Template talk:Exploding organisms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2007 May 19. The result of the discussion was to keep.

Contents

[edit] Viscera

Oh my. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I half-expected the dog link to go to explodingdog... alas! I shall restrain my baser urges and leave it as is. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

What do you call an exploding monkey? A baboom!!!! --Wonderfool t(c)e) 14:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Does the name change indicate there is no longer a home for an article dealing with the seagull + bicarbonate of soda reaction? Thryduulf 19:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colours

Wouldn't a lighter background colour be better? Otherwise the blue-on-red links would be hard to read and just displeasing. — Pt (T) 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Go for it. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TFD

This template was nominated for deletion on the suggestion that it was redundant, but consensus was to keep it. Note that there are also a list and a category that duplicate this content; please bear that in mind when updating any of them. For details, please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/June_2005. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 07:57 (UTC)

[edit] Rendering problem

Yuck
Yuck

Firefox 1.04/Debian sid (with the Classic skin) produces this. Can this be fixed? Lupin 02:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Though it can certainly be improved further, I think I've fixed the problem (just a display: block has done the thing). — Pt (T) 21:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
To see if it's OK, use this URL. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why not humans?

I'm going to Be Bold and revert to what I put earlier, alright? Why not include spontaneous human combustion? Combustion is close enough to explosion (certainly closer than "exploding snakes" is!), and humans are definitely animals... Anyone? Matt Yeager 04:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Combustion = burning, not exploding. The snake literally exploded, so I don't understand the above comparison. —Lifeisunfair 04:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The article has three distinct references to humans literally exploding in it. Certainly, spontaneous human combustion is a broader term than exploding humans, but I doubt that the latter article will be making its way onto Wikipedia anytime soon. Besides, that phrase is mostly used because "spontaneous" and "combustion" are inherently funny words. Most people associate SHC with people randomly exploding. Matt Yeager 04:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, the word "combustion" refers to the act of catching fire, not to the act of exploding. Most people associate the phrase "spontaneous human combustion" with the concept of people suddenly bursting into flames, not with the concept of people "randomly exploding" (because the former is what the term means, and the latter is not).
The article contains zero references to a real-life human exploding. The "three distinct references" to which you refer are as follows:
1. A reference to "mitochondrial explosions." (This has absolutely nothing to do with exploding humans.)
2. A reference to a fictional character exploding after it was revealed that a different fictional character had spontaneously combusted.
3. A reference to a fictional character's claim that another fictional character "exploded on stage," a phrase that isn't intended to be taken literally. (I've seen the movie several times.)
—Lifeisunfair 05:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Right, so it's fictional. So what? (I apparantly screwed up on the first one, sorry.) It's an article that has a lot to do with exploding humans.
Dont' get me wrong, I definitely get your point. But I think it's still worth keeping in. If you can get a consensus, I'll easily yield, but until then... Matt Yeager 22:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The article has virtually nothing to do with exploding humans. Its subject is "spontaneous human combustion" (which, despite your claims to the contrary, is not synonymous with the concept of explosion), and it contains a single passing reference to one fictional exploding human (who didn't spontaneously combust, and is mentioned only because a related character did), along with another passing reference to a dunderheaded character's misuse of the term "exploded" to describe an event that probably didn't even occur within the film's fictional storyline.
You're the one who's imposing a change that has been disputed on more than one occasion. Therefore, I suggest that it's incumbent on you to "get a consensus." In the meantime, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would self-revert your edits. You've already demonstrated a willingness to discuss the issue, which is why I haven’t reverted the template a second time (which I would prefer to avoid doing). —Lifeisunfair 00:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright. You've made your point, and you know what? You're right. Revert time. Matt Yeager 06:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Matt. Also, thanks for you kind words on my talk page. I sincerely appreciate your decision to discuss the matter and consider my viewpoint. —Lifeisunfair 19:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

How about suicide bombing? Or would that ruin the humor of the series? — Phil Welch 01:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's actually not a bad idea. However, I don't count humans as animals. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, yes, that is a bad idea. Because, unlike spontaneous human combustion, suicide bombing actually happens. Matt Yeager 05:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
So did the exploding whale and anti-tank dog incidents. Incidentally, humans are taxonomically classified as animals. And, if we moved this to Template:Exploding life we could include humans AND exploding trees :) — Phil Welch 06:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I did not write exploding whale as an article about a fictional event. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here... - Ta bu shi da yu 01:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I like that idea. This originally was called Template:Exploding mammals, and I see no reason why its scope couldn't be expanded again. Are there any objections? —Lifeisunfair 06:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I still object to suicide bombing, if for no other reason than that it's a serious article, and someone reading it will be in a somber mood--and then to come across this template, they probably won't be too pleased. As for exploding trees--the more the merrier! Matt Yeager
The exploding whale/dog/bats articles were not just made for humour. They were serious articles on these topics. They just happen to be seen as humourous by some people. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Humor is indeed unencyclopedic, but there is still a vast change in tone and mood between exploding sheep and suicide bombers. I think my suggestion below is a better "exploding human" link for the template. — Phil Welch 02:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not pushing it, merely pointing out that all my articles are Very Serious. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I agree that suicide bombings are out. Trees are in. — Phil Welch 08:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I see no difference between the suicide bombing and the very serious and historical articles on warfare use of animals, like bats, dogs, donkeys and rats. I definitely think that suicide bombers should be included in this template. Sverre 15:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, how about William I of England#Death, burial, and succession? — Phil Welch 08:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Come again! Premier Tom Mayfair —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exploding head

Why has exploding head been added to the template? It's not an organism, and it doesn't fit in with the other articles mentioned in the template. Andjam 03:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

A human is an organism, so I wouldn't be opposed to changing "Head" as it appears in the template to "Human," which would also have the added benefit of ensuring suicide bomber will never get added to the template, as the space for exploding humans would be taken. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the justification for not including suicide bombings? I know it is not within the more comical motif of the whale and snake, but it is a real issue, unlike exploding heads. FancyPants 21:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe part of it is that these other organisms aren't trying to explode. Thus, there's a level of black comedy there. Whereas, on the other hand, any idiot can purposefully blow himself up, as long as he has a suitable psychiatric disorder or an unshakeable belief in the afterlife. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest Template Ever

I have to say this is the greatest idea for a template... ever... --Valley2city₪‽ 19:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, a round of applause is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.30.223 (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

clap clap clap.♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetical

Prepended Ant, Camponotus saundersi, as it was so obviously missing, just a flashback to car bingo and youth long gone.