Talk:Xenomorph/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Spin Offs and Original design

I don't like to see the Predalien right below the Dogalien from Alien 3 for the following reason: The Predalien is part of a spin off, the dog alien is part of the original trilogy, therefore that ugly Predalien-thing doesn't belong right below the one from the third Alien movie, which is an original Giger-design, while the Predalien is some junk, based on comics and computer games, that doesn't belong here. Once again: that ugly Predalien doesn't belong there, put it in an "Alien vs. Predator Spin-Off" article or something, thank you ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.138.168 (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Next thing: That ugly predalien-thing is there, while the "warrior alien" from the second movie by Cameron is missing, THIS IS ABSOLUTELY INACCEPTABLE! Put the warrior IN the ugly Predalien OUT. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.138.168 (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"I don't like that character" / "it's ugly junk" is not a valid reason for removing content. Whether you like it or not, the AVP films are part of this franchise; they are not a completely separate entity from the 4 Alien films. They share much of the same creative team (as far as writers, designers, etc). Giger didn't design the Alien Queen either, nor the newborn hybrid of Resurrection (or, for that matter, the Aliens of Aliens—they were done by others & departed from his original Alien design—or even the "dog Alien" of Alien 3—his designs for it were discarded in favor of the design by Amalgamated Dynamics, which was a source of contention if you watch the special features on the DVD) ...but I don't see you complaining about any of those variations. You don't get to pick & choose what is or isn't part of the franchise based on what you liked & didn't like. A lot of people hated Jar-Jar Binks, but he's still part of Star Wars whether you like it or not. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
So, were do you think that butt-ugly Predalien belongs, to the Predator site or to the Alien Site? I do think that the even uglier "newborn" belongs here, but that Predalien should get an own page, something like "spin-off atrocities" would be an great title for a page like that ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.138.168 (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
It belongs here. A separate article for "spin-off atrocities" is not going to happen. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Rewrote part of the Queen section for context, including the Predalien's function as what the Strauses call "kind of a baby queen"; they never say the word "Praetorian" on the AVPR DVD commentary. For those who don't know, Praetorians appear in the AVP video game series. They have headcrests like the Queens they protect and are also described as a stage between "drone" and "queen". The AVP 2010 Brady Games Strategy Guide says "Praetorians are Warrior Aliens that have evolved and formed a close bond with their Queen. If a Queen dies, a Praetorian may evolve further to replace her" (p.23). This has possibly led some to conclude that Praetorians are, in fact, the "young queen" stage.----CadmiumX99 (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that "dog alien" was as ridiculous as the Predalien. The whole point of the Alien reproductive cycle was to allow repopulation from any host. For the resulting population to be variable based on the nature of its hosts, e.g. taking on their traits, would be a detriment rather than an advantage, because the Aliens themselves were already perfectly adapted to be precisely what they were. Any crossover genetics could only detract. Alas, we can only write the Wikipedia article, not rewrite the scripts (in which case there would have been just the two films, Alien and Aliens). 96.26.86.195 (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Article title seems goofy

After coming here, I was shocked to see the title of the article changed. I understand the rationale given previously to change the title, but it's just cumbersome and too long as it is now. I would have been fine with calling it Alien (Alien franchise) despite the purported confusion, I don't think it's very confusing at all. ScienceApe (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I posted here at it was deleted?

I would like the state that I posted Information not stated within this page onto the 'Talk' section and it was deleted, I would like a reply for why it was deleted- as I was only sharing information stated in both Alien and Aliens vs Predator Novels that specify questions asked earlier in this section. And to IllaZilla, I would like to state that these were not 'various theories' as one sentence was, but another perhaps three paragraphs were actual information on the Xenomorphs. I am sorry for any inconvenience of reading this post, but I have looked and I cannot find any other way to state my puzzled-ness over the deletion of my post. Thankyou. --NoobArtist77 (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, article talk pages are not forums for general discussion of article topics. They are for discussing improvements to Wikipedia articles. Your "post" consisted entirely of your own thoughts, theories, observations, etc. about these fictional creatures and their depictions in various books and comics. It had little to nothing to do with discussing the content of the Wikipedia article. If you are looking to discuss the creatures in general and chit-chat with other Alien fans, I suggest you find an Alien messageboard or fan community. Such stuff is not appropriate here on Wikipedia. We are building an encyclopedia, not gabbing about Aliens. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Might I suggest AVPGalaxy? Serendipodous 18:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Prometheus

Isn't it about time that material from Prometheus was added here? --Mariomassone (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No; As described numerous times by the writers, director, & production team, Prometheus is not part of the Alien franchise and does not feature the Alien creatures. Since it began development as an Alien prequel, it contains elements similar to Alien, but it doesn't feature these creatures. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
No, a visual similarity while retaining massive differences and not following anything at all established to do with that species does not a member of that species make.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't feature those creatures, but it does explain their origin as what the captain of Prometheus described as "weapons of mass destruction" created by the so-called "Engineers".--Mariomassone (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
No it doesn't. There is a mural of a proper Xeno. Could mean they worship it, could mean thats the blue print. There is no explanation of whether they created them, whether they found them and extracted something from them to make the goo, nothing is explained and any single thing you add to this article that doesn't come from a sourced interview by Scott or Lindelof is going to be 100% pure original research, because the movie does not state anything about the Alien aliens. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I forgot that Prometheus hasn't come out in the US yet. But yes, the Alien does appear in Prometheus, post-credits. Serendipodous 21:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Please don't say something as gospel when it is not the case. Something that has some physical similarities to it does. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Pre-credits, and it's markedly different to the alien of Alien fame. I imagine there'll be something official in the near future to say aye or nay on that count but it's a passing similarity more than anything definite. GRAPPLE X 23:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Prometheus is a prequel, it's a franchise reboot, no good reason why it should not be included. Additionally, the film delves directly into aspects that are first touched upon in the 1979 release, it's inaccurate to suggest that there is a disconnect between the two. We are also shown a creature, in the final scene, that is, for all intents and purposes, a xenomorph. Semitransgenic talk. 18:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Prometheus is its own film in the same universe that follows the Engineers. First it was clearly the start of the species, when I falsified that you've come back with "well it just is". Well it just isn't. Any more than the Snake or that giant thing is a facehugger because they have teh same skin and inject things into other creatures. It does not follow anything at all established to do with its lifecycle and it is not, for all intents and purposes, a Xenomorph because you say so. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I have directed Semitransgenic to this discussion to talk about his repeated insertion of a claim that the creature at the end of the film is a Xenomorph despite multiple evidence to the contrary. He continues to do this despite my requests that he discuss this here. More than likely he has already done it again while I type this. I'm just making a statement that this is what is happening for any administrative intervention. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake as you are the primary contributor to the Prometheus (film) I can only assume you have WP:OWN when it comes to content inclusion there. I have zero interest in pedantic nit picking. Call it what you want, but it's a xenotype creature: it's the movie industry, it's a franchise reboot, they are remaking Alien, throwing in a xenomoprh at the end is a no-brainer, zero further analysis required. Semitransgenic talk. 19:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
It is not a franchise reboot, it is a film that takes place in the same universe, Alien, Aliens and Alien 3 have not been invalidated. That is another unsourced claim you have made. You're making shit up, I'm telling you, you are making shit up, you're telling me "Well hey, it's my shit so it sticks". It is not a xenomorph, considering you are so educated on it you should realise that, but no, it looks kinda like it, but not really like it, so it is one. It doesn't follow the lifecycle in any way, looks different, but it is one. It was the FIRST, then I proved it wasn't, but it is still one. For an example of how little that kind of attitude is tolerated, check out The Avengers (film), where they do not name Thanos in the mid-credit sequence even though it probably is him. In this case it isn't even clear what it is. And accusing someone of WP:OWN is, I've found, the last resort of someone not getting their way regardless of how wrong they are. EDIT And considering the number of chefs involved with the plot, it is baseless anyway. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I've re-add my original comment into the articles plot section; "an alien creature with jet-black skin and an elongated skull..." This should be more than sufficiently descriptive without causing an edit war (which was my original intention with this description before it was changed to the very wording I sought to avoid). Whether or not the creature in a proto-Xenomorph or not is besides the point, the current wording should be enough clarification for all. Let others confer what they will once they've seen the film. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fair enough.
But, let's compare images of:
Is it accurate to claim that continuance is absent?
The central issue is that we have, as with almost all articles that provide plots, an un-sourced account of what took place in the final scene.
Since there is no source that states categorically what the creature is, or isn't, we appear to have situation where the POV of the primary article contributor is determining content inclusion.
However, a cursory look across forums etc. (in lieu of any real sources) establishes that the majority of viewers see this alien as a xenotype (proto-xenomorph or whatever).
Therefore, specifically in the context of providing an un-sourced plot, popular opinion, I would suggest, can help determine what concensus might be on this matter.
if so, and keeping in mind the points raised here, what are your reasons for this? Semitransgenic talk. 09:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps Bird should link to Dinosaur, save time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
As I said, let viewers believe what they will. In my opinion, the creature is a proto-Xenomorph, and I believe that was Scott's intention when he included that scene. That said, we cannot claim to know exactly what Scott was thinking when he inserted this alien creature, and therefore cannot say beyond reasonable doubt that this creature is what we believe it is. Until we get direct confirmation that this creature is a Xenomorph, the link should stay off the article. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Slightly off topic, but where has this term "proto-xenomorph" come from? They have an over 2,000 year old mural of Xenomorphs, the more traditional kind, in the cylinder chamber. They already existed a long time ago.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake: "the more traditional kind" - so you accept it is a xenomorph of some description? So is it correct that your exclusion position is underpinned by policy, and not personal opinion? Semitransgenic talk. 12:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
No it's just a descriptive term. I've never denied it has some physical similarites, the same way the other creatures obviously share the same skin as the Facehugger, but are not themselves Facehuggers. It still has significant differences and eschews anything established about the creatures. As soon as a reference turns up saying what it is, I have absolutely no problem with it being added, but whatever it is, it does not fit into this definition at the minute. Superman looks human, but you wouldn't call him a human. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm using the term "proto-Xenomorph" purely for descriptive purposes. In actuality, the creature birthed at the end of Prometheus looks like a young Queen (with the pointed, fanned-shaped head), but I find using the 'proto' term to be a suitable placeholder for now. As for the mural, I have a theory that the Engineer's are/were attempting to recreate an original species through genetic manipulation and that the alien-squids are a result of the worms interacting with the genetic material in the cylinders. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
You mean the Snakes? The Snakes were definitely inferred to be those worms, you see them dancing in the leaking liquid. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the snakes, sorry. The squid seems to be a different variation of the same species, dependant on which host the parasite incubates in (much like the Xenomorph's in the original trilogy). --Jasca Ducato (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The bird-dinosaur metaphor is not even appropriate. This is an article about a fictional species, which is to say, the concept of the fictional species and the development of that fictional idea in real world terms. Prometheus is a prequel which in part explores the origins of that species. It is, of course, relevant. This isn't an article about a narrow creature, it's an article about "that thing in that Alien film" and Prometheus is a part of the real-life story of that species-concept.Zythe (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Except there is no knowledge in existence, whatsoever, about what it is and what happens to it. Nothing about it fits into the pre-established parameters and with no other sources of information it is impossible to call it anything or identify it as belonging in this article without a massive leap of Original Research and basically making stuff up.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So it seems there is a reference from people involved in the film. Given that Scott himself has said this movie share's Alien's DNA, and the reference, I'm inclined to add it with very carefully chosen wording. This will also help clear up the closing sentence in the films plot section. --Williamsburgland (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As highlighted in a related discussion. Prometheus's screenwriter refers directly to the appearance of the xenomorph species in said movie. Lindelof discusses Prometheus in the context it being part of the "Alien franchise." We are dealing with the same species here and the manifestations we see in Prometheus are featured in Prometheus: The Art of the Film so there is no good reason why this publication could not be referenced and the various creatures mentioned in this article. Semitransgenic talk. 21:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
God this is getting tedious, this "There are certain songs that have to be on that set list, and it’s the same when you’re talking about an Alien film: Do you need to see a xenomorph bursting out of the human body? And how do we do it in a way that you haven’t seen before?" is a question, it does not refer specifically or directly to the end scene or say that is what it is and it certainly isn't a human body. The art book is filled with concept art, and still doesn't refer to it that way unless you've turned up some English scans. Again, the whole thing is based on your OR/SYN. I'll even throw in your Corliss quote "The familiar image in the movie’s last shot", which still doesn't specify anything as things erupting from hosts IS a familar scene regardless of what it is. So then we move right back on around to your Synthesis. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so how about this:

