Talk:Mongolian death worm

Certainly, but if this is made up, it's not by the imaginations of Wikipedians. The MDW is probably bogus, but then, so is a lot of cryptozoology. Since we can expect more incredulity on account of the "Death" in the name (woo-oo, it's the Worm of Death!) I'll expand the article somewhat. And I'm removing the stub status, because there really isn't a whole lot more to tell between the sources (who are mainly just parroting each other. --Anonymous

I've read about it on other sites so it wasn't made up by wikipedians. Also, 'Death Worm' is a nickname. You could call a rattlesnake 'death serpent' but that doesn't automaticly make it fake. --Bobman110 I agree, i am a true believer in the mongolian death worm. and the name death worm will be explained if you read the page. --WurmRider — Preceding unsigned comment added by WurmRider (talk • contribs) 17:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why this was reverted from "Deathworm" back to "Death Worm". As far as i can see, common concensus rests on "Deathworm" as the preferable spelling.

Oh, boy! Let's start a Deathworm vs. Death Worm edit war! ... or maybe not. - DavidWBrooks 18:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The preferred letter order and spelling of this creature's name supports two words rather than one word, hence 'Death Worm' is the correct version and NOT 'Deathworm'.

Whose preferred spelling? Can you point us to a few cites? Curious minds want to know! - DavidWBrooks 13:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

See "The Beasts That Hide from Man: Seeking the World's Last Undiscovered Animals" by Karl P.N. Shuker for the "Death Worm" not "Deathworm." It's the largest single source on the critter.Shemale Petticoat 23:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whatever is decided - and note that Fortean Times, which is vaguely reputable for this, er, unusual subject, likes it as one word - make sure that somebody makes the move who knows how to make it properly - not just a cut-and-paste. - DavidWBrooks 00:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Logically, as someone who's edited news articles and such professionally for grammar and use of English, there's no reason it should be 'Deathworm' over 'Death Worm'. 'Deathworm' LOOKS cooler, but it should probably really be 'Death Worm', as it's a descriptive name rather than a created/made-up name. Since 'Mongolian', 'Death', and 'Worm' are all different words, just placed together as a descriptive name for the creature, they should be seperate words. If not, to grab a random example, 'Giant Sea Serpent' would be 'Giant Seaserpent', and that makes no sense. In my opinion, at least. Indy Gold 23:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll respond as soon as I swat this housefly, feed my starfish and cough up a tapeworm. - DavidWBrooks 02:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

There's also the Giant Squid, Scorpion Fly, and African Wild Cat. Point is, people either smush them together or not in common useage, but it doesn't make either wrong for general things. Speaking strictly grammatically though, which is what I was doing, it should be two words. If you're describing something you see, for instance a madeup creature that looks to you like a golden flying snake, it would not be 'Golden Flyingsnake' but instead 'Golden Flying Snake'. Indy Gold 04:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

African Wildcat, I think. So I'm not sure the rule falls particularly often one way or the other. I mean, AP can't even decide between "backyard" and "back yard"! But I am being pointlessly argumentative; either spelling would be fine - it's just that fixing the redirects hardly seems worth making a change. - DavidWBrooks 10:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

How about we compromise here? "Death-worm". A hyphen! It's the best of both worlds! StevePrutz 15:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

As the MDW is not actually a "worm", I'd suspect *Deathworm* would be a more appropriate word to use. Just as starfish is not a real fish; and worms seem to go by conjoined names: flatworm, tapeworm, earthworm etc.--ZayZayEM 02:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, wait, I know - DeathWorm one word with internal capitalization! Then it looks like a cool Internet company! Or maybe DeathWerm, so it looks like a death-metal band!!! (Except we'd need umlauts somewhere). Or DethWurm, so it can double as a Germanic surname. - DavidWBrooks 14:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I vote for DethWürm. Laodah 08:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

How about the inchworm??? It has a conjoined name!!!!! Maybe it could be DeathWurm so it can triple as a Germanic surname and a worm killer??? (Except what kind of worms would we bring death to?) Or maybe Defwurm, for the little kids or for someone deaf. Snick! 00:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could Frank Herbert have patterned the sandworms in the Dune novels from this legendary creature?

