Jump to content

Talk:Xenomorph/Archive 4

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

RfC: "Alien" or "Xenomorph"?

This RfC was closed Following a request here. While I can see that xenomorph has become a common name for the Alien, it does not appear to be more common than Alien. I close with the ruslt keep "Alien" as the name. SPACKlick (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been debate about whether the common name of this creature is "Alien" or "Xenomorph", however the debate has been lacking in sources. Can anyone provide sources to definitively prove which name is the common name? Thank you. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 11:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see above discussion for a billion sources from myself. Sorry for the attitude in some places, it got a bit frustrating being skipped over, I did apologise.
Thanks for helping us break this stalemate, though, team.
Urammar (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Weyland-Yutani report (ISBN 978-1-60887-316-6) states the alien official designation as Xenomorph XX121 (Alien: XX121)
Nytemyre (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Are we more concerned with the common name or the canonically correct one here? WP:COMMONNAME says not to use "inaccurate names" even if they're commonly used (the Frankenstein's monster article is not at Frankenstein), but I don't know how much this should be applied to all fiction. --McGeddon (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Taking the Frankenstein as example. Frankenstein is not the monster, but rather the book/creator of the monster. Similarly, Alien is not the monster, but rather the movie. Due to lack of a referred name in the first movie, the monster is called "The alien". It's not his name or species, it's a reference to the being itself. Xenomorph (ironically just another term for alien) is used to reference to the specific type of alien in the alien franchise, and should be named as such. Nytemyre (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
"Xenomorph" is not a name for the Alien. It just means "alien form" in Greek. It's a descriptor, not a name. As far as common use goes, Google hits for "The Alien" +"Ripley" outnumber "the Xenomorph" +"Ripley" by more than 10 to 1. That would be enough to close any other discussion, but this one just keeps going and going. Serendipodous 17:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Alien is also not a name for the Alien. Xenomorph XX121 is the OFFICIAL name for the alien. That you get more results for Alien+Ripley is because it's also the name of the movie. So OFCOURSE you get more results. 94.208.108.19 (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The disney princess 'Jasmine' is her name, not a reference to a precious mineral.
Words can be both descriptors and names. "Aeroplane" is the name of a craft, but the actual word is from a descriptor of its mechanics of flight, what we have come to know as the wings.
The meaning of the word is therefore irrelevant in the context of its use as a name.

Common use requires the name to be accurate, even if the incorrect name is better known.
This is not like dihydrogen monoxide(Water) that is technically the correct term, but not even used in most lab settings, let alone commonly, 'xenomorph' is not used more popularly than 'alien' by the masses, but it is clearly still common.
'WP Common name' therefore instructs that xenomorph, being the correct canon name in a common usage should be the name used, much like frankenstein being overwhelmingly understood as reference to the monster, but that being wrong and commonly known as such, even in minority usage.
Urammar (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
'Show me something, anything, that says, unequivocally, that "Xenomorph" is the OFFICIAL NAME of this creature. People mentioning the name in passing doesn't mean anything. Unless there is an official name, we use the most most common name. As I noted above, that is "Alien". There is nothing in any of the citations you have given that suggests that Xenomorph is a proper name and not a descriptor, any more than "Alien" is. As far as specificity goes, there is nothing specific about "Xenomorph"; the term is already used in geology, and would still need to be disambiguated anyway. Serendipodous 17:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you ignoring me? Weyland-Yutani report (ISBN 978-1-60887-316-6) states the alien official designation as Xenomorph XX121 (Alien: XX121). Nytemyre (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Official in what sense? We are talking about the real world, and not the fictional world of a (non-canonical) book are we? Serendipodous 16:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Did you just call a MOVIE the real world?5.39.190.61 (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
No. Real world as in "officially declared by 20th Century Fox." Serendipodous 13:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: Could you please be more specific? Perhaps you could please make it clear what the problems you have with each of the 20 or so references provided, are, so that we may address those concerns. Urammar (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

1. The Aliens and Alien3 references are not names. They are simply the term the Company uses to describe them. There is nothing in the context of which they are used to suggest they are proper names.

2. The comics, video games etc are not canon. Nor are they "extended canon", because they are not authorised by the creature's original creators. As many of said creature's creators are now dead, such affirmation is impossible. If we were to accept every comic, book or movie as canon, Hicks and Newt would be both alive and dead, the founder of the Wayland Yutani Corporation was both a 20th century Bishop clone and a 21st century Guy Pierce with a God complex, and the Aliens would be both on Earth and not. Also, since the term Xenomorph originated in Aliens, it cannot be seen as a proper name for the creature, as it wasn't used by the creature's original creators.

