Talk:Exploding whale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Exploding whale is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 7, 2004.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Cetaceans (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cetaceans on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Oregon (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Harry Merlo & Oregon Ballot Measure 97 (2016).
WikiWorld logo.JPG
Exploding whale was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon:
(click image to the right for full size version.)
Whale WikiWorld.png
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia.

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

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[edit]

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! - 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"[edit]

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 that includes some still frames from the movie trailer.

Toastk 04:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


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


TfD nomination of Template:Exploding organisms[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 01:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect :-S[edit]

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 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting[edit]

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:

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[edit]

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)

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)

Paul Cooper's opinion[edit]

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. (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

New section needed[edit]

New section ("In popular culture") needed.

Items for this section:

1) Fallout 2

2) The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy


Can somebody make it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterius (talkcontribs) 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)


I think this is either a hoax or a very bad joke. -- (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[edit]

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?[edit]

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)
this is a classic case of changes to the a reticle making it degrade over time. Much worse than it was before. - (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Time discrepancy[edit]

1970 is not "approximately twenty-five years earlier" than 1990. - Elmarco 15:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


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?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipdigit (talkcontribs) 14:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Others" section[edit]

As pointed out in the FAR, none of the sources tie the other exploding-whale incidents to the 1970 one. As a result, the entire "others" section is synthesis and should be removed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Although the article says that "The term exploding whale most often refers to an event at Florence, Oregon, in 1970", there is no reason why the article shouldn't also mention other examples. It is not necessary to "tie the other exploding-whale incidents to the 1970 one". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

About the citation:[edit]

One of the citations on this page leads to a newspaper article I wrote. I've been advised to declare this connection so it won't look like a conflict of interest, or as if I'm trying to pull a fast one for some free publicity. FWIW I make no money on my articles and the archives are licensed under Creative Commons 3.0. For more info, please see my Talk page. Finn-jd-john (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

“In popular culture” section[edit]

On August 8 of 2008 the whole section was deleted with a comment about how it's “not because it's trivia, but because it's unsourced”. So several questions arise about it:

  • shouldn't there be source-request tags first, before deletion?
  • if the problem is only with sources, would it be ok to recover the section (or its parts) with additional source refs where needed?
  • higher on this page there was already a little talk on similar issue, where as an argument was used the Wikipedia:TRIVIA style guideline. I guess it was meant to be linked to this page, so I'll ask about the latter one. It says, that in case of passing mentions there should be included refs of significance, so at least in cases with poetry, song and children's book the whale mention is not a passing one.

So, I need help with sorting this all out. Thanks. DaemonDice (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A new incident in Faroe Islands[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I added the KVF footage via the "External Media" template to the bottom of the article, along with the same footage from the Huffington Post. The HP footage is easier to download, has English text in the story, and has a title that warns those with queasy stomachs 2 times. Hopefully this won't surprise anybody who has read to the bottom of the article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is there no link to the Oregon Video?[edit]

Just curious... there is a whole paragraph about it and yet when links are added to the video we have people delete the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)