Talk:Xenomorph/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Life cycle images

We should get images of the Xenomorph at the different stages of its life cycle.-B-101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.157.77.34 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 August 2004 (UTC)

Someone should also point out the improbability and many inconsistencies of the alien life-cycle. --Burschik 11:09, 23 August 2004 (UTC)

Such as? --pomegranate 22:08, 30 August 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you guys mean, but we definitely need to get images of the alien's life cycle. We should stick with the first two films since they have the best alien consistency. If you want, you could get a shot of the "dog-alien". I'd do this myself, but I don't know how and if I could, I don't want to break any copyright laws. --B-101 16:12, 6 September 2004 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to edit and upload screen-caps from my Aliens and Alien 3 DVDs, but, as B-101 says, I don't know if using such images would be permitted. If anyone knows what the score is, email me: thomashiles@gmail.com (because I probably won't check back this page for ages). --pomegranate 01:40, 9 September 2004 (UTC)

I have nothing against posting images from Aliens and Alien 3. In fact, I've been waiting for a while for images to be placed on this page. But I don't know what the deal is with copyright laws. I thought you guys should do it since you know what is legal and such. --B-101 23:11, 9 September 2004 (UTC)

Re: pointing out the inconsistencies: Sort of done --ZZ 09:53, 2 October 2004 (UTC)

Hang on do you mean, how in Alien 1, the egg was white, went see thru, then cracked open, while in Aliens onwards it was red-tan, peeled like a flower?

I sort of did that with the variable times exhibited by the various stages, notably between Kane in 1 (15min) to Ripley in 3 (several days), and in some of the books, it can last days in helathy fit people on the run --ZZ 10:00, 2 October 2004 (UTC

Fact check

Subsections "Rogue" "Queen Mother" and "Newborn" are edits from ISP 195.93.33.14 used by a known vandal. Please check these facts. --Wetman 04:30, 1 December 2004 (UTC)

Class of the original alien

Which class of Xenomorph does the adult alien creature (which has a transparent cowl, surprising abilities, and physical forms and reproduces by parasitizing living victims) belong to? --John-1107 01:16, 28 February 2005 (UTC)

Debate

Should this section contain a discussion of canon as it pertains to the series? It might clarify some things; particularly, the notion of whether aliens are silicon-based or whether they incorporate silicon into an otherwise carbon-based chemistry. --Teflon Don 07:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Classes

Who took out all the other classes of Xenomorphs? Also, I think it is okay to put in pictures of the different classes. --B-101 13:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Specific vs General

I could be missing something here, but I believe that Xenomorph is the fan name for the antagonist lifeform found in the Alien(s) movie series. The characters in the series don't call the monsters specificly by that name. When the word is used by the characters it's used in the general sense to mean "something from the set of things which are alien shapes/lifeforms", rather than naming a specific species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.153.4.50 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This is true - Using xenomorph as a name was actually taken from the 'briefing' the marines were given in ALIENS. But it's mainly used for lack of a better term. The alien creature is never actually given any kind of name in any of the movies, and xenomorph is shorter to type than 'alien creature'. Contrast with Predator - In none of the movies is it actually called 'The Predator' or 'A Predator' in a proper noun sense. The word is used descriptively and in passing. But the creatures are almost universally referred to as Predators. The same principle applies here. --Drago 06:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't something be said about this in the primary article, then? DragoGoldenWing's paragraph here could be used with some modifiction. --Madmaxmarchhare 02:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. Made a note in the opening paragraph explaining the useage of the word. --Drago 04:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography

a bibliography of some type should be added to show all appearances in comicbooks etc. --Aaron 21:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"Newborn" alien from Alien Ressurection

Should a section be included to show off this creature? I think, considering all the other expanded universe information here we should have this as well. I don't want to write it because I'm not too familiar with the Newborn in particular so I don't want it to sound as outlandish as some of this stuff does (like the space jockey page (good god!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyBoy7783 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Theories - Origin

Just to point out, didn't AvP: Alien vs. Predator offer a slightly annoying, but none-the-less canon origin of the xenomorphs - that yautjas bred them out of humans on earth, as the ultimate prey?

(oh and I wanted to add that I think some images would be nice too) --Erolos 18:40, 30 November 2004 (UTC)

Yep. The movie fit in with Alien canon. The hieroglyphics didn't say that the Predators CREATED the xenomorph, merely that they are the ones who brought them to earth, to hunt them. That section is very wrong. --Drago 01:11, 11 April 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's not at all canon. Did the same writers and directors create all the films? One might note that the AvP crossover film can either be considered canonical or non-canonical, based on how one interprets it. Personally, I can tell you that as a staunch fan of the Alien franchise I do not consider AvP canonical...kind of hard to decide what is and what isn't canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.93.214.48 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 June 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: The movie fits with canon if the viewer so wishes, then. Nothing in Alien vs. Predator contrasts or negates the canon of the ALIEN quadrilogy, and in a timeline of events in the universe it would not clash with known information. The only inconsistency is the extremely short gestation period. It was maybe a few minutes at the most, and I've even heard theories before the movie was even released to explain the gestation time difference between ALIEN and ALIEN3 that would explain it as being a hurried and quickened gestation, due to the queen being in 'danger'/chained and captive. --Drago 18:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's still a hasty explanation for the gestation period being shortened. Also, another inconsistency is the Michael Bishop / Charles Bishop Weyland controversy. Supposedly, Michael Bishop could easily have been a human being (made clear by his red blood in Alien 3), but they completely contradicted that with AvP. Unless it was a retcon (Which I think would royally piss staunch Alien fans off), AvP has a reputation of messing with the Alien canon. At this point, I think it violates certain conventions of the Alien series and can be interpreted to be non-canonical. It should be mentioned that AvP is of disputed canonicity (is that the actual word?). Hell, I'd curse this movie and disown it if I had rights to the franchise, but that's just me. Crossovers aren't always canon, are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.202.104 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I know it was a hasty explanation. It's one I've heard repeatedly given to explain the difference in gestation periods between the three movies, and was more pressed by the quickness of the development of the xenomorph in Alien 3 that burst the dog in comparison to the gestation period of the queen embryo Ripley was housing. I never said it was a viable explanation, merely one that the movie writers may have latched on to. Believe it or not a lot of them probably DID do a small amount of research and may have come across the theory. Charles Bishop Weyland was a mistake I wasn't aware of at the time I made those responses. However my response is still slightly valid, as the AvP movie at no point made any attempt to give an explanation for the origin of the xenomorphs as the topic starter claimed, but merely said that the Yautja brought the xenomorphs to Earth to establish a hunting ground - Never that the Yautja created them. --Drago 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Zygote/Gestate/Seed

Concerning position, I distinctly recall from Aliens vs Predator 2 the game that when you played as an Alien, after finding the host, you ended up with an inner view of the guy. As follows, you chewed through what appeared to be a thin sheet of muscle, then the heart and both lungs, and finally through the sternum. All this was on a level plane, so it seems the only sure thing is that it lies above the diaphragm. --CABAL 04:13, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but these games aren't canonical. I wouldn't trust just in-game evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.197.103 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This article should be called "Creatures From The Alien Series"

As was stated below, and even at the beginning of this article, xenomorph is never used to directly refer to the 'species' of aliens encountered in the series. In fact, xenomorph is even translated by Hudson in Aliens to mean a "bug hunt". The species in the movie is never named, and this article's title is completely ridiculous. I'm surprised at you people; you had nothing to do with the making of the series, nor did you write the stories, so you damn well shouldn't be naming the species of the creatures. As far as I'm concerned, the only name that can be given to them is 'Alien', and you'll find SEVERAL uses of that word in the series to refer specifically to the acid bleeding nightmares. Shame shame. Not to mention the fact that nobody looking for information about the creatures from Alien is going to just type in 'xenomorph' in the search bar to find what they're looking for. Move this article or I'll do it for you, and change all the links. "Creatures From The Alien Series" is infinitely more suitable, and there's no controversy surrounding it. If you insist on naming the creatures, call up H.R. Giger and ask him what they're called. His original 'concept' painting was called Necronom V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.194.156.47 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"Not to mention the fact that nobody looking for information about the creatures from Alien is going to just type in 'xenomorph' in the search bar to find what they're looking for." --I sort of fixed this aspect of the problem by including a link to xenomorphs on the alien disambiguation page, and an additional link on the Alien film page. So if a person still can't find it, they probably don't know how to search in the first place, or don't know the movie and just remember the creature (which is itself not even a good excuse anyway because the average stranded searcher will, in a last resort, type in the broad term "alien" in hopes of it just happening to be there, and in this case, it is) (Note: this was not supposed to settle any controversy, but to remove possible confusion that was a basis of it while things settle out) --Dch111 21:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As is pointed out in the article, the only time xenomorph is used canonically is when Gorman is briefing the marines.

HUDSON

Is this going to be a stand-up fight, Sir, on another bug-hunt?

GORMAN

All we know is that there's still no contact with the colony and that a xenomorph may be :involved.

WIERZBOWSKI

A what?

HICKS(to Wierzbowski; low)

It's a bug-hunt.

The word was siezed on by fans to name an alien creature that, up until the Alien Quadrilogy set, was never given any kind of identification beyond an easily confusing 'alien creature' that could easily apply to any number of other creatures from any number of other film franchises. Xenomorph on the other hand allows for most fans of the movies to mention it without any initial confusion about WHICH alien creature is being discussed. For a similar fan-naming situation reference the Predators/Yautja. The word 'Yautja' is never mentioned in any of the movies, being a name given only in novelization and comic books. Likewise 'Predator' is only used to DESCRIBE the Predators and is used only once that I remember, and only in passing by one character trying to explain the Yautja to another - Much as 'xenomorph' was used in Aliens. Similarly, the aliens from Predator are called Predators because of an initial lack of information on them - There was no other name ever given in the movies. Are you saying we should refer to the Predators as 'alien creatures' as well? You're on a crusade that you cannot win. The name of this alien creature is entrenched so deeply in the fandom as 'xenomorph' that no amount of fighting or threats to alter this article to suit your own personal tastes is going to change the fact that the creature is now widely known as a xenomorph. Good day sir. --Drago 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

True, the species is never named. However, before H. R. Giger was picked up by Ridley Scott, STARBEAST was the original movie title by the original story writers Dan O'Bannon & Ronald Shusett. The term seems to have died off almost entirely. Now maybe people find the term laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.202.153 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In Alien3, it is referred to as a DRAGON. --Trakon 21:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Predalien

Notice, the Predalien needs to move to the canon section of this article, because the predalien is in the Alien Vs predator movie, making it canon. -Izzy8900 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy8900 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, sure. Though that's going to piss off a lot of people who don't think AvP is canon. Tell me, is a crossover for any two franchises really considered canonical? Especially when it introduces so many plotholes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.202.104 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What about the Aliens Versus Predator games? The predalien is introduced there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.5.203 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The debate cannot rely entirely on example. Whether it is a film, video game, graphic novel, novel, or action figure, the fact has not been resolved if the Predalien (or the like of any of these cases, such as the name debate) were under the original intent of the original writers, directors, etc. If original intent is not confirmed, it does not deny the possibility of the Predalien, but it does make fitting it into the canon a more difficult procedure. Subsequent creators who have added things to the canon can be looked at as successful or not (eg, the Alien Queen from Aliens, rather than the original origin for the eggs as shown in the alternate cut of Alien in which the eggs come from infected humans). Ultimately, whatever works the best for the Aliens may be the case. Until it is presented well enough, inferior examples of the Alien franchise, such as AvP can be brushed aside as ideas, while the canon is upheld by (even when contradictory) the first two films, for example. But at the same time, examples of failure are not necessarily reasons to completely discard an idea. It is possible to imagine the Predalien fitting into the canon (though I'm sure that it will cause even more debates about what to name it!). --Trakon 08:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Xenomorph as a name

Xenomorph = "Alien (life)form". I would like to change that to match instead with the Wiktionary's definition of Morph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 15:37, 2 October 2004 (UTC)

It is also worth noting here that the Alien Vs Predator games refer to them as Xenomorphs specifically, both in character selection and dialog throughout the games. --Seraphimneeded 10:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Drone"?

I'd feel like a spoilsport to put this in the main article. Fans of the film use the word "drone" to refer to aliens that aren't queens. Calling the secondary creatures drones was probably meant suggest the social structure of an alien hive was like that of a bee hive.

But, in bee hives the drone does no work, other than impregnate the queen. The sexual life of a bee hive is compicated. The workers are all females -- virgin females. The egg-laying queens are, of course, not virgins. The workers are often described as being sterile. They aren't. Their unfertilized eggs do develop, and hatch as drones.

Instead of having a pairs of chromosomes, bee drones have just one set of chromosomes. Every deadly recessive will be expressed. Bee drones don't do any of the work of the hive because they genes make them fragile, dopey.

It bugs me every time I hear one of the worker aliens described as a "drone". That appellation seems so firmly fixed that no amount of logic will shake it. --Geo Swan 16:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Usually it is assumed that, due to the lack of presence of obvious males in the presence of an obvious female, xenomorph reproduction is asexual. You have to get into the comic books to find stories involving male aliens. The phrase 'drone' is in reference to their actions, not position in the hive hierarchy. 'A person who does tedious or menial work; a drudge.' is usually the definition of drone that people reference when they call them such. --Drago 18:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a post-hoc rationalization to me. Exactly how are the creative, vicious active attacks of the worker aliens "tedious" or "menial"? Why not just admit that who-ever first applied this name wasn't giving what they were writing enough attention? Even Homer nods. --Geo Swan 18:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The workers are responsible for a lot of activity besides attack. It is assumed they are the ones who excrete the resin to build the hive structures such as the one in ALIENS, they forage and scavenge for food and hosts, and care for the gestating chestbursters. Even for a race of artificially created killers, daily life consists of far more than the attacks seen in the movies. Keep in mind that the creative, vicious active attacks only occurred when humans were present. Minus any hostile life forms threatening the hive integrity, the day to day activity that even a xenomorph hive would call for is fairly mundane. --Drago 01:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Geo Swan in that the name 'drone' is totally inappropriate for describing the standard adult Xenomorph. The word 'drone' infers sexual reproduction, which is not the case with Aliens. Furthermore, the dictionary definition of the word (by Merriam-Webster Online) does in no way accommodate the sense relied on by Drago - namely, '[one that performs] tedious or menial work' -, in fact, it is the exact opposite: 'one that lives on the labors of others'.

In the case of existing hive insects (I am not sure about the classificatory standing of the Xenomorphs - they seem vertebrates to me) the form that carries out the daily tasks of building and foraging is called a 'worker'. 'Soldiers', who defend the hive from intruders, are also workers only a bit larger (and/or older), and they too spend most of their days engaged in menial activities. --216.239.88.52 03:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomically appropriate as it may be, I do not see the term 'worker' gaining much popularity with the fans for describing the ferocious Aliens, and if anything then Praetorians should be considered 'soldiers'.

For lack of better solution, I suggest that the word 'adult', 'mature', or 'imago' be used in connection with a fully developed non-Queen/non-Praetorian Xenomorph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.88.52 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My definition was one of several given in The American Heritage Dictionary Of The English Language, alongside the one you gave from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. If you have issue with it, take it up with the people who write the books, I just use them. Drone in the sense of sexual reproduction occurs only when speaking of bees, to my knowledge. I hear drone used much more often to mean someone who does menial labor than I do in reference to sexual reproduction. --Drago 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Alien was a movie was then a book/graphic novel/video game money maker. Xenomorph. Drone. Warrior. Praeadfragglerock. When my church wants to make more money than the temple down the street, we come up with our own gimics to grab people. We like snatching them up. Give them a little face hug. Everyone likes it; everyone's doing it. This has been going on forever. Religious interpretation. The difference here is that we actually could go talk to some of the people who came up with the creature to ask them what they think. "These things ain't bees." --Trakon 07:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This entire article is fundamentally flawed

The name "Xenomorph" is never used in any of the Alien films as the specific name for the species. To the best of my knowledge, the only use of the term is in the second film (Aliens) by James Cameron and in Alien 3 by David Fincher. It isn't a proper name but a group classification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.210.3 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This has already been/is being discussed further up the page under 'Specific vs General', and I am working on a paragraph to insert explaining the use of the word. --Drago 03:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Umm, they also call it a Xenomorph in the Alien 3 Special Edition, on the Alien Quadrilogy Boxset. So it isn't only used once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.128.18 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, at least there's an article here. Who care's what they call 'em anyway? Xenomorph sounds cool to me. --Predator 05:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

How is the entire article flawed? Isn't xenomorph a name established by constant usage among the fan base? It was mentioned in the canon twice, and besides, the creature was given no specific name (unless you count the I. Raptus designation, but that's not fully canonical, since it's not in the movies). Xenomorph is the only really true designation available. It appears that the extremely widespread usage of Xenomorph qualifies that as the proper, recognized name, despite what you might think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.202.104 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As long as you realize that the word also describes Yoda, Klaatu and Superman, fine. To me it's a little like finding a lost island tribe and designating them as "The humans." --24.33.28.52 21:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

More like calling a tiger a "cat", I would suppose; technically true, but lacking in specifics. ;) Also, on a side note, many older cultures' names for themselves really did translate as "The People"; for instance, a great many of the commonly-known names for Native Americans' tribes either translate as "The People" (what they refer to themselves as) or "The Enemy" (what rival tribe referred to them as). ;) --4.238.8.12 21:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Runners

Wouldn't Runners need to be mentioned as well? They're canon, because one showed up in Alien 3. You could argue a lot of things, but because it came out of a quadruped it was a smaller, faster, maybe even a little physically weaker. They aren't mentioned anywhere in the article, not even as a non-canon. They were in AvP2 (the game), so they at least deserve that, but they've popped up in the movies too. So... what do we do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.8 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

They are mentioned. In life-cycle it states that the Xenomorph takes on attributes of its host and mentions that this could entail the Xeno being a quadraped. --Beowulph 17:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Canon status

This article really should show a more specific divide between the actual information garnered (and cited) from the movies, and the 80-90% of it which is purely conjecture, or based on completely tertiary sources (comics, books, videogames - all of which are little more than fan fiction). There is a short disclaimer explaining how most of this information is conjecture, but I don't think it's enough, and the reason it gives (that the movies don't supply the viewers with much) is inadequate cause to fill an encyclopedia article with so much arbitary information.

If I had it my way, I'd give 'Xenomorph Conjecture' its own page, but that's unlikely to be agreed with. --Gwilym 19:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I may make a project of that. Good suggestion. --Teflon Don 21:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In accrodance with the peer review on this article, I have moved all the non-canon castes to the following article: List of non-canon castes in the Alien films. ^KILO-_LIMA 17:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed section

Below is the removed section of "Genetic adaptability". I removed it because it contains too many weasel terms. --^KILO-_LIMA 17:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Extended content

Although the DNA assimilation theory was popular, the idea of the xenomorphic embryo actually using DNA from the host was a matter of some debate, on the following points: Does a silicon-based lifeform like the xenomorph even use DNA? (This was addressed in one of the Aliens novels, where it was revealed that the xenomorph possesses more than the standard four DNA basetypes of A, G, C and T, but still does include those.) Could a silicon-based lifeform make some use of carbon-based DNA? Borrowing an entire host chromosome seems an unlikely possibility. A more detailed explanation may be that a facehugger or chestburster was capable of deciphering its host's DNA, deciding upon which traits it would like to keep, and re-encoding the DNA of the embryo in order to obtain these "genetic ideas" for the resultant adult creature. A facehugger's long period of attachment to its host supports that more was occurring than the simple laying of an egg. In the Alien fiction, it has been noted that the very few survivors of the alien impregnation process were often mentally unbalanced, prone to aggression, and known for feats of inhuman strength. Dr. Paul Church and Ripley 8 exhibited these traits to varying degrees.

Featured Article

I have been very busy these past few days about improving this article. Personally, I think I have done quite well. However I was hoping to get this article to "Featured Article" status. As you may have noticed, I've had this article Peer Reviewed and had done everything so far they have asked me to do. (Besides the part about it evolving over the stages of the films; I disagree with this part.) However, before I put this up as a FAC, I would like to know if there is absoloutely anything else that could help improve it, as of now. Thanks, ^KILO-_LIMA 00:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My guess is the articles lacking sources category would preclude FAC. For other issues I'll try to look over the whole article again when I'm less sleepy. --David.alex.lamb 02:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As I already said in the peer review, there needs to be some work done on the images. There should be a full body shot instead of that dark head shot in the lead. The fair use of the image in the Variations section has been disputed and it could easily be replaced with a free image if someone would recreate a photo of it. Also, all fair use images need Fair use rationales. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am having trouble getting the full body shot for the following reasons: 1) Most scenes throughout the entire four movies are dark—this is the biggest problem becuase then nobody would be able to actually see it; 2) Most of the time, the xenomorph is rarely seen. It's mainly just quicky glances of it, and trying to get that is very hard; 3) Plus I am having software problems. Please see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#DVD_and_software_question - posted by me about the problem of me having to take a screenshot of it. For the disputed fair use image, I will request a Public Domain or GFDL picture. ^KILO-_LIMA 12:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I found the image I mentioned in the peer review (from AVP) and added that now (although it is quite dark (and not the complete body), I think it's still a good image to illustrate the lead). --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That's excellent. I have given all images fair use rationale except the following:

• Image:ALIEN- The Adult.jpg - Unknown film; definitely © 20th Century Fox, however.
• Image:Eggsilo.jpg - Unknown book.
• Image:Xenomorphs.jpg - Disputed image.
• Image:Greenalien.JPG - Unknown source.
• Image:Drone.jpg - " "
• Image:Jockey.jpg - Unknown book.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilo-Lima (talk • contribs) 13:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The category about it lacking sources is becuase of the above text that I removed from the article. I only included it because I directly cut and pasted it. I will remove it so to avoid people think it is lacking sources. Thanks, ^KILO-_LIMA 13:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

I just had another look at the images currently in the article (while adding proper summaries to them), and I'm not sure the current Reviewedfairuse tags by Kilo-Lima are valid, as he also wrote the fair use rationales and a review should be done by someone else. Also, Image:Queenybaby.JPG currently doesn't have any sources and should state which comic book the images comes from and who owns the copyright to it. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the fair use rationale from Image:Queenybaby.JPG—however I have kept the other fair use rationales on all of the other images until someone else checks them; or would you rather me take them all off? I have also contacted the uploader, Predator, about the images. He has not, however, contacted me back and his last edit was on the 4th of February. ^KILO-_LIMA 17:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The rationales are all okay, just the fact that you put a review tag along with them seemed strange to me. --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So many contradictions!

• "The word Xenomorph was coined for advertising the 1953 movie It Came from Outer Space."
• "In other words, the word xenomorph itself means little more than "alien form" and was coined by a US Colonial Marine in Aliens."

(I assume one is in real life, and the other is in the Alien movie universe?)

• "They can survive in extreme temperatures, are well-adapted to swimming, and can survive in a vacuum for unknown lengths of time. "
• "Xenomorphs, in all stages of their life cycles, have shown extreme vulnerabilities to fire, flamethrowers, and the like whilst cold is an inadequate precautionary measure except at the extreme."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.198.89 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the Xenomorph's vulnerability to fire "extreme". The only two cannonical (that's it, seen in the movies) instances of a Xenomorph actually showing fear in the presence of fire involved the Queen in ALIENS, and that was A) because her eggs were threatened, and B) Ripley applying her flamethower right in front of the Queen's face. In contrast, the Xenomorph in the original film attacked Dallas regardless of him carrying an incinerator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.45.187 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it that either. In the Alien vs. Predator PC game, it takes nearly five seconds of being bathed in flame from a flamethrower to kill an alien, and the only reason they die then is because the heat boils the acidic liquid inside them and they explode from the pressure. Merely being set on fire with a glancing shot from the flamethrower, they will often run around screeching in what is apparently pain, continuing to attack for nearly half a minute before the heat builds enough to kill them for the reason given above. --Drago 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Death of the Newborn

Not going to edit this myself just yet, but I've seen Alien Ressurection, and whoever wrote the last bit needs to see it again. The Newborn sneaks aboard the ship, and it's own acidic blood creates said hole. Also please note that a crying Ripley watches helplessly, whilst the newborn is sucked into space. --Dessydes 03:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The hole is created by Ripley's blood. She cuts her palm (for the third time!) on the Newborn's teeth, then flings a gob of blood against the porthole. The Newborn's blood makes the hole bigger, but Ripley's blood is the actual cause of the breach. Second, she's crying because she was forced to make a very tough decision--to embrace her human or alien side. She chose human and killed the Newborn. --Teflon Don 06:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation of that scene was that an emotionally and mentally unstable Ripley was having to deal with the death of her 'child' for the third time - The first in Aliens when she found her biological daughter had died of old age, and the second in Alien 3 when she found her surrogate daughter dead immediately on regaining consciousness. The link she shared with the aliens thanks to the genetic tampering was telling her the Newborn was her child and she had to protect it, and the human was telling her to kill it before it killed her and everyone around her. --Drago 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Full body shot

I would like to know what of the four Alien movies is the best to get a full body shot of the xenomorph. This is in accordance with the peer review. Thanks, ^KILO-_LIMA 17:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Several times in Alien the xenomorph towers over it's victims to instill fear, and I believe there are many full-body shots in Aliens as well. Alien 3 had fewer good shots due to the shoddy technique used to animate the creature, but there were also clear shots of it as well. In all cases you'll most likely wind up freezing the frame and moving frame-by-frame to find the clearest shots. --Drago 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this need a clean up?

Reading through this article it is incredibly repetitive, often completely reiterating (or even contradicting) earlier points without seeming to be aware they have been made. Additionally, the article does not seem to hold to one defintion of what is or isn't canon, it even goes into a non-canon section then returns to a canon one and frequently interjects information that is certainly non-canon (that is, not from the movies in this case) without noting this. It seems to me that this article needs major clean-up and overhaul whcih, if I may suggest, should involved the following restructuring:

Canon Alien Information - All subsets of information here, with only side notes on non-canon information. Logically, this would include the known elements of their anatomy and life-cycle. Alien v. Predator information should probably be in here, with only a note that some fans debate the legitimacy of the film.

Non-Canon Alien Information - Non-canon elements, any information found in books, comics or fan suppositions, unless fan suppositions were given it's own category.

If not this, then certainly some form of major clean up should be done to make this article encyclopedic, accurate and interesting to read.

Finally, not to jump into this debate again but as Xenomorph is technically any alien with a non-humanoid, non-felinoid, non-kynoid, non-reptilian, non-avian, non-insection--basically any non-terran--body structure it's not precise nor accurate to refer to these aliens by it when such an article really should include all aliens that would fall into this category (there's quite a few in the Noon universe, for example, and hordes throughout other sci-fi). This page should either be Alien (Alien movies) or Xenomorph (Alien movies) and Xenomorph itself should be a list of xenomorphic aliens--just like humanoid, felinoid and kynoid aliens are on a list. --QuantumDriver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.162.61 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the whole article is basically a nightmare, for all the reasons you cited and more. There is some very impressive information in it, but like you say, there is no rhyme nor reason to what's included and what's not, an obscene amount of it is conjecture and (essentially) fan fiction, and not only does the left hand not know what the right hand's doing, but I don't think it even knows it exists. The article reads like the archive of a web crawl.

Personally, from what I've seen while keeping it in my watchlist, I think it's beyond repair. Completely. It sounds defeatist, sure, but the enormous paradigm shift required for this article to be brought to its senses is pretty much impossible to imagine happening. --Gwilym 09:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Praetorians -- non-canon?

The writer of the article refers to Praetorians as non-canon, however, I believe they do appear in Aliens. If memory serves me well, the two creatures the Queen commands to step back when Ripley threatens her lair boast the typical Praetorian headcrest. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the movie at hand to double-check. --216.239.88.52 00:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No, they're standard warrior-types. If they were a new caste, they would have at least gotten a mention in one of the myriad documentaries about the series. We know about a "worker drone" caste which was never filmed or even sculpted; we would know about a Praetorian caste in the film. --Teflon Don 06:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, these are not praetorians. If you recall, all of the aliens in the second movie had unusual ribbed markings on their heads...this was mainly a technical problem, since the transparent cowls were prone to breaking during filming. It's been rationalized in a number of ways, often as the aliens shedding the cowl once they reach a certain maturity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.197.103 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Title

Is the title stable now? Anyone else have any changes to make? For instance, are we sure that the "A" in "alien" should be capitalized? There are hundreds of articles that have broken links due to the name changes, and I'd like to get started on cleaning them up. But I don't want to start until we have the right title here. --Kafziel 17:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the capital A is fine, because it is the film title. Cleaning up is going on well... But maybe I should have listened to you and place the mineral under "Allotriomorph"... It would have saved me a lot of "fun" with fictional character pages. --790 20:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

OK that's it. I won't touch the talk pages. Have a nice day. --790 21:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

References (1)

I think this article needs converting to the never <ref>, </ref> and <references/> becuase all of the numbers are muddled up. --Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Bolton's "Genocide" Art -- Restored

It's a potential topic for debate, so I've created this sub-section to facilitate such.

One of the controversial issues with AVP is its cinematographic lighting and color temperatures. Generally, any half-competent art student could tell you "blue" is not the appropriate color for horror and/or urgency. For that, we tap into our boreal heritage -- where "up" or safety is green/blue, and "down" or danger is red (blood) [check out elevator arrows]. Maybe the blue was an unconscious derivation of the blue "Who laser" from Alien, or the "space salvage robot probe scanner" from its sequel. Regardless, it doesn't satisfy. --Broadacre 15:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Kilo-Lima, I notice you've reverted most of my changes save the last few bits about Lauzirika. You cite that the existing lead was "seen as good". Alright, but it suffered several grammatical and syntactical flaws.

For instance, "parasite" is not a verb.

That is its drive, its focus, its reason for being; to parasite living hosts before it dies.

The semicolon (;) here is also improper. You're introducing an explanation, and the appropriate mark is a colon (:).

The redundancy of "its" is improper. You should not reiterate the subject so many times, i.e., "He stole John's car, John's wallet, John's radio and John's house." The acceptable grouping includes only the principal appearance of the subject, i.e., "He stole John's car, wallet, radio and house."

In addition to these obvious grammatical omissions, the clause is conceptually redundant. It should be made more succinct, i.e.,

The xenomorph is driven solely by its parasitic need to annihilate other living beings.

It's important to differentiate quadrilogy from tetralogy, as "quadrilogy" is not actually a word. The appearance of "quadrilogy" should correspond with a link to the boxed DVD set, so as to settle any confusion on the part of an uninformed reader.

Etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

In truth, the whole lead should be completely re-written. The first change should be an indication that "xenomorph" is simply a substitute word for "alien". --Broadacre 09:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why so much focus on the name, especially up-front? To me it seems like the origin of the word "Xenomorph" should be in the notes. I doubt most people who visit this article do so out for etymology reasons.

