Talk:Xenomorph

Deacon picture

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

I don't see why not. Mariomassone (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't figure out how so can you tell me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria? There are already 9 non-free images in this article, adding another just for illustration would not seem to jibe with the policy. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes so the Predalien from the movies which are non-cannon are here but the newest one doesn't appear makes total sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

How is the Predalien non-canon? It's right there in the film; doesn't get much more canonical than that. The presence of one non-free image is not a free pass for another. Each non-free image must independently meet the non-free content criteria. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The movie has nothing to do with either franchise it's a non-canonical addition to both seris. Also the picture fits the criteria Sean 04:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs)

Nonsense. The AVP films are perfectly canon; they feature both titular creatures, were made by the production company that owns the rights to Alien (and with some of the same producers), and are explicitly described by the creators as taking place between the events of Predator 2 and Alien. Your fanboy opinion that they aren't canon is irrelevant; they explicitly are. How exactly would a picture of the "Deacon" meet the non-free content criteria? Be specific please. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a composite image (like the one showing the faces of all Predator incarnations on the Predator article) showing all "Alternate forms" would be warranted, showing the dog, newborn, predalien and deacon.Mariomassone (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Composite images are generally discouraged, as they give the false impression that they count as a single piece of non-free content. In fact, each image used to make the composite still counts as an individual piece of NFC, and since each piece of NFC needs its own rationale they shouldn't be lumped together in a single image. That Predator one ought to be removed and replaced with a single image. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree IllaZilla, what determines what is canon is not the mere existence of a film. It's funny because in the previous discussion you wanted to assert that the Space Jockey was the only creature in the Alien franchise, now you are saying the AVP movies are canon, which directly implies that there are more creatures in the Alien franchise.. It seems like you are setting up an equivocation fallacy and applying definitions of inclusion and exclusion whenever it suits your needs. In any case, I think this discussion is a red herring. What matters is what images best illustrate the article. ScienceApe (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

So should I put it in or if I can I need help cause I can't figure out how to add pictures Sean 16:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs)

I suggest following IllaZilla's advice and read the non-free criteria. At the moment I don't see how the image would be anything other than an illustration. Each non-free image should be ideally be accompanied by sourced commentary of its appearance and depiction in the film, to justify its usage. Personally I think the other two images in the "Alternative forms" section are pushing the envelope as far as fair use go. Betty Logan (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've read the god damn non free criteria as I said before. Sean 21:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'm in favor for including the Deacon picture and taking out the Predalien. I think the Deacon is more important as it relates to the early evolution of the xenomorph and/or its origins which are more interesting and compelling than the Predalien. ScienceApe (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Apparently it does if there's a limit on how many non-free images we're allowed to include. ScienceApe (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I meant when I brought up the number of non-free images: Each image must meet the non-free content criteria of its own accord, irrespective of any other images present. That is to say: simply because some new "form" of Alien "exists" (read: has appeared in a film) doesn't mean we automatically get to add a picture of it. Nor does the presence of other pictures of other "forms" mean we automatically get to add another. My comments were not an endorsement of any of the current images. Personally I feel that 9 non-free images in a B/C-class article of ~50K size is excessive, and several of the current ones probably wouldn't pass the scrutiny of a GA or FA review with regard to NFCC. While there is technically no set limit on the amount of non-free content in an article, we are asked to be frugal with such content and required by policy to use it only where it would significantly increase reader understanding, and where its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Alien (film) is a GA over twice the size of this article and has only 7 pieces of non-free content, and even though each image individually passes NFCC the amount of non-free content was still raised as a concern in the article's FA review. So, adding an image of the "Deacon" just because it exists, or because you find it "interesting and compelling", wouldn't meet the criteria. The whole article really needs a going-over with some scrutiny towards the non-free images. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually yes, the reasons I stated for including the Deacon image are perfectly valid and meet criteria. I think the Deacon image would be beneficial to the article, if you feel there's too many images, remove the Predalien image unless you have a good reason to keep it. If we can have all of them, then include all of them. ScienceApe (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed the part where you gave a reason that had anything to do with the non-free content criteria? All you said was "I think the Deacon is more important as it relates to the early evolution of the xenomorph and/or its origins which are more interesting and compelling than the Predalien." So you think it's interesting; That's nice, but it's not one of the criteria. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I said why the Deacon image should be included as far as improving the article is concerned. As far as I know it meets the criteria outlined, if it doesn't, can you explain why it doesn't other than your claim that we already have too many non-free images? Because I already addressed that concern. ScienceApe (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Another thing IllaZilla, can you drop the condescending attitude, it's really disruptive here. Now, I asked you to give a good reason to keep the Predalien image. If you feel like it should remain, please explain why. ScienceApe (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Please drop the straw man argument. I never said the Predalien image should remain, so I do not need to defend its existence. In fact I explicitly said "My comments were not an endorsement of any of the current images" and went on to say that some of the current images should probably be trimmed. However, if any are removed it should be on the basis of whether or not they meets the non-free content criteria, not because "ScienceApe thinks the Deacon is more interesting and compelling than the Predalien". In any case, complaining about the Predalien image does not address why an image of the Deacon would meet the non-free content criteria, which you haven't done. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free content needs to explicitly create an understanding of the subject which is not possible through text alone; File:Rumah Maida visuals.jpg or File:Manhunter-colours.jpg would be a good example of using non-free content to explain something which the text adds to, rather than the other way around. Very few, if any, of the non-free files used here seem to actually meet that criterion; I've removed two already for being redundant and to be frank, everything but the lead image and the image of Necronom IV are entirely ornamental. A case could be made for the Alien 3 alien but it hasn't yet; and the lead image could do with being replaced with something clearer. The queen could easily be replaced with a free file. I have a terrible photograph of the model used in production taken at the London Film Museum, but I'm entirely confident better pictures do or could exist. GRAPPLE X 14:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh my so hostile! I see you learned what a straw man is, hopefully you learn to avoid those kinds of logical fallacies in the future yourself. So, if you aren't defending the PredAlien picture, then shall we take it off? Lol, didn't I already ask you if the Deacon image fits criteria? You tell me champ, you know more about these rules than I do. So say it, does it meet criteria or not? If it doesn't I may have some questions for you later though. ScienceApe (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