3. There is nothing in any of the references you provide from (maybe) canonical sources to suggest they are using a proper name, and not a descriptor.

4. None of this is relevant anyway; when there are multiple possible names, we use the most commonly used one. That's Alien. Which has been used by EVERYONE involved in the project since day one.

In short, there is nothing in anything you've said that suggests Xenomorph should get preferential treatment: it is not the most commonly used; it is not the most commonly known; it is not considered official, and it is only unequivocally used as a proper name in the comics, books etc which are not canonical with the films. It isn't even any more specific, since it would still need to be disambiguated if we used it.

Look, personally, I would LOVE there to be a specific name for this creature. If 20th Century Fox came out tomorrow and said that from now on the Aliens were to be referred to as, say, "Insemitrons"TM, I would change the title of this page in a second. But they haven't, and however much you may like to argue otherwise, this creature doesn't have a specific name. Serendipodous 11:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, neither The New York Times nor Variety once use the term "xenomorph". So, I guess it's not universal. It seems pretty well entrenched in reliable sources, however. I could probably go on adding many other Google hits, but I don't think that's necessary. I didn't even touch Google Scholar or Google Books, and I'm sure there are more hits there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Weak preference for xenomorph, because then the article can be titled "Xenomorph (Alien)" and not require the ungainly "(creature in Alien franchise)" title. Popcornduff (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I like this reason. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:NATURALDIS does support "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title" to aid disambiguation. If "Alien" was the common name and "Xenomorph" the less common but unambiguous one, I assume that would give us an article titled "Xenomorph" but which introduced the creature as "Alien (also known as Xenomorph)" and continued to use the most common name of "Alien" throughout the text. --McGeddon (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know where the weak preference is coming from: "the alien" +"ripley"=394,000 Google hits. "the xenomorph" +"ripley"= 30,200 Google hits. That's a 10-1 ratio. Serendipodous 05:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
That search turns up a lot of sentence fragments which aren't naming the creature ("the Alien film series", "the Alien production team"). Constraining it to something like "the alien kills" versus "the xenomorph kills" still seems to be about 10-to-1, though. --McGeddon (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
A good list, but we're trying to find which name is most commonly used by reliable sources, not to confirm whether or not the xenomorph name has ever been used by reliable sources. The LA Times ran another Giger obituary the next day that used the words "monsters" and "Alien" instead; a recent BBC article (and the Isolation developers it quotes) use "creature" and another capitalised "Alien"; three other Entertainment Weekly articles call it an "alien", etc. --McGeddon (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
No, we are trying to find which name is commonly used and accurate. This has been established, and is a clear instruction in the common name article.
Isolation is not canon, but a quick search turns up many large sites that clearly know it as xenomorph
Further, the search for alien isolation +"alien creature" brings up 32k results, while alien isolation +"xenomorph" brings up 338k results.. the exact same 10:1 ratio reversed, clearly reflecting the modern change of the creatures name in the public lexicon.
Urammar (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Comparing the specific phrase "alien creature" to "xenomorph" doesn't help here; nobody is suggesting that the common name is "alien creature". Comparing "alien isolation" "alien creature" to "alien isolation" "xenomorph creature" gives us the familiar 10-to-1 in favour of "alien" again, as does "alien isolation" "the alien is" vs "alien isolation" "the xenomorph is". It's looking like most people just call it an "alien". --McGeddon (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
RFC was closed inappropriately after ten days by an involved editor, then reopened.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In addition, the RFC has expired.

On the yay side we have
Urammar
Nytemyre
94.208.108.19 (whoever that is)
NinjaRobotPirate
Popcornduff
StG88

McGeddon appears undecided

On the nay side we have
Serendipodous

This is a consensus as of the RFC expiry. Therefore the article has rightly been changed. Further edits will need to conform to the expectations of the majority.

Serendipodous, you had your time on the floor to convince us, that time has passed. You will need to convince the majority of a reason to change it back now, and feel free to continue to do so in the talk page here.

Please do not begin another edit war. Thank you. Urammar (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The RFC has not "expired", RFCs have a default duration of 30 days. If you're having to tell an editor who rejects the change that the "time has passed" for them to continue discussion, then it hardly meets the early-closure-by-anyone criteria of "not contentious and the consensus is obvious". --McGeddon (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if that IP was Urammar, but I guess not. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The request for community input has lapsed, and there is overwhelming support for the primary name of the creature to be changed to xenomorph. Guidelines for consensus does not require all parties be supportive of the change.

