Talk:Xenomorph/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Predalien movie dreadlocks error

It stated that the Predalien chestburster at the end of AVP had dreadlocks, when we didn't see any dreadlocks and on a offical replica of the chestburster, there was no dreads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.46.30 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your wrong look here Check this out, [1] Isn't that awesome, the first pics of the Predalien with dread locks. Somewhere we have to add this into some alien or predator article. Do not tell me that that is not cool!!! Somebody please insert it! Thanks! ManofSTEEL2772 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.93 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't get to toss in media, especially copyrighted pictures, or even links, just because they're "cool." You can add some meaningful content to the articles that discuss the new creature, then provide the link as a reference. And though I agree the creature in the pictures is awesome, there's nothing there that officially links it to the film. --IllaZilla 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah thats what you told me on the AvP 2 web page here on Wikipedia but I added them into the AvP 2 and Alien and Predator sites as a reference saying that it might be or may not be what the creature will look like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.94 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Predalien WILL have dreads according to all 3 trailers and the still released before the first trailer. --68.114.123.93 23:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? Why is this important? Are we adding a section on creature design and production? Otherwise just leave it out. --IllaZilla 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Slimed"

one thing I never got is how they slime or cocoon people. Do they like hock it up as a lugi or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.94.8 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

They barf on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyuuga-sama (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe at least part of their goo is produced on their hands (and a personal deduction of mine is they are covered in slime, that is partially why they are shinny, I have a faint memory of seeing one of them using their hands to mold a coccoon or wall or somthing like that, but I'm not sure --TiagoTiago 16:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Commander caste

Who keeps removing the Commander section of the Xenomorph page?! It's as real a caste as all the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.134.216 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Commander section you are refering to appears to violate WP:OR and WP:V. To my knowledge it is never mentioned in any film or associated literature. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

King

What happened to the section about the king xenomorph. I know some females out their want the queen to be the most powerful but we atleast have to mention that there was a king xenomorph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoundBlast (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Where was this king xenomorph? All that was given as evidence was a single action figure. In canon, the king is non-existent. I moved the King to the non-canonical list. Serendi^podous 13:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, can the people constantly referring to the warrior aliens as "drones"

Please look up the word "drone" in a dictionary? A drone is a fertile male of an insect colony. Its purpose is to mate with the queen of another colony to produce offspring. There is no evidence in canon that the alien warriors are fertile, and indeed the evidence suggests that the queen does not need to mate. --Serendi^podous 11:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Adult Aliens weak against fire? (2)

I'm sorry I'll have to bring up an old topic, but didn't the young Chestburster show rather remarkable resistance to fire in 'Aliens'? It was caught on fire, and it last rather long time in the flames or a flamethrower? Opinions? --62.248.150.20 (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Opinions on what? It didn't die right away because, well, it looks better. --Funkynusayri (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Translation of raptus

Would the intended meaning of "raptus" not be more likely to be "kidnapper" or "rapist" rather than "thief", considering the lack of a direct English translation of raptus? Both would be more reasonable translations considering the behaviour depicted in the films. Also, the producers of the Quadrilogy box set would be unlikely to have employed a Latin expert to create a tiny reference on the menu of a DVD. --Pug50 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's true, then they could have gotten what they meant wrong for exactly that reason, so it doesn't necessarily make the "translation" wrong. --Xihr (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the translation is wrong, just that there are at least three possible translations of the word from Latin to English. "Kidnapper" or "Rapist" would make sense, whereas "Thief" makes no sense at all; The Alien has never stolen anything (other than people: kidnapping) --Pug50 (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Geiger's original idea does not jive with mindless bugs

There needs to be a part of the article discussing the first movie version as a stand alone universe seperate from the rest of the series. In Geiger's Alien he shows alien hierogyphics and suggests that they had their own culture. It is also thought that the Space Jockey was created by the aliens and that they also sent out the SOS signal as a trap. This of course is before the later movie Predator so there can be no theories about the aliens being created by the Predators projected onto the Space Jockey idea. Also the Alien in the first movie is indestructible, while Ash is reanimated he says that they can't kill it. Also the first movie has deleated scenes that shows Dallas being turned into an egg, so no Queen exists in the first movie's universe. This Alien also rapes Lambert with its tail which theoretically could impregnate her, so as horrible as it sounds this is probably what happened to Dallas. --70.211.25.105 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's all original research. We're not here to discuss theories about fictional material, or debate what is "canon." IMO this whole article needs to be worked on according to guidelines at WP:WAF. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it original research? Sources-Geiger's Alien, Alien DVD deleted scenes. The Alien in the first film is an indestructible killing machine. The Aliens in 'Aliens' can have their heads held down by humans and are crushed easily? Part of the horror of the first film was facing your certain death at the hands of an unstoppable force of evil. This idea is destroyed by James Cameron's hive, bug, queen, drone bullshit. --75.197.189.99 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That you're not fond of the later movies is really neither here nor there in the context of an encyclopedia entry about the Alien across all of the movies. --Xihr (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All of your statements about alien heiroglyphs and them having their own culture and creating the space jockeys et al are fan theories and therefore qualify as original research. As Xihr says, this has no bearing on an encyclopedic article about the Alien as a movie creature in general. Plus, as you seem to be ignoring, in the first film all the characters had to fight the alien with were homemade flame throwers, so of course they didn't damage it much. In the 2nd and 4th films and AVP they were attacked by marines/mercenaries with high-powered guns, so naturally these did more damage to them. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring it, it has no bearing on my argument. They are not in the same universe so to speak. First movie, no queen. Ask Dan O'Bannon the creator of the monster. --75.199.64.4 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That statement is obvious original research, which is why the opinion has no expression, and cannot, in the article proper. --Xihr (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As a side note to the OP, "Geiger" is a misspelling of H.R. Giger's name. --Pug50 (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because you didn't see the Queen in the first movie does not mean it was not there. --Kiljoy1337 (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This article lacks significance

In my opinion, such a long article about a fictional character in an inconsequential movie series does not belong in a general interest encyclopedia. A general interest encyclopedia (again in my opinion) is a concise introduction to general knowledge. This article is appropriate to science fiction fan literature. I believe this article should be reduced to one paragraph and merged with one of the alien movie articles. --Rocky143 (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your notion that the article should be reduced to a paragraph & merged, though I do agree that it is overly long and needs a lot of work to be brought up to Wikipedia's standards in writing about fiction. The alien itself is a notable fictional character that has appeared in (thus far) six international feature films, several comic book series, numerous video games, and other media (not to mention merchandise, etc) over the last 29 years. It's certainly a notable enough character to warrant an article about it, though I agree this article needs a lot of work. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Especially since it's well established that such articles are notable on Wikipedia. Anyone want to actually take a shot at trying to argue that the article on Klingons is non-notable? Fat chance, that. (And, while we're at it, they're not characters, they're a species.) --Xihr (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The alien has become a pop-cultural icon, and is pretty damn notable in itself. But the current article is shit, too much fan-boy in-universe rambling, and too little discussion about the concept and designs. --Funkynusayri (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Issues with 'Predalien'

Someone was having a seizure when they typed the last part of the Predalien section. --24.31.249.138 (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific than that. Being constructive, as well, might help. --Xihr (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Confused.

Yeah I just saw the new movie and am confused, in the beginning you see that the predalien does not show up on thermal, but when it fights the predator he takes his mask off and can still fight it even though predators see in thermal, so... what the heck? Maybe someone here can elaborate or maybe this is pointless and it was just a screw up on the people who made the movie. --Kiljoy1337 (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure Predators see the same light spectrum humans see. Their masks are what have the different vision modes. --Kyrandos (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC) :

No they only see in thermal, just watch the first predator movie. --65.32.239.201 (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Pred-alien head transparent?

I was walking around the local mall, and saw AvP:Requiem figurines of the Predator, Alien and Predalien being sold. I purchased the Alien, but on closer inspection with the Pred-Alien, I noticed a small section of the creature's skull being transparent- lo and behold, I could see eye sockets, plus a skull that was much the same shape as a humans. This struck me as rather odd, that an idea that was used in the original Alien movie be re-used on a figurine, since I had not noticed or seen a transparent section on the creature's skull. I think it'd be of small interest to investigate, that's kind've cool. --68.111.245.180 (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I just checked a picture I picked up online, of the creature. It's low-quality, but I'm almost certain I can make out the transparency in the skull, as well as the eye sockets. I'm not going to add anything to the article, though, unless anybody agrees it's there- I just don't think it'd be right. --68.111.245.180 (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Termite-Based?

Well I'm still a high school kid, but over the years I've been studying this stuff, and honestly I do believe in aliens. What confuses me is, this whole race of xenomorphs is either termite or ant-based creatures. Both of them have "Warriors" and "Workers" as well as a little egg sac that they use. The queen is able to remove herself from the Egg Sac as in Termites she can't, but ants also give the proof that only one queen can last the ants a life time by herself. Therefore, I think we should not quite assume the fact these guys are one of those insect based creatures, it would just make more sense. Oh, and either way both types of insects have or had Kings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecutnut (talk • contribs) 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what your point is, but regardless it qualifies as original research. The purpose of Wikipedia is to report notable facts with reliable, third-party sources, not to invent new "facts" and present them as truth when there is no reliable basis for them. --Xihr 05:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There is actually an analogy to ants in the second movie:

"Each one of these things|comes from an egg, right?

So who's laying these eggs?

I'm not sure.

It must be something|we haven't seen yet.

Hey, maybe|it's like an ant hive.

-Bees have hives.|-You know what I mean.

There's, like, one female|that runs the whole show.

Yes. The queen.

Yeah. The mama.

And she's badass, man.|I mean big.

-These things ain't ants.|-I know that." --Funkynusayri (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well to be fair this IS the discussion area, and not the article. Anyways to the original poster; you shouldn't look at this as 'what are the xenomorphs modeled off of?", because while of course Ridley Scott used insects as inspiration, there's nothing saying he chose any specific TYPE of insect. Further, in terms of the movie/game/comic reality, this is a unique species. To say it is based off of another earth species is wrong - they have only recently in the movies ever come in contact with earth, and the liklihood of any earth insect playing a part in xenomorph ancestry is pretty much nil. --Kyrandos (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for the article. You appear to have mistaken Wikipedia talk pages for an Internet forum. --Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

First image shown

Should be the original Giger designed alien, not the poppy Amalgamated Dynamics one. Why change it back? --Funkynusayri (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the more recent image represents the creature as it has appeared in films for the last 10 years. It's been the introductory image for the article for a very long time, and you seem to be the only one adverse to it. Why should the "original design" take some sort of precedence, just because you like it more? The fact that you call it "poppy" makes it obvious you have a bias. The goal here is to provide an image that someone just glancing at the article will recognize, so the more recent one works better as it is more representative of the creature's appearance overall through amost 30 years of media. Plus, it's just a higher quality image and you can see more of the creature, like the tail. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The original design is what all the subsequent designs are based on, and it's the design the alien became famous for, and which has influenced countless other creature designs. If the quality of the image is a problem, well, it won't exactly be hard to find another one. It's not about what I like, but what most people in the world know the the creature for.

Also, the creature has only appeared like the newer picture you advocate in two movies, Resurrection and the first AVP. Not even the games and comics made since Resurrection adopted the new design, apart from maybe four comics at the most, two directly based on the newer movies. --Funkynusayri (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Other than the ridge on the tail (for the swiming scene) and maybe a slight difference in the fingers, what's so "new" about the design? It looks basically the same. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There are vast differences that might not be picked up by only watching the movies, I could list them all, but that would be rather irrelevant, but the design has been changed on every detail on the entire creature. You could take a look at these two replicas, original alien[2][3], and the Resurrection/AVP1 alien[4][5].

The two of us don't seem to be enough to work this out, so maybe someone else should come with an opinion. Here's a poster depicting the original alien, which I think would be cooler than the current one, if we don't simply get another screenshot[6].

Having this generic-monster Resurrection/AVP1 alien as the first, representative image is akin to having the King Kong design from King Kong vs. Godzilla as the first image on the King Kong page. It's ridiculous. --Funkynusayri (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, while I disagree with you that the way the creature is designed in the more recent films is some sort of cheapening or sacrilege in comparison to the first film, I do see your point that a good image of the alien from the first film would probably be the best way to lead off the article. I just don't think that the image of the original alien that's currently in the article is better than the more recent image that's currently at the top. I'd be totally open to an entirely new image replacing either of those, but I think a good screenshot from the film would be the best way to go. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Awright, I'll get one if we both agree. And if I recall correctly, the newer designs have been cheapened up in the exact sense of the word; so Fox didn't have to pay Giger royalties for using his designs.[7] --Funkynusayri (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want for a new image, the existing one seems fine to me, optherwise there are some production stills here[8][9][10] and a screenshot, perhaps the clearest view of the alien you get in the first movie. [11] The poster I linked to before[12] is about as valid as the picture of the "newer" alien, they're both promotional posters and not stills from the movie. --Funkynusayri (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we should be using a picture of Giger's original Alien, not one of the many subsequent redesigns. It's the original and is what should be shown. Either though or show ALL the variations of the Alien, not giving preference to one over the other, just stating the facts (after all, isn't that what Wikipedia is for?). --Gaunt (Gaunt) 10:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Alien or Xenomorph

I think article should be retitled Alien. I realize that using Xenomorph to refer to the creatures allows for greater flexibility in differentiating them from other aliens in general. However, Xenomorph is not a uniquely specific and descriptive term for that life form. Its merely derived from the Greek Roots xeno and morph meaning “strange form” or simply Alien. The term is used once and in a very broad sense by Gorman, who is trying to sound impressive by using technically overblown jargon. All of you janitors/sanitation engineers will appreciate what I mean. A tiger may be a type of cat, but a Xenomorph is just another way of saying Alien. In addition, outside of the core of Alien fandom who have adopted that word, Xenomorph is widely unknown among the general public. Your average movie goer thinks of them as the “Aliens” and would have to be reminded of Gorman’s quote. Although Alien is equally as nonspecific as Xenomorph, it is the term with the overwhelmingly widest usage and would be the term most likely referenced in any Wikipedia search. The article should be designated as Aliens (also referred to as Xenomorphs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.181.47.130 (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It was originally titled Alien and was changed long ago. Let's not go back and forth on this. Xenomorph is the technical name that appears in several of the movies and is canon. --Xihr (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's canon in the context of Cameron's 'Aliens' and was referenced thereafter as the Xenomorph (damn stupid name that it is in the first place). Gormon used it in Aliens as a way of showing the limited military mindset. It is the Alien, plain and simple, and this article should be changed back to reflect that, quoting it and using it in context as is the basic premise of Wikipedia. Besides, it also respects the original film where it was simply the Alien.-- Gaunt (Gaunt) 10:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying that the word isn’t canon or that the term shouldn’t be used in the article. If this was a journal article for a Sci Fi publication being read by hard core fans then it certainly would be appropriate to have Xenomorph be the title. However, this article is disseminated to the general public, the vast majority of whom are more familiar with A.L.F. than the term xenomorph. The overwhelming reference throughout the movies, books, video games is Alien. It is likely to be the predominant term used in wikipedia searches. Do you want an article that’s by fans for fans or one for the public at large? There is precedent for this with other articles. Puma concolor is the taxonomic name for a cougar. However, people in western Montana and Idaho refer to them as catamounts. Which do you suppose it is used as the article title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.181.47.130 (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, look at the titles of all the films after Alien - they're not called Xenomorphs, Xenomorph 3, Xenomorph:Resurrection, Xenomorph Vs Predator or Xenomorph Vs Predator:Requiem. The word Xenomorph is a bit of pretentious nonsense used by Gormon in Aliens to show superiority and limited thinking - this whole article should be changed to give the word 'Alien' the precedence and only give one or two references to Xenomorph as the word introduced in Aliens. BTW, there's an interesting thread on this very matter here: [13] --Gaunt (Gaunt) 18:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is, we've already gone through this argument before and the article got renamed from Alien. Going back and forth between names forever is not productive. Please view the archives. --Xihr (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read the archives, from what I can see it was never conclusive what to call it, just a bunch of people deciding that THEIR name (Xenomorph) was RIGHT and that it should be called Xenomorph, despite the fact that the name is only used consistently by hard core fans of the comic books. Let's fact it, it's a damn silly and highly pretentious name and the use of it in this article smacks of some people who have their own agenda and simply wish everyone to call the Alien the Xenomorph. No doubt it makes them feel superior even though it's wrong. --Gaunt (Gaunt) 09:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read thru the archives and what really jumps out at me is the number of times xenomorph is actually used. If I'm being overly presumptuous I apologize but most of the contributors to these discussions seem to be the hard core fans. Yet, aside from the whole Alien vs. Xenomorph Debate, Xenomorph isn’t mentioned nearly as often as Alien. If the term is so predominant among the fan base then why not use it? Why hasn't it supplanted the Alien label? A fundamental question has been asked that I think it deserves an answer. Who is this article being written for? If its purpose is to as a sounding board for Alien Aficionados to show off, then so be it. But if you are targeting a wider audience then why not use the term that is in general usage among Alien novices and experts alike. --JDelp (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

the return of the fan fiction

Months ago I was part of a discussion that aimed at cleaning up the Origin of the species section by removing the fan fiction. Today I looked at it and found that the fan fiction had partially returned. First of all, Ridley Scott never said in any of his commentaries that the Space Jockey's race created the Aliens. All he said was that the Space Jockey's race used them as bio-weapons. I challenge anyone to find a quote from the commentaries saying that the Aliens were created by the race that built the Derelict. Secondly, the production team only ever used the term "Pilot" and "Space Jockey". The plural term "Space Jockeys" is entirely fan fiction so don't put it back into this article ever again. The only time the Space Jockey's race was given a name was in the novel Aliens Original Sin and they were called the Mala'kak. --218.215.149.63 (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by fan fiction, because that has nothing to do with what you're on about. You're trying to allude to the use of the term "space jockey" as an informal term for the species by the vast majority of people unaware that these aliens have been given an in-universe designation, in what many might consider a secondary or even apocryphal. I don't see what your problem is. --Misterandersen (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be greatly appreciated if we could get this looking like the Predator entry instead of filling this to the brim with info that borders on original research. --The Chibi Kiriyama —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.129.9 (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Praetorian

I am removing the Praetorian from the Hybridization (Alternate Forms) section of the article. They do not exist in the movies but in the expanded universe - which is what the List of castes from the Alien expanded universe article is for. --S-m-r-t (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2008(UTC)

The Praetorian's do not exist in movies and have their mention in the List of castes from the Alien expanded universe article - whoever keeps adding them - stop! They appear only in games and not in the movies. Thank you --S-m-r-t (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the "runner" should simply be referred to as "dog burster" here, as that is what it was referred to in advertisement, and the term "runner" is only used in the games. --Funkynusayri (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternate life-cycles

I've got a bit of an issue with this "Super chestburster" since there seems to be no basis for this whatsoever. In Alien3, only regular facehuggers (and their corpses) are seen and it's made very obvious at the beginning of the film that there are multiple facehuggers aboard the ship before the jesttisoning of the EEV (at least three). I'm going to have a look at 3 again tonight because I don't remember ever seeing an implication that one facehugger was able to latch more than once and that the scene the author refers to about the 'black jellyfish' is where they discover the first shedded skin of the runner. (Bobbo9000) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Appearance of Alien - Runner

In Alien³ there is another change of the Alien appearance. It has no "tubes" on his back [Giger said (on the special DVD to Alien³) that he invented those tubes so that the Alien could rest its head on them while staying on two feet. But this creature does not need them.] You can clearly see on the third movie, that this beast has no "tubes" on his back. Does anybody know why those Aliens really have them and why the "Runner" does not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.99.24 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My guess, and this is conjecture, is that during the gestation process there is room for mutation or perhaps the assumption of traits is not always exact. The tubes might be a genetic disposition in the xenomorphs and have nothing to do with the host. Perhaps like hair and eye color there are dominant and recessive genetic code, and some of the xenomorph breeds are more or less prone to certain characteristics. --Kyrandos (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well isnt it obvious, even though I'm only a kid, (elementary) that Runner does not need tubes because it's primarily a quadrupedal, so why would it need to rest it's head? --Ammonight423 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

predalien

In the predalien section it says that in an interview with Greg and Colin Strouse stated that the reason the predalien could inject embryo's in you was because it was a young alien queen. Well can somebody tell or show me where they found that interview? Because I highly doubt that it was an alien queen but im willing to prove myself wrong if someone would show me where that interview is. And if not shouldn't that part of the section be deleted seeing as it has no liable source of confirmation on it? (please respond) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.156.46 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, delete it if it is unsourced. --Funkynusayri (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems the directors dissagree about that, while Colin has stated that the reproduction ability was adapted from predator D.N.A., I do remember reading about Greg saying the Predalien was a young queen. If you look at the ADI book, you can see the begining of a queens crest growing on The Predalien. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.191.63 (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct?

In Alien³, another addition was made - that of a "super facehugger" that could impregnate two hosts with a Queen and a "Commander" embryo.[citation needed] This facehugger was larger and darker compared to the normal pink variety. This would explain why both Ripley and a dog were impregnated from one facehugger. The super facehugger was found by some of the inmates, who thought it a type of jellyfish.

Ripley was the whole time inside the freezing chamber and couldn't have been infected there... isn't it more probable she was infected in Aliens inside the Research Lab before she woke up. One of the 2 live facehuggers there might already have infected her and still lived long enough to seem dangerous. --Oli obk (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's original research; we can't really comment on it aside from what is shown in the film: an abnormal facehugger with abnormal reproductive habits (impregnating twice). --EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've watched through this movie 3 times in the past few days. There are no "super facehuggers". The inmates find only Alien slobber and a shedded skin. If the reference is to the ox scene, that's a standard facehugger being held up in a poorly lit area. Watching this on high def, you can see the yellowish skin tone, just heavily shadowed. This scene isn't canon anyways, but that's by the by.

Everything about the "superfacehugger" is purely conjecture. There's no information to be able to source it. I vote we remove the entry, IMHO. --Bobbo9000 (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Watch the deleted scenes and the director commentary. --Xihr (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Slight Problem With 'Intelligence'

The article as a whole is an impressive piece of work, however, I find some weakened logic behind the statement relating the intelligence of the xenomorph as "roughly similar to that of a typical predatory mammal." How many 'typical predatory animals' have spaceships? --ScatChambers (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The xenomorphs never built or piloted spaceships themselves. What do you mean? --Dark hyena (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Watched Alien again. My mistake. Always thought that the unidentified alien in the chair when the crew of the Nostromo search the crashed ship was a xenomorph. On another viewing, actually paying attention to the shape of the being it is obviously more humanoid. I guess I just ignored the origin of that being in favour of the Giger original or Giger influenced surroundings attributing all such material to the xenomorph. --ScatChambers (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a pop culture section

If this article is going to justify itself, we need to show what kind of impact the Alien has had on wider culture. I'm not that good at that sort of thing, but Wikipedia never seems short of people willing to make pop culture references. Well, now I am giving you permission to do it. Give me something to work with, and I will redraft it. --Serendi^podous 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Runner

Is "Runner" an official name? As far as I know, it was simply coined in the video games. Plus, is there a better picture, like a screenshot? --Dark hyena (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fictional creature GAs

• Cyberman
• Sarlacc
• Time Lord

Looking at these, I think this article is actually in pretty good shape. All that's needed is more popular culture information (this would include references to the Alien comics, Alien books and AvP franchise), an in-universe history, and more information on the evolution of the Aliens' design (such as the use of rod puppets and CGI). --Serendi^podous 08:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to do an in-universe history...

Are we to consider the AVP films canonical or not? --Serendi^podous 09:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We don't get to choose what's canon & what isn't. The Alien franchise doesn't have set levels of canon like the Star Wars franchise does, but in general the movies set the standard and have their own continuity with each other. The comics have their own continuity/canon that sometimes conflicts with the canon of the films, and the video games likewise have their own standards and use whatever ideas the designers want to come up with. For example, none of the "castes" of Aliens used in the video games show up in the movies (and very few show up in the comics). Also, there was a comic series done after Aliens which continues the adventures of Ripley, Newt, and Hicks after escaping LV-426, but then when Alien 3 came out Newt & Hicks were killed off right at the beginning. So there are lots of different continuities and canon to deal with, but again since this is primarily a film franchise the officially licensed films are usually considered the highest level, and we can't exclude certain films or show favoritism to others just because we like/don't like what they add to the canon. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Thing is there are some inconsistencies between the Alien and AVP films. Perhaps, given the confusing number of conflicting chronologies, it would be better to leave well alone. If an in-universe history is to be included, I foresee every minor inconsistency between the films and the comics mentioned and analyzed until it takes over the entire article. --Serendi^podous 15:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

True, I'd be just as happy without it. But what inconsistencies are there between the AVP films and the Alien films? They're set hundreds of years apart from each other, and the stories of the AVPs set the background for certain elements of the Alien films, ie. the Weyland-Yutani corporation and why W-Y knows of/has interest in the Aliens. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. So they just kept them a secret and did nothing for hundreds of years? And how many corporations exist for 2, 3, 400 years anyway? --Serendi^podous 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the view that a consistent in-universe treatment would be impossible, largely because each film has been written/directed/produced by almost entirely independent groups of people with their own visions. I think a comparable example is Count Dracula or vampires generally. With so many films, books, TV programmes featuring vampires and suggesting different strengths/weaknesses/attributes, it would be impossible to say what was "right" and what wasn't. The Count Dracula article resolutely sticks to the original source to explain the mythos, but the vampire article is forced to cover a far more extensive range of beliefs. --GDallimore (Talk) 16:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Weyland-Yutani: It's fiction. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief on this one in the interest of story. It's maybe a minor plot hole, yes, but there's nothing in the AVP films that contradicts things in the Alien or Predator films, so they do actually flow together as a unified continuity, which was the intent. You couldn't say the same thing of comparing the comics and films, since there are things between the two media that directly contradict each other. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Been thinking and looking at what we have so far. I think a separate article would be an idea. Something like: Development of Alien design. That article can discuss features of the alien design and abilities in each film separately with one good picture for each film. This article can then be pared down to just the important features that are common between each film, which probably only consists of the basic life cycle shown in Alien and acid for blood. This is based on looking at the vampire article which breaks the mythos up into regions and by time. --GDallimore (Talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a separate article would be a good idea; it would probably be flagged for deletion, or at least for remerging back into this article. Fictional Wiki subjects are currently going through a massive holocaust, and the only real defence is to keep articles concise, and few in number. --Serendi^podous 16:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Weyland-Yutani: Well, I could bring up the whole "Bishop was named after the founder of the Wayland Yutani Corp No Wait Bishop was named after the guy who designed him" bit, but I think I'll leave it at that. --Serendi^podous 17:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like were stuck with the AVP films as cannon. I understand that as the official studio versions, they have to take priority but, both fail to live up to the non-canon Alien versus Predator Comic that actually originated the concept. What confuses me is that I thought the isolated setting for the first movie was chosen to allow for the cover-up you mention. Then AVP-R moves it to a populated area and later nukes it? Maybe they don’t directly contradict the continuity of the Alien movies but the AVP films still strain the bounds of credibility within the Alien Universe. --216.181.47.130 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The resurrection aliens

Do you think the cloned alien warriors from Resurrection should have their own section in the hybridization chapter? The number of differences between them and the standard LV426 (A1,A2,A3)/Bouvet Island(AvP) aliens does I think warrant this.

• Double jointed hind legs; Not present in previous human spawned warriors. The fact that the concept was unique to Resurrection and was abandoned in AvP, shows that it wasnt just a casual design variant, as is the case of the head differences in A1 and A2.
• Roaring and growling; Totally unseen before and after Resurrection (save for the Predalien).
• Spitting; Again, unseen before and after in human spawned specimens. --129.12.200.49 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The double jointed hind legs do seem to be present in AVP and AVP Requiem from what I can see. And the spitting, while seen in human specimens, was seen by the dog alien of Alien 3 when it unloaded some acid on Murphy in the vent shaft. As for the rest... I think because no one in the movie ever says that these are any different, we can't assume they're supposed to be... no one behind the production ever claimed they were supposed to be "unique" either, aside from the Newborn that is. --Bishop2 (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no continuity in what designs they use, it's like the raptors in the Jurassic Park movies. The differences are not explained by the story, and there probably wasn't any reason for the changes other than that it would look "cooler" (though I think they look like crap compared to the Giger designs). Differences should be mentioned in the design section. --Funkynusayri (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been variations on the design in each film, owing to a variety of factors: improvements in special effects, costuming, size of actors, advances in CGI, design elements required to make certain scenes work, and of course just the whims of the design team. To go into detail, since it's fun: In Alien it was very tall and thin and had humanlike arm & leg joints, because it was played by a tall, thin human in a suit. In Aliens they were played by many extras of a more average height, and the design was altered a bit (ie. the ridges on the head). Alien 3, of course, had the one spawned from a dog (or ox, if you prefer the special edition), which went back to the smooth cowl, lacked the tubes on its back, and tended to move on all fours. For that one they used a lot of puppetry. Resurrection used CGI in some scenes, and suits or puppets in others, and had their hind legs acting more like a bird's or like the velociraptors in Jurassic Park (note: not necessarily double-jointed legs, just structured differently like a bird's legs, or like most quadrupeds' legs where the ankle joint is more towards the center of the leg). It also added the raised ridges on the tail to make the swimming scene more convincing. AVP used a mix of suits, puppets, and CGI, had smooth heads, kept the tail ridges and extended their tails even longer. AVP:R used the ridged heads again but I don't remember any other differences. I don't remember what the legs were like in either of the AVPs, and of course there were other changes from film to film ie. the torso frame, rib cage, fingers, toes, tail spike, etc. We could go on and on. Really this could all be boiled down to a single section discussion how different design teams tweaked the design of the Alien from film to film to suit their own needs and visions. There's no need to have different sections for each design. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some stuff from Alien omnibus are added.

The part about alien telepathy is new, but I think somebody have tryed to erase it. I had to write it two times, making me use way to much time on this. There is also a aquatic alien by the way - is this mentioned annywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.227.43 (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This information is not relevant to this article. There is another article List of castes from the Alien expanded universe, that deals with non-filmic information. This article is less about the in-universe story of the Alien and more about its development, design and cultural impact. --Serendi^podous 12:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please keep any further discussion on the discussion board. You are about to violate the WP:3RR rule. --Serendi^podous 12:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A huge waste of time......

Extended content

Sub-concious communication In the comicbook series "alien omnibus", a alien queen is brought to earth for research. She is locked inside a breeding-room and unable to escape, but she manages to communicate telepathicly with humans outside the research facility. This one-way communication manifest it self as nightmares at first, but then it grows into a feeling of belonging and mutual love with the queen alien, the queen alien becoming a sort of mother-figure for the people innfluenced by here telepatic communication. Since thousands of people have these dreams, it leads to the creation of a alien cult that seeks unification with the "true messiah". Even though none of its participants have ever seen a live alien, they manage to create a 3D picture of one, that is completly accurate. When the cult has grown large enoough, they attack the research facility and force their way into the chamber where the queen alien is locked up, eager to be inplanted with the infant alien. Security people try to stop them, but some manage to escape the facility after infection, and thus a uncontrolled alien infestation of earth starts. Even though the alien religion leads to the death of many of its followers, the cult grows together with the infestation. Those who are not used as host bodies by the facehuggers helps to protect the alien hives, and as the aliens get the upper hand, they help to track down the last remaining humans on earth. Those under the innfluence of a alien queen gradualy looses intrest in all other things then the wellbeing of the hive, and thus they devolve into zombie-like creatures. Dirty, underweight and naked. Many people are immune to the telepathic communication of the queens. Commercial explotation of the alien Military value At first the aliens are seeked out because of their military potential, but this is given upp after some time, as they are extremly hard to controll. Royal Jelly Royal jelly is a substance that is extracted from a alien queen (alien omnibus, book 2). It gives a feeling of wellbeing if eaten, but is also highly addictive, and it is later discovered that it has some rather strange sideeffects. Some corporations in the alien universe attack alien hives in order to get this substance.

All this info is offcourse useless as It exists another article covering the alien comicbooks. Lots of time wasted for no reason.... Well well, only trying to help. Sorry:-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.227.43 (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can always edit those other articles. :-) --Serendi^podous 12:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Name for the article

There is a conflict in the naming of this article. Wikipedia demands that editors employ the most commonly used name for a subject in the article heading. In this case, that is definitely "Alien", rather than "Xenomorph". However, "alien" is not only the name of the creature but the name of its first film, the name of its franchise and indeed a generic term in its own right. So how do you disambiguate it? The most logical choice, based on prior Wiki usage, would be Alien (Alien) and while yes, that does look stupid, I still prefer it over "Xenomorph". --Serendi^podous 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I've been trying to cook up a good disambiguation term for awhile, and Alien (Alien) is the best I could come up with too. "Xenomorph" is a classification term (albeit a made-up one for the film), not a species name. It's like saying "it's an insect" or "it's a polymorph". In all of the film credits the creature is listed as "Alien". I say let's move the sucker, unless there's a high number of dissenting opinions. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a move. Title could also be Alien (creature) or (monster) maybe. --Funkynusayri (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Alien is not the only alien creature or alien monster in the media. --Serendi^podous 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it isn't the only alien alien either, but I see what you mean. What about alien (Xenomorph), could be a compromise, although an incorrect one. --Funkynusayri (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be a big job, involving a lot of redirects and rewrites, and it can't be corrected with a simple reversion. So before I go ahead with it I want to give any dissenters the opportunity to speak out. --Serendi^podous 12:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done it. There appears to be a consensus. --Serendi^podous 19:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work. I'm busy starting up WikiProject Alien which doesn't really have any members yet, but I'll list fixing the redirects as one of our "things to do". --IllaZilla (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I, however, am not such a big fan of the move. Alien, though it is a more common name, seems much less specific. Xenomorph refers more to the species, and it also seems redundant to have the name Alien with Alien in parentheses right beside it. --The Matyr ^{(converse with the Matyr)} 14:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia also demands notability. How notable is the term "Xenomorph", as opposed to "alien"? Aside from an apparent concurrence among Alien-Predator fanboys, it doesn't appear to have any relevance whatsoever. In any case, all "xenomorph" actually means is "alien form" in Greek, so it isn't really any more specific than "alien". If it were as specific as you claim, it wouldn't need to be disambiguated. --Serendi^podous 15:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The title "Xenomorph" is almost more appropriate for the article in its present state, since much of it is still written from an in-universe perspective, not an encyclopedic article looking at the development and internally self-contradictory fake-mythology/biology of the alien in the various films/comics/computer games. However, this is not a call to have the article moved back to its old name, but a call to further improve the style of the article. There still aren't enough secondary sources discussing the primary sources. Since reliable sources that do this will probably almost entirely deal with the films, and then probably only the first two or three films, I suggest a suitable title is "Alien (movie monster)". While there have been other movie monsters that have been aliens, this is clearly the most notable example of the use of the word "alien" so I think it's the best choice. Alien (alien) does just sound a little weird.

Just occurred to me that "Starbeast" is probably as defendable a title as "Xenomorph". Neither title being remotely appropriate for an encyclopedic article. --GDallimore (Talk) 10:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I'm working on getting this article out of universe. I could use some help. --Serendi^podous 12:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

←I see that a lot has been done and the article is looking so much better than it used to. But it looks like most of the work that can be done from online sources has been completed and I don't have the paper sources (eg "big book of movie monsters") to take it any further. Best of luck! --GDallimore (Talk) 13:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to Alien (Xenomorph) but realized that it is confusing and the discussion here proves that. But Alien (Alien) in my opinion, is a worse title. Imagine a fictional spider called 'Spider'. Would the title be Spider (Spider)? Of course not. It would be something like Spider (fictional creature) or Spider (fictional arachnid). These are the titles I have seen and have never come across something so confusing as Alien (Alien). So it is changed. Unless we can discuss further. --JTBX (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is much of an improvement. All Aliens are inherently fictional creatures (at least as far as we know), so that's every bit as confusing and non-specific as "Alien (Alien)" already was. Perhaps "(film creature)" or something along those lines? This is an exceptionally tough article to name, that's for sure. --Bishop2 (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel the disambiguation sentence/link recently added to the start of the article really helps a lot with the issue. Props to Serendipodous for that. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What about somehting like "Alien (Alien franchise)" or similar? --Funkynusayri (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to add more disambigs, but it doesn't work. Still, they're up there, even if they do look clunky. Just my two cents in defence of my original title: the "(Alien)" in "Alien (Alien) is capitalised, and is meant to refer to the Alien film and franchise. If I had meant it to refer to the fact that the alien was an alien, it would have been "Alien (alien)". EDIT, post Funky: Yes, that is sort of what I was trying. Maybe that's the best idea. --Serendi^podous 14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK; I moved it in line with Funky's suggestion. I think it is the best solution, and specific enough not to cause any confusion. --Serendi^podous 12:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Life cycle (1)

Section needs some more info on Alien species such as drone etc, that appeared in the film. Just pointing this out. --JTBX (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A drone is never mentioned. In fact, no different species are ever mentioned. --Funkynusayri (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I do think the life cycle seems to be missing the "adult alien" that dominates most of the films, it jumps from chestburster to Queen. As for "drones" and the like, maybe the article could use an additional section for creatures from the books/comics/etc? Something about the "Expanded Universe" or whatever you call those things. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Check this: [14] The adult alien itself is discussed here: [15] I think we should have an image of each design so they could be compared, no ridge head alien so far for example. --Funkynusayri (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I did at one point include a paragraph about the transition to adult phase, but since it consisted mostly of speculation (since how the chestburster changes from infant to adult is still not explained) it seemed best to remove it.

I am not a fan of the word "drone", because it has never been used in the films (the writers/producers tend to use "warrior"), and because it is misleading; a drone is a fertile male bee whose job is to mate with the queen, not a worker/soldier. Serendi^podous 19:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Someone put it back. I suppose it can stay, if it's kept short. --Serendi^podous 19:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

this is the best picture of an Aliens Alien I've been able to find online. If we do use it, it may need to be cropped to emphasise the ridges. --Serendi^podous 14:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Facehugger

Is there a source for the origin of the name "facehugger"? It's been around longer than Xenomorph in the literature as far as I can tell, but I can't see where it started. --GDallimore (Talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was the production team's name for the parasite that comes out of the egg. That's also where "chestburster" and "space jockey" come from. Those are the closest things to official names for those forms of the creatures, and they do appear quite a bit in secondary media. "Facehugger" and "chestburster" are for sure used in the DVD menus of the Quadrilogy set (I was watching Alien & Aliens over the weekend). If I get around to listening to the making of documentaries again then I can confirm this, but I'm 90% positive that facehugger & chestburster are names cooked up by the creators & the production team and are therefore the "official" descriptions. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

They're used left and right, both by the narrators and the producers, directors, and actors from all the movies as seen in the extra making-of videos on the DVD. They're about as canoical as it gets. --Xihr (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the term is the best one available, what I think needs doing is explaining the origin of the term in the article. Same goes for chestburster. If we can add a sourced explanation that these terms were used by the production teams of "movie X" I think that would be a useful addition to the article. --GDallimore (Talk) 11:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The names "facehugger" and "chestburster" go all the way back to "The Book of Alien" and "HR Giger's Alien", both of which were published in 79, so it can be assumed that they were coined by the crew. --Serendi^podous 14:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The article claims that the facehugger is basically able to survive in the cold conditions of the moon of LV-426 where carbon dioxide can freeze. However, Kane mentions that the chamber the eggs are located in as being "like the god damn tropics" (not an exact quote, but you get the point). Perhaps this should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.155.131 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Life Cycle (2)

According to the Alien vs Predator game, the life cycle is as follows: facehugger>>chestburster>>alien>>praedorian>>queen

In the game it says that when the Alien matures it becomes a Praedorian, which enrages the hive and make the other Aliens want to kill it. So these Praedorians leave the hive and when they come back only one has survived, of which grows into the Queen.

Should this be mentioned? People may wonder, "If the chestbursters make aliens, where does the Queen come from?" --Orion qwerty (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

See: List of castes from the Alien expanded universe --Serendi^podous 09:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides, that doesn't hold true in the movies themselves; we already know queen chestbursters exist, because Ripley had one. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Science of the hunter

To anyone who has seen the extras on AVP:R, could you perhaps talk about what was mentioned in the documentary "Science of the hunter" or the Predator homeworld? --Dark hyena (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This whole Predalien queen BS

Okay, this has been going on for ages. Some AvP fanboys with no usernames edit this article with uncited claims of the predalien being a young queen. One spammer recently went as far as claiming the Strauss brothers confirmed this in an interview (again uncited). I myself have read "Inside the Monster shop", (a "making of.." book on AvP-R) and saw NO mention whatsoever of the Prealien being a queen. The closest it ever got to insinuating such was simply that they used the same mould to sculpt the teeth and head, but that's it.

So basically, this section is here for the fanboy's to come clean and argue their points. Are there any sources (official) showing the Predalien to be a queen? --Dark hyena (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are. Colin Strause said so on the AVP Galaxy forums and Greg Strause said it on the IMDB boards. I'll have to find the posts to confirm so I can cite for you. --Bishop2 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Time out, why do we need to distinguish between a "queen" and non-queen? There's only 1 such creature. Its reproductive method could simply be different due to it being an Alien/Predator hybrid. Maybe a creature like that doesn't even need queens. Regardless, this is all a moot point. There's only 1 Alien/Predator hybrid, so there's no need to distinguish it (by calling it a "queen") from other ones that don't even exist. Keep it simple and keep the fan fiction out. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The directors say that it has this odd method of reproduction because it is a young queen and young queens now do this before fully developing. Seems like relevant info to me, and certainly not fanfic. --Bishop2 (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Added with cite. --Bishop2 (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That cite's not that helpful. We have no evidence that the guy on that forum IS a Strause brother. --Serendi^podous 14:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, folks, there is absolutely no need to distinguish between a "queen" and "non-queen" Alien/Predator hybrid because there was only 1 such creature. If there had been more of them, maybe they all would have been able to do the "injecting embryos via the mouth" thing. We don't know, and there's no need to theorize. Do we make a completely different set of theories and alternate life cycles about, say, the "runner" from Alien 3 because it came from a dog, or the human/Alien hybrid from Alien Resurrection? No, because it would all be superfluous. It's quite enough to just state what happens in the film: that the Alien/Predator hybrid reproduces by regurgitating embryos down the throat of a host and does not require eggs. Please just stick to what's in the film and other relevant sources. Also note that messageboards and forums are normally not considered reliable sources, as Serendipodous points out. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to cite the interviews where he talked about his involvement on the message board next, then. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll get a cite backing up who that is, then. I suspect the audio commentary on the DVD will solidify the matter of both the identity of the poster and the nature of the PredAlien, however. Bottom line is that creator's intentions ARE extremely relevant to any article about film, and even to any film's narrative. My god, take a look at the page for Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End which everyone demanded include the "screenwriters' intentions" bit at the end of the plot summary despite a lack of evidence in the film proper. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'd suggest just waiting for the DVD to come out so we can use the special features as sources. There's no need to go diving into details that are basically extraneous when we don't have very good sources to back them up. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this picture, it occured to me that the predalien head on the left looks something like a queen's crest, if not somewhat smaller. http://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=7332&fullsize=1 Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.247.132 (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it does or not. Unless we can find a reliable, traceable source identifying the Predalien as a queen, then mentioning it is not calid. --Serendi^podous 11:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

About that guy who claims to be Colin Strause, here is that guy's profile which includes his email adress. http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=257 I haven't found their offical website yet, but most people I've contacted on AVP galalxy confirm that the emails match up. I receaved the DVD as a gift from my friend just a few minutes ago, and on the featurette Colin Strause confirms that "Chet" The Predalien is, in fact, a Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.247.132 (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

←Yeah, I picked up the DVD yesterday and sure enough, right on the very first featurette on the set, Colin talks about the Predalien being a young developing queen who needs to establish "warriors" (they actually use the term warriors, apparently) as a foundation for the hive so that she has protection as she matures into a full queen. I'll have to go back and get the specific quotes tonight. --Bishop2 (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the directors' intentions are only relevent if those intentions are expressed in the film. We could note that the Strausses intended the PredAlien to be a young queen, but point out that this was not mentioned in the film. It's the same thing that's already been done with Ridley Scott's cocoon scene. --Inkpenavenger 01:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, the term "warrior" has been used by cast and crew since "Aliens"; it's almost as canonical as "facehugger." --Serendi^podous 05:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, the Strausses have been posting online about this since the movie was released. It's a young queen. Watch the movie, watch the commentary, and watch the featurettes. Not only is she referred to as... well, a 'she,' but they also added the queen crest on the back of the head because... well, she's a queen. Go figure. Incidentally, this also explains the long incubation period of Scar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.112.100 (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone had been paying attention to this discussion page, the reason why any mention of the Predalien being a queen are removed is because of a lack of REFERENCES. R-E-F-E-R-E-N-C-E-S. Cite the name of the documentary. --Dark hyena (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone who was un-editing these pages had actually watched the movie, the reason for the constant mentioning that the Predalien is also a queen is because it's part of the MOVIE ITSELF. Having to cite that it is a queen is like having to cite that the drones, or whatever you want to call them, are drones. If you didn't get this from this movie itself, you don't need to be editing the Alien Wikipedia page. Now I will admit, whether the new reproduction method is due to the young predalien queen being a predalien, or a young queen, is still somewhat up for discussion. But that discussion should be identified on the page, not here. The fact that it is a queen is beyond doubt. I'll collect a set of references to this put them all up. If you want to be helpful, we could start with the making of the Predalien featurette. Meanwhile, please quit jerking around. Oh, and by the way, yes the predalien does remove the spine from the cook (just like predators have been shown to do in previous movies), so quit removing the reference. Again, watch the movie. At that point, there are only 3 aliens and the predalien (Wolf has killed the other two). One alien goes to the powerplant to distract Wolf, one accompanies the Predalien to the diner, and the other shows up at Molly's bedroom. The alien that accompanies the predalien enters for a few seconds later from the opposite direction--so the creature that is shown off screen, removing the spine, cannot be anything other than the Predalien, which soon makes its appearance from that direction. So quit 'undoing' legitimate posts, or your undos will just be undone. Also, quit including reference to the predalien reproducing "asexually." ALL ALIENS REPRODUCE ASEXUALLY. Again, read what was changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.201 (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I recently re-watched the film and saw the spine ripping scene. I apologise. The fact is though, is that there are too many assumptions being made. Very well, the Predalien reproduces, but how do we know it is immature? "Alien Resurection" never shows an intermediate stage between chestburster and Queen, and "AvP: Inside the Monster Shop", written by both Gillis and Woodruff make absoloutely NO MENTION whatsoever of the Predalien being immature (or a Queen for that matter, but never mind that). IF THERE IS a source saying that the Predalien is immature, then by all means cite it. What is it? A making of featurette? A commentary? References are there for a reason: For people to check out facts for themselves. --Dark hyena (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I finally got your reference for you. Region 1 DVD, 1st featurette, "AvP-R: Preparing for War: Development and Production." My DVD player says Chapter 1, 9 minutes. They first say the original draft was going to have a warrior do the face-implanting, then they say they decided to make it the Predalien that would do this instead. It's the next line that's the kicker: "Basically, the predalien is kind of the baby queen. There's a phase in between warrior alien and full-blown queens, that do this thing with basically embryo-implantation and the idea with that was we were trying to figure out ways, how does a baby queen quickly form her own little mini drone army, to get the hive built, before she evolves into the final state, where she can't completely defend herself." That's Colin Strause quoted, one of the directors. Now the funny thing is that, I got this just from watching the movie. It's a complicated movie, and even most of the fans did not catch all the subtle stuff going on, like the Space Jockey skull, the skinned predators, &c. It all goes by so fast and there's just so much there, I can't blame the casual viewer... and the darkness on SOME player/screen setups doesn't help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.201 (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thought I would post again just to address your concerns more specifically, now the main issue is at rest. Resurrection doesn't show the intermediate stage for two reasons. One is budgetary. They probably only had 1 or 2 models of the queen (not counting the initial chestburster); in fact they did show the young queen in the beginning, from the neck up, in darkness. It's hard to tell if she's full grown or not in size, but the dialogue implies that she hasn't grown her ovipositor, or at least that she hasn't started producing eggs. They say it'll take "days, maybe less" before she starts producing eggs. It also took probably a day or a few days for her to reach that size, starting from the time when they removed her prematurely from Ripley 8. Why build intermediate sculpts of the queen at different arbitrary sizes, and show them to the audience? It would be prohibitively expensive, and would only demystify the creatures before the movie has even begun.

The other reason is purely diegetic--the queen is in captivity, and her captors are only interested in getting the eggs (and possibly conducting experiments after she's already fully grown). Thus, they skip from when they removed the chestburster, to a small intermediate insert with dialogue explaining what is going on, and giving us a nice long shot of the queen's crown, and then they skip forward to the cargo scenes. But the queen is in captivity the whole time, in an artificially simulated, safe hive environment. There are no external threats, no need to move around, and she can immediately settle down and start growing her ovipositor as soon as possible.

Now, it could be argued, if all queens have the ability to reproduce orally, why would they need to wait for her to start producing eggs? Why not just throw people in with the queen and let her have her way with them? Again, I think this is obvious, on multiple accounts. 1) They don't have the cargo yet, and they end up getting it by the time the queen starts producing eggs anyway. 2) The eggs are going to be easier to manage... they are smaller, can be isolated with the hosts, and the process of facehugging is less violent and more safe, risk-wise, than throwing victims in with the queen. She may just rip them apart. 3) Oral reproduction was never seen in any of the previous films (there was never a need for it!), so the scientists could not know it was possible. Eggs, on the other-hand, were the first news about the alien that Ripley got, and she reported this to the authorities on Gateway... Burke was going to bring them back in Aliens. Everyone and their grandmother knew about eggs. 4) It is possible that the queen loses the ability to orally reproduce once she reaches maturity and starts producing eggs.

Then again, she may not. Personally, I think Requiem really fills in the gaps here with the aliens reproductive cycle, while actually adding some interesting interpretive twists onto the later movies. The queen we saw in Aliens was already full grown--but with the information we get from Requiem, the final fight between Ripley and the Queen takes on an even more grotesque angle. All those inner-jaw bites were scary enough, making us envision Ripley's face getting torn off if the queen got a lucky shot in, sort of like the doctor getting his nose bitten off in Requiem. But now it also begs comparison to the Wolf/Predalien fight, in which the Predalien is continuously trying to impregnate Wolf (who I thought, rather comically, gets pissed off and takes his revenge by ripping the tongue right out!). The queen we saw in Alien3 was just a chestburster, and it died before it lived, so to speak. And the one in Resurrection was raised stationary, just like the one in Aliens. The queen in AvP again was only seen in its adult and captive form. So Requiem is really picturing a new phase--the phase between chestburster and the final stationary 'captive.' In this intermediate and optional [depending on the circumstances] stage, the queen is mobile, and trying to found a hive. This is clear from the movie--she tries to found a hive in the sewer, but Wolf arrives too soon, dissolving it with his blue liquid and killing almost half of her force. If she had already become stationary, and started to grow an ovipositor, she might have been caught defenseless and killed. In fact, her being mobile still is the ONLY reason that Wolf failed in his mission. She knocks him through a wall mere seconds before he fires off his dual plasma casters, which would have killed the two drones he was holding back. Later, after building her force back up, she picks the hospital as the new site for her hive. Why? Because of the abundance of hosts. The hive gets well under way, but she doesn't quite settle down yet because she knows that Wolf is still after her. In other words, she's just as smart as any of the other queens in any of the other movies, and she knows she can't settle down until Wolf is killed and all other threats removed. The scene in which she is contemplating the babies in the nursery is two fold in significance--one the one hand, she realizes that impregnating pregnant hosts is going to be more efficient, and on the other hand, she's probably considering all those babies as potential hosts for a later time, as facehugger fodder, after she's already developed her ovipositor.

And, in view of the clear reference, which I'll eventually get around to citing on the main page, I've taken the liberty of changing the heading of this discussion to accord with the truth of the matter. No offense intended.

This ain't fan-fic--it's giving the new movie its proper due. Greg and Colin are smart guys, and I think they've made a great contribution to the franchise. The theatrical release was butchered and hardly makes any sense. The unrated DVD version is superior in every way, but unfortunately most people saw the film in the theatres and weren't able or willing to give the real version of the movie a chance, much less analyze it without bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.201 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm pleased it has now been resolved. Thank you for the detailed explanation. --Dark hyena (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

New Name

Have you ever tried redirecting Alien (Alien franchise) to The Alien, I could move the original The Alien article to The Alien (Cancelled film)? --Clover08 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. There have been multiple discussions about what to title the article. See the first discussion near the top of this page, in fact. Alien (Alien franchise) was the consensus. It's not a matter of it having the same title as the cancelled movie, it's that there isn't a name for this creature that's not going to require some kind of disambiguation when used as the title. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact it's changed names at least four times over recent history. This is just really not constructive; let's move on to improving the article, rather than endlessly going back and forth over what it should be named. --Xihr (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear very much constructive work is allowed to happen on these sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.174 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

'Interspecific Hybridization'

Ok, so, to the people who would like to remove a header explanation for this section, I just have a few questions:

Do you believe that humans do not constitute a species?

Assuming we all agree that they do, with the other evidence from the movies, we know that the only reason "aliens" appear human is because they came from human hosts. The fact that the dog alien came from a dog and looks like a dog is clearly not a coincidence. Neither is the fact that aliens born from humans resemble humans. In fact, all evidence seems to point to the fact that the -only- reason the human alien looks human is because it comes out of a human.

Second, if you do not think that an alien came out of the Space Jockey in Alien, why does he have an extruded hole in his ribcage? Is it a coincidence that he bears all the marks of an alien implantation and birth, and is sitting in a crashed ship full of alien eggs? That his corpse foreshadows what happens to Kane? In view of what did happen to Kane, isn't it logical to assume that he was killed by a chestburster? Isn't this implied fact documented elsewhere on Wikipedia; hasn't it been intentionally written into the script, commented on by various people in the design team, and indeed isn't it common knowledge to anyone who saw the movie?

So, assuming you don't think the Jockey died of heartburn, in light of the fact that aliens take on the characteristics of their host, isn't it logical to assume that the alien that came out of the Space Jockey would be a "Jockey" burster; that it would not be the same as a human alien, just as a dog alien is not the same as a human alien; just as a predator-alien is not the same as a human alien?

This isn't original research, as no original ideas are being stated. They should be universally obvious. What specifically is the objection to adding this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.174 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is pure speculation. Yes it is based on facts and observations from the movie, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an original idea, not discussed in the film or any related material. --Leivick (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Speculation based on facts is still speculation. In Wikipedia, original research is inappropriate for conclusion. -- Xihr  04:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I hate to be the one to tell you... but you guys are beyond saving. You are just hindering progress, not helping it. An alien came out of the Jockey. It's not speculation, it's not original research. It's such a central part of the plot of the movie. It is not even an issue open to discussion. Just because it didn't happen on camera, does not mean it didn't happen. In fact, in this case, it did happen off camera--and eventually someone will come up with a DVD commentary quote, which will prove nothing more than the fact that you are wasting your own time as well as mine by your destructive undoes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.174 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You said an awful lot more than that in your changes and your comments on the talk page, so that's a simplification. If all of what you said is true, then you should have no trouble finding a reliable, third-party source to back it up. If not, then it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Following consensus and adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelies is not "hindering progress." -- Xihr  07:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the pronoun used for the Queen Alien be "It/Its" instead of "her/she"

Now, I could be wrong, but last time I checked...the Aliens are never given a specific gender. And, it's strongly implied that they reproduce a-sexually (IE: Without the need to mate in order to reproduce)...or it's also possible that the Aliens are technically Hermaphrodites (IE: Having both male and female reproductive organs). That in mind, I feel it more appropriate to call the Alien Queen an "It" instead of a "she" since the creature is technically genderless. Also, it's just more appropriate to call an animal (fictional or not) an "it" when said creature has no specific gender. --24.111.137.0 (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You are, I believe, technically correct... we never actually learn whether aliens have gender in any of the movies, and it's probably best to assume they have none. On the other hand, social insects do have gender, though the queen and warriors are often all female, the only difference being that the warriors are sterile and the queen fertile. Drones and kings, neither of which appear to exist in the alien hierarchy, are the only males. However, members of the movies crews, and characters within the movie itself, do refer to the queen as a "she," so I don't see the need to go back and change every single reference to the queen to agree with "it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.201 (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats what you think but i think that the queen is a female.Like if it had both sexes the tubes that should lead into ovries would lead into nowhere at least basically.And just maybe the egg sack is because puberty? Just think Xenomorphs are alot like ants and termites the queen in those hives the queen grows her egg sack though out her life,sooo... the queen could be like ants and termites.Plus all the other Xenomorphs are all females(all but the dog alien it depends on what sex the dog is). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkhousecomicsrthebest (talk • contribs) 05:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