And that new picture isn't nearly as good as the one that showed the full creature. --Beowulph 12:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Beowulph. Also, the new image's copyright status is somewhat questionable, as the written permission of the artist is not reprinted and - given it is a cover from a licensed franchise - I doubt the artist actually holds the copyrights for the piece. It is more likely owned by the publisher, or by 20th Century Fox. --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the above. I "reverted" most of your edits becuase the lead looks weak and seems "wimpy". Even although you seem to have pointed out a few grammatical errors, the current lead (that you made) is full of short paragraphs, mainly one-sentences.

The image copyright status is a bit off and seems to me as a {{fairuse}} tag. Also, "Is a substitute word for Alien" - this fails to mention that it is used fictionally in the Alien series. "He is immolated shortly thereafter" - Even although I know who you are talking about, readers may not. If you wish to improve the lead, perhaps try to merge all of the one sentences into one paragraph and maybe think about also merging the lead we originally had into your lead. --Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

@Kilo Lima: A good point. The problem is an absence of consensus on what to call the creatures, viz. "aliens," "xenomorphs," or, now, "intervecinus raptus" (and variants).

@Beowulph: Fair. However, no picture showed the "full creature". The previous AVP-extracted image (AVP_Xenomorph.jpg) highlights, above all, the blade-tipped tail, an embellishment of Alec Gillis and Tom Woodruff, Jr., unrelated to the original Giger design. The general constant across all films is the distinctive head or cephalon, so it makes sense to include an image of it, disconnected from any particular filmic interpretation. --Broadacre 18:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

@Friz Saalfeld: If I produce "proof of authorization," how do I present it? --Broadacre 18:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

@Kilo Lima: True, the paragraphs are shorter -- does this make the content somehow less valid? It seems length, here, was used to instill a "feeling" of authority. In truth, length is not necessary to fulfill the purposes of an encyclopedia, who's aim should be the succinct conveyance of correct information. The prior "lead" was overwrought and redundant. (Broadacre 18:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC))

Valuable suggestions. Regarding the "immolation" sentence: I don't believe the inclusion of an "Ash" anecdote is necessary in this introduction. He is no doubt mentioned plenty in the main body of the article. Telling his story within the lead seems tangential and distracting. --Broadacre 18:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I find the fact that the image also shows a human somewhat misleading, and there's a clear consensus here to use the other image (Image:AVP Xenomorph.jpg) instead. --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For starters, a copy of the artist's written permission should be posted on the image's talk page. --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the image back to "old blue" based on consensus preference. Now, how do we feel about the current lead? --Broadacre 11:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I liked the background about the origin of the name from Aliens and how it got picked up by the fans in lieu of a given name within the source material. I think such a note should go somewhere in the article if not at the beginning. I disagree with it being technobabble. Cameron was making a joke, so I think of it more as military doublespeak, hence the benefit is seen of the Lt. Gorman note. Either way is beside the point, which is that Cameron wasn't intending to name the species when he coined the word. I get testy about this on account of an argument I had last fall with someone who had read some AVP comics but curiously hadn't seen Aliens; some people think the name came from the series but I insist that the fans are the ones who turned it into the given name, not the creators. Extrapolating, I even dispute calling it a substitute word, if only because that seems so colloquial. More to the point, it isn't a substitute for something else. Would you say that 'dog' is a substitute name for Canis lupus familiaris? Xenomorph is the word that is accepted as the taxonomic name of the creatures from the Alien franchise. --JethroElfman 05:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That said, it sure is nice to see the melodramatics toned down. "quintessential violent defiler" indeed. JethroElfman 05:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

FaceHugger

On the topic of the "Super Facehugger", I thought that the escape pod scene in Alien 3 showed two distinct opened eggs, which means one for Ripley and one for the dog. Or am I adding something that isn't there? --Tim 17:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I only remember one egg - I'm not willing to subject myself to Alien 3 again to check, however. Since most of the conjecture around the 'super facehugger' involves the presence of only one egg on the lifeboat, I think it's safe to assume there was only one or conjecture wouldn't be so widespread as to how exactly it happened. --Drago 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, just because one egg was seen on screen doesn't mean it's the only egg that was onboard... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.197.103 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This difently needs fixed, there WERE two open eggs shown onboard the Sulaco during the opening of Alien 3. We see one on Ripley's face (note: its an ordinary one, not a "super facehugger"), thus it would have died shortly afterward. The other hugger found its host in the prisoner's dog. Remember the super facehugger never really existed in canon (ie it was never shown or hinted at in the films themselves) - even the Quadrilogys WORKPRINT edit doesn't count. When they did the Alien 3 reshoots, they took out the super facehugger idea and went with the Queen from Aliens leaving two eggs on board the Sulaco - hence the two face huggers we see. --Parjay 17:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Queen

In the original movie Alien, the single normal Xeno was laying eggs and capturing the human characters in preparation. I have heard that these eggs contained queen facehuggers. When an adult Xenomorph is away from the queen for an extended period of time, it will lay eggs containing "Queen Facehuggers" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plato1984 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no evidence in the original film that the Alien was LAYING eggs. In the directors cut we see that the Alien has cocooned brett and he is almost turned INTO an egg - not the same as laying eggs. Same goes for "eggs contained queen facehuggers". You have no evidence to support any of that. --Parjay 23:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Its all just speculation as there is no real evidence. --_-M ^o P-_ 23:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Alien king

I know they are like bugs but there might be a alien king that make queens or was the orgin of the aliens and it may happean if the hive survies 1 year because in the movies and comics and games they last 1 day or week or month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.91.166 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

They also might turn into purple happy daisies after one year and sing songs about love and happiness. But like the idea of an Alien king, that is total speculation and completely undemonstrated. --Xihr 00:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

An Alien King appeared in a few drafts of Alien 3, but thats about it. All non-canonical anyhow. --Parjay 00:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if there WAS an Alien King, he would pale in comparison to the queen like in so many, parasitic or not, insect species....Most like termites, actually. --Centurion Ry 12:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there is an Alien king. like in insect colonies, drones that mate with the Queen --Sheep 15:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Spitting Acid

I'm pretty sure that in Alien 3 the alien spits acid in the face of that one inmate that fell into the ventilation fan? --Dak 23:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It also happened in Alien Resurection.The Alien spits acid at the black guy when climbing the ladder after the trap.I could be wrong about the scene,but I know its in Alien 4. --40k carnage 22:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of #Homeworld Speculation and #Trivia

I removed those section because noting is cited to back them up, and is therefore original research. --Iolakana|^T 19:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Body shape

The body shape needs work, right now it's backwards (the aliens got more svelte as the films progressed, not the other way around) --Beowulph 02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no: Suit-wise, the original creature was thinner than the later versions because A) In the later movies the actors in the suits weren't as slim as Bolaji, as they were mostly stunt-men B) In the A:R design, ridges and fins were added to help their look underwater C) In AvP, bits were 'beefed up' to make the Alien look more impressive against the Predator, like the hands. The sternum was also stretched out, and while it SEEMED slimmer, it was really kind'a fat.

From an effects stand-point, the Alien 3 creature takes the cake at being the most svelt while in rod-puppet form. The CGI versions of A:R (seem to be) leaner, but in AvP they look about the same as their suit counterparts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.150.33 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Latin names?

The article lists two alternate scientific, Latin names for the species: Internecivus raptus and Linguafoeda acheronsis. Could someone please also add translations for these names (assuming they actually mean something in Latin). --SpectrumDT 19:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Although my Latin&Greek are weak, so there are likely more accurate translations. There is some evidence that encephalopod is archaic for cephalopod - can someone confirm this? [1] --Vagary 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead

With Jason Palpatine changing the lead image, I want to argue against it. I prefer the old image, which shows an adult alien snarling in Alien vs. Predator. The image up there now should probably go into a "Concept and Creation" section, once it is created. Anyone agree? --Dark Kubrick 00:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The new image is notable, perhaps; but it belongs in, as you say, a "Concept and creation" section, with the old image, or at least AN image from one of the films, taking the lead. I'd actually like to see such a "concept" section containing side-by-side images of the development of the creatures from one film to the next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porlob (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the image, I've been writing a new lead to cut out most of the unorganization and in-universe perspective that clutters the entire article. Unfortunately I haven't yet seen Alien: Resurrection, so I'm not entirely sure the lead is accurate. If people want to check out my Personal Sandbox and offer suggestions, that'd be great. --Dark Kubrick 19:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No one has said anything, so I'm posting it. If you have problems, put them here. --Dark Kubrick 23:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn';t know about this until now. The pic is good, but I felt Giger's art was the more beautiful image than the pic from AvP. Will write more later. --Jason Palpatine 20:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean by beautiful, but since the xenomorphs' main media appearances were the films, then a film image would best show them. Giger's art is important, but not right for the lead. --Dark Kubrick 20:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think there are better choices that could have been used if using a Giger. But If using a movie photo is important, and one also prefers using something by Giger, an image from the original movie would do just as well. --Trakon 23:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming and origins of each?

It seems just as other widespread icons have multiple names, so should the Alien. Gandalf, Santa Claus, Bruce Lee, they are but a few examples of characters and historical figures who had alias. It may just prove useful to different groups of people, as many average movie goers are unlikely to call the creature "Alien" or "Xenomorph," as the former will possibly remind them of Greys and the latter will only confuse them. It also seems like one of the reasons presented for keeping the name of the article AS IS is to avoid tedious relinking from other pages on wikipedia. So it would seem that depending on the context, just as with Santa Claus or Father Christmas, knowledge of a different name may be helpful. I will leave it up to others for now to make the edit, but soon I may compile a more complete list along with the origins and context for each.

• Starbeast (name in original script, virtually unknown)
• Alien (as the title of the first movie, though considered too ambiguous)
• Giger's Alien (as it is called in the book of the same name and among artists)
• Xenomorph (coined in the second movie, a more "technical" usage, though unpopular to some and unknown to many others)
• Bug (from the second movie, slang usage, though many spinoff creatures since have used the same word)
• Dragon (from the third movie, not as popular as the ambiguity is just as confusing as "Alien" itself)
• [any of the number of Latin names]
• [etc]

However, it may be wiser to simply make a separate page with information on the naming issue (as for example here List of names of Odin is separate from Odin). --Trakon 09:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This would be different from List of non-canon castes from the Alien films in that it would a list of names for the creature, not a list of the varying types of the creature. --Trakon 10:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad this is being brought up. I'm wondering how people might actually find this article if they simply want to know more about the alien, and they might not have seen Aliens. Of the names you listed, Giger's Alien seems best, but I'm still unsure. --Dark Kubrick 10:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

These are the two Latin names, though I am not personally familiar with their origins (I should probably read the entire Xenomorph discussion to find out). Anyone who wants to clarify for me should add to them.

• Internecivus raptus
• Linguafoeda acheronsis

--Trakon 00:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

New page created Giger's Alien. --Trakon 00:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

Even though the article passes everything, the article doesn't comform with writing about fiction, especially the Characteristics and Queen section. An example of how to change that is sentence This embryo may take on some of the host's ... could be changed to According to scene blahblah of the movie Alien, This embryo may take on some of the host's ..., which gives it a out of universe style. --Lincher 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I never expected this to pass GA (which is why I'm not the one who nominated it.) The article is full of cruft, POV, original research and a heavy in-universe perspective. I'm currently working on correcting this, moslty practicing in my personal sandbox, but if anyone can help provide information from the comics, books, and video games (providing specific titles and whatnot) that would be great. --Dark Kubrick 17:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Alien variation

Anyone have a good image of the dog alien and newborn alien for the "Variations" section? --Mgiganteus1 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Parasitoid, not parasite

Actually you will find that the larval form is not a true parasite - it is a Parasitoid. Parasitoids kill their hosts eventually to complete their life cycle, but parasites do not kill their hosts directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.230.65 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Senses of the Creature

I am about to edit the following line from a recent edit to the article because it has several points that are incorrect. "However, as despicted in the aliens versus predator games, the aliens clearly see in any kind of light, and detect it's prey using pheromons, much like a colorful aura around the body." I will assume that "any kind of light" refers to optical light that humans can see, not anything beyond such as infrared or x-ray. Newt probably would have been caught if they say IR. And living next to "what is basically one big fusion reactor" probably would have upset the other.

I am going to leave the mention of the pheromones because that is aside from the point. It is possible the aliens perceive pheromones as sight, which would explain their lack of eyes.

First I will note the reference to a VIDEO game. Of course the player is going to be able to see, but that does not mean that the creature itself sees. In Daredevil for PS2 the player sometimes plays seeing normally or "seeing" the sonaresque vision. In fact, the predator in AvP games has a vision mode for optical light, but I am unaware of the predator ever being able to see anything other than its natural perception as seen in the first movie in the end fight OR anything that the predator's mask enhances. Either way, a video game presenting video for a player is not a valid reference for the creature to be able to see the same light, if any, that human beings can.

Now it is true that in the game the player can basically either use normal light to perceive gameplay or a light enhancing black and white negative for use in low light situations. This is probably just the biproduct of programmers using some of the same code as they did for the predator (switching from one vision mode to another). Remaining true to the video game also suggests another issue that if the aliens can see in two different modes, how do they switch between them or do they always perceive both? If they have two modes of sight and they can switch from one to the other what do the aliens use to see? They have no eyes! And even if they can see and they always perceive both, the video game is limiting the actual experience of what it is like to be a xenomorph and therefore the game is not a good example. And most video games are not good examples of true experience which is why they should not automatically have credibility. --Trakon 09:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerning changes to the article

The recent edit that added the line "It is known that the host of a queen embryo is able to be recognized as a VIP Drone and Warrior Xenomorphs and given deference." not only is passive voice, but it reads like a run-on sentence. I think I know what it's trying to say, but it needs to be changed. Is this more accurate?: "Xenomorphs can distinguish between the host of a queen as opposed to that of a host who carries another caste. Drones and Warriors will view the host of a queen as a VIP, giving the host deference." --Trakon 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Alien 3 super facehugger debacle

This page needs sorting out in regard to the handling of the super facehugger (which is non canocial by the way) in Alien 3, and thus two facehuggers. Note 12 reads how one face hugger implants first Ripley and then later the dog - this COMPLETELY wrong - there are TWO OPEN EGGS shown at the start of Alien 3. One implants Ripley, the other comes down on the eev to implant the dog. Someone removed this incorrect note yesterday, but some member has reverted it back without checking the facts (sigh). Its also worth noting that hardly any of the notes are linked correctly in the article. --Parjay 21:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No, because if there was two eggs, then there would be no need for the superfacehugger. I know, I think it should be converted to the <ref> </ref> format. --Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You aren't following ... In the film there ARE two eggs, there's no IF. The super facehugger doesn't appear; its non-canon. Check the facts - when they reshot some of the film, they decided to go with the two eggs on the sulaco and two facehuggers and got rid of the superfacehugger which emplanted an alien into another animal - they reshot and made it a dog instead. --Parjay 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Whats wierd here is that it said the Superfacehugger can't impregnate humans.How does it impregnate Ripley then????Help? --40k carnage 00:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Kilo-Lima, your argument begs the question. Besides, even if there were a thing called the superfacehugger in the movie, it doesn't mean that another regular facehugger could not have been there as well. Anyway, someone just readded a section on the superfacehugger, claiming that it is in Alien 3. I know that there are a handful of people who believe this is the case, however, there are also plenty of us who see it as speculation and fanfiction. In the movie it is never referred to as a superfacehugger, nor does it appear different. Someone enlighten me. --Trakon 01:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-Canon castes

Has any one noticed how little attention has been given to the page now that it is seperate? There are many other castes in the novels, books, comics, and even cut material like Operation: Aliens, and those albino drones in Aliens. that article could do well with pictures and at least a mention of the queen mother. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.151.111.43 (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

"Scientific" name

In the Alien Quadriligy, the menu of Aliens lists the scientific name of the xenomorph as "Internecivus-Raptus". [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beowulph (talk • contribs) 03:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I have included it in the opening sentence. --^KILO-_LIMA 18:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This was already in there, as was the other binominal scientific name from the comics, and there was no need to remove it). Regardless of how it is displayed in the opening credits, the proper way to write the genus and species in binomial scientific notation is italicized with the first word (genus) first-letter capitalized and the second word (species) not capitalized. Hence the proper form is Internecivus raptus, as it was already displayed in the text. The fact that the DVD screenshot show it as hyphenated does not make a difference here; after all, it also shows it in all caps, do you think that's correct too just for the sake that you saw it in a screenshot? --Xihr 00:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The other name (from the comic books) is Linguafoeda acheronsis. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That, too, was clearly indicated in the section he deleted. Welcome to why no one trusts Wikipedia. --Xihr 07:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, would you like to add it in yourself? You have the ability to edit the page. --^KILO-_LIMA 19:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I already did add it, as did those who pointed out the other scientific name from the comic books. You're the one who reedited it to make it incorrect, and removed the comic book version. --Xihr 22:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The scientific name, according to the FAC, should not be added becuase "there is no scientific terminology for such a "species", because scientific taxonomy is not concerned with fictional beings". --Kilo-Lima ^{Vous pouvez parler} 21:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest making a "Trivia" section for this article and placing it under there? --Beowulph 23:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but do you have any other trivia, too? --Kilo-Lima ^{Vous pouvez parler} 17:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's tricky to make trivia sections for fictional characters. Every detail about them is trivia, after all. I think the best thing to do is to add it somewhere in the article (but not the introduction), making careful note that this is the scientific name in that fictional universe. --Kafziel 19:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the difficulty with keeping the binominal names intact? The one given in the DVD quadrilogy is Internecivus raptus; the one given in the comic books is Linguafoeda acheronsis. When in the binominal form, the first word (genus) is capitalized, the second word (species) is not. Both are in italics. Why is this so hard to maintain intact? This is the FIFTH time I've had to restore it. --Xihr 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

@Kilo Lima: That makes no sense though. There are canon sources which refer to it under such and such name, therefore, it should be noted as such. Unless we're talking about a taxobox or something very close to it, I have idea where you're getting the justification for not "adding" the canonical "scientific name". After all, that's a verifiable detail, an encylopedic detail. To not include it at all (which is exactly what the statement of yours actually says, Kilo-Lima) seems ridiculous. Just don't put it in a taxobox. Sheesh. Otherwise, you might as well say we shouldn't even have articles on them at all, because they're not real outside of fiction. --4.238.8.12 21:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh...is the queen mating thing canon?

I've noticed in this article that it mentions that the queen mates with the most "worthy" male...of course after killing the other males in battle and being attacked by the queen...and then she eats him. However, this idea of the Xenomorph queen going through such a brutal mating process only exists in the novels and not within the canon of the film. Perhaps it would be best if someone were to state that the mating events stated in the novel are not within the canon of the film series. --24.111.137.236 03:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

agreed I'll try and clean that up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.237.27.211 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Facehuggers and the Double-jaw.

Fetishistic symbols right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.144.1.251 (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Ehhh... you could say that, that's certainly how giger designed them. Just take a look at some of Giger's other work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.132.101 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

the predator connection

Maybe i'm just off my head, but the origins of the species here are noted as being ambiguous, although I gathered from AVP that the Xenomorphs had been specifically engineered by the Preds in order to supply themselves with suitable sport, an opponent worthy o thier vaunted skill in hunting. Let me know if I'm wrong on this one, but I defintiely thing the article might do well explore this in some capacity, if not as progenators than at least as selective breeders. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 214.13.199.183 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

that is only on the alien vs. predator franchice, this covers only the first 4 alien movies and related media, and only that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.151.111.43 (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

No where in AVP says that preds engineered Xenomorphs the movie said they brot them to earth to hunt them and used humens as hosts to breed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.92.128 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Case?

Shouldn't it be Xenomorph (with a capital 'X') in every instance? It's a proper noun, not a common noun..or is it? --Lucien the Librarian 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It was me who changed everythign from Xenomorph to xenomorph. I think it's best in lower-case becuase we don't say Cat or Elephant, do we? --^KILO-_LIMA<;/sub> 20:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, but then cat and dog are not artificial terms, coined by some character from a sci-fi movie, aren't they? They're pretty normal run-of-the-mill nouns. So please allow me to disagree. But: If nobody else seconds this notion, I'll accept that. Cheers. --Lucien the Librarian 20:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I only capitalize it when it starts a sentence, myself. Xenomorph isn't a particular creature - Just as Kilo-Lima pointed out, it's a generic name for all creatures of the species and no more needs capitalization than 'cat' or 'dog'. --Drago 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Do a google search. Go to the bookstore. Xenomorph, whether first coined (rocks aside) for said creature or not, is used by several other types of aliens. And I see no trademark. Since we're writing in English I'm going to change all (to match the ones that are) to lower case (aside from sentence starters). Besides, someone invented unicorns at one point, but we only capitalize Charlie. --Trakon 02:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A user at 68.220.142.12 has reverted some of the capitalizations. This is why it is so hard to work with this article. I believe the majority consensus and reasoning here was to make the xenomorph lower case. And even if someone disagrees with that and wants to capitalize them, the least they could do is to be consistent. --Trakon 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Skeletal Structure

The out of universe reasons aside, the aliens have a membrane that covers the top of their head. In Aliens the membrane is missing and is usually described as something that happens to the beast as it gets older. That said, the aliens have at least some endoskeletal ridges on the top of their heads. The aliens also shed their skin as they grow up from being a chestburster to an adult. So the trend is that it is becoming less and less endoskeletal. But as with amphibians, one should note that there are times when a frog breathes water and times when it breathes air. To say the frog only breathes one thing would not be entirely accurate. So it is with the alien and its skin. --Trakon 01:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Implantation of Chestburster

I think the claim that the chestburster is in fact the "tube" inserted into the host which then consumes the facehugger is a bizarre conjecture. In Alien, when Kane is being examined while the facehugger is attached, there is an apparent spherical object which has been implanted by the facehugger, just before, an egg probably or an undifferentiated embryo. This object is seen briefly before Ash, appear to hide it by moving the scanner when Dallas enters the room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.0.101.131 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Species Name

Well, in the beginning of the page, it lists two species name, one from the DVD Box set and one from the comics. The one from the comics should be removed since the box set one should be canon and the other one is guranteed not to be canon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.81.46.30 (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the comics have lesser credibility of being canonical. But I don't feel right with the box set. I do not believe that anything that makes up a word (quadrilogy, that's like Spanglish, but it's... Latreek) when one already exists (tetralogy) should be considered absolutely credible when it comes to naming something. Obviously in both cases, the person(s) who put together the box set were not well enough familiar with the beast or the English language (or Greek, rather). So are DVD box sets necessarily canon? Should we count movie posters, too? Maybe it's all advertising. Maybe neither name is canonical. --Trakon 04:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

References (2)

Does anyone have a copy of the USCM tech manual? That has some information on the xenomorph and is considered near-canon; it would make a good reference. --Beowulph 20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I found it after a quick Googling. I found it here - it seems to be heavily copied from WP. Is this the correct one: Aliens Colonial Marines Technical Manual, HarperCollins 1996, ISBN 0061053430? This might be useful too. Thanks, ^KILO-_LIMA 21:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The 1st URL linked there is a copy of our existing article. The second one is indeed the tech-manual. --Beowulph 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I managed to find my old copy of the Tech-manual and will paste some text from it regarding the Xenomorph here. Since it's a direct copy, it's only for reference and will have to be deleted once it's been properly incorporated into the article. --Beowulph 21:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Not that I dislike xenomorph.org, but how can it be considered a reliable source when the page has broken links and is five years behind in maintenance? I know this is not a dissertation, but I say this site should be moved from References (which should be formal) to a See Also section. --Trakon 04:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Inflection

There is a lot to say, and I have a wrapper for it in a small, equivocal joke. I'm not going to force people to chew with their mouths closed, but if someone is going to change a word simply based on personal preference it is not necessary to make fun of whoever it was who originally wrote the word down. I am referring to a recent edit by a user who changed "genetical" to "genetic." Both of them are words. Not that I am necessarily for or against the death penalty, for example, but governments usually kill people for a reason. Randomly throwing out words that could be seen as derogatory is not proper without some reason (I think aggravation is one of the few that would be accepted). "[R]emoved some retarded conjugation" is not really a reason so much as it is a way to make oneself look smarter at the cost of someone else. Maybe using "genetic" is a better word choice, but according to the fifth edition Oxford dictionary (as well as many others), "genetical" is synonymous. Further, as an example, I think "inflection" might be better word choice over "conjugation." Another word that gets thrown around with similar inflections is "canonical" and "canonic." For the purpose of the xenomorph (alien) article, maybe we should all arbitrarily agree on one form or the other, or maybe we should disambiguate between the two forms of the adjective ("canon" being the noun, and "canonically" being the adverb, and thanks to willy shakespere). --Trakon 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize complete. I did not intend to insult anyone, but I ended up looking stupid nontheless. The phrasing looked funny to me and in haste I changed genetical to genetic and put up a foolish summary. I am probably getting sarcastic from spending too much time in AfD debates, so please accept my apologizes for being a jerk. However aside from the inappropriate and "retarded" edit summary I used, I will stand by my edit. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Adult Aliens weak against fire?

I noticed that the article says: "Xenomorphs, in all stages of their life cycles, have shown vulnerabilities to heat, such as fire and flamethrowers" When we have yet to see what a flamethrower, for example, would do to an adult Alien who could survive a bath in molten/boiling lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.142.132 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

They're definitely afraid of fire that's for sure. The weakness against fire might be true and is definitely true in the games at least along with their fear of fire. Lee Bricombe Wood's Aliens Technical Manual states that the acid blood is supposed to be a medium for electric potential in the aliens. Perhaps using fire on an Alien is like throwing a battery into a fire. --147.144.1.251 21:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In the first and third films fire is used as a weapon against an adult alien. In Alien it's mostly because it's the only weapon they have available, but it seems to deter it. In Alien 3 Ripley mentions that fire worked for her against an alien before, and the characters use a fire created with flammable liquids to force the alien into a containment chamber. So yes, I think it's safe to say that they have some vulnerability to, or fear of, fire and flame. --IllaZilla 06:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Alien Acid Description is Inaccurate

I'm not sure if anybody who wrote the parts about alien acid actuallly took chemistry in the past, but there's no real life analogue of such strong acid. There's not a chance in he** that that acid is hydrofluoric acid, which, incidentally isn't even one of the 7 strong mineral acids. Nor could the acid be sulfuric or for that matter, any other acid known to man. Lets keep the lovely pseudoscience separate from the real science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.208.105 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

the above statment may be true but you must bare in mind that a xenomorth is a alien life form so the facts on earth may not apply to the alien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.23.116.11 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, person #2? Person #1 there has a point. You don't, unfortunately, probably because you either failed to really read the other post, or failed chemistry/physics. Chemical reactions indeed take place at different rates given different conditions, but the environmental conditions under which the known acids work are well-known, as are their reactions, which are considerably weaker than the ones produced by the chemicals contained in the "xenomorph" bodies. You say "you must [bear] in mind that... facts on earth may not apply to the alien", yet, did you even read what they said? Do you not realize, too, that specific chemical formulas are what they are, and thus, the acid would be same if it featured the exact same chemical composition (and if it did NOT contain the exact same chemical composition, that would mean it isn't the same acid!) Person #1 there merely said that it can't be a known type of acid, literally stating that it is "[not] hydroflouric acid... [n]or could the acid be sulfuric... or any other acid known to man." I don't see why you can't agree with Person #1, as he/she is right to say that it can't be any acid known to man, since it is very obviously MUCH stronger. Therefore, while obviously either an acid or a base, it is simply an unknown type of acid. The facts are simple - if it's described as an acid that is known today, then the film or material that states such is wrong and this article should note as much; if it's NOT described as a specific acid, then put simply we cannot, in the name of accuracy, name it as any specific acid, and at this point can only say "it is much stronger than any acid currently known today." (or some close variation of that) --4.238.8.12 20:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Could be an allotrope of hydroflouric acid. I'm probably the first one to mention that and I was just quoting Lee Bricombe Wood's book. --147.144.1.251 21:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that we're discussing a work of fiction. Discussion of how "realistic" the alien's acid may or may not be is about as appropriate as discussing whether lightsabers can actually be made. In other words, inappropriate and pointless. It should be addressed in the article as simply a "very strong acid" or some such ambiguous phrase. --IllaZilla 06:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Archived old discussions: April 3, 2007

This talk page was very long and many of the discussions were outdated, so I archived it at Talk:Xenomorph (Alien)/Archive 1 so we can continue with fresh discussions. --IllaZilla 02:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Article structure

I think the overall structure of the article is rather lacking. Basically I think we should follow the precedent set by other articles describing fictional characters, such as Spider-Man. Have a look at the overall format. There's a nice infobox, a history of the character's publication and appearances in various works, then it gets into the fictional character history/biography/etc. That's the way we should structure this article: by talking about the reality of the creature's creation (concept, design, special effects) and its use in the films (the main media in which the creature appears), then discussing its use/interpretations in other media, followed by the fictionalized descriptions of its physiology, etc. Plus I just think that infoboxes are very helpful and simplify things for a reader. I'd get to making one, but I have other commitments right now so it'll have to be later. But if anyone else wants to get the ball rolling, please have at it. --IllaZilla 02:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Spider-Man isn't the best example because he's primarily a print rather than film character, so here are some other good examples of articles about characters in film and television: Homer Simpson, The Doctor, and Spock. The overall structure of the Spock article is pretty good. --IllaZilla 03:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

More good guidelines we should follow in improving the article: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IllaZilla (talk • contribs) 04:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

references in popular culture

SHouldn't there be a section for pop culture references? Or is it on another page, like for Alien itself? either way, don't forget Aylee from Sluggy Freelance. --Mathwhiz90601 05:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The alien is part of popular culture. It's a movie character. And it's pointless to list references to it in numerous other areas of pop culture, unless the reference is definitely notable in its own right. Anyway, I'm pretty sure it would fall under WP:NOT#IINFO. --IllaZilla 08:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I've been working on the creation of an infobox template for "Fictional alien races" or "Fictional alien species" that could be used for this article, for the Predator, and probably for others. Here's what I've come up with so far: {{Star Trek race|if= |bgcolor=#90ee90 |Name=Xenomorph |Image=NonFreeImageRemoved.svg‎ |Caption=An Alien as portrayed in the film ''[[Alien vs. Predator (film)|Alien vs. Predator]]'' ([[2004]]) |Founded= |Founder= |Leader=Unknown. Groups of Aliens are usually led by a Queen |Planet=Unknown. First encountered in the film series on [[LV-426]] in ''[[Alien (film)|Alien]]'' ([[1979]]). Later portrayed in ''[[Alien vs. Predator (film)|Alien vs. Predator]]'' ([[2004]]) as having been present on [[Earth]] as early as prehistoric times. |Capital= |BaseOperations=Mobile |Language=Unknown. Sometimes portrayed in non-canon media as using [[Animal echolocation|echolocation]] and communicating via high-frequency sound waves. |Currency= |Flagship= |Affiliation=Unknown. Portrayed in almost all media as inherently hostile towards nearly all other forms of life. }} Now, this uses a Star Trek template that I simply copied. I'm not a technical person and I have no idea how to create a new template for an infobox, nor how to create an independent infobox, and the pages on infoboxes don't seem to give any instruction. This box in its current form shouldn't be kept because it uses a Star Trek template and needs a template of its own to be created. It would be excellent if someone with technical knowledge could help with this, as I seem to have hit a dead end. Thoughts? --IllaZilla 06:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Although I'm not an editor of this article, I would put it in though. --Quadzilla99 14:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the species

