This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This archive covers discussions from August 2004 to August 2007. Note that discussions are archived chronologically in the order in which they concluded, not the order in which they were begun. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
a bibliography of some type should be added to show all appearances in comicbooks etc. -- Aaron 21:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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. |
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)
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 assume one is in real life, and the other is in the Alien movie universe?)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.198.89 ( talk • contribs) 01:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 this article needs converting to the never <ref>, </ref> and <references/> becuase all of the numbers are muddled up. -- K ilo-Lima| (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I removed those section because noting is cited to back them up, and is therefore original research. -- Iola k ana| T 19:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Anyone have a good image of the dog alien and newborn alien for the "Variations" section? -- Mgiganteus1 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
Fetishistic symbols right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.144.1.251 ( talk) 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This archive covers discussions from August 2004 to August 2007. Note that discussions are archived chronologically in the order in which they concluded, not the order in which they were begun. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
a bibliography of some type should be added to show all appearances in comicbooks etc. -- Aaron 21:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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. |
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)
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 assume one is in real life, and the other is in the Alien movie universe?)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.198.89 ( talk • contribs) 01:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 this article needs converting to the never <ref>, </ref> and <references/> becuase all of the numbers are muddled up. -- K ilo-Lima| (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I removed those section because noting is cited to back them up, and is therefore original research. -- Iola k ana| T 19:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Anyone have a good image of the dog alien and newborn alien for the "Variations" section? -- Mgiganteus1 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
Fetishistic symbols right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.144.1.251 ( talk) 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |