!" What is the genesis and reason for this comment? Linnman explains how the TV news and major newspapers got it wrong by calling it a gray whale. Who are we trusting here? Reporters and journalists or a world-renowned marine biologist who was actually at the scene?

While trivial to make, I figured that this might be considered a major, if not controversial, edit, so I am posting this to the group first. - Toastk

I wrote this. In the video, it is called a grey whale. If your information is different, please accept my apologies and I'll sort this out! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the video -- thanks for reminding me of that. I see the correction has been made to the intro and the article. I've also added a footnote on my transcript page explaining that Linnman later corrected himself. Thanks. - Toastk 17:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current Oregon Dead Whale Protocol

Dead whales are towed to riverside/seaside parks--Fort Stevens State Park has been used for this--and buried. (ODOT no longer seems to be in charge of dead whale disposal--I'm not sure who is, but the whole thing is now generally overseen by Portland State University faculty.) The smell goes for--a very long way. A mile, perhaps. When the whale is mostly decomposed--i.e., there is no flesh left, but the dirt around the whale's skeleton is greasy, a peculiar color, and has such a penetrating smell that it requires the disposal of any clothes that become diritied with it--Portland State U. biology students are requested to join a weekend whale dig to exhume the skeleton, so that it can be placed on display. (It's bad form to refuse to join--it's no good leaving the dirty work to other people.) This doesn't really seem to have a place on the main page--no exploding is involved--but it's interesting in its own icky way. [Note: I discovered this while a Portland State University biology student in 2004, when such a dead whale dig was undertaken. Dr. Debbie Duffield was in charge, if anyone wants to reference sources.]JDowning 16:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A dead whale protocol? Good grief! You learn something every day... - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Icelandic incident

A carcass found adrift near Seltjarnarnes, Iceland. The coast guard is deploying explosive charges to sink it. [4] Haukur 23:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird

this is quite possibly the strangest article on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.222.149.188 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 5 June 2006.

Why, thank you! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...

Date of explosion

This article was voted to be Feature Article; however, the date in Tainan, Taiwan Jun 29 2004 was wrong. Jun 29 2004 was the date on which BBC published the news. The exact date on which the sperm whale exploded should be Jun 26 2004.

As for the evidence, I live in Tainan, and I found an English piece of news. I hope the date could be soon corrected to improve the accuracy. Thanks.--KOIKA 08:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The incident in Tainan, Taiwan

A Tainanese Wikipedian told me it really happened on Jan 26, despite the numerous news reports on Jan 29 (which actually comes from the same Reuters report, which in fact do not at all mention the date the event happened). There was a source (Note #10) which stated clearly it was on Jan 26, alas the page is now a 404. I have access to a paid Chinese news archive service and I did a little search and the event indeed happened on the 26th. Too bad not one single newspaper has the reports on their websites anymore. Here're the news headlines (in Chinese "unfortunately"):

鯨爆府城腥臭沖天五十公噸鯨屍肚皮開花血水內臟散落方圓百餘公尺環局將對委託運送單位告發(2-1), 2004-01-27, 中國時報, TMP27, 黃文博╱台南報導
擱淺抹香鯨驚爆府城, 2004-01-27, 民眾日報, TMP49
抹香鯨街頭氣爆惡臭難忍, 2004-01-27, 民生報, TMP01, 沈尚良
台南巨鯨爆肚內臟灑滿街, 2004-01-27, 澳門日報, A08, 要聞
運送抹香鯨屍體突肚破腸流南市西門路惡臭四溢暫置四草待解剖研究, 2004-01-27, 台灣日報, 06, 生活焦點
巨鯨突「爆炸」內臟遍街, 2004-01-27, 文匯報, A11, 台灣新聞
運送途中抹香鯨破了, 2004-01-27, 聯合報, TMP01, 鄭惠仁、李鋅銅╱台南市報導
台南巨鯨爆肚內臟飛遍街, 2004-01-27, 大公報, A11, 海峽兩岸, 台灣零訊
鯨爆府城腥臭沖天五十公噸鯨屍肚皮開花血水內臟散落方圓百餘公尺環局將對委託運送單位告發, 2004-01-27, 中國時報, TMP29, 黃文博

If time allows I will try to get to my local library to see if they have one of these papers and then I could show you some softcopies (though they would be in Chinese). In the meantime I just want to leave a note here saying that besides this English article we see here, the French, the German, the Danish and the Japanese articles say the explosion happened on the 29th too. Phew, so much trouble over a single digit. --Lorenzarius 08:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't the Taiwanese use a different calender to the Western calender? Could this explain the discrepency? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News flash

Apparently, scientists recalling the dynamite incident decided to use a new way to dispose of a whale carcass.[5] --Gray Porpo ise 18:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the popularity of the meme

This BBC article says the exploding whale newscast is the 5th most viewed internet video, having received 350 million views. So where the article says "reasonably well-known and popular Internet meme", I would contend this is evidence that the qualifier "reasonably" is no longer necessary. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of picture

I think the picture of the whale from Taiwan should be removed because it's disgusting. -Monk e y 13 !!! 01:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Write up a Wikipedia policy proposal... WP:DISGUST and get it voted into effect. Until then, the picture stays. — coelacan talk — 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beached Whale in Scotland, 11 December 2006

On 11 December 2006 a dead whale was washed up on the beach at Roseisle, Scotland. According to this BBC story, council officials have ruled out the use of explosives: possibly due to the somewhat chequered history of this method? I thought about adding this to the Other Incidents section of the main article, but decided against it as there are no explosions involved, only a reference to them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LDGE (talk • contribs) 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What??

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

TFD

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Indeed, it is. A 45 ft (13.7 m) sperm whale would weigh between 25 and 30 metric tons (Ellis, The Book of Whales, 1980, pp 102-103). And the estimated weight (that's all it could be) for the 56 ft (17 m) individual is about right. News reports are usually way off when it comes to estimating weight (recently a 43-ft fin whale was "estimated" at only FIVE tons). SHFW70 (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]