The idea that Xenomorphs were created by the Space Jockeys comes from fan-fiction, not literature. I've edited the page. I'd also like to point out that the term "Space Jockeys" is fan-made. In official sources the term "Space Jockey was always singular and referred to the individual. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.215.130.98 (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

I went ahead and cleaned up the section and removed the Queen section as it appeared to be entirely fan speculation. The space jokey bit is straight out of the DVD commentary so I think it is fine. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In the DVD commentary Ridley Scott says that the alien eggs were used as biological weapons by the Space Jockey's race. He doesn't say they were created by the Space Jockey's race. Or am I mistaken? --218.215.130.98 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I'm actually not sure, I would have to check. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your changes. I also think that we should eliminate the term "Space Jockey" as much as possible, since it's never mentioned in the films. It's just a nameless, mysterious alien. I seem to recall Ridley Scott using the term later in the commentary included in the Alien Quadrilogy set, in which case it might be appropriate to mention it in this capacity, inasmuch as it was a term used by the production team (possibly after the fact) to identify the nameless creature. Regardless, I think that in all cases we should strive to avoid using neologisms or fan-created terms, even if they are widely used & accepted, unless they are attributable to a reliable source. This would include terms like "The Derelict," the names of most of the "castes" such as "Praetorian" and "Pred-alien" unless they are specifically labeled that in the video games & other tertiary source material, and to a lesser extent terms like "Facehugger" and "Chestburster" unless these are the terms the directors and other production staff used to refer to them. Not to resurrect an old argument, but I also disapprove of using the term "Xenomorph" as a designation for the Alien creatures, since they are only referred to as this once in the entire series and the designation is quickly dismissed by the other characters, whereas Ripley refers to it/them as "an Alien"/"Aliens" several times in the series (Aliens & Alien 3, most notably). --IllaZilla 03:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The terms 'Pilot' and 'Space Jockey' are official since they were mentioned in the director's commentary and production documentaries. However they were always singular, never plural. I suggest we change 'Space Jockeys' to 'Space Jockey's race'. The term Xenomorph was used as the official name of the alien species in the novel Aliens DNA War. It even had a capital X. --218.215.130.98 03:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine if we can cite that it is referred to as this by the production team, but the fact is that the term is never actually used in the film. So what we ought to do is mention, with a reference, that the production team referred to the creature as the "Space Jockey" and mention Ridley Scott's postulations about the creature's possible connection to the Aliens. Leave it at that. There's no need to expound on the subject or use the term repeatedly throughout the article as it only applies to a single scene in a series of 5 films that we're trying to synthesize here (not including the creature's appearances in secondary & tertiary media). --IllaZilla 03:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As to your addition about "Xenomorph," the novel is at best a secondary source and its status as canon in the overall series is questionable. We really need to have a separate discussion about what is considered canon in this series of media, but briefly I would suggest that it goes:

1. The films (including AVP & excluding deleted scenes)
2. Officially licensed comic books & novels
3. Video games
4. Everything else

Deleted scenes and director/production team commentary are certainly worth including in an encyclopedic discussion of the films, but the theatrical releases of the films have priority over everything else as far as canoninity is concerned. Director's Cuts, extended editions, etc. should be discussed, but not explicity implied as canon since sequels are based on theatrical releases and not on deleted scenes. -IllaZilla 04:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Titled Origin of the Species? Well, anyway, I seem to recall that Ripley does call it a xenomorph in the assembly cut of Alien 3. And to digress, concerning the capitalization (in that movie), I'm not so sure if we can count on 85's capitalization one way or another (assuming the font he was typing to the company in was case sensitive). I mean, there are a few things working against him both in why he was called 85 and both a fictional and temporal separation gap (there are differing versions of English here and now in the real world). And as far as an out-of-universe reason for capitalizing the X... does anyone here have any idea how hard it is to find a species (not a genus) spelled upper case? Dogs are... oops, the beginning of a sentence. Okay what about humans? Ah man... rip off.

Also, I'm fairly confident that the artists who worked on the movies used terms such as "chestburster," "facehugger," and "space jockey." I seem to recall watching an interview on the Quadrilogy about why it was a "chestburster" and not just a "stomachbuster." They wanted it to be more violent in nature.

Another thing... I do not understand how an official novel can be a secondary source and how its canonical status can be questionable unless there has been some official reason to consider it as such. It makes sense that there could be different canons for each set of films, books, comic books, video games, etc. And it also makes sense that there could be typographical errors in the printing of a novel. So until there is some official reason for us to question it, anything that comes from the different forms of media centered on the alien is not at best a secondary source, but rather typographical error at worst.

There are a lot of passionate and inaccurate statements being made in the above discussions. That is fine for a talk page, but make sure you leave it out of the article. We all know that we need sources to prove things to be article worthy. I'm just saying this because I am not a fan of the method of accusation so much as I am of inquisition. --Trakon 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You raise some good points. What I was trying to get at is that the article uses all of these terms (xenomorph, chestburster, space jockey, etc.) primarily in an in-universe style (the fact that the article's now been tagged speaks to this). If we're going to use terminology like that in the article, especially ones like "space jockey" which are never actually used in the films, we need to explain how/why the production team came up with the nickname for it and then provide a reference for it. As to the novel, I haven't read it, but my basis for placing it and the comics second as far as continuity is that, even though it is officially licensed, this franchise is primarily a film franchise. It originated with movies and they are its primary form of media, so if some plot element in one of the films or future sequels contradicts something in the books or comics, the films take precedence as far as canoninity. As an example, I believe there was an officially licensed comic released after Aliens which had Ripley, Newt, and Hicks revived and battling more aliens years after the events of the film. Yet when Alien 3 came out, which was set immediately after Aliens, the Newt & Hicks characters were killed off in the first scene. Now, I agree with what you're saying that each set of media sort of has its own set of canon, and we should certainly present as much of this as we can in the article, but again this is primarily a film franchise and, inasmuch as this article is about the alien creature itself, we should focus on how it is portrayed in the films and then discuss the other "secondary" media in separate sections. --IllaZilla 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about Trakon. When I mention that the novel Aliens DNA War uses a capital X for Xenomorph I wasn't complaining about a typo. A capital letter implies an official name while a small letter could be just a nickname. Another thing, the terms 'facehugger' and 'chestburster' have been used in-universe although not in any of the movies. They were coined by Ash in his report to the Bio-Weapons Division. This report is on the Alien DVD. My belief is that novels, comics and games should only be considered canon if they are consistent with the movies. If not, then they should be ignored entirely. Most comics and novels have been contradicted by Alien Resurrection but some haven't. --218.215.145.17 04:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not responding to just what you were talking about, but to everything that had been said so far. --Trakon 06:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

←I agree with IllaZilla on the "Xenomorph" species name usage - "Alien" (capitalized) should suffice to refer to the creatures (as in the movies), while "Xenomorph" carries a taxonomic denomination implication... (cfr. "Offensive/Defensive behavior" and "Miscellaneous" sections).
I also propose, for similar reasons, to change the article name to "Alien (fictitious creature)" while waiting for a definitive solution, since it is the "name" used for the creatures in the movies, and more easily searched for by someone curious about the movies et al. I'm sort of new, here, and don't know what kind of responsability it carries. Another idea (to keep the existing links, to be slowly corrected) is to have a "Xenomorph (Alien)" page that would redirect to the "Alien (fictitious creature)" page. --David Be 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Scott does say eggs were used as weapons, and doesn't say the Aliens were created by the Space Jockey's race. --David Be 20:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some corrections on the "Origins" section based on watching A1 and listening to the commentary. I also cleaned up that section and the two following, using present tense to stress it's "fiction-facts " the article deals with rather than "reality-truths", and eliminating fan-based speculation and theories. --David Be 23:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not Needed

Anyone notice lots of information on this page could, and should be transferred to my little pet project about uncannon castes? --68.89.164.98 02:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

I put in a parenthetical citing an episode of inter-species communication - in "Aliens". I also suggest not to use the term "xenomorph" because of its more general possible usage, but to use the term "Alien" because of its immediate recognizability among non-movie-familiar readers (cfr. the parenthetical in "Offensive/Defensive behavior") --David Be 03:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re the alien's senses (in light of the mention of the lack of eyes); in the novelisation of the original film Alien, I seem to recall the creature is described as posessing its own 'motion detection' sense. Novel written by Alan Dean Foster I believe. --Brennan1 00:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edit

My edit was completely relevant, and was not "fan speculation" it is clearly visible in the cannon material if one watches the movie. And it is paired with an intelligent example of the principle. If this is insufficient mark it with a "need citation" tag and I'll upload a photo if that's that it takes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klauth (talk • contribs) 02:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the Cocoon Scene canon?

Should we consider canonical the scene where Ripley finds Brett and Dallas cocooned and apparently mutating into eggs? If so then we should put more information about it, perhaps an image of the Brett-egg. I think it's plausible that an alien warrior can turn its prey into eggs when there's no Queen around, similar to how a laying worker bee can develop in a bee hive. Another theory is that this is vestigial remnant of a reproductive method the alien species had before they evolved Queens and that it doesn't work properly anymore. Another question is why Ripley didn't know where eggs come from in Aliens. Is it possible that she didn't realize Brett was turning into an egg? Is it possible that she forgot? --218.215.130.98 01:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted scenes are not canonical. Also, as I recall there is no mention that the 2 encased characters were "mutating into eggs" or anything of the sort (unless it was mentioned in the director commentary, which I haven't listened to in a couple of years). It's just as likely (if not more so) that they were being cocooned so that they could be implanted by facehuggers, as the Aliens did to the colonists in Aliens, to the scientists in Alien Resurrection, and to the exploration team in Alien vs. Predator. Or just that they were being stored to be eaten later. As to your Ripley question, the scene was deleted and wasn't ever officially shown until the "Director's Cut" included in the Alien Quadrilogy set in 2003, 24 years after the original film was shown in theaters. Therfore it's perfectly acceptable that Ripley has no idea where the eggs come from until she encounters the Queen in Aliens.

