Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alien

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Alien and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Project launch

Welcome! I'm proud to announce that after about 2 weeks of labor WikiProject Alien is now live! Hopefully soon we'll attract some members and really start making progress on improving Alien-related articles, an area of Wikipedia which has gone without serious collaborative effort for far too long. To give credit where it's due, I copied almost this entire project (along with the Alien portal) from WikiProject Star Wars (and the Star Wars portal)...but you know what they say: imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It's my hope that we can eventually rack up a number of FAs comporable to what that project has achieved. I should also give thanks to M3tal H3ad for his hard work on Alien vs. Predator (film) and Alien Resurrection. It's because of his example and dedication that I finally decided to move forward with this WikiProject/Portal idea I'd been mulling over for so long. Anyway, there's a lot of work to be done, so let's get rolling! --IllaZilla (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessments

I've begun placing project banners on the talk pages of all of the articles within Template:Alien and giving them quick assessments and importance levels, so we can start prioritizing tasks. Obviously each article has its own quality assessment, but here's a quick explanation of how I rated them with regard to importance to the project:

Top: The articles on the 8 films (4 Alien, 2 Predator, 2 AVP), the articles on the 2 main creatures (Alien & Predator), and the article on Ripley, since she's the only recurring protagonist through the Alien series. These are the core articles of the project, basically, and could be advanced to FA status.
High: All the articles on the comics and novels. These are the secondary form of media in the franchise and also more or less the second level of canon when it comes to story. There are several of these which could be merged into list articles, but a few which deserve their own articles and could eventually reach GA status, possibly FA.
Mid: All the articles on the video games. A majority of these are stubs and could be merged into list articles. Very few could be expanded with encyclopedic content, and only these deserve their own articles. Most of these could probably only be brought up to GA status at best.
Low: All of the "Alien and Predator universe" and "Miscellaneous" articles, as well as most of the character articles. IMHO most of these are unworthy of independent articles and are completely unencyclopedic topics that will never advance past Start or B class. The characters could be merged into list articles, but complete fancruft like Yautja language and M56 Smart Gun has no place on Wikipedia. Almost all of these should be either merged into other articles or lists, or deleted.

Once I'm finished tagging, assessing, and categorizing, I'll start listing some of these projects on the "things to do" page. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

scores

hi just telling you that im in the process of creating the Goldsmith score for the first film now, i made Goldenthals (alien 3) a while ago because i focus mainly on his stuff (im a massive fan) then i noticed that you were doing alien related stuff and i LOVE alien and Jerry Goldsmiths score for the first film aswell so ive just created a page for Horners Aliens and now im going on to do the first one, someone else had already created Resurretion. Terrasidius (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those look very well-done. I'll add them to the project and see about linking them to other articles. It might take me a while, though. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add my name?

I don't know how to add it to the participants list. I would be doing typo stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yojimbo501 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Alien/Participants and add your username in alphabetical order to the list. If you need further assistance just contact me on my "talk" page. --Tj999 (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of adding you to the list. It doesn't have to be in alphabetical order, it can just be in the order joined. That makes it easiest for new members to add themselves, since they just have to add themselves to the end of the list. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ill probably do typo and error stuff, as well as trying to stop vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yojimbo501 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If any help is needed in the writing of this or any other Aliens-related articles, do contact me, I've been an ardent fan and follower of the Aliens franchise for over 15 years now. I actually started a wiki exclusively for the Aliens universe (No predators or anything) but the link has since been lost in translation. Would like to get that off the ground sometime in the future, preferably after Prometheus, but in the meantime, if you need any help in this WikiProject let me know. --Kluutak (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comics