While we never find out any xenomorph's gender (and whether they are hermaphrodites or not is irrelevant), the role that the Queen fulfills is generally that of a female of the species. However, at the very least, the Queen has a feminine descriptor ("Queen"). To say "queen" and then "it"... just doesn't sound right to me. --EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:36, 9 November 2008 (User

Finally a person who argees with me the Queen should be called a she or a her because the hit word with Queen alien is ""Queen"" you have to be a female to called a queen.And no she does not a king to be called queen.So dodgeing the person who argeed with my statement and if the queen alien make her egg sack it not like it pop out of nowhere and not to be rude with the Xenomorphic race is that their brain power is not strong enough to weave or create a coth durable to hold liquid and don't say oh they made it out of their spit or slime cause how is the queens egg sack going to hold up? And dont you think it makes sense that the queens egg sack is made out of a thin layer of skin? Well think about it the queen screeches when she rips out of her egg sack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkhousecomicsrthebest (talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Life Cycle section

The last line in the first paragraph said "The alien takes on the appearance of the host" is a bit misleading. If someone not familiar with the series read that, they might get the wrong idea. A perfect example is Alien 3. The alien that hatched out of the dog looked nothing like a dog. However, it ran on all fours, and ran quite fast, just like a dog would. I've changed that to "attributes", which would be more fitting. --CardinalFangZERO (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Automated archiving

Would anyone be opposed to setting up the MiszaBot to automatically archive threads that have been inactive for a certain amount of time? I'd suggest 30 or 45 days as the parameter. I'll gladly set it up if nobody objects; this page tends to get pretty long. I've just seen it implemented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums and I just set it up for my own talk page, and it seems to work pretty handily. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there are apparently no objections I'm going to set it up. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good article?

Looking at this I was really impressed. If anyone thinks this is good enough to be renominated for GA, I'd gladly pass it since I haven't really made any edits before. --CyberGhostface (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the "Predalien skins" portion.

While originally suppose to be in the the movie, they skinned predators were removed in the final version. I deleted it, but if someone would like to revise it they may. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.191.245 (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

'official name'

"The creature known as the Alien has now been given an official species name; Xenomorphus Acheronesis"

When was 'now'? What institution has assigned this name, and in what sense is it 'official'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.196.206 (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus christ. For the last time, the alien creature does not have a name in any work that is even plausibly canonical. The term "xenomorph" used by Gorman in the second movie is just a latin-derived phrase that means "alien shape" or "foreign shape"- it's a generic term that could be applied to any exotic alien organism. By the way, this holds true even assuming you consider all four alien movies (including all director's cuts, alternate versions and assembly cuts) and both AvP movies are canonical. It has been called a dragon (alien 3), xenomorph (aliens and alien 3), an alien (all films), a "hostile organism" (aliens), a monster (aliens, alien resurrection). --Beerslurpy (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the Pop culture section

are all that is lacking at this point I think. But sources are pretty hard to come by. Some of the material may be self-evident (it's pretty bloody obvious that the Zerg and the Tyranids were Alien-inspired) but this sort of thing needs a citation. Serendi^podous 18:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Offspring - ST 1989.jpg

The image File:Offspring - ST 1989.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Broken Images

Hay, some of the images are broken! Can some one please fix this? (i'm use to using Wiki's just cant be botherd with a "normal" wiki account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.17.7.150 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested Move (2009)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Alien (Alien franchise) → Alien (creature) — Title suited to Alien disambiguation page list, in fiction section. It would remove repeated word "alien", includes the Alien (franchise) details in article page. -- RW Marloe (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose "Alien (creature)" is much too ambiguous to be the article title, as it could easily refer to Extraterrestrial life, Introduced species, or any other meaning of alien. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 14:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  That is understandable and I do agree with you. -- RW Marloe (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per YeshuaDavid, way to ambiguous. If you look in the archives of this talk page you'll find past discussions and consensus for the current title. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  I subsequently have read some and there is extensive consensus for the current title. I am testing how to talk and make proposals, learning how to use wikipedia slowly. I shall now, briefly scan over discussion content sections and read the appropriate discussions, before I contribute, especially if there are archives. The larger discussion archives are, the more likely it is to cover the subject you are considering to discuss. This will save time and I'll gain more of an idea about what I may contribute. Thanks for your input. -- RW Marloe (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  No problem. It can take a while to learn the ins & outs, tips & tricks of Wikipedia. Feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have questions or would like any help. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2009 (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.

Introduction of Other Species

If predaliens are mentioned in the article I believe other species should be described in the article such as 'Pretorians' and 'runners' from the games alien vs predator and alien vs predator two —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulyanov322 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a separate list article for those. See List of castes from the Alien expanded universe. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Alien skull in Predator 2

I'm surprised theres no mention of the alien skull seen in Predator 2 (other then the fact that its in there i mean). Its considered to be cannon by most people and should probably be mentioned in the characteristics part under appearance especially as there is a part there already written thats talks about the aliens head. The skull seems to suggest that the aliens have bones yet they appear to have exoskeletons in pretty much all of the alien movies, i think atleast bringing it up would be interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.194.66 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We're not here to make theories (see WP:NOR). If a secondary reliable source has discussed it, then we can include that information. Otherwise there's not much we can say about it other than "it was there". --IllaZilla (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's equally likely that the 'skull' in Predator 2 was simply bleached exoskeleton. --King Öomie 07:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But again, there's no need for us to speculate. Either there's a source discussing it or there isn't. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Diet of the Alien

There is nothing here about what these Aliens eat. And their adaptation to oxygen rich environments etc (respiration) also in Alien there is a remark about nutritional requirements-- but nothing is here. Also the single Alien seemed to exhibit different behavior to the Alien in a hive. Single Aliens seem to eat or kill , while pack Aliens seem 2 harvest people for implantation. So there is behavioral note that is needed. --41.177.100.225 (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a load of original research to me. Not to mention that we need to be focusing on the real-world aspects of this fictional creature (concept, design, creation) rather than useless in-universe explanations and theories about its behavior. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In Alien Vs Predator 2 it is shown that at a young age a Chestburster will eat small mammals, in the case of the game, a Cat. Also they eat Human, as seen in Alien Vs Predator 2: Requiem. --Necromorph-X (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2010)

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

The result of the move request was: page moved as requested. This title might not be completely ideal, but there seems to be agreement that this move is at least an improvement. - GTBacchus^(talk) 17:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Alien (Alien franchise) → Alien (creature in Alien franchise) — Current title is extremely unclear and thoroughly ambiguous. I doubt anyone could look at the title Alien (Alien franchise) and understand intuitively that it's referring to the creature, and not to the first film or some other usage. It appears that titles such as Alien (creature) have been rejected in the past because it can refer to creatures outside this franchise, which makes sense. Relisted. Fences&Windows 00:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Propaniac (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment how about Xenomorph (Alien franchise) ? The creature is referred to as a xenomorph in the second film, this name is popular in the fandom circles for the franchise, and it is much less confusing than most short combinations of "Alien" with disambiguators, also much shorter than the suggested title. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to using Xenomorph (Alien franchise) instead of what I suggested above. I want to point out for future discussion, though, that keeping a title short is less of a priority than ensuring that the title is clear, accurate and easily identifiable. Propaniac (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, it's also more accurate, since there are other aliens in the Aliens franchise as well, in the first film, there's the Space Jockey, which is not human, and definitely alien. The Predators are also "part of" the franchise, which is another alien which is not the Alien. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Past discussions have shown a rather clear consensus that "Xenomorph" is an inappropriate title (see here, here, here, and in particular here and here). The article has been moved something like 4 times in as many years, and "Xenomorph" is probably the least appropriate name for it. The creature is credited in every film, and in dialogue, as "The Alien". The term "xenomorph" is used exactly once in the the 6 films featuring the creatures, and it's a classification term, not a name (like "insect" or "mammal"). The term was seized upon and subsequently used in some video games and comic books but has never been an "official" name for the creatures as far as the creators and writers of the original works are concerned. Personally I don't think the current dab is very confusing, considering the fact that the root term is very difficult to dab, though I think a less wordy suggestion to the one proposed would be Alien (franchise creature). --IllaZilla (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I find Alien (franchise creature) to be less wordy but also less clear and natural. Still, I'd take it over the current title. There are probably few titles anyone could suggest that I wouldn't like more than the current title. I would also be okay with The Alien (Alien franchise) if there were any support for that. Propaniac (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The videogames and novels are official licensed properties, and therefore are official products. You are asserting primacy of one sort of product over another, which should not be done, since it requires that we discriminate which are more official than others. Consider that the latest Predators film writers eschew the AVP part of the franchise. We should just use what is usable instead of deciding what is canon and what isn't. If it's an official product, it counts towards usage, if it is not, it doesn't. Deciding canon is not what Wikipedia should be doing. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • This is primarily a film franchise; it originated with films, and the other licensed properties are all based on or spun off from the films. And the fact is that every one of the 6 films credits the creature as "The Alien". Note that the titles of the films are not Xenmorph, Xenomorphs, Xenomorph 3, Xenomorph Resurrection, Xenomorph vs. Predator, and Xenomorphs vs. Predator: Requiem. No, they are Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection, Alien vs. Predator, and Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem. Nor is there a single comic book or videogame titled Xenomorph: they are all under the Alien banner. A number of the Predator comics and novels refer to the creatures as "Yautja", yet we do not suddenly decide that the Predator (alien) article should be moved to Yautja or the franchise article renamed Yautja (franchise). The term "xenomorph" is not even a species name, it is a classification term like "ungulate", "arachnid", or "raptor". Moving Alien to Xenomorph would be akin to moving Red Kangaroo to marsupial. But most importantly, "xenomorph" is not the primary term for the creature and is not well-known outside of fan circles. "Alien" is both the official name and primary term of use for the creature, and should remain the root title per WP:COMMONNAME. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, if the consensus is that the topic should remain identified as Alien, that still leaves the question of how to disambiguate it. I remain hopeful that we can come up with a solution better than the current title, which effectively says, "This article is about the usage of 'Alien' associated with the Alien franchise, which unsurprisingly encompasses many topics called 'Alien,' of which this article could be about any one." Propaniac (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• This has been named and renamed so many times it seems pointless to do it again.  Xihr  03:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The point in doing it again is so that it will be located at a title that doesn't suck. If it's not renamed, it will be at a title that sucks. Propaniac (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nominator's reasoning. The current title does not make the referent clear and "Xenomorph" is not the common name (Wikipedia doesn't do official names). — AjaxSmack 01:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  What would you suggest as a more ideal title? There have been a couple of suggestions made. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  Not intending to speak for Ajax, but I would assume he supports the title that was suggested by the nominator, since he did not specify a different one. That's how these Requested Move discussions tend to work. Propaniac (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, thanks. To be more specific, I support a move to Alien (creature in Alien franchise) but am open to other similar suggestions. However I don't like Alien (franchise creature) (still vague) or The Alien (Alien franchise) (style issues). — AjaxSmack 23:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Alien (acidblood)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  How in the world does that help readers? --IllaZilla (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  Because they have acid for blood. It seems a reasonable way to disambig them from the hundreds of other species of alien in science fiction. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  It's a made-up word and won't help readers who are searching for the topic. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Objection