I repeat. There was no early closure by anyone. Its just that everyone disagrees with you that it should remain alien, and disagreed with you for the entire 30 days of the request. It was inappropriate of you do re-open this request, the reason you gave in doing so is invalid, and it was inappropriate of you to reverse the agreed-upon change. I will be reporting your actions to an administrator. Urammar (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What "entire 30 days of the request"? The RFC was started 11 days ago. You yourself only joined Wikipedia 13 days ago. --McGeddon (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, my mistake. Regardless, it has elapsed naturally.
Urammar (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
What does that mean? WP:RFC gives a default duration of 30 days and says that "Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." - there seems to be a fair amount of interest and editors are continuing to comment, so I can't see any need to close this early. We can close it informally at any time if the issue is "not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants", but that's for cheerful no-brainer why-are-we-even-discussing-this situations - there is clearly some contention here. --McGeddon (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that it is an overwhelming argument that as the franchise is called Alien, then it is quite clear that the name of the character should also be Alien for the Wikipedia page. Obviously the use of the greek word xenomorph needs to mentioned with sufficient weight, but our foremost conern should be with the untutored querent who may not have learnt Greek at school.Leutha (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

  • alien - Wikipedia cares less about truth than whatever the consensus is among reliable sources. Sometimes for fictional elements it's appropriate to go to a primary source for basic information, but what we have seems insufficient. Xenomorph XX121 name was apparently introduced recently, so not only are there no reliable secondary sources, but also we can't assume to apply that to the aliens in all of the works regardless of whether or not the name appears in a properly licensed book. Xenomorph is a little better given the number of sources, but there's not enough to indicate it's any more authoritative with regard to all of the instances of these creatures (Ars Technica has a pretty good piece on this which has likely been linked here by someone already). If it had a clear name we could go with -- one that wasn't retroactively applied by people who had nothing to do with the original productions and which has less prominence in reliable secondary sources -- that would be one thing, but we don't, so alien. Mentioning the others with proper weight of course. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd go with Alien, on balance; it's clearly the common name by a factor of ten in mainstream sources that discuss the franchise. "Alien (creature in Alien franchise)" is certainly one of the worst article titles I've seen in a while, but I don't think "Xenomorph" is common enough to allow a WP:NATURALDIS purely for the sake of a cleaner title. --McGeddon (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
If we go with "Alien", can we improve the article title? "Alien (Alien)"? "Alien (Alien franchise)"? Popcornduff (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It has been both of those things; but Wikipedia arguments being what they are, this is what we ended up with. Personally I'd be happy to see it go back to one of those. Serendipodous 13:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The first seems bizarrely vague out of context, and the second could be about either the creature or the first film - I don't think either is WP:PRECISE enough. It might be worth having this discussion again, outside of the RFC. --McGeddon (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems like naming should be a separate thread, but I'll opine that "Alien (Alien franchise)" is a little better. Though not ideal, I think the question of whether it's referring to the creature or the first film is easily taken care of with a hatnote. Agree that "Alien (Alien)", while not incorrect per MOS, does look kind of bizarre. Here's another question that's just begging for a long tangent: should the article's scope be limited to the film series? That would simplify the answer to the RfC question a little bit. Spock, for example, mentions appearance in the novels but doesn't use the novels to talk about his character because the notable character is the one from the movies and television. I'm a little out of my depths asking that as I don't often edit fictional elements articles, so there may be guidelines I'm not aware of. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Xenomorph. I see a problematic line of reasoning here. If an oak is called a tree more often than it is called an oak, that doesn't make tree the proper name for an oak. Alien is a generic term, so no matter how often it is used to denote a Xenomorph in movies and games, it's not the name. The movie is called Alien, which makes any comparison based on search results invalid. The proper in-universe name is Xenomorph.PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is explicitly written from an out-of-universe perspective. We choose titles based on their common names, not on what some gatekeeper identifies as "canon" (which itself is mutable). Lagrange613 17:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    This is not about in-universe versus real world names, but rather generic terms versus names. The commonly used noun for an oak may be "tree" but we still prefer to calling it an oak.PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    There is no evidence that the term "xenomormph" is the "proper" name in canon. The term "xenomorph" is mentioned once in Aliens and once in a deleted scene from Alien3. Compare that to the credits from each Alien film, which call the creature an Alien exclusively. The only time "xenomorph" becomes common is in licensed properties, like comics and novels, which are not canon. Serendipodous 18:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    It's all we have to avoid using the generic term. PizzaMan (♨♨) 08:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    "Xenomorph" is also a generic term. It is used in geology, and would still need to be disambiguated, so it's no help. Serendipodous 09:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    I must have very weird friends, because they often use the term alien (to denote aliens in general) and i rarely hear them utter the "equally generic" term xenomorph.PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    When did I say "equally"? It doesn't matter "how generic" a term is; what matters is that it IS generic, and thus won't work as a unique descriptor. Given that neither "alien" nor "xenomorph" work as unique descriptors, then we should go with the most common name. Serendipodous 19:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    So we agree that whatever you designate as the "proper in-universe name" is irrelevant. We call oaks oaks when it's important to distinguish them from other trees (and we have articles on both). Nobody will confuse the title of this article with some other alien from Alien. Lagrange613 21:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    The term alien neither distinguishes it from other in-universe species nor from aliens from other fictions.PizzaMan (♨♨) 08:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    The title "Alien (creature in Alien franchise)" distinguishes it from other fictions. Within the franchise, "Alien" is clearly the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE for being "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" - very few people, if any, are going to arrive here when they were actually searching for a different alien species from the franchise. If there were other such articles, they could be linked as "For the X alien from this franchise, see..." hatnotes. --McGeddon (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    Rather it would have to say "for aliens in general, see ..." and the difference between those two link texts is exactly my point.PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    No, if an article title has a bracketed disambiguation phrase in it, Wikipedia never includes "for the article without these brackets..." hatnotes, per the first bullet of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Usage guidelines. --McGeddon (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Drooling is not well represented in this entire article