I'm decently certain that they served for inspiration for the Graboids in Tremors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.172.65 (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I tried to put something about arachas in the page, but it was deleted, i dont know why. --WurmRider — Preceding unsigned comment added by WurmRider (talk • contribs) 17:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

You need to give a citation for that. That is, show that the MDW was definitely the inspiration. For instance, if Herbert said so in an interview. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I suggest removing the illustration. This shows a segmented worm, which the MDW certainly is not. All the eye-witness accounts describe a reptile-like creature: if you want an image, use a large salami. An artists impression was removed from the orang pendek article on the grounds that one person's imaginative view of a creature was not verifiable information: the same rule should apply more strongly to an inaccurate image. Incidentally, if the MDW is bogus, a great many Mongolians over a very wide area are consistent liars.

I agree the image is a bit confusing given the apparent confusion over reptile/worm nature of the MDW. It appears to be a non-notable user-created image created specifically for Wikipedia. Anyone disagree with its removal?--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we could just spell it either way?Peace out, dudes!

I agree with the hippie above me. If its that important of a matter, why can't someone just get a college English professor on here? Puhleeeeeze!

I am not a hippie, dude.I just believe in world peace! Anyway, why don't they just like, totally add up all the stories and get an illustration out of that? Huh?

Ahem, I do believe that at one point in either this talk page or the article itself that the illustration is the interpretation of the MDW by someone who's name I forget (if I remember it I'll edit this thing myself). And why don't you take you're own advice and draw up your own illustration based on the descriptions and post it on the site? Snick! (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why does the spelling of such an arcane subject matter so much? Hey, my warranty didn't run out after all! 00:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why does it matter to you so much why it matters so much (not that it does)? - DavidWBrooks 00:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why are we, like, actually discussing something that is so, totally irrelevant to the subject of the Mongolian death-worm? I mean, like, who cares about the spelling of something with the name of 'deathworm' when it isn't really a worm, although I do like some of the suggestions that that person made, like DethWurm being German or something.:)

I have never before seen somebody start a thought in April and come back to finish it in October. Perhaps in 2008, you can sign it. - DavidWBrooks 00:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, maybe the computer was like broken or the internet didn't work for about a year. Oh, and we still have a looooooooooooooooooooong way until 2008 comes. Snick! 00:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mind you, I'm also kind of lazy...Snick! 00:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Anyhow, CONGRATULATIONS!!!! If you see that again, you can tell the whole world about it!!! *jumps for joy* Snick! 23:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC) How many times did you use the word "like" talk about proper grammer --WurmRider — Preceding unsigned comment added by WurmRider (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I removed citation needed tag that was next to the claim that the worm is attracted to the color yellow, as it is said in Destination Truth. Maddra (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think you misunderstand the concept of citation--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

If "Mongolian Death Worm" is the alternate name of that novel - which is the explanation given for putting it in the very prominent "for ... see" link at the top of the article - then why doesn't it say that in the article about Spook Country? I still think that the "see also" link at the bottom is sufficient, but I won't change it again. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's not a case of linking to a related topic as such, but of disambiguation. The novel does not have any mongolian death worms in it, and the novel article is of trivial relevance to this one. The purpose of the hatnote is to guide readers who type "Mongolian Death Worm" into the search field looking for a 2008 postmodern science fiction detective novel by the author of Neuromancer and find themselves at a page describing a blood-filled intestinal cryptid. They are looking for the novel, and should be directed there; this is ordinary Wikipedia practice - see for example the hatnote at scar tissue. The reason there is not a hatnote at Spook Country linking here is that nobody who is looking for information on blood-filled intestinal cryptids will type "Spook Country" into a search engine to find it. Regards, Skomorokh 11:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure, that's straightforward ("Hatnote" - after all these years, I find out what they're called!) My question is: If the alternate book name is so prominent that people are likely to be confused when searching for the book, why isn't that name even mentioned in the article about the book - not as a hatnote, but as a sentence in the article? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because it's a terribly shoddy article in desperate need of repair (it should look like this). Sounds like an opportunity. Skomorokh 12:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since I haven't read it, I can't - but if you have, and could place a mention of the "worm" in Spook Country, it would be great. The issue is people like me who see the hatnote and are curious about it and click through, only to get even more puzzled because there's no connection. Then (like me) they end up killing off the hatnote because it seems like a mistake! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Perfectly understandable, I'll see if I can find a source and add it to the SC article. Thanks for your helpful and courteous discussion on this matter, a novel occurrence in these times. Skomorokh 13:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Great! We don't want to baffle the vast hordes of readers who come to this wonderful article, after all! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I read the article this morning, and from there already have found some more knowledge, apparently something important is how the sightings have all been in the gobi desert during the summer, it's possible it's all heatstroke. I usually like to believe in cryptids but a 5 foot worm that shoots poison and electrocutes people just seems to horrifying to be anything more than a mirage.Spinningfox (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but I think it sounds more realistic than fire-breathing dragons and birds made of fires. 70.96.13.200 (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