Could we standardise the comic articles so instead of having articles about individual comic books, have more inclusive articles like "Aliens crossovers", where all the Aliens VS something comics could be described? The AVP comics should have their own article though, I'm referring more to the numerous superhero crossovers. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking we could merge all the comic article into a list article like "List of Alien and Predator comics". This would take out the cover images, since they can't be used in list articles, but all we have in each article now (that I've seen) is publishing details & a plot description. Since there's no sourced critical commentary in any of them (ie. no secondary sources) they should all be in one list article. That's what I'm working on for the video games with List of Alien and Predator games. If in the future some secondary sources are found to provide critical commentary, then the title in question could be forked off into an independent article. All the details & plot summary would still be there, and the cover images aren't hard to find. I just don't see a rationale for having independent articles on comics with no critical commentary. List articles are usually exempt from the "article length" issues, so even if it was a very long article it wouldn't be a problem. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a list article with room for commentary, like the List of castes from the Alien expanded universe, would be nice. I have practically all the comics, so I can help with that. Funkynusayri (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question

Is this wikiproject only for the Alien and AvP series, or is this also for the Predator series. --Gman124^talk 15:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It covers Predator as well, because the 2 are so closely related. There is no project devoted to Predator, so this project is kind of meant to cover both, even though it's called WikiProject Alien. But yeah, we've kind of taken the Predator articles into our scope as well. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't it be at least mentioned on the project page that it covers Predator too. --Gman124^talk 12:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's this about?

Shouldn't the sentence that mentions the project scope say something more like this? WikiProject Alien was formed to foster the creation and encyclopedic improvement of Alien articles related to the Alien media franchise, and... or something like that? It wasn't until near the end of the second paragraph, that I found the word "canon" which lent the first clue as to which sort of Alien you were concerned about. The the second section with the related wikiprojects mentioned WP:FILM. And where's that image in the infobox from? I've never seen that before. It took me a minute to pick out the face of the alien. -Freekee (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Alien

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential good topic candidate

When the Alien (film) nomination passes at WP:GAN, I believe that the members of the project should consider nominating the current GA/FAs related to Alien as a good topic which can be done here. Right now, I think the following would qualify for the topic:

In the future, the following could probably be added once they've reached GA status or higher:

Alien (Alien franchise)
Alien 3
Other articles within this project
Possibly the Predator films as well

I just wanted to point this out as I think the project has a great opportunity to develop the topic, with further expansion in the future. Good work with the articles right now, and keep improving the articles. If you have any questions, please let me know. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I wasn't aware there was such a thing as good topics, but it definitely applies to this group of articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List_of_ongoing_conflicts#Alien_vs._Predator.3F

I am not sure what to make of the above; it seems out of place with the other entries, no? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of on the article talk page. That article is clearly for real-world events. Thanks for noting it. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.

Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WIkiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Task force merger

With the more common acceptance of Task Forces now, shouldn't this project shift to a Task Force under Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror? You'd benefit from the existing infrastructure (including assessment scales and style guidelines) and making a singular, more encompassing WikiProject an "umbrella" for various Task Forces will bring people with similar interests together. Scanning the history, it appears that most of the activity for this project (the project, and not the articles themselves) has become rather dormant. The CotW hasn't been active since October.

For these reasons I propose the following page (and associated talk page) moves:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Alien move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Alien task force as a task force.

This proposal is inline with the current discussions regarding a Friday the 13th WikiProject (which is strongly opposed as a separate WikiProject) and a Halloween task force. While I can't find the mention of it, I believe a Texas Chain Saw Massacre task force is also in the works. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do these movies even qualify as horror. They aren't even that scary. If you want to merge em anyway then I guess it might as well be done, since noone even comes here nomore, that much. --Gman124^talk 04:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Alien movies, or the Predator movies? lol. The Alien movies, at least the original film, are horror movies. Over time I think they lost some of that "horror" ideal to them--they became more action oriented--but the root of the franchise is based on a horror movie. I mean, the Alien itself was considered a "classic horror character" in this study. So yeah, I'd say the articles fall under the Horror Project. As for the inactivity of the Project, there has been a lot of restructuring of the Horror Project (we recently reinstated the Collaboration of the Month...which is currently taking nominations for the March Collaboration if there was an article that you'd like to see collaborated on) to increase the activity across all horror-related articles so there is a better chance of the Alien articles picking up some new active members this way as well. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Move it, I suppose. Gman124^talk 06:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this project seems to encompass both Alien and Predator, might I note that we could use this move to rename the group something like Alien & Predator task force? I leave this up to the membership, but it seems to make sense to me to do so.

The entire move hierarchy for this new naming would be:

Please let me know your thoughts on this. hornoir (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this seems fine. --Gman124^talk 02:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the project, and the person who seems to use it the most often, I'm not sure if this is the way to go. First of all, I'm not certain horror would be the right parent, as (and I think others would agree) only the original Alien film is usually classified as horror. Sure, there are horror elements throughout both franchises, but both Alien and Predator are, when taken as a whole, science fiction franchises first and foremost. So I would think the science fiction project would be a better parent.

Second, I'm not too gung-ho on moving everything. I spent the better part of a couple weeks building this thing, including numerous categories, assessment and MOS pages, etc. etc. I'd hate to see that work go to waste, particularly the categorization and assessments. Bignole says "you'd benefit from the existing infrastructure (including assessment scales and style guidelines)", but this project already has those, and I think if nothing else they are the most useful tool the project has. I realize the project has been pretty inactive, but it hasn't even been a year yet since it launched. I pretty much copied it from the Star Wars Project, so I may have gone a bit overboard & created a bunch of stuff that this project didn't really need (the Collaboration of the Week, for example, probably didn't need to be there, at least at launch). I really don't see how changing it to a task force is going to change the way it operates, though.

I read over the WikiProject Council guide before starting this project, and though it has been slow in activity I think it met, and still meets, the recommended criteria there. It nees a fire lit under it, and probably a membership drive, but I don't think those are reasons to move everything to a task force and abandon the existing assessment department & style guidelines. Like I say, those are the most useful features, and having 75 articles currently in the scope I think having its own assessment statistics really helps (We have gotten 3 GAs since launching the project, and I think with a little prodding we can get people fired up about improving more).

Of course, I'm open to any reasons why moving to a task force would be an improvement over the existing state of affairs. How would a task force operate better than a project? Do you think it's likely to get more members as a task force? I think it would stay about the same. Based on my exprience with WP:PUNK (a project I majorly revamped), I think that even a project with a much larger scope & higher membership can slip into inactivity. Features like the CotW are almost never used there either, and they have 30 members and almost a thousand articles in the scope. Mostly I'm worried about losing the useful tools such as categorization and assessment, if as a task force we're made to ditch our own and use the parent project's. That's one of the reasons I felt that a separate project was a good idea to begin with.

Sorry if this isn't a very cohesive set of thoughts. It's late and I'm having trouble structuring ideas at the moment. I'll probably post some notices on project members' talk pages directing them to this convo, to see what their thoughts are. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that it has only been a year, and I think that's the point. In a year your project has already become dormant. By moving you'd be gaining the benefit of all of our active members, which far exceeds the 9 members of this project. Just because the Alien franchise has shifted somewhat away from horror doesn't mean that it still doesn't fit in the category. Nightmare on Elm Street became more comedic as the series went on, but it's still horror. The point of the Alien movies is to provide scares, which is what a horror movie does. Only Aliens is really an action movie. Alien 3 is really in-line with the original's status as a horror movie. You cannot take the sci-fi aspect of the films and ignore the horror aspects. One of the criteria is not just participant numbers, but also article numbers. I can tell you right now that 40-50 % of the articles I scanned through from just the template (which includes both Alien and Predator) fail WP:NOTE flat out (no subjectivity to it at all). Most should be merged to an article of broader scope, which would cut the number of articles this "project" maintains down significantly. I recognize that this is your baby, but but you don't own it, and no one is saying that you couldn't be the task force coordinator for it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I'm in agreement with you on the NOTE issue :) One of the reasons I started this project was actually to trim down the number of existing articles via merges. There was success with that in some areas, less in others, but that was definitely one of the main goals. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, a task force doesn't "null and void" unique quality and importance categories; it just makes them part of the parent banner. Advantages of being a task force include not having to concern yourself with upgrading to current Editorial Assessment standards, Style Guidelines to reflect changes in Wikipedia policy, etc.; it essentially allows a task force to actually focus on articles under the task force's scope.

As for cross-pollination of membership, I agree that there probably wouldn't be a noticeable amount; but it would make the task force more visible. More importantly, it would allow the task force to participate in WikiProject Horror's Review and Collaboration processes — granting the task force access to the opinion of those outside their specific field of interest.

And, of course, if you believe Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction is a better fit, then contact them. In the end, the scope of this project is more in-line with a task force than a full-fledged project and should be re-categorized thusly.

I believe I've addressed your concerns, but please feel free to ask more questions should I have not been clear and/or thorough. hornoir (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Alien project might cover too little to be a project in itself, and I don't see how anything would get worse by becoming a task force. The pages would be the same I guess. But I agree that science fiction would be a better parent project. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if WP:SF is a better fit for you, then please approach them about inclusion under their banner.

Neither here nor there, is there a reason your active member count in the lead isn't automated? It would save you time and energy. The expression '''{{expr:{{PAGESINCATEGORY:WikiProject Alien members}}-4}}''' would output the number of users in Category:WikiProject Alien members. The -4 is for the four pages that are not users (Wikipedians who participate in the Alien Collaboration of the Week, Template:Userbox/Examples, Wikipedia:WikiProject Alien, Wikipedia:WikiProject Alien/Templates). Just a thought to help you out. hornoir (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wasn't aware of that helpful tool, I'll plug it in there. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it didn't work. Mind giving me a hand with it? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, completely my fault; I typed too quickly and forget the # before the expr statement. I added it to your main page. Glad to be of help. hornoir (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:43, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (video game)

I just did a major overhaul of this article, and I was wondering if any active members of this project could go over and take a look at it for me. There's also a discussion on the talk page about the merger tag, if you wouldn't mind giving your say. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 13:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tag's been removed. Thanks for the great work, especially all those references! I migh take a pass at copyediting it at a later date. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's up at GAN now. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 12:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#PLOT

WP:NOT#PLOT: There is an RfC discussing if our policy on plot, WP:PLOT, should be removed from what Wikipedia is not. Please feel free to comment on the discussion and straw poll.

Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Un-redirected the 'Aliens: A Comic Book Adventure' videogame article

Just to note here as well. Besides having had an impact on the Alien Franchise's development, the game also had considerable legal issues(And, I think, unique ones.) surrounding its release, that have made it something of a limited edition game. Something worthy of mention on its own, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.19.155 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still lacks any reliable sources to verify its contents or to show notability. Your recreation addresses none of these issues. Re-redirected. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*shrug* Suit yourself. The game's pre-popularization of the internet. You're not going to find a ready source of information on it; if I could source the information beyond "I know this" I would. I'm not going to argue with a random wikipedantic about whether it having very unusual circumstances around its release is notable or not. Suit yourself. 70.71.19.155 (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability. If the game "pre-popularized the internet" then that would certainly be worth mentioning, but being an encyclopedia first and foremost we have to have a reliable source for that information. If, as you say, it's unlikely that we'd be able to find a ready source of information on it, then there's really nothing we can say from an encyclopedic standpoint. All we have to go on is your opinion on why it's notable; we would definitely need sources to back up that assertion. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Alienannouncement

Is this template being used? If so, could someone link it in to the templates page, and I will close the TFD. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alien articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Alien articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Input needed.

Please visit Talk:Aliens (film)#Merge to help decide what to do with the article Bishop (Aliens). Thank you. Cliff (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox scope

Not sure how active this Project is, but there ia a discussion regarding {{Alien}} that should have the Project's input.

- J Greb (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise)#RfC: "Alien" or "Xenomorph"? that you may be interested in. 11:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grants:IEG/Wikipedia likes Galactic Exploration for Posterity 2015

Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

I JethroBT (WMF) suggested that I consult with fellow Wikipedians to get feedback and help to improve my idea about "As an unparalleled way to raise awareness of the Wikimedia projects, I propose to create a tremendous media opportunity presented by launching Wikipedia via space travel."

Please see the idea at meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wikipedia_likes_Galactic_Exploration_for_Posterity_2015. Please post your suggestions on the talk page and please feel free to edit the idea and join the project.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I appreciate it.

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archie vs. Predator FAC

Additional opinions are needed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archie vs. Predator/archive1. All input is welcome. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ALIEN: AWAKENING and original research

Please avoid jumping to conclusions, such as the original research that I just removed from Alien: Covenant, Alien (franchise) and Ridley Scott. In terms of Alien: Awakening, we don't know what it is yet and we have nothing to go by, besides a vague quote from Scott and website speculation. For all we know, Awakening might be the upcoming prequel novel to Covenant. If I had money for every time I saw an editor try to jump the gun on a rumour, only for it to get contradicted later, I would be a very wealthy Wikipedian. Dark Knight 2149 00:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alien/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Alien.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Alien, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It's impossible to tell what the heck the subject of the Aliens (comic book) article is supposed to be.

Is it about a specific title? the plot summary and name (comic book) seems to indicate so, but the list of publications beneath seems to tell me instead that it's an overview of all the comics published related to the Alien franchise. Can someone make sense out of this please?★Trekker (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palette merge candidate

Template:Alien vs. Predator (franchise) and Template:Alien vs. Predator are twin templates, and should be merged --Archimëa (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't one just a redirect of the other?★Trekker (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

★Trekker: Hello. No. There are only one link, on text link and the title page that differ. Sorry i contribute to French wiki, and i don't konw the policies and guidelines about naming, so i don'y know what's the better choice and template to keep, even if there are really few differrences. --Archimëa (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some fool must have not have realized that moving a tempalte was the right thing to do so they just made a new one, I think I know who it was.... I would say turn the (franchise) one into a redirect.★Trekker (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Resurrection

Hi. I'm trying to improve Alien Resurrection, any help will be appreciated. By the way, Metacritic reports that the film received "generally favorable reviews", but the article states "mixed" without a source. Should we change it? Sebastian James (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What did RT say?★Trekker (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RTMC, RT scores are not appropriate to use as a reception summary since they only consist of "fresh" and "rotten" (A film with a 60% approval would have been summarized as critically successful because it is "fresh"), so the site only displays the consensus "Alien Resurrection marks a slight improvement over its predecessor, but still lacks the emotional stakes that helped make the franchise's first two entries sci-fi/horror classics." which is not saying much. And I agree with BettyLogan's comment here. Sebastian James (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've come across a New York Times article that says "with a budget of $70 million for Alien Resurrection, 20th Century Fox is reported to have paid her $11 million." Should Box Office Mojo (which displays the budget as $75 million) and The Numbers (which displays the budget as $60 million) be ignored? Also, The Numbers reports that Alien (1979) grossed $203.6 million (including all re-releases), while Box Office Mojo shows that it grossed $104.9 million (including 2003 re-release). Should we only include The Numbers since it includes all re-releases? Sebastian James (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's full box office should be listed in the infobox, rereleases included.★Trekker (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ripley's occupation and title

We all know that Ripley is a warrant officer in Alien, and later we learn that she is also a Lieutenant. I'm wondering if we should include both of them for "title" and "occupation" at this article's infobox. (Warrant officer was removed before without an explanation.) Sebastian James what's the T? 07:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Project structure

Is WP:VG a parent project of WP:ALIEN? I ask because WP:VG is listed in the "Parentage" section on the front page, however WP:ALIEN is not listed as a child project on WP:VG's front page. So what do you think? I'll leave a similar note at WT:VG here. -Thibbs (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This place is a grave. Enjoyer of World^💬 06:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. WP:VG seems to agree. I'll go ahead and correct the front page. -Thibbs (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]