Prometheus Ridley Scott's 2012 film Prometheus, which was originally conceived as a direct prequel to Alien), features a creature noted[1] for it's similarity to the creatures from the Alien franchise in it's final frames. Prometheus co-writer said of the creature - "Do you need to see a xenomorph bursting out of the human body? And how do we do it in a way that you haven’t seen before?" [2] Despite this, others[3] have questioned is Prometheus and the creature at the end of the film are tied to the Alien universe this closely.

Please note that the censored url in the third ref is for the examiner, which is blacklisted by wikipedia. I don't know if there's some way to include it, or if there's another reference that covers some of the doubt DWB and others have. My feeling is that there's a clear connection here, it's notable and verifiable, so it should be at least mentioned. --Williamsburgland (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Note the Prometheus Art book is published in the U.K. by Titan books, and is written in English. What we saw were scans from the French edition. Furthermore,today in Time, yet another usable cite: "The closing shot of the film witnesses the end result of this altercation: The birth of the alien creature, as we know it in Alien..." Semitransgenic talk. 21:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
That's a good one too. Can we find a non black listed ref for the opposing position? What do you think of my proposed entry? --Williamsburgland (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
note also that Snyder states:"Obviously this is an Alien prequel – regardless of what the movie studio may be claiming — and the most interesting plot points in Prometheus do indeed stem from the through-line of the franchise." Semitransgenic talk.
Having the same discussion over two articles, the Time/Snyder piece is all theory, and he still manages to get it wrong abd have to be corrected by someone else. It. Is. Theory. JFC. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Are the corrections referencable? I don't understand the inherent opposition to including a blurb on the creature here and leaving the wording ('alien creature' linked here) on the movie page as it is now. I guess I understand you don't believe it's the precursor to the original Alien, but there are plenty of verifiable sources saying it is. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, in regards to your Avengers analogy, while I don't believe it has bearing here (Avengers wasn't conceived as a prequel to a 6 film series about Thanos), I'll point out that while Thanos isn't named in the plot section, he is in other sections, and his article does mention his appearance. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
There are no verifiable sources saying that, because it is impossible to say that. Literally impossible. There is no media or interview in existence at the moment that covers how that thing (which is not a precursor, they already have them, they have a church dedicated to them where all the liquid cylinders are) gets off that planet or is turned into an egg harvesting machine or how all the other aliens end up looking distinctly different and so on and so on. There is a massive void of logic that only 3 people in the entire world can fill, and they have not. Anyone who calls it a precursor to the Aliens in Alien is making shit up, literally just making up information because they have nothing factual to base that on. And I'm sorry if it comes off as aggressive at you Burgland, but I'm getting beyond sick of restating the same thing over and over only to have people say "Well Joe over at reviews.com says its an Alien Queen, thats verifiable!". And for Thanos, there are references from people actually involved with the film saying he is Thanos on that page.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Did you read my proposal? I'm not saying it's an Alien Queen, and I recognize that it's very, very different from any other Alien in the franchise (as was the Newborn and Predalien), but summarily dismissing anyone who disagrees with your position as bullshit is petty easy to take as aggressive as is blatantly accusing people of 'making shit up' - I've been an avid, obssessive fan of the series for 20 odd years, the bulk of my life, and when I observe that something looks like an Alien, and has a clear connection to the Alien franchise, I'm hardly making shit up, and I don't appreciate the inference. Now, I don't want this thing to be a precursor to the Alien (I was personally hoping for something cooler), and I do recall the pictures of proper Alien looking creatures in the 'church', but the fact remains the same that there are well more than a few reliable sources from respected magazines which note the similarity between the "proto-alien" and the classic creature, so at the very least I vote for inclusion in this article. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Williamsburgland regarding a certain editor's dismissiveness. The only obligation we have here is to try and build consensus; while adhering to the relevant guidelines, one of which is WP:AGF. Currently we have citartions to support the notion that Prometheus is part of the Alien film franchise. We also have a book (in English and with Scott credited as co-author) that details all of the xenomorphic transformations unveiled in Promehteus, there are clearly grounds for inclusion. Semitransgenic talk. 23:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The obligation you have is to provide evidence, a consensus does not bend reality to its whim. This book, you keep referring to it, yet you can provide no information from it, least of which any actual referral to a xenomorph. I wouldn't mind so much except you can't really say anything definitive, you just keep saying that you have references and that they prove what you want them to. Using logic with you fails and I'm tired of wasting my time attempting to make you understand why people making baseless theories is not actual evidence. If they say it looks like one, fine, noone (and you do keep ignoring this I notice) can say it is one and certainly cannot say that it has anything at all to do with the ones seen in Alien+, only people actually involved with the film can say that, and they have yet to say it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems you are confusing two separate issues. Let me refocus your attention on the main point of discussion here: whether or not there is enough material available to us, to begin structuring a section that deals with the various xenomorphic creatures that appear in Prometheus. Editors who are interested enough in pulling extant sources together will do so, no doubt. I merely wish to express the view that I support the inclusion of Prometheus related content. The second matter is that of verifiability. The only thing that concerns us regarding content inclusion here is fulfilling the requirements of WP:RS, it doesn't matter that we are dealing with "theory," ("baseless" or otherwise), it's inconsequential, what matters is that we provide cites that are attributable to reliable sources. Semitransgenic talk. 23:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Now there are multiple xenomorph creatures? And yes it does matter if it's theory, it's theory. You can't put forth a theory that Tyler Durden is the nameless Narrators dead baby brother with nothing to back it up and then include that because the person saying it is saying it on a website. RS is about the source providing information that has been editorially checked or has some form of oversight, it does not validate introducing theory as fact. It's not the Alien Wikia. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. In your view we should not cite content published by, for example, Time magazine? Even if it's written by a senior editor of theirs? Do you offer the same assessment of a book co-authored by Ridely Scott that deals specifically with the creatures featured in Promentheus? I'm slightly mystified, are you really saying that such sources have to be vetted by the likes of you before we can include them here? Semitransgenic talk. 00:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
There's you performing OR again. I'm saying that the art book, you haven't actually read it. If you have you haven't said so or provided information from it you're jsut referencing concept art from it. If in that book, Scott says "it is the progenitor of the Xenomorph race", would I have a problem with it? No, why in the hell would I? It's a verifiable source from someone who knows what they are talking about. This is what I have said to you a dozen times across two pages and you ignore that. If the Queen of Time magazine says it's the progenitor of the Xenomorph race, why would I believe that? Why do they know that? How can they possibly know that? They can't. Now if the Queen of Time magazine says "Damon Lindelof says its the progenitor of the Xenomorph race" then there isn't a problem. The issue here is that the Queen of Time magazine saying that without any way of knowing is theory, and baseless theory at that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
you are presenting a straw man here. The proposed inclusion of RS content in Alien (creature in Alien franchise), regarding the various organisms featured in Prometheus, has nothing to do with anyone making claims about a "progenitor of the Xenomorph race" (such a claim did not form the basis of the other discussion either). Semitransgenic talk. 01:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Good lord. Ok I'm going to try and just break this down as simple as I can for you. ALL sources that are not directly quoting or referencing someone involved with the film is making stuff up. If they weren't, people would not still be searching for answers to questions from the film. These sources therefore present theory with very little basis. THere is no excuse or basis for inserting anything but the final creature into this article. Your interpretations of images from a foreign language book do not count as a source, even if there is an English equivalent because you haven't read it and can therefore provide no information from it. No this is not an endorsement of what the final creature is.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, any material that complies with the guidelines on reliability can be cited, that you believe one commentator or another is "making stuff up" is redundant. Also, you are missing the point regarding the book: it exists, it is a source, it can be consulted and cited (even the French version) by any editor here who wishes to do so. Semitransgenic talk. 01:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
No it can't. If it is a reliable source but it still makes up a whole lifecycle for a creature independent of the source material, it is not in anyway valid material. Are you saying that if I work for the New York Times as the executive editor and decide to write an article calling the thing at the end the "Giga Alien" just because I can, that you can cite that as the name? As for the Art Book, yes it can be used as a source, what I am saying is you have cited it as evidence based on your interpretation of images of things, some of which do not even appear in the film, and text you cannot read. This is what I am saying. This is what I have said a half dozen times. I'm done with this discussion, you can continue to not read what I write even easier if I'm not writing it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
"text you cannot read"?? You are content to assume that other editors are incapable of reading and translating French, or, you simply haven't even bothered to view the available high-res images. Semitransgenic talk. 02:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I lived in France for a year and can read the language pretty well. If someone could link me to one of those artbook scans, I'd be happy to go through them.Mariomassone (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've read the chapter on the so-called "proto-xenomorph". For one thing, that name can go straight out of the window: Scott nicknames it "The Deacon", in reference to its pointed head. What I find surprising is that a lot of text is dedicated on how the creature is meant to be portrayed as feminine (in reference to Shaw), that its movements were based on newborn calves, and that its jaw structure was based on that of some kind of shark (I think a goblin shark), but no reference is made to the classic xenomorph. As I said, I've only checked the chapter on the "Deacon", so I'll need a bit more time to go through the rest, where perhaps a more explicit reference is made.Mariomassone (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting details Mariomassone, surprised you could read the text, the scans were so tiny. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I read the idea of a pharyngeal jaw structure ("une second machoire") is clearly mentioned. We see this in nascent form in the images. I avoided mention of the female reference as it will most likely be used to fuel speculation regarding the creatures status as a new-born queen. Semitransgenic talk. 16:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Damon Lindelof officially referred to it as it being some form of xenomorph in this inverview.

