Talk:Exploding animal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Never mind.  User:JJay found a source so I rewrote it.  CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 20:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the article exist?

message: I removed some content from the see also section because it was either already in the template at the bottom or was a red link. 71.31.154.237 16:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  An unfortunate phraseology 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge? Huh? Just.... argh! 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Russian mine dogs? Still? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Remove "exploding cow" section, move exploding rat to weaponization?