1. And you're lecturing me about condescending attitude...
2. "Lol, didn't I already ask you if the Deacon image fits criteria?" — No, you didn't. Please quote any text from the above in which you asked me if the Deacon image met the non-free content criteria.
3. "So say it, does it meet criteria or not?" — The image has not yet been presented, so it is not possible to determine whether it meets the criteria. Speaking hypothetically, there is 1 sentence in the article discussing the appearance of the thing ("Ridley Scott's 2012 film Prometheus, originally conceived as a direct prequel to Alien, ends with the birth of a creature noted for its similarity to those in the Alien franchise.") Since that's all the sourced commentary we have regarding the look/design of the thing, it seems unlikely that adding a non-free image of it for illustrative purposes would meet the non-free content criteria. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Indeed, it isn't helping is it? So let's just drop it.
2. "As far as I know it meets the criteria outlined, if it doesn't, can you explain why it doesn't other than your claim that we already have too many non-free images? Because I already addressed that concern. "
3. So if you don't even know what the image is, why were you giving the guy who wanted to include it a hard time? Let him show you the image first. What the hell are you talking about? The whole Deacon section is all about the creature. Would you like me to copy and paste the whole thing here?
4. Remove predalien photo, yes or no? ScienceApe (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, how can I send you the photo so you can copy and paste it here so people can decide if to add it or not. Sean 01:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Images

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

Your image links are blocked, probably private. There is definitely no need for an image of the Dog Alien or Predalien. They're both slight variants. I also don't think the Queen image is necessary and considering it isn't particularly clear either, not serving much purpose. I do think the Facehugger image is useful as while it's form is second nature to fans like myself, I can imagine it being somewhat hard to describe to the uninformed. Although I guess "Spider-like" might suffice.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we shouldn't illustrate these things, but that we don't need to do so with non-free files as it is clear that free alternatives are a viable option. I didn't realise those images would be private; but I can ask her to donate them to Commons this week. I'm also giving Flickr a trawl since it can prove useful for these things too. So far this, this, this and this all exist under various CC licenses and are perfectly suitable for use; that first one is even a much better image than what we have now. GRAPPLE X 02:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, if there are free alternatives then you're basically compelled to use them and they will often be clearer than what the film's allow for with the whole darkness thing going on. That first one is really good and there's no excuse for not using it. The fourth is also pretty good and directly from the film prop apparently.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the three images in "Concept and Design" qualify under fair use since they are showing the different stages of the development process, from concept through to end product. I don't think that can be adequately conveyed through words alone, or even by available and free photos. However, all the other images are window dressing and don't convey any extra understanding of the article; even if free images weren't available I don't think fair use would really justify their inclusion, but given that free images are available it's a no brainer. Betty Logan (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You say that free alternatives are available, but surely the alien designs are themselves copyrighted and therefore an image of a film prop (even a toy or a drawing of an alien you made yourself) would constitute a derivative work and would have to be uploaded under fair use. As for excessive images, I think the dog alien and predalien could be removed without much being lost, but I think the three images in the "Life cycle" section show the designs of creatures that are integral to the series and should be kept. If anything, the most decorative image is the one in the infobox, which is largely redundant anyway (the drone/warrior alien design is illustrated further down the article). mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the rules are laid out somewhere on here already, but I imagine it's no different than the rules for any public space photograph. If you walk into the background of a news shot they don't have to ask your permission to air the broadcast. A photo taken in a museum where photography is allowed should be no more copyrighted than a photo with a tv in the background playing Alien.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see the Commons link I provided. Yes, you can take a photo of an alien prop in a museum, but that doesn't mean you can license that photo freely so that it can be used for any purpose (as Wikipedia requires). A photo "with a tv in the background playing Alien" would probably be okay, as the copyrighted work would be incidental, not the subject of the photo. A photo of an alien prop for the purpose of illustrating the alien's design would obviously be different. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Free files from flickr:

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

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

Alien and.....