So the idea at the beginning that this Engineer essentially creates a strand of DNA that may lead to what we know as humanity – something that’s confirmed in the movie – I felt that the punchline of Prometheus was going to be that there is human DNA in what we have come to know as the human Xenomorph. If what we see at the end of the film is a queen or a progenitor of the eggs in Alien is all up for interpretation. We feel that there are clues in the movie that lead one down a path. But this idea that a child of Shaw and Holloway’s basically infects an Engineer and then gives birth to a Xenomorph, I do feel that the idea of creation here is sort of the birth of mutts. The mixing and matching of combinant strands.

Source--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So I'm going to go ahead and edit boldly and add the proposal I made above - it's fully cited and contains no OR, nor does it leap to the conclusion that The Deacon is an Alien. It also contains a section that suggests this creature is not an Alien, though that needs to be cited. The addition seems to be inline with consensus, and it should solve all the 'proto-alien' nonsense that's being added. I welcome changes, but this discussion it getting kind of ridiculous. There are clear, verifiable sources calling this thing an Alien, and the connection to the Alien universe is verifiable as well. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with previous comment. I also propose that we mention the chain of events (including the Trilobite) that leads to the birth of the Deacon. Semitransgenic talk. 16:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Trilobite? Did I miss something in the film? I recall it was goop → slipped to Holloway → sex w/ Shaw → Shaw "births" squid thing → squid thing grows really big, latches onto Engineer's face → Alien-y thing. What trilobite are you referring to? --IllaZilla (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
According to the art book, the thing she births is the Trilobite and the big thing is the Adult Trilobite. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Huh. Even though it looks nothing at all like a trilobite? The initial creature looks much more like a squid, while the grown-up version looks like a starfish. Strange. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd have called them chazwazers.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Worst episode ever. I agree with adding the chain of events, but I don't think we should add a lot of unnoffical names for the creatures, particularly ones not given by those directly involved in the production (a la proto alien). --Williamsburgland (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
If the names are being used in Prometheus: The Art of the Film, those aren't exactly unofficial names in the same vein as "proto alien". EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It sounds similar to the various production nicknames given to many of these creatures by the production staff: "space jockey" for the dead pilot thing in Alien; "Wolf" for the Predator in AVP:R; "Chet" for the Predalien in AVP:R; "Berserker", "Tracker", and "Falconer" for the Predators in Predators; "Deacon" for whatever that thing is at the end of Prometheus; etc. While these may be nicknames they used for them when filming or whatever, the fact is the creatures have no canonical names in the film. Production nicknames can be mentioned, but should'd be presented as "official" names for these what-have-yous. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Someone got my Chazwazzer reference. I'd much rather we add the production names and make mention they were production names if necessary to stop this "proto alien" nonsense and any other fan made names before they stick and you get the Space Jockey. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the 'proto alien' was a poor example to use on my part; it seems since that section has been added the addition of that term has ceased. What I meant was more along the lines of what Illa is saying - I don't think production nick names are necessarily useful here. For example, we don't call the shark in Jaws 'Bruce', though we can mention that was the machine's nickname on the set. For that reason I'm actually not entirely pleased with calling the section here 'Deacon'... I think 'Prometheus' is fine.--Williamsburgland (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to you William, I've seen peopleusing it all over the place. At least with Jaws, Jaws is the title of the film. Proto-Alien is just made up nonsense that people have latched onto, bet there is an article on the Alien wikia called Proto-Alien as we speak. Seems better to nip it in the bud and identify it in the prose at least by the only thing approaching an official identifier we have.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
That's kind of what I was getting at - before the section now called 'Deacon' was added people were adding the proto alien nonsense, which I believe originated on a forum. That term clearly doesn't belong here. What I meant to say was that we ought to be careful about using any nicknames given during the production, ie we don't call the shark in Jaws 'Bruce', we call him The Shark. I understand that sometimes it's easiest to use those terms to maintain a Real World Perspective, but, again I think they should be secondary if other terms are available, even if it's just 'the alien thing at the end of Prometheus'. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with detailing the chain of events leading up to the birth of the Deacon. The section currently describes it as "retaining some of the Prometheus character Shaw's femininity", which I imagine would be baffling to any reader who hasn't seen the film. More information is needed. I suggest we explain this in a separate "Trilobite" section. While the Trilobite may not technically be a xenomorph, it's still a part of their life cycle, just like the eggs and facehuggers. —Flax5 16:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I think separate sections for the 'Trilobite' (and, presumably, the engineer) is a bit much as there's no evidence that they are Xenomorphs. I think mentioning them, and perhaps the liquid and background (very concisely) would make sense. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
In the Bloody Disgusting interview, Lindelof states that "a child of Shaw and Holloway's basically infects an Engineer and then gives birth to a Xenomorph". I think this means that the Trilobite is roughly equivalent to the facehugger in terms of its relevance to the Xenomorph species – not a member, per se, but still an important part of its life cycle. (I agree that there shouldn't be a section on the Engineer, since he's just the host the Trilobite used to reproduce. That would be like adding a section on John Hurt's character from the first film.) —Flax5 13:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
A tad late, but for the record; I created the term "proto-alien" (or proto-Xenomorph) here purely for descriptive purposes as no other name had yet been given for the creature, though I can't speak for anyone who also decided to use the name independant of this discussion. Please try not to have a retroactive hissy fit over it now it has been given an official(?) nickname. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Move

Dude, moving this page is not a minor edit, and nor is it kosher to move a page without a move discussion. Serendipodous 16:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved back. Moving an article without explanation or consensus is unacceptable. The title Alien (creature in Alien franchise) was decided on after much discussion and consensus-building. For the record, I didn't care for the title much, but I accepted the consensus. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2012

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is against moving to the original proposed title, and there is no consensus to move to Xenomorph (Alien franchise). Jenks24 (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


Alien (creature in Alien franchise) → Alien (fictional species) – As far as I can tell, no one has suggested this name before. I think it addresses many of the concerns of previous titles without being too long, which I personally feel the current title to be. Another alternative might be "Alien (fictional creature)". As always, I'm open to debate/objections/whatever. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose same problems as before. There's many aliens called "alien", which are fictional species. The alternate "fictional creature" also suffers from these problems. I suggest Xenomorph (Alien franchise), since it is used in the franchise, to specifically refer to this thing, and not referring to the Engineers/SpaceJockey, or other bug-hunt targets, or other Predator/Alien aliens. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    I'd agree with Xenomorph as well.--CyberGhostface (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    I'm also in favor of Xenomorph. ScienceApe (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The current title Alien (creature in Alien franchise) was the result of several previous discussions and move requests. Though I disagreed with the title (as can be seen above under #Requested move (2010)), it seems to have consensus support. "Xenomorph" is an unacceptable title; I've explained why many times on many talk pages, but here it is again: The term "xenomorph" is used only once in any of the 6 Alien films (7 if you count Prometheus), by the character Gorman in Aliens. Its use in that film is as a term of classification (like "mammal" or "insect"), not as a name for the creatures (in other words, not as a proper noun). The term has never again been used in any films, which are the primary media in which this creature appears. All of the films refer to the creatures as "Aliens" and list them as such in the credits (when crediting the actors who portrayed them or the designers who worked on them). It's only in spin-off and expanded universe media (comics, video games, etc.) that the term "xenomorph" was perpetuated as a name for the creatures. The canonical name for the creatures is "Aliens". Obviously this lends itself towards awkward disambiguation, but that's the way the cookie crumbles; a less specific dab like "Alien (fictional species)" would be too generic, easily confused for any other fictitious extraterrestrials. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment – while "xenomorph" is rare in the films themselves, it's been used by several key people involved in their creation. The citations at the beginning of the article indicate that James Cameron, David Fincher and Vincent Ward have all used the word to refer to the species, while Damon Lindelof has used it in several recent interviews. While it's far from ideal, I think there's a case to be made for moving the article to Xenomorph (Alien franchise), or maybe even Xenomorph, as the other three articles with that word in their name are very short and don't seem to be anywhere near as notable as this one. —Flax5 13:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment On the subject of not calling it a Xenomorph, I think your rationale is weak. The term "alien" is also a term of classification, not the name of the creature. How often the characters say the name of the creature is also not a factor in what we should call it. The situation right now is that the "Alien" is not the only creature or alien in the alien franchise. And according to Prometheus, it may not even be an alien in the first place, but I digress. It's too ambiguous of a term, so we have to go with Xenomorph (Alien franchise) because it's the only term that is appropriate, and the least ambiguous. ScienceApe (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    It makes little difference how many people have used the term in conversation. It is not the canonical name for the creatures. I repeat: In both the titles and credits of every single film, the creatures are called "Alien"s. Note that these films are not titled Xenomorph, Xenomorphs, Xenomorph 3, etc. It is also irrelevant that there are other aliens (noun) in the franchise, as we are talking about Aliens (proper noun). Several of the expanded universe materials refer to the Predators (proper noun) as "Yautja", yet we do not move the article to that title simply to more easily distinguish it from generic predators (noun). "Xenomorph" is certainly not the only appropriate term here; the most appropriate term is "Alien", since that's the canonical name. The level of disambiguation required to distinguish this from other aliens is irrelevant; Wikipedia routinely uses all manner of disambiguation to distinguish like-named topics from one another. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    It has no canonical name. The name it gives it in the credits is indeed Alien, but that's not its canonical name. In any case we can't call it Alien because of the confusion it causes. The next best thing is to just call it Xenomorph. I don't think the name of the series has anything to do with it. Should we also call the Engineers, Prometheiens? The name of the series is irrelevant. It is relevant that there are other creatures in the Alien movies that are also aliens. That's the whole reason why we can't even call it Alien (film creature) because it's not the only alien film creature. Really? If that's the case, then why don't we just call the article, Alien (the black thing that comes out of people's chests and has a long head and teeth and has acid for blood). Just call it Xenomorph (Alien franchise) and be done with it. ScienceApe (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    The one instance of the word "xenomorph" being used in the films occurs in such a manner as to not indicate it's the name of the creature specifically, but rather a wider classifications of animals. The species is described as being "a xenomorph" much in the same way as a piranha might be called "a fish" to someone unfamiliar with one. I'd be whole-heartedly opposed to using the term in this way as it's really shoehorning an incorrect term into use wrongly. GRAPPLE X 03:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    Actually it's used all the time in the comics, video games, and novels. And in this case, I think those have weight that has to be considered so no, it's not shoehorning anything. That's the name other media in the AVP universe calls them. Your logic of "xenomorph" being a classification can also be applied to the word "alien". Your argument is basically the exact same argument used by IllaZilla so I don't know what you're adding to this discussion. ScienceApe (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    An extra voice, so as to aid consensus. I don't know how that's not apparent. GRAPPLE X 14:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    a) WP:COMMONNAME applies. Only those familiar with the ancillary material use "xenomorph"; b) there is no other fictional universe on Wikipedia in which the ancillary material is used to justify an article title. Canon always takes precedence. Serendipodous 15:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    I don't actually believe Alien is its common name nor its canon name. It's commonly called a Xenomorph by fans, and in the other media. In this case, other media takes precedence when we take into account the problems with the current name and its ambiguity. ScienceApe (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    What it's called by fans is irrelevant. Very few of the "other media" call them Xenomorphs, and "other media" rarely if ever takes precedence. There are no problems with the current name; it is well-disambiguated to prevent ambiguity. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    If WP:COMMONNAME applies, then yes what it is called by fans should be taken into consideration. You're making a baseless assertion, other media commonly calls them Xenomorphs. Your last argument has already been addressed, I don't see the need to repeat myself. ScienceApe (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Illazilla. Alien (fictional species) is no use at all, there are a trillion fictional alien species. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator: I understand that there are many fictional alien species, but 1) none of them are specifically called "Alien", 2) the Aliens from this franchise are clearly the most common use of the term "Alien" to refer to a specific extraterrestrial species (i.e., no one who is referring to a fictional species as an "Alien" with a capital A would be referring to any other fictional species), and 3) the purpose of parenthetical disambiguation is to aid navigation, so someone looking for the Aliens from the Alien franchise, they would type Alien into the search bar and notice "Alien (fictional species)" in the drop-down list and come to the right place. If they are looking for other aliens, the hatnote would direct them to the place they're looking for. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Since terms like "Alien" are quite ambiguous I feel the mention of the actual Alien franchise is necessary here. I would support "Alien (Alien franchise)" as a streamlined alternative, but "Alien (fictional species)" sounds, to me, like an overview of the wider trope of little green men than of any specific race. GRAPPLE X 14:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    Speaking of which, why wasn't "Alien (Alien franchise)" selected? Are there non-creature aliens in the Alien franchise? Are there other aliens in the Alien franchise called "Alien" which that might be confused with? "Creature in Alien franchise" just seems unnecessarily wordy to me and dab can be accomplished more tersely. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    While I can't speak for any original reason (Alien (Alien franchise) could easily mean the first Alien film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Introduces a certain ambiguity that was not there in the original title. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The title of the article as it is right now is inappropriate because it's not the only alien creature in the Alien franchise especially with the release of Prometheus. The title was also less than desirable because of how wordy it was. The suggested rename is inappropriate however for the reasons listed above. I suggest, Xenomorph (Alien franchise). Seems about as appropriate and accurate as it's going to get until we get an official name for these creatures (if we ever get an official name which we probably won't). ScienceApe (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    These may not be the only alien (noun) creatures in the franchise, but they are the only Aliens (proper noun). The wordiness of the disambiguation is irrelevant; Wikipedia routinely uses whatever disambiguation is necessary to distinguish like-named topics from one another, and we have many ways of ensuring that readers arrive at the article they are looking for. I am specifically opposed to the title "Xenomorph", for the reasons I've given above as well as those given in the past. It is neither appropriate nor accurate, and these creatures have an official name: Aliens. They have had that name for 33 years. There have been several discussions of this in the past, and they have always resulted in the article being titled some variation of "Alien" and never of "Xenomorph". There is no compelling reason to move it away from the title "Alien", especially since that is the official, canonical, and most often-used name for the creatures. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    That's not their name, they have no canon name. The wordiness is not the most important reason, but if it can be shorter, then it should, I just thought it was worth mentioning. In any case, the current name is not appropriate because it's not the only creature in the alien franchise, it's as simple as that. Xenomorph is the closest thing to their name. In this case where we are having such trouble giving it a name, I think what the comics, video games and novels call it makes a difference. This is simply a case where we do not have a better name for them, so we should give the comics, video games and novels some more weight in their name usage. They ALL call it Xenomorph, that's pretty weighty in favor for calling it Xenomorph. We should also call it Xenomorph until (if ever) an official name is given. ScienceApe (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    It most certainly is their canonical name, and I do not understand (A) why you don't understand this, or (B) why you keep denying it in spite of all evidence. The title of every film is Alien something. The name of the franchise is Alien. Even the crossover franchise is Alien vs. Predator, not Xenomorph vs. Predator. Literally every single item of media in the franchise uses the word "Alien" in its title. Each film credits it as the "Alien", it is referred to as such in numerous primary and secondary sources. It makes no difference whether it is the only only extraterrestrial creature in the films, it is the only capital-A Alien, the only titular Alien creature. Also, not all of the comics/games/etc. call them xenomorphs, only some. Though often used as a name for them in secondary media and fan circles, their official/canonical/primary name has always been Aliens. This has been true for over 3 decades, and did not suddenly become untrue. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    It is also the name for illegal aliens (as a class), per "Aliens", so is NOT specific to the Xenomorph, in the Alien franchise, and other aliens (non-human) not the Xenomorph also referred to as aliens in the franchise. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    "Xenomorph" isn't a specific name for these creatures either, but is used in other contexts, which is fairly obvious, as it still needs to be disambiguated. Shifting the name from "Alien" to "Xenomorph" solves literally nothing. Serendipodous 09:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    Agree with Serendipodous, Space Jockey is an accept named for the Engineers as well but it isn't an official name, we now have one. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    The disambiguatory term would be shorter. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    The length of the disambiguatory term is irrelevant. Short or long, the only relevance is whether it leads readers to the correct article. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    Can you prove its their canon name? What it is listed as in the credits is not evidence of canon name. Credits often list creatures by descriptive or generic names if they do not have official names. The name of the movies is also not evidence of it being its canon name. The issue with there being several creatures and aliens in the Alien universe is indeed a reason for why the current name is not acceptable. They don't all have to call them Xenomorphs, so you're arguing a strawman here. The point was the vast majority of them do, so that lends more weight to calling them that. You can keep asserting that Alien is their canon name, without evidence it really means nothing. ScienceApe (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    Yet again you deny any and all evidence: The name of the franchise, the titles of all the films, how they are credited...there are innumerable sources that call them Aliens. It is their canon name, by a vast preponderance of sources. Why you choose to continually deny this is beyond reason. The existence of other extraterrestrial creatures within the fictional universe is irrelevant (just as the existence of other predatory creatures within the Predator universe is irrelevant to the name of the Predator creatures). The current name is perfectly acceptable and has been for years. The "vast majority" of sources do not call these creatures Xenomorophs (in fact, very few of them do). The vast majority of media in the franchise do refer to these creatures as Aliens. Unless you've conducted some sort of survey of every piece of media in the entire franchise, your argument doesn't hold water. You can keep asserting that Alien isn't their canon name, but against such a mountain of evidence it really means nothing. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    Of course, if you require further evidence, pretty much every single source listed here refers to the creatures as Aliens (and not Xenomorphs). Even Beautiful Monsters by David A. McIntee, which covers pretty much every bit of Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator media published through 2005, calls them "Aliens" (and not Xenomorphs) throughout. I even went through the chapter on Aliens again just now to be certain: not a single use of the word Xenomorph, numerous uses of Alien. To cite all the sources I've read which use "Alien" and not "Xenomorph" would take hours. Where are your sources that call them Xenomorphs (and not Aliens)? You've made the claim that "Xenomorph" is "used all the time in the comics, video games, and novels", but having read several of the comics and played several of the video games, I don't find this to be true. Where is your evidence that "Xenomorph" is the most widely-used name for the creatures? --IllaZilla (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    And the other 'aliens' belong to the Prometheus universe, not the Alien one. That there is a Robocop vs Terminator franchise doesn't mean the T-800 belongs to Robocop. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    Negatory. The Prometheus universe is the same universe as Alien. ScienceApe (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    They are still different series. Your point is there is confusion, there is no confusion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    That's an equivocation fallacy. The issue you raised was that they are different universes, they are not. Different creatures and aliens in the same universe. The current name is inappropriate. ScienceApe (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    No no no. They call them "aliens", referring to what they are, aliens. That's not their canonical name. None of the citations on the Alien wiki page which you lazily linked to without even reading the citations, verifies that their canon name is "Alien". And contrary to what you claim, plenty of novels, comics and video games refer to them as Xenomorphs. If you want specific examples, off the top of my head I know Aliens: Genocide both the novel and the comic, and Aliens: Earth War refer to them as Xenomorphs. ScienceApe (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    Nice try, pal: I wrote the Alien (film) article (or at least 90% of it), so don't try to tell me what those sources do and do not say. I read them and I cited them, so I'm darn well certain what they do and do not say. They refer to them as "Aliens" (capital A). In particular the McIntee book uses capital-A Alien (proper noun) in every instance of referring to the creatures. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment IllaZilla seems to be the biggest opponent to changing the current title. But over here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alien_%28creature_in_Alien_franchise%29/Archive_2#Objection you were the first one to oppose the move to what it is now. And while you conceded some points, you were still opposed to the move. It would be nice if you clarify your position and explain how you reconcile the arguments you made in that discussion. ScienceApe (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    His points are clarified there for the reason he gives which is nearly two years old. He is allowed to change his opinion based on new information, digging up old opinions from 2 years ago and asking him to justify them against his current stance is not professional. He isn't running for the Presidency. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    I was opposed at the time to moving it from its then-title, Alien (Alien franchise), which I felt was sufficient enough disambiguation. I also objected to the closing admin moving the article while simultaneously admitting that the new title "might not be completely ideal". I'm not claiming that Alien (creature in Alien franchise) is the best of all possible titles; certainly there may be better alternatives (ScienceApe's original suggestion, Alien (fictional species), surely not being one). What I am specifically (and staunchly) opposed to is using the name "Xenomorph" as the article title. I've explained why several times, but since you bring up the 2010 conversation here is what I had to say at that time:
    Past discussions have shown a rather clear consensus that "Xenomorph" is an inappropriate title (see here, here, here, and in particular here and here). The article has been moved something like 4 times in as many years, and "Xenomorph" is probably the least appropriate name for it. The creature is credited in every film, and in dialogue, as "The Alien". The term "xenomorph" is used exactly once in the the 6 films featuring the creatures, and it's a classification term, not a name (like "insect" or "mammal"). The term was seized upon and subsequently used in some video games and comic books but has never been an "official" name for the creatures as far as the creators and writers of the original works are concerned.
    This is primarily a film franchise; it originated with films, and the other licensed properties are all based on or spun off from the films. And the fact is that every one of the 6 films credits the creature as "The Alien". Note that the titles of the films are not Xenmorph, Xenomorphs, Xenomorph 3, Xenomorph Resurrection, Xenomorph vs. Predator, and Xenomorphs vs. Predator: Requiem. No, they are Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection, Alien vs. Predator, and Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem. Nor is there a single comic book or videogame titled Xenomorph: they are all under the Alien banner. A number of the Predator comics and novels refer to the creatures as "Yautja", yet we do not suddenly decide that the Predator (alien) article should be moved to Yautja or the franchise article renamed Yautja (franchise). The term "xenomorph" is not even a species name, it is a classification term like "ungulate", "arachnid", or "raptor". Moving Alien to Xenomorph would be akin to moving Red Kangaroo to marsupial. But most importantly, "xenomorph" is not the primary term for the creature and is not well-known outside of fan circles. "Alien" is both the official name and primary term of use for the creature, and should remain the root title per WP:COMMONNAME.
    I also argued against the wordiness of the title Alien (creature in Alien franchise), which is an argument ScienceApe has also made here. Though I agree it is wordy, here's what the admin had to say on that issue: "Propaniac also mentioned in the discussion that, keeping a title short is less of a priority than ensuring that the title is clear, accurate and easily identifiable, which is correct. Thus the 'wordiness' objection doesn't carry very much weight." So my arguments against the wordiness of the title didn't win out. Though I'd still probably prefer something a bit shorter, my objections to the wordiness have lessened in the 2 years since I made those arguments. My objections to re-titling it "Xenomorph" have not. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    The current title is not clear, accurate, or easily identifiable. The reason why Predator (alien) is perfectly acceptable because it's not ambiguous. Alien (alien) is just as ambiguous as Alien (creature in Alien franchise). That's the reason why I'm in favor for Xenomorph, because it's unambiguous. The rest of your arguments, I've already refuted. No need to go over them again. ScienceApe (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    Rebutted, sure. Refuted? Hardly. It makes no sense that you consider Predator (alien) unambiguous yet Alien (creature in Alien franchise) ambiguous. The Predator is far from the only fictitious predatory extraterrestrial, in general or even within its own franchise, so by your logic to the two titles should be equally ambiguous. The Alien is the titular creature of the Alien franchise, just as the Predator is the titular creature of the Predator franchise. This means that Alien as the root word of the article title is accurate and identifiable. There has been no indication that anyone has ever confused the title for some other alien creature within the Alien franchise. The argument that it's not the only alien creature in the Alien franchise doesn't really hold up either, since the only other extraterrestrial creature ever depicted in the franchise was the space jockey. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    There could in fact be a ambiguity issue over at Predator (alien). In fact the arguments you bring up could be valid. I don't know, but I don't think using other wikipedia articles as an argument is a good argument at all, see WP:OSE. There was never any indication that anyone confused Alien (Alien franchise) for the first Alien movie. The guy who suggested the current title merely asserted it. I never thought it was a problem, and it seemed absurd. The space jockey is all that's needed, but we could include all of the creatures from Prometheus as well which is part of the Alien universe whether you want to admit it or not. AVP is also part of the Alien franchise. But it would be nice if you weigh in on the name Alien (alien). It seems to me that if Alien fulfills WP:COMMONNAME, then you might as well call it that. ScienceApe (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment If Alien is indeed its common name, and fulfills WP:COMMONNAME, then stands to reason that the article should merely be called Alien (alien). Even if there are other aliens that are called Alien, the most prevalent usage should direct to that page, while a disambiguation should be made for other usages. I don't see the current title as any less ambiguous or more precise as Alien (alien).ScienceApe (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment if Alien is its common name, it is currently sitting at the common name. "Alien (alien)" is merely a highly ambiguous title, since it needs to be disambiguated anyways, it should not sit at an ambiguous title. Even in the franchise(s), humans are also described as aliens. And this thing is described as alien, xenomorph, creature, monster and several other things in the franchise. I don't remember "facehugger" or "chestburster" ever used in the franchise itself, unlike "xenomorph" or "alien", but we seem to be using those terms in the article as the primary descriptors for those sections. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    As I already said, it's just as ambiguous as Alien(creature_in_Alien_franchise). It's not the only creature in the alien franchise so the current descriptor is superfluous and ambiguous. I'm personally in favor for calling it Xenomorph because it's unambiguous, but if you're going to call it Alien, then you might as well just call it Alien (alien). I should point out that other uses of common names do not require any descriptor at all. Cricket redirects to the sport without the descriptor (sport). George Washington directs to the US president without the descriptor (US President). ScienceApe (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    Except that it clarifies that the alien involved is from the Alien franchise, which "Alien (alien)" does not, it could be any alien from anywhere, like the aliens that alien abductees keep talking about. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    What you're arguing is that it doesn't meet WP:COMMONNAME. If it met WP:COMMONNAME, then you could call it Alien (alien). ScienceApe (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    Yes it does. WP:UCN only deals with the non-disambiguated part of the page name, not the disambiguation portion. In this case "Alien_(alien)" and "Alien_(creature_in_Alien_franchise)" are exactly the same title according to WP:COMMONNAME, because they are both "Alien". The disambiguatory term is not part of any common name, and is dealt with under other policies and guidelines. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm a little baffled as to what the point of having a very descriptive title even is. Couldn't that information be included in the disambiguation page? I think we established in the previous move discussion that no one would ever type in "Alien (creature in Alien franchise)", they merely would type in "alien" or "xenomorph" and then be redirected accordingly. The disambiguation page even gives a detailed description of the contents, "Alien (creature in Alien franchise), the titular creatures of the franchise, also called the Xenomorph". So what's the point of the detailed title? It seems superflous. ScienceApe (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    If you type Alien into the search box this article comes up so no one has to type the full thing. That alternative redirects exist is not an argument. And TBH it seems like really bad form that we are running a vote here and you are arguing with people who oppose the current name change being argued. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    Actually that's a pretty good argument (although I believe redirects also show up if you type in a word), but the rest of your comment is laughably stupid. There's no vote here, the vast majority of the comments here are just comments, and arguments. And yes, arguments are the point of a discussion laddie. :) But I think this discussion has run its course. I still think the current title is not ideal. If a move discussion is ever brought up again, and I miss it, I want it known that I support a name change. But for now, I think we should close this up unless anyone else has more arguments they want to make. ScienceApe (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Fictional history

