Talk:Xenomorph

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeXenomorph was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 11, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 4, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 6, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
March 17, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
November 30, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Potential Citation Issue[edit]

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

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

'No Technology'[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tedious details[edit]

Under the Intelligence section it is stated that the Queen learned to call the lift after observing Ripley do so. The Queen did not call the lift. Ripley did. When she first gets to the lift while attempting to escape the Queen she presses both buttons, thus calling both lifts. After Ripley's escape it is shown the Queen observing the second lift, having already been called, descending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.184.59 (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 December 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There's a consensus to move away from the current title, and additionally, a persuasive argument that it's the primary topic for the term "xenomorph". (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


– Per WP:NATURAL- the current title is very awkward and although there was a discussion a while back that concluded that Alien was the more commonly used name- I feel as that if it is a natural consequence of being the titular villains of the franchise, similar to the way Ghostface (identity) is oftentimes referred to as "the Killer" by characters of the films even though the proper title for them is Ghostface.

Having the page simply titled Xenomorph I feel would be much more natural even if the page itself refers to the species mostly as the Aliens. The existing page of Xenomorph could be moved to Xenomorph (disambiguation). H*adesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Current title is ridiculous. Xenomorph is a perfect fit for the alien, and users can be redirected from disambiguated pages if they search for alien, no one is searching for the current title, and if they are - they probably need some sort of therapy. GimliDotNet (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. There is nothing "ridiculous" about the current title - the name "Xenomorph" is only known to sci-fi film buffs. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Only known to sci-fi buffs? The word "xenomorph" is used in Aliens and Alien: Covenant. I would get this argument if it was something used only in extended media or merchandise, but it has precedent in the source material itself.
    HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Xenomorph indicates less than half the outgoing traffic goes to that target, so the case isn't really strong. It's possible we're actually navigating readers badly, too. I would start just with sorting it up, and revisit in a few months. I also noticed some other formatting issues in the current list that I'll fix shortly. (Done.) It also doesn't make sense to go against WP:COMMONNAME. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current name is absolutely stupid and an attempt to avoid a term deemed “in universe”. It’s a contrived title that absolutely no one is naturally navigating to GimliDotNet (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed on the first page of Alien, it'd be reasonable to assume a lot of traffic comes from there - if we look at https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Alien it shows that 142 views came from there. The previous link showed 613 views coming from "Xenomorph". Yet Xenomorph is only 1.76% of the incoming views at https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Alien_%28creature_in_Alien_franchise%29 because 11300+ come from search engines, 6350 come from unknown sources, 3140 come from the Covenant movie, etc etc. If we want to believe that there should be more 'natural' navigation here, it doesn't square well with all these thousands of page views. And they seem to be apparently successful views, because the outgoing traffic spreads out nicely, it doesn't sound like all those people are in the wrong place. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, you do know how search engines work don’t you? Hint, google. Xenomorph and it takes you straight to this page. GimliDotNet (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to be condescending. How do you know that people are googling the name "xenomorph" and getting here as opposed to googling "alien" and getting here? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, another reason why it's hard to support the name xenomorph over alien is that there's such a drastic difference between the general usages of these words. For example see the comparison graphs in google books ngrams and google search trends (also without generic 'alien'). Certainly not nearly all of those are references to this creature, but this is indicative of what the typical English reader will understand best. Calling the main alien from the Alien franchise a name that isn't some variant of 'Alien' seems like it would be a peculiar choice for most readers. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know people are googling xenomorph, but I wasn’t the one that used search engine results as an argument against calling the article xenomorph, when search engine results have fuck all to do with naming the article due to the way search engines optimise search results better than Wikipedia. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very emotional about this topic. Perhaps it's time to take a breather. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay on topic and refrain from WP:NPA GimliDotNet (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you attacked me above, and then continued with profanities, ignoring the argument completely. I'm telling you very nicely that you need to stop being rude (and casting aspersions is another form of being rude, too). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not attack you, please withdraw that claim. The only person to make a personal attack here is you when you addressed me instead of my argument. I have not ignored your arguments, I have addressed them (search engine results cannot be used as a naming argument as they don’t go off the name). You took offence to that and accused me of being over emotional. That is attacking the person and not the argument. The fact you don’t like profanity is neither here nor there, that was not a personal attack. GimliDotNet (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If "Sigh, you do know how search engines work don’t you? Hint, google." is an appropriate level of communication in relation to the argument I laid out, we must be having a very different impression of what a rational argument is supposed to be. I still don't see that what I wrote was addressed, and I fear we're completely off the rails here. If you feel offended by what I wrote, I apologize. (I am fine with profanity, but in this case it was a clear sign that we're not having a productive discussion.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I directly address your point. You claimed the thousands of page views (mainly from search engines and “unknown”) was evidence that xenomorph wasn’t a useful name. That’s not what that evidence shows. I’m done here though, as it’s clear you’re not reading what I’ve written GimliDotNet (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the claim was that we don't have evidence that 98.24% of traffic that doesn't come via a known lookup of "xenomorph" -- was actually the reader looking for "xenomorph", instead of them looking for "alien". That search engines optimize searches better than Wikipedia is likely true, but it is orthogonal to this discussion. Let's say Google &co. all worked around a completely bad Wikipedia title, and are bringing in all these thousands of views a month despite it being misnamed, so how do we only have a couple of discussions in the space of a decade, how are they not bringing more people who would be confused by and complaining about such a bad title? Anyway, I'm also not sure why we'd focus on the search engine traffic only, because that's about a third of the incoming traffic. The remaining two thirds of traffic is more thousands of views that aren't producing commensurate complaints, either. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Proposed title is more WP:NATURAL and WP:CONCISE; I'm also convinced that it will continue to be WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Currently, 79% of outgoing pageviews on the DAB page go to the creature's article; the creature's article is also much more heavily viewed than other pages titled "Xenomorph", indicating that it's almost certainly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Xenomorph". (I'm sympathetic to the argument that readers might search for the creature via the name "Alien", but that's the kind of issue that's better solved by a redirect.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the argument linked at WP:NATURAL, but the way you phrased that sentence it sounds like "natural" from WP:CRITERIA. That one, however, is unlikely to be true - most readers or the average reader who is aware of the character wouldn't naturally use the term "xenomorph" for it when the movies about it are called "alien". The other documented aspect of naturalness is what editors use to link the article, so we'd benefit from someone going through Special:WhatLinksHere and examining that (usually a fair bit of manual labor because of pipe links). --Joy (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The name is a folk usage based on a mistake by fans. The word "xenomorph" is a generic term for extraterrestrial life. It is not and was never intended to be the creature's name. True, "Alien" isn't the creature's name either but at least the name "Alien" conveys that fact and doesn't imply the false claim that "xenomorph" is the creature's name. Serendipodous 18:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Move, Different name. Moving to Xenomorph (Alien franchise) (an extant redirect) still makes the wording much less clunky and more concise. JeffUK 15:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move 1 to Xenomorph (Alien franchise), Oppose 2. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the avoidance of doubt, that's exactly what I'm suggesting too, I forgot there are two moves being proposed. JeffUK 16:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

or Lingua foeda acheronsis[edit]

should be written as two words, thus: Linguafoeda acheronsis 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:146A:4BE3:750D:CFE7 (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

predalien[edit]

I feel like this is a fan-name, and shouldn't be in the article. While yes, Xenomorph is kinda a fan-name as well, but it was referred to as one in Aliens! I've ONLY seen the term Predalien in things like the kill count, but not in shit like actual interviews. can this be changed? Babysharkboss2 was here!! 16:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xenomorph&oldid=1217231576"