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

See sentence 1. Serendi^podous 19:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

alien (alien) listed at Redirects for discussion

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

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

• Talk:The_Alien#Requested_move More opinions welcomed. It affects this article so I thought I should mention it here. Dream Focus 17:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Creatures name

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

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

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

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

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

@Serendipodous:

Hi, thanks for your comment! Also thanks for the reference to BRD, I was unaware. :)

Let me begin:

Firstly, thats not how canon works. In fact, appearing on film is no guarantee of canon at all. There are many examples of film events being retconned.

Canon is 'the official tale' as told and confirmed by the creators and owners of an IP.

Second:

It was semi-named by a character in 'aliens' using the word as the word, however Ripley confirmed this as its name, using the word as a name in alien 3. Onscreen.

Alien co-writer Damon Lindelof said, quote "I felt that the punchline of Prometheus was going to be that there is human DNA in what we have come to know as the human xenomorph"

Extended, canon, content such as the games and comics have also used this term. Reminding you that they are canon sources, and canon exists beyond the screen.

James cameron in the Aliens DVD extra also refers to them as "xenomorphs"

Vincent ward and David Fincher (Writer and director of alien 3, respectively) in the Alien3 Assembly cut DVD extras also confirm their name as xenomorph.

The name as canon is pretty solid, and has been established for quite a while now. This just shouldn't be getting peoples backs up at this point.

Urammar (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Do writers and directors discuss the name in detail when they "confirm the name", or are these just casual mentions in DVD commentaries? And is there an established canon for the franchise in a book on a shelf somewhere (a la the Star Wars canon), or is this up to individual fans' tastes?

We should avoid adopting a term barely used in the films - in an article which is 99.5% about the films - simply because we can find it cropping up in conversations and spinoffs if we look. We shouldn't be swayed by it being a neat, scientific sounding name (or the fact that the current article title is horribly clunky), if it's a term that's only used briefly and ambiguously a couple of times in the many hours of the film series. --McGeddon (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Urammar: Just because you believe the "canon" name is xenomorph does not mean you can completely blank reliably sourced information about other names it's been called, especially when the name has always been very vague. You even erased the explanation of the term "xenomorph" because it somehow "contradicted" the term being "canon". That's why I reverted you per WP:NPOV. You can't remove content just because it disagrees with your opinion. The general consensus is that the creature is called "Alien" and "xenomorph" is the most common alternative. And McGeddon makes good points as well. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 10:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@McGeddon:

In at least one of the interviews they go into a little detail, mostly its them simply using the term as the name, instead of the de facto generic 'alien', which is significant. I mean, when the director and writers of an IP primarily call it a xenomorph, you are on the wrong side of the fence. Simple as that.

Yeah, its definitely established, they are called xenomorph in a number of canon books, by both Dark horse and Bantam, the comics and 'Aliens: Colonial Marines' (Who's marketing made a big deal about the fact the story it was telling was a canon story)

This has nothing to do with fans. This is all about canon, and fans don't get to make things canon.

I think its important to recognize WHY they were ever just referred to as 'alien' in the first place. Thats simply because in the early films it just was not named.

But that changed as the story(canon) matured. They were given a name, they were named. We only ever called it an alien because it was an alien and had nothing else.

Well, thats no longer the case. Its been named, outside and inside the films from sources considered canon, it was given a name, so thats its name now. That means any statement to the contrary is simply incorrect, and thats not acceptable on a wiki, whose job it is to record and educate on the facts of a subject.

The fact that the directors took screentime from a multimillion dollar production to specifically address the name of the creature is very significant, and should not be overlooked. In fact, it alone, is sufficient. That there are a multitude of other independent verifications for it is simply overkill.

The fact it had no name, initially, is correctly addressed in the 'name' section of my edit, and perhaps should also be addressed as (previously just 'alien') or something in the opening line of the article.

The section also mentions every other name its ever been called.

@Sturmgewehr88:

I erased no such information. I removed a reference to an article that erroneously assumes the name is not canon because of its casual use in aliens, but is old and only refers to movie 1 and 2, not the 3rd in which that name was actually bestowed.

As stated earlier the general consensus is irrelevant. Fans don't get to decide canon. The only 'consensus' that matters is the canon one. You can disagree, but they own it, so they get to name it.

I don't wish to be rude, but you don't really seem to have a good grasp of what canon is/means, and you really shouldn't be editing literature articles if thats the case. I don't know, however, so thats all on you.

Look team, i've given you all there is to give now. I've backed it up with sources, clarifications and information. 'Your side' seems to basically have "In the 80's they hadn't named it yet, therefore its nameless for all time", and at worst, "Lots of people don't seem to know it was named", which is the literal function of a wiki. That doesn't fly.

I know its hard sometimes, but I have given you the information, its up to you now to accept it, and move on.

Urammar (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Urammar: The referenced material you erased stated that xenomorph wasn't canon at the time, and the following sentence states that it has become canon. Removing the first statement leads casual readers to the assumption that the name "xenomorph" has been canon from the beginning. That's how you violated WP:NPOV, and that's why I reverted you. With all due respect, I may not have the definition of "canon" as well memorized as you do, but I'm by far more versered in the policies in guidelines of Wikipedia, not to mention editing here. And this isn't a literature article. I should also direct you to WP:COMMONNAME, because even if "xenomorph" is the official, canonical name, we're not renaming the article if the vast majority of reliable, secondary and tertiary sources refers to them as "aliens". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88:

You are indeed much better versed in wiki guidelines than me, and I am both understanding and grateful for that. We both want what is best for this wiki.

I understand why you did what you did, and you felt you had strong reasons to do it. I respect that, and its good you are looking out for the wiki that way.

However, I believe the name section(in my edit) clearly indicates the name was changed much later, with no ambiguity. Further, neither the reference cited nor the sentence that went with it indicate a name change. In fact it simply, and incorrectly, asserts the name is non-canon, and has never been changed. Its not a matter of neutrality if its wrong.

"Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." -COMMONNAME

"Alien" is both an ambiguous and inaccurate name for an alien with a name. Further the name is at least as commonly used in discussion of the franchise, if not more common.

Therefore, I believe this revision is correct, accurate, and reflects wiki guidelines.

203.129.24.80 (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Urammar: Thank you. So here's what I understand so far: you want the statement removed because it indicates that the name "xenomorph" isn't canon, and I believe that the following statement (explicitly calling "xenomorph" canon, but now removed by McGeddon) justifies the inclusion of the statement. So how about we build a little consensus. I'll propose a rewording of the sentences, and if you don't accept it, you can tweak it until we find something mutually acceptable. Also, my mentioning of WP:COMMONNAME was a reference to your request for a move/rename of the article, not to your general replacement of "Alien" with "xenomorph", which was fine. WP:COMMONNAME deals with article titles, not article content. So now here's my proposed rewrite:

• The term xenomorph (lit. "alien form"—from Greek xeno- or "strange" and -morph, shape) was used by the character Lieutenant Gorman in Aliens with reference to generic extraterrestrial life. The term had been erroneously assumed by some fans to refer specifically to this creature, as has been the case with the producers of some merchandise. However, in the movie Alien 3, Ripley is asked how to refer to the creature, and replies "xenomorph", making the name canon.

References

Just copy and paste the HTML code if you want to make a counter-proposal. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• The term xenomorph (lit. "alien form"—from Greek xeno- or "strange" and -morph, shape) was first used by the character Lieutenant Gorman in Aliens with reference to generic extraterrestrial life. It has been suggested the term was erroneously assumed by some fans to refer specifically to this creature, as well as the producers of some merchandise. However, in the movie Alien 3, Ripley is asked the name the creature, and replies "xenomorph", canonising the name.

References

Hows that? If you like it, can we link 'canonising' to the article on canon? I am dumb and don't know how to do that :)

Otherwise feel free to make your edits.

@Urammar: Alright:

• The term xenomorph (lit. "alien form"—from Greek xeno- or "strange" and -morph, shape) was first used by the character Lieutenant Gorman in Aliens with reference to generic extraterrestrial life. Originally, the term was erroneously assumed by some fans to refer specifically to this creature, as well as the producers of some merchandise. However, in the movie Alien 3, Ripley is asked the name the creature, and replies "xenomorph", canonising the name.

References

For future reference, whenever you want to wikilink something but replace the link with different text, you'd type two sets of outward-facing brackets, and between them you first type what you want to link to, separate it with a vertical bar, then type the desired text. So it'd look like this when you type it: [[WP:WIKIPEDIAN|a Wikipedian]]. Then after you save it, it looks like this: a Wikipedian. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Yeah, its featured in the 'assembly cut' release. I think the reference mentions that, doesn't it? Perhaps that should be mentioned, if not. Regardless, it made it into the script, was shot and included in a longer release, so its not like it really changes much.

Anyway, apparently we still have not met consensus on this thing? Really, team?

@McGeddon:

What do you say, McGeddon? Consensus on this? Its a damn xenomorph, right?