Would a fictional history section (see: Hobbit) be constructive?Mariomassone (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's already weighted too strongly on the fiction as I see it. Needs more real world perspective. Perhaps a simple list of appearances in films (including Prometheus), described from a real world POV, would work best.Zythe (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree w/ Zythe. This really needs a going-over from a WP:WAF stance. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Deacon picture

I have a picture under fair use terms, can i post it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Mariomassone (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't figure out how so can you tell me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Have you read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria? There are already 9 non-free images in this article, adding another just for illustration would not seem to jibe with the policy. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes so the Predalien from the movies which are non-cannon are here but the newest one doesn't appear makes total sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
How is the Predalien non-canon? It's right there in the film; doesn't get much more canonical than that. The presence of one non-free image is not a free pass for another. Each non-free image must independently meet the non-free content criteria. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The movie has nothing to do with either franchise it's a non-canonical addition to both seris. Also the picture fits the criteria Sean 04:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs)
Nonsense. The AVP films are perfectly canon; they feature both titular creatures, were made by the production company that owns the rights to Alien (and with some of the same producers), and are explicitly described by the creators as taking place between the events of Predator 2 and Alien. Your fanboy opinion that they aren't canon is irrelevant; they explicitly are. How exactly would a picture of the "Deacon" meet the non-free content criteria? Be specific please. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a composite image (like the one showing the faces of all Predator incarnations on the Predator article) showing all "Alternate forms" would be warranted, showing the dog, newborn, predalien and deacon.Mariomassone (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Composite images are generally discouraged, as they give the false impression that they count as a single piece of non-free content. In fact, each image used to make the composite still counts as an individual piece of NFC, and since each piece of NFC needs its own rationale they shouldn't be lumped together in a single image. That Predator one ought to be removed and replaced with a single image. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree IllaZilla, what determines what is canon is not the mere existence of a film. It's funny because in the previous discussion you wanted to assert that the Space Jockey was the only creature in the Alien franchise, now you are saying the AVP movies are canon, which directly implies that there are more creatures in the Alien franchise.. It seems like you are setting up an equivocation fallacy and applying definitions of inclusion and exclusion whenever it suits your needs. In any case, I think this discussion is a red herring. What matters is what images best illustrate the article. ScienceApe (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
So should I put it in or if I can I need help cause I can't figure out how to add pictures Sean 16:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs)
I suggest following IllaZilla's advice and read the non-free criteria. At the moment I don't see how the image would be anything other than an illustration. Each non-free image should be ideally be accompanied by sourced commentary of its appearance and depiction in the film, to justify its usage. Personally I think the other two images in the "Alternative forms" section are pushing the envelope as far as fair use go. Betty Logan (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I've read the god damn non free criteria as I said before. Sean 21:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Personally I'm in favor for including the Deacon picture and taking out the Predalien. I think the Deacon is more important as it relates to the early evolution of the xenomorph and/or its origins which are more interesting and compelling than the Predalien. ScienceApe (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of the predalien has no bearing on the inclusion of the Deacon one, so ideally this discussion needs to move away from its preoccupation with that image. The fair use is quite explicit in this regard: the image must be the subject of textual commentary i.e. in this regard that means there should be sourced commentary discussing the appearance of the alien, or its visual depiction, so that the image furthers one's understanding of the text. Having an image just to show what the alien looks doesn't meet the criteria. The Deacon section needs to be expanded first before adding an image. Betty Logan (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it does if there's a limit on how many non-free images we're allowed to include. ScienceApe (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Let me clarify what I meant when I brought up the number of non-free images: Each image must meet the non-free content criteria of its own accord, irrespective of any other images present. That is to say: simply because some new "form" of Alien "exists" (read: has appeared in a film) doesn't mean we automatically get to add a picture of it. Nor does the presence of other pictures of other "forms" mean we automatically get to add another. My comments were not an endorsement of any of the current images. Personally I feel that 9 non-free images in a B/C-class article of ~50K size is excessive, and several of the current ones probably wouldn't pass the scrutiny of a GA or FA review with regard to NFCC. While there is technically no set limit on the amount of non-free content in an article, we are asked to be frugal with such content and required by policy to use it only where it would significantly increase reader understanding, and where its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Alien (film) is a GA over twice the size of this article and has only 7 pieces of non-free content, and even though each image individually passes NFCC the amount of non-free content was still raised as a concern in the article's FA review. So, adding an image of the "Deacon" just because it exists, or because you find it "interesting and compelling", wouldn't meet the criteria. The whole article really needs a going-over with some scrutiny towards the non-free images. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually yes, the reasons I stated for including the Deacon image are perfectly valid and meet criteria. I think the Deacon image would be beneficial to the article, if you feel there's too many images, remove the Predalien image unless you have a good reason to keep it. If we can have all of them, then include all of them. ScienceApe (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed the part where you gave a reason that had anything to do with the non-free content criteria? All you said was "I think the Deacon is more important as it relates to the early evolution of the xenomorph and/or its origins which are more interesting and compelling than the Predalien." So you think it's interesting; That's nice, but it's not one of the criteria. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I said why the Deacon image should be included as far as improving the article is concerned. As far as I know it meets the criteria outlined, if it doesn't, can you explain why it doesn't other than your claim that we already have too many non-free images? Because I already addressed that concern. ScienceApe (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Another thing IllaZilla, can you drop the condescending attitude, it's really disruptive here. Now, I asked you to give a good reason to keep the Predalien image. If you feel like it should remain, please explain why. ScienceApe (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Please drop the straw man argument. I never said the Predalien image should remain, so I do not need to defend its existence. In fact I explicitly said "My comments were not an endorsement of any of the current images" and went on to say that some of the current images should probably be trimmed. However, if any are removed it should be on the basis of whether or not they meets the non-free content criteria, not because "ScienceApe thinks the Deacon is more interesting and compelling than the Predalien". In any case, complaining about the Predalien image does not address why an image of the Deacon would meet the non-free content criteria, which you haven't done. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Non-free content needs to explicitly create an understanding of the subject which is not possible through text alone; File:Rumah Maida visuals.jpg or File:Manhunter-colours.jpg would be a good example of using non-free content to explain something which the text adds to, rather than the other way around. Very few, if any, of the non-free files used here seem to actually meet that criterion; I've removed two already for being redundant and to be frank, everything but the lead image and the image of Necronom IV are entirely ornamental. A case could be made for the Alien 3 alien but it hasn't yet; and the lead image could do with being replaced with something clearer. The queen could easily be replaced with a free file. I have a terrible photograph of the model used in production taken at the London Film Museum, but I'm entirely confident better pictures do or could exist. GRAPPLE X 14:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh my so hostile! I see you learned what a straw man is, hopefully you learn to avoid those kinds of logical fallacies in the future yourself. So, if you aren't defending the PredAlien picture, then shall we take it off? Lol, didn't I already ask you if the Deacon image fits criteria? You tell me champ, you know more about these rules than I do. So say it, does it meet criteria or not? If it doesn't I may have some questions for you later though. ScienceApe (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. And you're lecturing me about condescending attitude...
  2. "Lol, didn't I already ask you if the Deacon image fits criteria?" — No, you didn't. Please quote any text from the above in which you asked me if the Deacon image met the non-free content criteria.
  3. "So say it, does it meet criteria or not?" — The image has not yet been presented, so it is not possible to determine whether it meets the criteria. Speaking hypothetically, there is 1 sentence in the article discussing the appearance of the thing ("Ridley Scott's 2012 film Prometheus, originally conceived as a direct prequel to Alien, ends with the birth of a creature noted for its similarity to those in the Alien franchise.") Since that's all the sourced commentary we have regarding the look/design of the thing, it seems unlikely that adding a non-free image of it for illustrative purposes would meet the non-free content criteria. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. Indeed, it isn't helping is it? So let's just drop it.
  2. "As far as I know it meets the criteria outlined, if it doesn't, can you explain why it doesn't other than your claim that we already have too many non-free images? Because I already addressed that concern. "
  3. So if you don't even know what the image is, why were you giving the guy who wanted to include it a hard time? Let him show you the image first. What the hell are you talking about? The whole Deacon section is all about the creature. Would you like me to copy and paste the whole thing here?
  4. Remove predalien photo, yes or no? ScienceApe (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, how can I send you the photo so you can copy and paste it here so people can decide if to add it or not. Sean 01:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Images