One of the most iconic and continuous themes in every Alien film is the sticky saliva of the alien. But this article does not really have this in any key place (like the Lead). It is so significant it should be in the lead. BTW I have read all the article (at speed).--Inayity (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll concur that it's very common for the Alien movies to foreshadow by having the doomed character getting slobbered on by an unseen Alien before it pounces, but I'm not so sure we should write it right into the lead-- the lead doesn't even mention the acid blood, and I suspect that the acid blood's more widely recognized as a trait of the Aliens and warranting a lead-mention more than the drool would be. The "Blood and Secretions" would probably benefit the most from having that bit about the saliva instead of the lead, since the lead is presenting a very general overview of the creature's physical traits before it's covered in the meat of the article. What do you think? BlusterBlasterkaboom! 18:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I disagree that the blood is more significant that the drooling. The drooling sets up every single alien encounter--some fool always steps in it, and then BAM. Although it is not covered in the body, it should as it is pretty central to the identity of the Xenomorph. And yes, it should be in the secretions section. But I do think the drooling is one of the central signatures of the creature. and a continuous visual motif.--Inayity (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I've got a proposal, then. How about I add some stuff about the drool and the usual buildup motif used in the films, put it in the Blood and Secretions section, and take it out of the lead just for now-- at least, until there's a wider scope of opinion than just you and me w.r.t the saliva thing being a unilaterally remarkable trait of the Alien and that it should have a place in the lead. (I don't know exactly how yet, but I could look into submitting a RfC if you like, just so that we get some more people discussing this and working towards consensus.) This way at least, there's mention of it in the article as that was your primary concern. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 21:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Go for it, .--Inayity (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so I've made the changes I outlined above, but I wanted to clarify something before I go ahead and RfC the matter at hand. Are you satisfied with how saliva's covered in the article right now, or would you prefer that it's given more weight and/or is given a place in the lead? I'll make the latter the statement for comment in the RfC if that's the case for you. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 20:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we can expand it out a bit, alert to their presence is not the best phrasing to describe the motif in the alien franchise. Cuz they get alerted to something, by they time they realize what it is Lights Out. Also Their design deliberately evokes many sexual images, both male and female, to illustrate their blurring/reversal of human sexual dichotomy. is an weight issue, it puts far too much emphasis on some Freudian POV. I and most people probably never noticed that. I still believe it should be mentioned in the lead--Inayity (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I'll start by putting in a request about the lead inclusion issue, and after that's covered, maybe the discussion can progress to the other issues you mentioned. Instead of an RfC, I'm making a posting on the WP:3O noticeboards since it's only the two of us having this discussion so far. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 01:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and give my 2¢: I don't think that the saliva is significant enough to be in the lead. While it is an important part of the suspense before the alien attacks someone, it's not as memorable to me as the acid blood. I do however agree that the "subliminal sexual imagery" isn't notable enough for the lead, as I too never thought about this until reading this very article a few years ago. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Sturm. I'll wait to see what User:Inayity thinks before I change anything else, but I'll nip the "subliminal sexual imagery" thing out of the lead; we can all agree that it's got too much weight. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 16:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Let us gather more opinions, as it is really subjective. I am thinking of Alien when the Captain is in the tunnel and puts his hand in something. In Alien 2 when the guy is climbing back 2 the ship he puts his hand in it. I think in Alien 3 it was the skin and the glu, I think it was put on the guns as a trap in Alien vs predator (I cant remember), my argument it is a very frequent visual motif essential to the alien franchise. --Inayity (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright, so at this point, you're saying you want more people sounding in about Alien saliva's weight in the article? I can go ahead and do an RfC if you still find its lack of emphasis contentious, but if I do, I'd rather the aim of it be a persuasive debate backed with factual evidence than just people coming in and stating nothing but their opinion on the matter-- that way the outcome will be based on consensus as it should be, and not some sort of opinionated majority-wins voting that at least one person won't agree with. I know I've made opinionated assertions above when it came to the recognizability of the blood vs. the saliva, but for the RfC I'll do my best to research and collect factual backup to my thoughts on it. I'd recommend you do the same regarding your stance on the matter.
Maybe I'm going overboard-serious with this, but hey-- I just want what's best for the article, and it's saddening to see that the WP entry for one of my favorite movie monsters is in such a rough state of late (seems like it's always been, sigh). I'd love to keep working at this article to try and get it to GA status at least, even at the risk of seeming like a nitpick... BlusterBlasterkablooie! 16:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should Alien saliva be given more weight in the article?

