Talk:List of fictional worms

Split

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Splitting does not need to use WP:RM. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional worms → List of fictional earthworms — Per the deletion discussion, I think it would be sensible to split the content into the above title and List of fictional serpents, because there's little connection between earthworms and mythological "worm" serpents .Claritas § 07:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Worm is a general term for a long, wriggling creature and there is a natural continuum. For example, the Lambton Worm started small and grew into a giant beast. As we are dealing with fictional and mythological creatures here, there is no exact taxonomy. A general catch-all approach seems simplest as we might otherwise have to wrangle over which list a particular example belongs to. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

How about splitting to List of fictional earthworms and List of supernatural worms ? I think that would be perhaps more suitable. Claritas § 12:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Tentative Agree- Snakes are not a type of worm. However, I would comment that if the snake info is removed from this article, it will probably get deleted because nobody cares about fictional earthworms. (sorry) --WikiDonn (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. As it stands it's using a nice straightforward standard - creatures called worms by their author or chronicler. WRT to supernatural - the other fictional animal lists don't draw that distinction; some fictional dogs, cats, and horses talk, fly, come from other planets, have special powers, etc. (Argument from precedent). WRT to a separate List of fictional earthworms - it would be really short, because apart from Earthworm Jim, they're mostly just called worms. Just plain 'worm' is easily verifiable from book titles, LOC, other refs. As the Colonel says, taxonomic arguments would be unproductive here. WRT the earlier serpent/worm/dragon conflation, the article lead does make a stab at addressing it; but I don't think it's our role, at this article, to attempt definitive taxonomic divisions of fictional creatures or strive for exhaustive etymological analyses of each entry. I think verifiable usages of worm are enough. Novickas (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If so, it would be best to remove all (supernatural) members of the list which aren't called "Worms" in the literature they occur in. Claritas § 07:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do. (Unless some reliable source calls them worms, but I'm clueless as to what counts as an RS for video games or TV series). Novickas (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, if there's no consensus to move/split (as seems likely now), that's what I'll do. Claritas § 13:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Beowulf

I've removed the mention of Beowulf (again) - the issue is whether that worm is sufficiently notable and also widely known as a worm as opposed to as a serpent or whatever to be added to the list. The fact that it doesn't have a name with "worm" in the title is my main issue - it doesn't seem to be commonly known as a worm, even if it is referred to one in some translations of Beowolf into modern English. According to Wiktionary, "worm" is not an appropriate translation of wyrm - the translations given are "dragon" and "snake" Claritas § 11:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Beowulf dies after his battle with the 'worm' - that makes it a notable fictional character worthy of inclusion here. From William Morris's rendition - "...Beowulf draws his sax, and between them they slay the Worm. Beowulf now feels his wounds, and knows that he is hurt deadly..." [1]. The translations go on and on and some recent ones still use 'worm', see a 1978 translation by Charles William Kennedy, published by Oxford University Press, [2]. I see 161 results for "Beowulf worm" in Gbooks. (Those readers who can't see Google Book results may of course ask for quotes). Also lots in Google Scholar, not surprising. But one good modern book ref, the one that was removed mentioning instances, really should be enough to establish its standing for inclusion here. Further discussion of its translation as a worm, a dragon, or a serpent could go into the Beowulf article itself. Or wherever. Wiktionary, as a user-edited Wiki, is not a reliable source. Novickas (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

True. I'm going to re-include it, as I'm pretty much convinced by your arguments. We, however, do need to decide on the inclusion criteria for this list, to prevent it violating WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR, which were cited as problems during the AFD debate. I'm uncertain where to start. Claritas § 19:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad we could agree on the Beowulf worm. About other content, I'd guess that some of the recent movie, video game, TV show content might or might not be appropriate. The primary sources might describe "long, slimy, yucky, earth-dwelling creatures" and then secondary sources (I don't know howto evaluate them) might go on to call them worms. But that would be one place to start. Novickas (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this criteria then: we only include "worms" if their name contains the word "worm", or if they are biologically earthworms or members of a species whose common name contains the word worm, or are frequently referred to, in the case of literature, in the primary text as a worm, or in the case of television programs etc. where such description may not be required in the primary text, in reliable secondary sources. I think that's broad enough to include most entries on the list, while giving the list firm inclusion criteria so it will actually be useful. Claritas § 12:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. But could you please observe WP:BEFORE B4 deleting entries, I know B4 is not a policy and editors may have included some marginal creatures, but yesterday's pop culture editors, who may have added marginal entries here, may well morph into tomorrow's serious editors, and I'd like to see them treated gently. Novickas (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

From my experience recentchange/newpage patrolling, it's generally better to remove the "marginal" content, and then calmly explaining the issue with it with the editors who added it originally if they wish it to be kept. Claritas § 19:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of fictional worms. 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/20090412154903/http://jedidictionary.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=9 to http://jedidictionary.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=9

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) 12:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The mythology section

Most of them aren't really worms 82.17.164.224 (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

They should have a article for Alaskan Bull Worm

yeah, Alaskan Bull Worm needs its article 2A02:C7C:DB71:7900:A509:50C8:AB28:46F8 (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)