As I (and others) have stated above, the use of non-free media in this article has grown needlessly excessive. I've tried removing the decorative files several times and been reverted so rather than edit war over it I felt it was best to take a quick assessment of opinions on this. My feeling is that none of these files, perhaps barring Necronom IV, can be called irreplaceable since free alternatives can easily be found (I know for a fact that the London Film Museum houses props for several of the creatures discussed here, allowing for a free image taken of any of those to replace the non-free screenshots we're currently using. Here, nabbed from the missus' facebook, are the alien, the queen, and some facehuggers. Someone living in the London area could easily take better pictures of those if we're not keen on using holiday snaps. Given that fact, it's clear the current files don't meet the NFCC. Even at that, the level of use here is vastly excessive; prose alone more than adequately describes the differences between the basic alien and its variants. As is, I've tagged the article with {{Non-free}} to help draw attention to this discussion. GRAPPLE X 02:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Your image links are blocked, probably private. There is definitely no need for an image of the Dog Alien or Predalien. They're both slight variants. I also don't think the Queen image is necessary and considering it isn't particularly clear either, not serving much purpose. I do think the Facehugger image is useful as while it's form is second nature to fans like myself, I can imagine it being somewhat hard to describe to the uninformed. Although I guess "Spider-like" might suffice.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we shouldn't illustrate these things, but that we don't need to do so with non-free files as it is clear that free alternatives are a viable option. I didn't realise those images would be private; but I can ask her to donate them to Commons this week. I'm also giving Flickr a trawl since it can prove useful for these things too. So far this, this, this and this all exist under various CC licenses and are perfectly suitable for use; that first one is even a much better image than what we have now. GRAPPLE X 02:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah, if there are free alternatives then you're basically compelled to use them and they will often be clearer than what the film's allow for with the whole darkness thing going on. That first one is really good and there's no excuse for not using it. The fourth is also pretty good and directly from the film prop apparently.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the three images in "Concept and Design" qualify under fair use since they are showing the different stages of the development process, from concept through to end product. I don't think that can be adequately conveyed through words alone, or even by available and free photos. However, all the other images are window dressing and don't convey any extra understanding of the article; even if free images weren't available I don't think fair use would really justify their inclusion, but given that free images are available it's a no brainer. Betty Logan (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
You say that free alternatives are available, but surely the alien designs are themselves copyrighted and therefore an image of a film prop (even a toy or a drawing of an alien you made yourself) would constitute a derivative work and would have to be uploaded under fair use. As for excessive images, I think the dog alien and predalien could be removed without much being lost, but I think the three images in the "Life cycle" section show the designs of creatures that are integral to the series and should be kept. If anything, the most decorative image is the one in the infobox, which is largely redundant anyway (the drone/warrior alien design is illustrated further down the article). mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure the rules are laid out somewhere on here already, but I imagine it's no different than the rules for any public space photograph. If you walk into the background of a news shot they don't have to ask your permission to air the broadcast. A photo taken in a museum where photography is allowed should be no more copyrighted than a photo with a tv in the background playing Alien.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see the Commons link I provided. Yes, you can take a photo of an alien prop in a museum, but that doesn't mean you can license that photo freely so that it can be used for any purpose (as Wikipedia requires). A photo "with a tv in the background playing Alien" would probably be okay, as the copyrighted work would be incidental, not the subject of the photo. A photo of an alien prop for the purpose of illustrating the alien's design would obviously be different. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Free files from flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/steampirate/1056964179/in/photostream/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/steampirate/1057827816/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/ho-fosho/7476139008/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bruchez/1064148452/ Mariomassone (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

If you take a photo of a copyrighted character, you own the copyright to the photo, but someone else still owns the copyright to the character. That's why images such as this have to be under fair use. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Alien and.....

Isn't it also called a Xenomorph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.156.163 (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

See sentence 1. Serendipodous 19:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

alien (alien) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alien (alien). Since you had some involvement with the alien (alien) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 76.65.128.252 (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Request to make The Alien redirect to this article instead of a film

Creatures name

The creatures name (Xenomorph) has been solidified as canon. It is, objectively, not called 'Alien', and has not been for a long while.

I have changed the content of this page to reflect this, and would appreciate someone with the knowledge would be able to change the title to Xenomorph (creature in Alien franchise).

It has been named, it has a name, thats its name. There is no controversy, thats what canon means. Thanks.

Urammar (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It has not been named in canon. The canon is the films; the films only use the term "xenomorph" as a descriptor. The term "xenomorph" just means "alien form" so it's not a name. Comic books may think so; video games may think so, but there's no confirmation in the canon. Serendipodous 08:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Serendipodous:

Hi, thanks for your comment! Also thanks for the reference to BRD, I was unaware. :)
Let me begin:
Firstly, thats not how canon works. In fact, appearing on film is no guarantee of canon at all. There are many examples of film events being retconned.
Canon is 'the official tale' as told and confirmed by the creators and owners of an IP.
Second:
It was semi-named by a character in 'aliens' using the word as the word, however Ripley confirmed this as its name, using the word as a name in alien 3. Onscreen.
Alien co-writer Damon Lindelof said, quote "I felt that the punchline of Prometheus was going to be that there is human DNA in what we have come to know as the human xenomorph"
Extended, canon, content such as the games and comics have also used this term. Reminding you that they are canon sources, and canon exists beyond the screen.
James cameron in the Aliens DVD extra also refers to them as "xenomorphs"
Vincent ward and David Fincher (Writer and director of alien 3, respectively) in the Alien3 Assembly cut DVD extras also confirm their name as xenomorph.
The name as canon is pretty solid, and has been established for quite a while now. This just shouldn't be getting peoples backs up at this point.
Urammar (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Do writers and directors discuss the name in detail when they "confirm the name", or are these just casual mentions in DVD commentaries? And is there an established canon for the franchise in a book on a shelf somewhere (a la the Star Wars canon), or is this up to individual fans' tastes?
We should avoid adopting a term barely used in the films - in an article which is 99.5% about the films - simply because we can find it cropping up in conversations and spinoffs if we look. We shouldn't be swayed by it being a neat, scientific sounding name (or the fact that the current article title is horribly clunky), if it's a term that's only used briefly and ambiguously a couple of times in the many hours of the film series. --McGeddon (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Urammar: Just because you believe the "canon" name is xenomorph does not mean you can completely blank reliably sourced information about other names it's been called, especially when the name has always been very vague. You even erased the explanation of the term "xenomorph" because it somehow "contradicted" the term being "canon". That's why I reverted you per WP:NPOV. You can't remove content just because it disagrees with your opinion. The general consensus is that the creature is called "Alien" and "xenomorph" is the most common alternative. And McGeddon makes good points as well. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 10:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@McGeddon:
In at least one of the interviews they go into a little detail, mostly its them simply using the term as the name, instead of the de facto generic 'alien', which is significant. I mean, when the director and writers of an IP primarily call it a xenomorph, you are on the wrong side of the fence. Simple as that.

Yeah, its definitely established, they are called xenomorph in a number of canon books, by both Dark horse and Bantam, the comics and 'Aliens: Colonial Marines' (Who's marketing made a big deal about the fact the story it was telling was a canon story)
This has nothing to do with fans. This is all about canon, and fans don't get to make things canon.

I think its important to recognize WHY they were ever just referred to as 'alien' in the first place. Thats simply because in the early films it just was not named.
But that changed as the story(canon) matured. They were given a name, they were named. We only ever called it an alien because it was an alien and had nothing else.
Well, thats no longer the case. Its been named, outside and inside the films from sources considered canon, it was given a name, so thats its name now. That means any statement to the contrary is simply incorrect, and thats not acceptable on a wiki, whose job it is to record and educate on the facts of a subject.
The fact that the directors took screentime from a multimillion dollar production to specifically address the name of the creature is very significant, and should not be overlooked. In fact, it alone, is sufficient. That there are a multitude of other independent verifications for it is simply overkill.

The fact it had no name, initially, is correctly addressed in the 'name' section of my edit, and perhaps should also be addressed as (previously just 'alien') or something in the opening line of the article.
The section also mentions every other name its ever been called.
@Sturmgewehr88:
I erased no such information. I removed a reference to an article that erroneously assumes the name is not canon because of its casual use in aliens, but is old and only refers to movie 1 and 2, not the 3rd in which that name was actually bestowed.
As stated earlier the general consensus is irrelevant. Fans don't get to decide canon. The only 'consensus' that matters is the canon one. You can disagree, but they own it, so they get to name it.
I don't wish to be rude, but you don't really seem to have a good grasp of what canon is/means, and you really shouldn't be editing literature articles if thats the case. I don't know, however, so thats all on you.

Look team, i've given you all there is to give now. I've backed it up with sources, clarifications and information. 'Your side' seems to basically have "In the 80's they hadn't named it yet, therefore its nameless for all time", and at worst, "Lots of people don't seem to know it was named", which is the literal function of a wiki. That doesn't fly.
I know its hard sometimes, but I have given you the information, its up to you now to accept it, and move on.
Urammar (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Urammar: The referenced material you erased stated that xenomorph wasn't canon at the time, and the following sentence states that it has become canon. Removing the first statement leads casual readers to the assumption that the name "xenomorph" has been canon from the beginning. That's how you violated WP:NPOV, and that's why I reverted you. With all due respect, I may not have the definition of "canon" as well memorized as you do, but I'm by far more versered in the policies in guidelines of Wikipedia, not to mention editing here. And this isn't a literature article. I should also direct you to WP:COMMONNAME, because even if "xenomorph" is the official, canonical name, we're not renaming the article if the vast majority of reliable, secondary and tertiary sources refers to them as "aliens". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
@Sturmgewehr88:
You are indeed much better versed in wiki guidelines than me, and I am both understanding and grateful for that. We both want what is best for this wiki.
I understand why you did what you did, and you felt you had strong reasons to do it. I respect that, and its good you are looking out for the wiki that way.
However, I believe the name section(in my edit) clearly indicates the name was changed much later, with no ambiguity. Further, neither the reference cited nor the sentence that went with it indicate a name change. In fact it simply, and incorrectly, asserts the name is non-canon, and has never been changed. Its not a matter of neutrality if its wrong.


"Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." -COMMONNAME
"Alien" is both an ambiguous and inaccurate name for an alien with a name. Further the name is at least as commonly used in discussion of the franchise, if not more common.
Therefore, I believe this revision is correct, accurate, and reflects wiki guidelines.
203.129.24.80 (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
@Urammar: Thank you. So here's what I understand so far: you want the statement removed because it indicates that the name "xenomorph" isn't canon, and I believe that the following statement (explicitly calling "xenomorph" canon, but now removed by McGeddon) justifies the inclusion of the statement. So how about we build a little consensus. I'll propose a rewording of the sentences, and if you don't accept it, you can tweak it until we find something mutually acceptable. Also, my mentioning of WP:COMMONNAME was a reference to your request for a move/rename of the article, not to your general replacement of "Alien" with "xenomorph", which was fine. WP:COMMONNAME deals with article titles, not article content. So now here's my proposed rewrite:
  • The term xenomorph (lit. "alien form"—from Greek xeno- or "strange" and -morph, shape) was used by the character Lieutenant Gorman in Aliens[4] with reference to generic extraterrestrial life. The term had been erroneously assumed by some fans[5] to refer specifically to this creature, as has been the case with the producers of some merchandise.[6] However, in the movie Alien 3, Ripley is asked how to refer to the creature, and replies "xenomorph",[7] making the name canon.

References

  1. ^ http://entertainment.time.com/2012/06/05/prometheus-alien-minus-one/?iid=obinsite
  2. ^ http://entertainment.time.com/2012/06/08/prometheus-an-epic-cinematic-puzzle-time-talks-to-the-screenwriter-behind-the-secrets/
  3. ^ http://www.ex****.com/article/prometheus-talk-back-what-did-alien-fans-think-of-ridley-scott-s-prequel
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference A2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "The throwaway line in Aliens that spawned decades of confusion".
  6. ^ "List of Aliens action figures". Retrieved 2013-05-29.
  7. ^ http://sfy.ru/?script=alien3_hill
Just copy and paste the HTML code if you want to make a counter-proposal. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The term xenomorph (lit. "alien form"—from Greek xeno- or "strange" and -morph, shape) was first used by the character Lieutenant Gorman in Aliens[1] with reference to generic extraterrestrial life. It has been suggested the term was erroneously assumed by some fans[2] to refer specifically to this creature, as well as the producers of some merchandise.[3] However, in the movie Alien 3, Ripley is asked the name the creature, and replies "xenomorph",[4] canonising the name.

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference A2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "The throwaway line in Aliens that spawned decades of confusion".
  3. ^ "List of Aliens action figures". Retrieved 2013-05-29.
  4. ^ http://sfy.ru/?script=alien3_hill

Hows that? If you like it, can we link 'canonising' to the article on canon? I am dumb and don't know how to do that :)
Otherwise feel free to make your edits.
@Urammar: Alright:
  • The term xenomorph (lit. "alien form"—from Greek xeno- or "strange" and -morph, shape) was first used by the character Lieutenant Gorman in Aliens[1] with reference to generic extraterrestrial life. Originally, the term was erroneously assumed by some fans[2] to refer specifically to this creature, as well as the producers of some merchandise.[3] However, in the movie Alien 3, Ripley is asked the name the creature, and replies "xenomorph",[4] canonising the name.

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference A2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "The throwaway line in Aliens that spawned decades of confusion".
  3. ^ "List of Aliens action figures". Retrieved 2013-05-29.
  4. ^ http://sfy.ru/?script=alien3_hill
For future reference, whenever you want to wikilink something but replace the link with different text, you'd type two sets of outward-facing brackets, and between them you first type what you want to link to, separate it with a vertical bar, then type the desired text. So it'd look like this when you type it: [[WP:WIKIPEDIAN|a Wikipedian]]. Then after you save it, it looks like this: a Wikipedian. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that the Alien 3 quote we're using here (sourced to a script found online) seems to have been one of many deleted scenes. --McGeddon (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, its featured in the 'assembly cut' release. I think the reference mentions that, doesn't it? Perhaps that should be mentioned, if not. Regardless, it made it into the script, was shot and included in a longer release, so its not like it really changes much.
Anyway, apparently we still have not met consensus on this thing? Really, team?
@McGeddon:
What do you say, McGeddon? Consensus on this? Its a damn xenomorph, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Urammar (talk • contribs) 08:22, 30 October 2014‎
No, I don't think that is the consensus at all. Really you should drop this. It's been discussed and discussed and discussed. Ultimately it's about Wikipedia rules. Only a small cadre of AVP fanboys call it the Xenomorph, and there is no shred of evidence that the creators of the creature (Dan O'Bannon, Ronald Suchett, Ridley Scott, David Giler, Walter Hill, HR Giger, James Cameron) prefer the name Xenomorph. Unless you can provide such evidence, your arguments have no value. Serendipodous 08:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Fucking hell, i'm not surprised universities don't accept wikipedia, and all edits are done by 2% of users, you guys are legit impossible, even when faced with overwhelming evidence.
I clearly outlined that ALL THOSE PEOPLE casually call it xenomorph, and have even done so in their dvd commentaries and interviews. You clearly just have not read my arguments, and thus are being willfully ignorant.
947,000 results in google is not 'a small cadre'.
Ridley Scott calls it a Xenomorph. There just isn't anything more to say on the subject after that. THERE. IS. NO. ARGUMENT. AFTER. THAT. POINT.
The simple FACT is this just could not get anymore objective a fact, and you are still, dishonestly, trying to play this off as an opinion. You have NOTHING supporting your statements or position, and I have EVERYTHING and have provided as such.


"a mind is like a parachute it works best when open"
Best of luck with your vaccination denial.
Urammar (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
"prefer", not "occasionally use". Unless they specifically say that the creature is named the Xenomorph and not the Alien, and that that is the correct official term that should be employed, the most commonly used name is used. That's it. Serendipodous 11:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


***It is important you read this carefully, and in its entirety.


You know what, I was a bit over the top there, I owe you an apology. I'm not sure if I insulted anyone directly, but i'm sorry for that if I did. No hard feelings I hope. Now.. on the subject of your last message:
Yes, I have already told you, multiple times they say exactly that. Even the main character of the movies does so. Then, as an honest person, it must be, as you say.. 'thats it'.
Here is how it is now. You are being intellectually dishonest, intentionally or not I don't know. You are unreasonably demanding evidence and providing none of your own. You have used basically every fallacy in the book.
Your entire position(series of assertions) can be summed up in one phrase. "Citation needed"

You have provided nothing but empty assertions and baseless stubbornness in this debate, providing no references, articles, objective material or any other kind of acceptable evidence for your position. You have even, heinously, glossed over some of your oppositions most powerful evidence, by either not properly engaging, or active deception.
Even a single link to a discussion on the subject to demonstrate it is primarily referred to as 'alien' instead of a 'xenomorph', is entirely missing. You have simply failed to meet the burden of proof expected of you.
Further, my evidence based position, meets guidelines and expectations of accuracy on the wiki, and improves the article quality dramatically. It also flows from previous consensus on the canon status of the name, as added to the name section.

That fact alone pushes your position to the minority, achieving de facto consensus according to wikipedias standards, with you onboard or not.
So there it is, black and white simple as day. You had your opportunity, and you spent it chanting with your fingers in your ears. Given my limited time and experience with you, I fully expect you to revert it back again, based on nothing at all.
If you do, you will do it while simultaneously submitting this topic to independent, neutral, 3rd party dispute resolution, (arbitration) according to wiki standards on disputes. Please make it clear you have done so on my talk page, also.

Do try and remember that I simply have the best interests of this wiki in mind, as I am confident you do too, and that being open to a change of closely held opinion in the face of truth is the greatest of traits, not a sign of weakness. Thanks, and happy editing Urammar (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I requested page protection to stop the edit warring. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 12:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

First sentence

@Popcornduff:

Hi there! Thanks for the edit, I really appreciate you helping to improve the article. I have something to say about your edit, however, and I wanted to take you aside a moment and work this out.

The problem sort of exists with the original too, and i've been trying to think what we can do about it. See, a sizable chunk of people still do know it as 'the alien from alien', and our job is to correct those people when they look it up.

Its a problem with the article I was planning to tackle after the xenomorph issue was settled (if it went that way). The way you have phrased it sounds like its just some uncommon secondary name, which is not ideal, but neither was the way I did it.

Basically it needs to say "You might know this as alien, but you would be wrong", but in wiki language. I've hit a brick wall with how to do that. I'm hoping you might have some ideas for that.

Do you think we could work out some nice sounding way to introduce the article a bit better than it currently does?

Urammar (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If we do decide the proper name is Xenomorph, shouldn't the article be titled "Xenomorph (Alien)"? In that case, shouldn't the opening line then be something like: "The Xenomorph (also known as the Alien) is a fictional endoparasitoid extraterrestrial species that is the titular antagonist of the Alien film series."
If we decide it isn't primarily called Xenomorph, then I still vote for "Alien (also known as Xenomorph)". It's simple and clear. Popcornduff (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
In every case I prefer "also known as" to other constructions. We don't need to tell people what the "correct" term is - we're only reporting what terms are used. Popcornduff (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xenomorph/Archive_3&oldid=1136390637"