there hasn't been much engagement in this RfC, so I'm closing it and leaving the article as-is (no mention in lead, but coverage in relevant section) unless someone presents a non-opinion counterargument about Alien spit that hasn't been said already. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 17:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Alien saliva be given more weight in the article and be mentioned in the lead? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 18:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I won't deny that it's a recurring sort of "theme" with the franchise to have a scene where a character, unaware of the Alien lurking above them or behind them, gets drooled on and only puts two and two together right before they get attacked, but I don't think that trope and the saliva in general merits weight matching that of their undeniably iconic reproductive method, or that it needs to be in the lead alongside the latter-- I've done some work covering it in a specific section of the article, and as far as I'm concerned that coverage is sufficient for a couple of reasons;
  • The 'Alien' franchise films are not the only ones that employ the "Drool Hello" setup, as it were.
  • Neither are they the first to do it, most likely-- it's been a really long time since I've seen anything of the first film, and looking through what little I can find in terms of detailed plot synopses, I can't find a specific scene in Alien where this happens, so I'm left to conclude that they don't use this setup until the later films. If that is the case, I can say that Silver Bullet, a werewolf movie based on a Stephen King novella, predates Aliens by a year in terms of release date and has a "drool hello" moment in it.
So to sum up, my opinion on the matter based on what I've found is a fairly confident Nope-- the Alien franchise didn't pioneer the idea of the "drool hello" moments, and it's not the only one to do them by a long shot, therefore it's not that notable compared to the Alien's other traits and doesn't need to be in the lead. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 19:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Pioneer is not an issue as we are not stating it as an original theme, but simply a theme of the franchise. The drooling also extends to the identity of the creature, it is always "smiling" and drooling so it is not limited to just people stepping in it and then getting whacked. --Inayity (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
He means that had they pioneered this plot element, it would have enough weight to be mentioned in the lead; it is notable enough to have a section in the body of the article, but not enough for inclusion in the lead. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
No - per BlusterBlaster. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trilobite/Deacon weight and relevancy issue

I don't know a whole lot about the Prometheus movie, but while I can accept that there is an obvious link between it and the Alien franchise in terms of its initial concept as an Alien prequel by Ridley Scott himself (as proven by the cites), and to some extent the design and apparent biology of the Trilobite/Deacon... they're not really "different forms" of the Xenomorph canonly speaking, or as confirmed by the sources cited in that part of the article. The connection's up to interpretation as stated by Lindelof, and I think that they don't need as much coverage or detailed explanation in an article about a completely different movie critter, aside from the aforementioned origins of Prometheus as a concept and the design similarity. I think we should nix the extensive synopsizing of Prometheus in those two subsections and refrain from explaining more than the fact that the Trilobite and Deacon were similar to the Alien in a movie that was originally going to be an Alien prequel, and leave it at that. This isn't an article about them or Prometheus, after all-- we could even do a "see also" hatnote for it, couldn't we?

Even then, putting them there as outright different forms of the Alien doesn't seem right-- since it's not really unequivocally conveyed in the movie, or even with talks with the creative forces behind it, that they and the Xenomorph are one and the same. It seems like it'd be a better idea to talk about them in the "concept and creation" section, or somewhere that talks more about the ideas behind the Xenomorph design and notsomuch the in-universe variants thereof. Keeping them there as a variant even seems a little OR-y to me. What do those who watchpage this article think? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 18:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Lack of editor interest notwithstanding, I'll see if I can put something together on the design relation between Xenomorphs and the Prometheus critters in my sandbox, for use in a section other than the variants section-- probably a subsection under Alien_(creature_in_Alien_franchise)#Concept_and_creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlusterBlaster (talk • contribs) 18:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Serendipodous: Well, here's the thing-- the AvP movies are unequivocally movies in the Alien universe, no matter how fans feel about them-- for Pete's sake, the Aliens are outright in them. Lindlehof and other sources cited in the very paragraphs we've written for the Trilobite and Deacon are saying that Prometheus was not explicitly set in the same canon, it's just that Prometheus was originally supposed to be an Alien screenplay but then it became something different with elements of and references to the Alien movies in them-- the Trilobite and Deacon are not outright Xenomorph progenitors, their designs are references to Xenomorphs, and the creators are leaving it up to fans to form their own opinions on them. Unless you've found RSes that can prove that Prometheus is undeniably in the same universe in it's final version, or more specifically proof that Trilobites and Deacons are completely and undeniably precursors to Xenomorphs and I'm a dingus for suggesting otherwise, I don't see what the problem is with taking it out of the "variants" section. Heck, if you've got a problem with the Predalien being covered there, that's something for you to change, isn't it? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 19:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, the Engineers were outright in Alien, and it's not possible for both continuities to be canon, since they both provide different origins for the name "Wayland". Without RSes to prove either way, we're kinda stuck, unless we just say screw it and put them all in. Serendipodous 20:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that's fair, but just because the Engineers were in both movies doesn't mean the Aliens and the Trilobite/Deacon are the same creature. Nothing reliable confirms that, it's just theories and conjecture at this point. So instead of outright saying the Trilobite/Deacon are an early form of the Xenomorph by putting them in the "alternate form" section, which at this point would constitute us drawing our own conclusions about it, I'm proposing we cover what is reliably confirmed by talking about the parallels and Prometheus' origins as an Alien screenplay in the origins/design section-- so we're not denying the movie's initial roots and that the designs are similar, we're just not jumping to an unfound conclusion and saying they are the same creature. You see what I mean? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 21:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, but that's a different issue, and the issue I thought you'd brought up initially. I can't say I'm entirely OK with deletion on that basis, but I'm more OK than deleting on canonical grounds. Serendipodous 17:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It was probably because of a less-than-optimal choice of wording in my editsum that my intentions weren't clear; I more meant that asserting that the critters are the same isn't confirmed so we shouldn't imply it by putting them in as a precursor/variant/whatever, but I can concede that it's more or less clear that Prometheus is in the same universe, per the Engineers' presence in both movies. Also, I wasn't technically deleting the whole thing, I was just moving it to a different place-- what I removed was just badly-sourced cruft about the Deacon's design, too much detail about Prometheus' plot and conjectural statements that presented the creatures as the same thing. Would you be alright with me re-reverting you, or did you have another concern about what I did? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 14:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Serendipodous 16:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Prometheus is NOT is not set in the Alien universe, and is NOT Alien canon. "Scott has been adamant that while "Prometheus" "carries the DNA" of "Alien," it is an original piece of science fiction that delves into everything from biotechnology to artificial intelligence to the origins (and possible destruction) of mankind itself." User talk: Urammar — Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Prometheus most certainly is set in the Alien universe and most certainly is canon. There has never been any question about that. Prometheus is a "loose prequel" to Alien and is set in the same star system as Alien (Zeta 2 Reticuli) but on another moon. The creatures that are seen in Prometheus are variations of the creatures seen in Alien because the filmmakers opted not to make a bog-standard prequel with creatures that we've all seen before. As variants, they should be included in this article. 88.104.12.239 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Uh... no. The sources say it's not canon; sure it was when production started, but as an end product it was not, and that's what we have to go by. It's a matter of opinion or original research/synthesis past that, and our own opinion isn't something we can use as a basis for editing. BlusterBlaster beepboop — Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
And then Ridley Scott comes along to tell us that Prometheus 2 will be called "Alien: Paradise Lost"... ROFL... 84.63.62.153 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but again, the most sources have discussed at this point-- which in turn is what we can discuss, and not even here, really, that's more for the Prometheus article-- is how they now are confirmed to take place in the same universe; again, there is no unequivocal link between the Deacons/Trilobites and the Xenomorph that's been discussed in reliable sources, yet. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - ✉✎ 10:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, I'll admit that this edit didn't really meet the criterion for a rollback, not quite-- having pet rats scuttling around in my shirt makes for somewhat distracted editing decisions, and I won't be so quick to do so again-- but in one sense it was a nonconstructive addition because a section for the Deacon/Trilobyte already exists, and the addition seemed like it was either missing a ton of stuff in the middle or just had seriously bad grammar. Just clarifying my stance, in case someone decides to take me to task for rollback abuse or something later... ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - ✉✎ 17:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Alien (creature in Alien franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Deacon

Who deleted the Deacon section, you know, the creature from the end of Prometheus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.176.196 (talk)

Please don't delete or refactor other editors' talkpage posts when you edit the talkpage. If you read the above discussion, you'll get an idea of where we were getting at in previous discussions about this. If you have more reliable sources pointing towards the deacon definitely being a xenomorph predecessor without question, you're gonna have to present them before it can go into the article. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - ✉✎ 02:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't there a recent article about the new planed Prometheus sequels (3x planned) being directly linked to the original films and Ripley? Wouldn't that change the whole Deacon debate? Just food for thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.255.152 (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Tarkatan belongs under List of Alien morphs in the Alien franchise

You're right. My apologies. Just curious as to why you feel this description of alien type should be here though...
Apology accepted, thank you for that. I'm also sorry if I came of as confrontative.
As for the article content. Your original motivation for removing it was that the article should be kept to the films, which isn't true since this article clearly is about the creature in general. This article is not particularly good as is and I see no reason why diferent versions of the creature shouldn't be included. They don't need to be described in great detail but it's still worth mentioning the different iterations in diferent media.*Treker (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the lesson in humility. I'm new here and didn't understand editing rules. I wont edit the article again not understanding editing rules. Just a quick question for future reference that I can't find yet in the rules, can I correct simple grammar mistakes like spelling corrections in articles without causing major chaos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.255.152 (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Ofcourse that's fine. I would recommend that you read these pages before you begin making big changes to articles.
Here you can ask any questions you have about general editing.
And here about copyright.
I would also recomend that you create an account. If you do that you will be able to create articles and interact more with other users.
Also, if you want more help there is the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program. Good luck with future editing.*Treker (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This "TARKATAN" reference should be listed under List of Alien morphs in the Alien franchise. This is clearly not the same FILM Canon this article is obviously about. However, if you disagree, why not just merge the two articles and have the List of Alien Morphs here as a complete subsection. Wasn't there a StreetFighters vs Aliens game with some Alien variations too?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.80.122 (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alien (creature in Alien franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Protomorph?

So far as I can tell, the creature is never called that in the Alien: Covenant itself or by the cast and crew members. "Protomorph" is just a fan-term, which I believe Wikipedia has policies against using. 154.20.99.252 (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention all the fanboy lingo - "bambi burster" and "beluga-morph" for example. Yeah, the 'Protomorph' belongs up in the Xenomorph appearances where the description can describe the physical differences of the xenomorph to the traditional style.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Images

The Proto-Xenomorph, and the Neomorphs both need images added next to their paragraphs, similar to the other listed forms of Xenomorphs.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Homeworld

Since an IP keeps trying to add "Xenomorph Prime" as the homeworld, I should probably clarify as to why I keep removing it. Xenomorph Prime was invented specifically for the supplemental materials (novels, video games, ETC). Normally that wouldn't matter, except the idea of them having that homeworld was directly contradicted by canon sources (specifically Alien: Covenant, where they originated in a makeshift laboratory). So until Xenomorph Prime is referenced in the canon film series, we're going to have to wait. At the moment, it would appear as if it doesn't exist at all. DarkKnight2149 15:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC) '

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alien (creature in Alien franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Types

I see that Deacon replaced Proto-Xenomorph but nowhere are references to be seen. Very weird name. Proto-Xenomorph, fan name or not, makes sense since it made appearance in the 1st prequel and is the first alien we see.

But what I really wanted to know is what is that snake-like (cobra-like) creature, that has acid instead of blood, that was swimming in "oil" in Prometheus and killed two crew members. Could it be the first alien?? Definitely deserves a place in the article. 213.149.51.154 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Show original Giger design as main image

As was once discussed but never resolved, the article now uses one of the awful redesigns from AVP. I suggest we use a photo of the Giger design, but as was brought up during the old discussion, there are not many good photos of it. But I think we should use it anyway. One option could be the image already used below here[1] (better quality:[2]), though I think the space above could be cropped. Some other options:[3][4][5] FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Done, no shit AVP design. LucyTheAlien (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the swearing. LucyTheAlien (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

An improvement I think, but the licence needs to be changed to fair use. FunkMonk (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

on a matter of tedious detail

...the acid blood did not enter the canon until Aliens.

In Alien the only life-stage seen to bleed is the facehugger. Parker's reaction to this is "It's got a wonderful defence mechanism - you don't dare kill it." Dallas comments that he's never seen "anything like that except molecular acid" and Brett observes that the facehugger is apparently "using it for blood". Leaving aside the extracanonical novel stuff - where Ash speculates that it's not blood - nothing in the rest of the film suggests the adult creature needs the acid blood defence. If blood it is: it's all conjecture by the crew. It leaks something and they take it to be blood. Once it gets big enough and mean enough, it can take care of itself without acid blood. It was thus a plausible reading, between 1979 and 1986, that only the facehugger bled acid, since no other stage was seen to do so.

The next mention of acid blood comes in the inquiry in Aliens. This is a bit of plot hole in a way since if it does have acid blood, you'd expect it to have bled somewhere in the shuttle when Ripley harpooned it, but the inquiry chair observes that the shuttle has been inspected and there's no trace of any creature. At this point a WY staffer sceptically reads out Ripley's description of its "acid for blood". Arguably, it's only established that the adults do use acid for blood when they arrive at LV426 and find huge holes burned through concrete floors, at which Hicks remarks, "'acid for blood'".

Soooo....as the description gives the history of the creature's various features, does it make sense to mention that bleeding acid by forms other than the facehugger was introduced in the second film? --Tirailleur (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Well no, because the reason no alien material was found in the shuttle was A: it was all sucked out and B: later movies reveal the company covered everything up, so naturally they would deny finding anything.

which doesn't respond to the question posed. Tirailleur (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Potential Citation Issue

The wikipedia page for Bolaji Badejo puts him at 7'2". A vast difference from the 6'10" figure stated here. Both are un-cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.161.75.154 (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

There's a cite at his wiki page for his having been 2.18 metres, which is 7'2", but the article now describes him as 6'10" throughout. Go figure.Tirailleur (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

'No Technology'

It is clear in the plot of Alien (and again mentioned in Aliens) that the Xenomorph species had a space ship. It was pictured in both the two movies 1979 and 1986. This article states that:

"Unlike many other extraterrestrial races in science fiction (such as the Daleks and Cybermen in Doctor Who, or the Klingons and Borg in Star Trek), the Aliens are not sapient tool-makers: They lack a technological civilization of any kind"

It is my understanding that this was, in fact an alien spaceship. The Wikipedia article on the 1979 movie states:

"They discover the signal comes from a derelict alien ship and enter it, losing communication with the Nostromo"

The whole premise of the first film was that 'Mother' wakes up the crew to investigate a ships signal.

The second film Aliens shows the small family with newt approaching the same ship from the original and this is what is going to 'make us rich'.

I suggest that someone consider removing the statement about a lack of technology, perhaps suggesting that aliens are instead not perceivable as being reliant on tools.

ArchStudos (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't the Alien's spaceship; it was the Engineers' spaceship. Serendipodous 12:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Reverted - also a preference for night does not mean they're exclusively nocturnal. Newt even qualifies the statement with "mostly" meaning they also hunt by day. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Please stop adding in this obsession that the Aliens have technology. There is nothing to support this, and your provided sources of fan-based wikis are not reliable. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

why is the front section about croissants ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:1580:9600:24CC:97D1:CF9D:8D11 (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xenomorph/Archive_4&oldid=1246027189"