This "worm" is also mentioned in issue 1074 of 2000AD (dated 23rd of December, 1997.) The story is called Vector 13 and it names the worm "Mongolian Death Worm" as well as "Allergorhai-Horhai". The story itself deals with Russians finding these things at the end of the Soviet-Afghan war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.181.212 Trelard (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The first recorded reference that I could find to the Allergorhai-Horhai (now known as the Mongolian Death Worm) is from On the trail of ancient man: a narrative of the field work of the Central Asiatic Expeditions by Roy Chapman Andrews (1884) who later went on to become the director of the American Museum of Natural History. The worm first comes up in the book when Roy is asked by the Premier of Mongolia to capture a specimen of this deadly worm in exchange for permits that would allow his expedition into Outer Mongolia. Sounddownstairs (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Olgoi" is used to describe large tube shaped elastic hollow things. Appendix is called "olgoi". Inner rubber tubes of tires are also called "olgoi". Temur (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

mn:Олгой хорхой? Newone (talk) 08:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Olgoi khorkhoi - large intestine worm...-kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

No more comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.172.238 (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Iberian Worm Lizard is about six inches long and lives only in Spain. What point are you trying to make? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Animal Planet cable television channel made a video about this cryptid, presumably in a series about cryptids. Here is the link: http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/other/videos/freak-encounters-mongolian-death-worm.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6014:1C:74CD:4FFE:CFE:2330 (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I watched it... it was very interesting! could we please also find the solution to the spelling argument. dethwurm or Deathworm or Death Worm. Jthekid15 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any disagreement about spelling in the story - they're all "death worm" - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Gaijin Goomba did a video where he suggests that Twinmold from Majora's Mask is based on the Death Worm. Nintendo haven't said anything about it either way though. I'm not sure if it warrents mentioning or not as a result. I'll post the video as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un1iv1Ws5XU 69.178.81.11 (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mongolian death worm. 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/20090614232909/http://www.deathworm2009.com/ to http://www.deathworm2009.com/

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) 13:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mongolian death worm. 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/20100526160025/http://www.deathworm2009.com/?p=245 to http://www.deathworm2009.com/?p=245

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) 19:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Under 'Mentions, investigations', the second and third bulleted paragraphs refer to

"A joint expedition in 2005 by the Centre for Fortean Zoology and E-Mongol . . . ."

and

"In 2005, zoological journalist Richard Freeman mounted an expedition . . . ."

respectively. Since Richard Freeman has long been a leading member of the CFZ, this must surely be a duplication of the same event – only one Mongolian expedition is listed on the CFZ website.

Re the clarification request about "E-Mongol" – Freeman in his 2005 Expedition Report (http://www.cfz.org.uk/expeditions/dw/dwrep.htm here) describes e-mongol.com as ". . . the company with whom we were travelling." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The SYFY channel aired a made-for-television movie entitled Mongolian Death Worm in 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_Death_Worm_(film) 2601:89:C701:9190:9089:70B3:33A7:F85D (talk)

Added. Thanks - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

the Mongolian Death Worm serves as the primary source of conflict in the "Cursed House" Arc of Dandadan 2603:8081:23F0:24E0:8D7D:D252:3188:31FF (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply