Talk:Star jelly

Paranormal High‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cryptozoology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amphibians and Reptiles High‑importance

	Star jelly is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fungi High‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi 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.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 February 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

Weasel / Heron / Stork vomit

Nuff said.

Star jelly received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The film Stephen King's Creepshow included a story segment entitled "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill" which also centers around "goo" coming out of the center of a meteorite and changing the main character's life (not for the better).--Lordkinbote 22:19, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

- Herons / Storks eat frogs. Some frogs contain spawn and that cannot be digested. So starjelly, or heksensnot / sterrenschot as we call it in Dutch, is basically vomited frog spawn. Nuff said.. See the Dutch wiki page: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterrenschot SaksischRos (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This means that this lemma is baloney... SaksischRos (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific analysis

Little scientific analysis has been done on Star Jelly, largely because the material dissolves so rapidly.

It's unclear that there actually is a single substance which does dissolve rapidly, so I removed the latter phrase. I would expect another important reason why little scientific investigation has been done is that reputable scientists find claims about Star Jelly to be implausible and not worth looking into. -- Beland 05:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that. Not a problem. :) Rick K 20:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

'Reputable scientists' used to find the claims about "stones falling from the sky" (>meteorites) to be implausible and not worth looking into, till in the 19th century it finally was no longer possible to deny. If somebody doesn't believe me that "scientists" (of their day) once felt that way about meteorites, I can give you the references. Alexander 007 07:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and those "stones falling from the sky" were found to be natural phenomena. Which "those damn scienteeests!" provided evidence for themselves. If this is occurring, as it still hasn't even been established if it's completely factual or even the incidents related at all, then it will be either natural, a hoax or "naturally" (animal vomit or excretions) placed there. 124.148.235.41 (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane[reply]

Sounds like ambergris to me

This rare find washes up on the beach in Wales sometimes and comes from the belly of sperm whales. - "It is described as a foul-smelling, gelatinous substance". The only problem is that it doesn't disappear after a few days, unless somebody who knows how valuable it is happens to stumble across it.

Could explain coastal sightings, but wat about the inland ones?

perfectblue 09:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These star jelly have been found in Washington State falling from the sky on video. so your theory of them coming from the ocean maybe some. what are the ones coming from the sky are those from meteors? 2603:6011:C822:7530:7DE0:6CAF:BE46:45E3 (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prop: New assessment category

Sanity: This one would get delusional. The red rain refd to in Scientific analysis has no obvious connection to Star jelly, unless doing characteristic insane jumps-to-conclusions. Said: Rursus ☻ 15:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a Template:Importance-sect to that section, refering to the following:

Whatte hecc has red rain to do with star jelly?

More to come. Said: Rursus ☻ 16:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-I came in here using special:random, and I can see right now it needs some work on opposing theories (and grammar), so I'm going to rearrange it to make it more skeptically. I'm just writing to let you know if you don't like it, you can just revert it.

7h3 3L173 (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current state of the article better. The topic is delusional, but the article is in better shape now. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You NEED to check out the Belcher/Swale paper. It is perhaps still the definite treatment of the stuff. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture

The pop culture section seems to contain this and that unrelated to the topic, just any phrase that happens to have anything like "jelly" or "star" in it. I propose the section is simply deleted. Four of the refs are dead links, the http://www.bartleby.com/216/0205.html link provides a ref to a allegedly poetic text that provides similes, happenstance one with "star" and afterwards one with "jelly". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

ALGAE-L Archives gives some explanations that I don't exactly know if they're properly citable, but it contains some non-UFO, non-astronomical explanations that doesn't sound too far fetched, in my estimation. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

improper citation

I obviously don't have access to a 1502 edition of John of Gaddesden's Rosa Anglica, but a 1912 translation is available through the California Digital Library:

http://archive.org/details/johnofgaddesdenr00choliala

I searched for any mention of stars and jelly etc. and no appropriate reference came up. I therefore believe citations on this page are inaccurate. (Currently citation 7)

Unless someone else can verify the citation, let's remove it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.252.13 (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Star jelly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090926132742/http://www.sfgate.com:80/offbeat/bzt4.html to http://www.sfgate.com/offbeat/bzt4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star jelly. 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/20070821202927/http://www.herpetofauna-nrw.de/Beobachtungen_FAQ.htm to http://www.herpetofauna-nrw.de/Beobachtungen_FAQ.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sources

The Examples section is cited to some long dead web page called “Subversiveelement” which chides unbelievers. Needs cleaning. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]