Talk:List of unexplained sounds
|Julia (unidentified sound) was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 05 June 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of unexplained sounds. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|WikiProject Paranormal||(Rated List-class)|
|WikiProject Cryptozoology||(Rated List-class)|
Some unexplained sounds needing article
These articles are in Finnish language, but you can view those YouTube-videos. You can also click that YouTube-logo in that Flash-videoplayer in order watch those videos at YouTube:
Some of the pages in the list have a See also section. Each See also section is slightly different, with some containing a link to this list and others simply containing several other items from the list. As of this writing only Unexplained boom does not contain a See also section. I'm going to adjust this by giving each article a uniform See also section containing only a link to this list.
It might also be useful to create an Unexplained Sound template to make the articles more uniform. Does anyone agree?
- While adjusting the See also sections I came up with the following question: Why does this list exist if we also have Category:Unidentified sounds? Radicaledward101 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- The Whelan Wails
- Jursh Bumps
Why are these still listed as unexplained when the conclusions of NOAA are that they are just the sound of moving ice?
- The NOAA saying the sounds "are consistent with" something doesn't really explain the the mechanism. Archive.org is having some server trouble, or I'd be tracking this down better. Also, this is a list, intended as a waypoint to the articles with the full stories. --Lexein (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
That can be said that about pretty much every sound detected by NOAA. They often conclude a sound is man-made simply because it is consistent with other man-made sounds, not because they actually VERIFY every sound with the source. It seems in their opinions there's nothing 'unexplained' nor mysterious about these sounds. Aren't we adding our own bias when we conclude they are 'unexplained' when there are sound (pun intended) explanations for them? Zzsignup (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Tough call when otherwise reliable sources call them "unexplained". But I see your point. --Lexein (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- NOAA has dropped the code names for those particular sounds (e.g. "the sound formerly known as “Julia”" is now identified primarily as "Icebergs grounding on sea floor"). The language they have chosen to frame their evaluation that these sounds originate from normal ice related events (i.e "highly probable", "most likely", etc.) is unambiguous and clear, so I've revised the article accordingly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)