Of course, this is all speculation since the scene was deleted and is never explained. Therefore although it might be worth mentioning the scene in the Alien article, it doesn't deserve mentioning here as any discussion of ideas/theories on the subject would violate WP:ATT/WP:NOR. --IllaZilla 03:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that deleted scenes are not canon. But now that the cocoon scene has been included in the Director's Cut it is NO LONGER a deleted scene. So my question is whether or not it is consistent with Aliens. Watch the scene again. It can be argued that Dallas is simply stuck to the wall but Brett is definitely mutating into something that is either an egg or looks a lot like an egg. It is a lot bigger than an egg though. The visual evidence is fairly clear and the idea of denying it and assuming they were just stuck to the wall is a very uncommon interpretation. --218.215.130.98 03:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's been included in an altered version of the film released 24 years after the original doesn't make the scene canon. Sequels are based on theatrical releases, not deleted scenes. Since the scene we're referring to didn't exist in the original Alien, it wasn't used as a basis for scenes in Aliens and therefore exists outside the continuity of the films, making it non-canon. If you consider all deleted scenes that are later re-inserted into "special editions" of films as no longer being deleted, then you get into a storytelling nightmare as you have multiple versions of almost every film that often contradict one another (consider Star Wars...you'd have at least 4 versions of Episode IV alone!). You can't consider all later revisions of a film as carrying equal weight in the overall narrative. The original released version almost always take precedence as far as storytelling goes, especially since that is the version that sequels are based on, not later "special editions." The scene is still "deleted" from the theatrical release, which is the main source of continuity and canon. As for Brett "definitely mutating into something that is either an egg or looks a lot like an egg," that is speculation (whether it is a common interpretation or not), and falls under the description of original research. What we need to do here is review Ridley Scott's commentary on the scene and see what his intentions were for it, if any. Then we can adequately discuss them in the article with a reference. --IllaZilla 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please sign your posts by typing 4 tildes (~~~~). You can also do this by clicking on the signature button above the edit bar (next to the "No W" symbol) or clicking on the 4 tildes next to "Sign your username" just below and to the right of the "Save Page" button. --IllaZilla 04:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Director's Cut didn't exist until 2003 but now that it does exist, the cocoon scene has become well known and it may be referred to in future sequels. The Special Edition of Aliens wasn't shown in theatres but is widely considered canon nonetheless. In fact it came out on DVD first. When it comes to the Star Wars movies and Star Trek The Motion Picture, the latest versions are considered canon. When it comes to Alien, both the theatrical version and the Director's Cut were released on the same DVD so they are both the latest version. I think Alien The Director's Cut should be considered canon as long as it doesn't contradict the other movies. --218.215.130.98 04:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I too want to know what Ridley Scott says in the commentary for the Director's Cut. But this commentary is only available on the Region 1 DVD so I can't get it. I've asked about this on several forums but no one has answered. I've heard a rumour that Ridley Scott said the egg that Brett was turning into would have a queen facehugger in it. Can anyone here confirm this and give an exact quote? --218.215.130.98 05:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you that Star Wars is a completely different animal, since those films were re-released both in theaters and on video in several different versions. Also, with Alien we're dealing with sequels written by different writers and directed by different directors, versus Star Wars in which all the films were more or less Lucas' projects. However, I disagree with you that "the cocoon scene has become well known and it may be referred to in future sequels." Only those who have seen the Director's Cut will be aware of the scene, and this is a small fraction of the total number of people who have seen the theatrical version of Alien in theaters, on television, and on video since 1979. None of the 4 other films in the series have referenced it, and the issue of how the Alien's eggs are created was explained in Aliens via James Cameron's addition of the Queen, which is the plot device that has been used in all the films (and nearly all other media) since. I also disagree that the special edition is "widely considered canon." No other media in the Aliens series that I know of, whether films, books, comics, etc. references the scene or considers it canon (though I admit my knowledge is restricted mostly to the films). The Director's Cut has only been in place for 4 years. The original film has been in place for 28 years and has had 4 sequels and many secondary media based on it, without the inclusion of this scene. Remember, we're talking about sequels that are made by different directors, so they're not resorting (yet) to referring to each others' deleted scenes. But look, we're straying too far from topic here:

What we need is a consensus on how to incorporate deleted scenes and special editions into the articles. Let's take a look at how a featured article does it: Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope#Special Edition. They have a couple of short paragraphs which describe the later versions of the film and mention the most significant changes and other important aspects. Let's model our articles after that, and worry less about the canon status of particular deleted scenes. I think we ought to structure our articles around the stories presented in the original releases of the films, then discuss the special editions and other revisions in a later, concise section. --IllaZilla 05:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to watch/listen to the commentary right now but I'll get to it within the next few days & we'll discuss how to include it in the articles. However, I can virtually guarantee you that it doesn't make any mention of Queens or queen facehuggers, since the alien queen wasn't even invented until the sequel, by a different writing/creative team & director. --IllaZilla 05:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not there is an in-universe explanation for the "mutating into eggs" or not, that was at least the out-of-universe intent when they made the set. (Besides, Cameron's movie made the queen.)

Maybe the article needs to take an approach similar to genesis and the creation of Eve. I don't think it's our job as wikipedians to make judgments over what is canonical or not in a situation like this so much as it is our job to remain consistent on how to deal with the inconsistencies that arise when assembling an article. Or deal with it like the newborn. It was in the movie and it was another way for the aliens to reproduce. Was it canon or not, well that was not my decision (but I do think it was wikipedia's decision), but my opinion is that it was a poor story point. Anyway, what I'm eventually getting at is that whatever is decided, coolness or innovation and convenience should not be factors in the choice over whether or not it is canonical because it is not really our choice to make. --Trakon 22:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So what does Ridley Scott say on the commentary? I'm anxious to know. --218.215.145.17 04:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone on IMDB gave me a transcript of the relevant part of the commentary:

RIDLEY SCOTT: There is a marvellous panel of Gigers on the right, they have been beautifully done and we get teh fact that they are morphing, metamorphising changing into being consumed by whatever the aliens organism is...into an egg. Again that is beautiful its new very new no one has seen this kind of thing. It is one of the difficulties of going into this genre to think of something that is equally unique and it's difficult."

I've been told that the books 'The Book of Alien' and 'Giger's Alien' also mention that the intention was for the alien to turn people into eggs. I do agree that the theatrical versions are the highest canon but I think the Director's Cut should be used as evidence too if we decide that it doesn't contradict the other movies. There's a screenshot of the Brett cocoon on this page: [3] --218.215.137.20 10:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The cocoons and trapped humans were usually placed in the room or near the room in which the eggs were housed. Victims that are captured are saved to be pregnated later. The scene shows chestbursters erupting out of the cocooned victims indicating that an egg was placed in them. Not that they were mutating. They need live hosts to breed and the cocoon prepares the new facehugger' with hosts. Queen is never out of the loophole. They communicate to the hive and queen and if there is no queen the embryo mutates into a queen to reestablish the link. Even one facehugger can ensure the survival of the species. --132.79.7.15 14:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

1) The scene does not show any chestbursters at all. 2) This is all fan-theory, which is not what this page is for. See the talk page guidelines at the top. --IllaZilla 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

More VG Aliens

I added the Aliens from AVP (Arcade Game) into the list of Video Game Aliens. Is this a good idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.13.149 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That list could be put to a good use on the non-cannon page --71.143.133.89 01:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

about Drones

if you call workers as drones, how do you call males ? Even more there is no males a mentiontioned! In comarison in the artices Bee, Ant drones and workers are mentioned as different! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.54.250 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Offensive/defensive behavior

I put in a reference to the scene in "Alien: Resurrection" where two Aliens (not xenomorphs: I support the idea that "xenomorph" is a word that should be used to indicate ANY alien species differing from Man, as opposed to "anthromorphic" - in shape of Man) kill a third to escape a cell --David Be 03:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the third was only injured so they could escape. --Hyuuga-sama 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Super facehugger...original research?

OK the reference to the super facehugger confuses me. Is that implied or stated in the movies or do we have to jump to that conclusion because of what appears to be a hole in the plot? I could just as easily say the Alien Queen from part 2 carried two eggs with her hands onto the ship offscreen and that this explains how Ripley became infected by a facehugger and how another one infected the dog after the crash in part 3. My point is the super facehugger idea seems to me a leap of logic based on explaining what appears to be a continuity error rather than something implied in Alien 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.23.16 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

On the Latin names

raptus does not mean "robber". It means "robbed" or "violently abducted". The creators of the Latin name of course meant it to be "robber", but that should've been raptor. So the "literal translation" in the article is now the correct one, and the explanation is now in the footnote. The source you want is the wiktionary itself: rapere = "to rob", raptus = "robbed". This is no "alternative claim", as Xihr stated, but a correction of an obvious Wikipedia error. Very similarly, the alternative name is bad Latin: a) compound word, b) acheronsis instead of acheronensis (see e.g. this animal). This article has been WP-tagged to be cleaned up to explain the fiction and provide non-fictional perspective. That's exactly what I have done. So please refrain from reverting this and try to keep WP entropy as low as possible. Thanks. --Eickenberg 22:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to back this up with reliable, third-party sources, like is currently already done with the current definition. --Xihr 22:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn it. I already wrote above: the wiktionary specifically states that raptus, coming from rapere ("to rob"), means "robbed", not "robber", which would be raptor. So all I did is correct the wrong translation in the article. I'm using the same sources as the older version of the article. The footnote only contains the explanations of this error, which the filmmakers or whoever obviously did, and now also the secondary name from the comic books. And since you're so keen on "sources", I added the link to the acheronensis-animal, which clearly shows how professional scientists (not uneducated filmmakers from Hollywood) declinate latinized Greek terms such as Acheron. As for other sources on the Latin language outside of wiktionary (which is very accurate, if you ask me), you should maybe look into your own Latin dictionary at home, or visit one of the bazillions of online Latin dictionaries, e.g. at Perseus. --Eickenberg 22:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You removed the sources in your edit, and then went on to describe original research in your reference, rather than any notable, third-party references. The place for original research is off Wikipedia; the purpose for references is to link to notable, third-party references, not to explain your original research. --Xihr 00:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen man, I did not remove the sources. I simply put them into the footnotes, as is usually the case with sources. They should not be in the main text. In addition I internalized them. They were html-links in the old version, and I changed them to internal direct links from WP to Wiktionary. The second link (this one) was only there to show the translation/meaning of foeda. To simplify the article, I re-linked to the source on foeda at the wiktionary. Reason: the old html-source was a large txt-file that you had to scroll through to get to the relevant information. Now it's much more convenient. And besides: what I wrote in the footnote is not original research. I simply corrected some translation errors made here at WP and additionally explained errors that the creators of the Aliens-canon, the DVDs, the filmmakers etc. have made. Please stop reverting my addition. --Eickenberg 01:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)