I strongly object to the closing of this request and the subsequent article moves, as there is certainly no "agreement that this move is at least an improvement" in the above discussion. Only 1 responder agreed with the nominator's suggestion of "Alien (creature in Alien franchise)" as an improvement over "Alien (Alien franchise)". 2 other responders (including myself) objected to the proposed move, and at least 3 other possible titles were suggested. When there are only 6 participants in the discussion, and only 2 (including the nom) agree with the proposed title while 2 others suggest alternate titles and the final 2 object to a move at all, I cannot fathom how one can claim that "there seems to be agreement". I request that the article be moved back and the move request re-closed as no consensus, which is clearly the outcome. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It seems I should clarify and expand on why I closed the request as I did. In the above discussion, I see that several titles are suggested, but I don't see any specific arguments against the proposed title. In particular:

• Propaniac and Ajax Smack explicitly supported the proposal.
• IP editor 76.66.193.119 suggested using the word "Xenomorph" in the title, and that suggestion was robustly opposed, in particular by IllaZilla.
• IllaZilla suggested Alien (franchise creature), which was weakly supported by Propaniac as an improvement over Alien (Alien franchise), although Propaniac also called the title "less clear and natural". Ajax Smack specifically opposed Alien (franchise creature) as "vague".
• Anthony Appleyard suggested Alien (acidblood), and IllaZilla correctly pointed out that nobody actually uses that word to identify the creature.
• Xihr suggested not moving the article simply because it has moved several times in the past, and Propaniac objected (rightly, in my opinion) that that makes no sense.

Nowhere in the above discussion is an actual objection to the proposed title. The closest is IllaZilla's: "I don't think the current dab is very confusing, considering the fact that the root term is very difficult to dab, though I think a less wordy suggestion to the one proposed would be Alien (franchise creature)". Propaniac also mentioned in the discussion that, "keeping a title short is less of a priority than ensuring that the title is clear, accurate and easily identifiable", which is correct. Thus the "wordiness" objection doesn't carry very much weight.

In summary, there are 5 names on the table:

1. Alien (Alien franchise)
2. Alien (creature in Alien franchise)
3. Alien (franchise creature)
4. Xenomorph (Alien franchise)
5. Alien (acidblood)

Each of these names, except for number 2, is specifically opposed by at least one editor. No arguments were made explaining why option 2 is bad, so I read that as a general agreement that it's the least bad of the options. Options 4 and 5 seem to be the least popular, and the most at odds with policy.

IllaZilla, do you think that the current title is worse than the previous one, or do you simply object to my moving the article to a name that doesn't enjoy clear consensus support, i.e., that I read the discussion incorrectly? If it's the former, then please do explain your position further, and I'll be happy to listen. If it's the latter, then I would reply that, in naming disputes, "no consensus" does not always default to leaving the article alone, especially when the current title is opposed by multiple editors.

I hope this reply is helpful, and I'm happy to discuss it further, or to request review of my actions from the community at large. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:IllaZilla that this move is gratuitous, especially to something so wordy and awkward without consensus (one support vote and no other responses does not a consensus make). It should be undone forthwith. Further, I wonder if the people who keep proposing these moves are aware that this article has been renamed at least half a dozen times already. This useless moving of boxes around has been going on for quite some time, and is unlikely to stop.  Xihr  19:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled that you "wonder if the people who keep proposing these moves are aware" that the article has been moved before, since you explicitly pointed that out during the discussion, and the person who proposed this move (i.e., me) responded. So, while I can't speak for anyone else who proposed a previous move, perhaps it will end your uncertainty if I affirm: yes, I am aware the article has been moved before. And, just as I said before, I still don't find that to be a good reason to leave it at a crappy title. Propaniac (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is, this will result in an unending sequence of article name changes. All this has happened before, and all this will happen again. At some point one should realize that it's not very productive.  Xihr  19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't agree with leaving it at a bad title for fear that if we move it, someone may suggest moving it again in the future. If I thought the title was acceptable, but not the best of all possible titles, I would have been more inclined to just leave it alone. But Alien (Alien franchise) is an unacceptably terrible title. Propaniac (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Since editors are objecting to the way I closed this move, I have requested a review from other administrators. See WP:AN#Requesting review of my actions. I will mention again that it is perfectly within policy to move a page with even as little support as one editor, if the reasons are sound. It's not like deletion discussions, where there has to be a clear consensus to move the page. If neither the current nor the proposed title enjoy consensus support, then we have to decide which one is better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No one's saying that you acted beyond your power or inappropriately per se; we're just saying that given the history of this article's name changes, it wasn't prudent to do so. This article has been through a half dozen name changes for precisely this same amount of "consensus" -- namely, one person suggesting a hare-brained name change, and someone committing the move before anyone else could pipe up. The fact that the article's name has changed so many times (and will no doubt continue to change in the future) is a really good indicator that proper consensus is not being achieved before these changes are being made. In short, everybody take a breather and slow down.  Xihr  19:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was open for 30 days! Propaniac (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support the renaming. It is the clearest disambiguation out of several options. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

GTBacchus, thanks for the explanation. Your close makes more sense now in light of the way you read the arguments, but I still respectfully disagree with it. In answer to your question, I'd have to say a little bit of both: I don't think the current title is worse than the previous one, but I don't think it's an improvement either. I also think it's overly complex. Yes, I object to moving the article to a name that doesn't have clear consensus support. If the best support for the proposed title that can be gleaned from the discussion is "it's the least bad of the options", I don't think that justifies a move. As for the current title being "opposed by multiple editors", I don't think that's the case either: 2 editors (Xihr and myself) seem to think that the current title is fine, or at least better than any of the former titles the article has been at and better than most of the possible titles suggested here. I (and I suspect Athony Appleyard, though I certainly can't speak for him) suggested an alternative because I didn't think that the proposed title was better than the current one. Only Propaniac and Ajax Smack explicitly opposed the current title, but there was clearly no consensus as to what alternate title might be better. In a situation like this, especially with an ariticle that has been moved around a number of times, "no consensus" seems to be the logical conclusion: there's no consensus that the current title is bad (only 2 editors explicitly think it is), nor any consensus as to what title would be better. Further discussion may be warranted and future proposals put forth, but with this article's move history we shouldn't default to a suggestion that's merely "the least bad of the options"; we should hold out for an option that has clear consensus support. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this wholeheartedly.  Xihr  20:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

IllaZilla, Thanks for your reply. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. This is a situation where there simply isn't an ideal title on the table, and in such circumstances, I think that the "least bad" option is the one we end up using.

This article is now on my watchlist, and it's unlikely to be moved again without going through WP:RM again. Thus, should the question arise in the future, we'll probably notice, and we can make sure that everyone is aware of the history. I'm glad you don't think the new title is worse than the old one, and maybe it will be stable now. Let's hope. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I disagree, how long the title is actually is an issue because my first reaction to reading it was "what an unnecessarily long title". The title of an article is first and foremost supposed to be based on common usage. Right now, no one is going to type in "Alien (creature in Alien franchise)" looking for the Alien creature. ScienceApe (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, it's unlikely that most readers think to type disambiguations into their searches at all. More than likely they're simply going to search "Alien" and wind up at the dab page, from which they can find their way here, or they're going to type in one of the films' titles and search for the link to the creature from there. With the creature and the franchise both having such a generic name, there's really no simple disambiguation that we can expect readers are going to type intuitively when they try to conduct a search. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

They would probably just type in Xenomorph. In any case, the current title is pretty awful and is way too long. ScienceApe (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)