Talk:Xenomorph/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fact check 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Class of the original alien 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Debate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Classes 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is true - Using xenomorph as a name was actually taken from the 'briefing' the marines were given in ALIENS.  But it's mainly used for lack of a better term.  The alien creature is never actually given any kind of name in any of the movies, and xenomorph is shorter to type than 'alien creature'.  Contrast with Predator - In none of the movies is it actually called 'The Predator' or 'A Predator' in a proper noun sense.  The word is used descriptively and in passing.  But the creatures are almost universally referred to as Predators.  The same principle applies here. --Drago 06:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't something be said about this in the primary article, then? DragoGoldenWing's paragraph here could be used with some modifiction. --Madmaxmarchhare 02:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Made a note in the opening paragraph explaining the useage of the word. --Drago 04:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific vs General 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Newborn" alien from Alien Ressurection 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yep.  The movie fit in with Alien canon.  The hieroglyphics didn't say that the Predators CREATED the xenomorph, merely that they are the ones who brought them to earth, to hunt them.  That section is very wrong. --Drago 01:11, 11 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's not at all canon. Did the same writers and directors create all the films? One might note that the AvP crossover film can either be considered canonical or non-canonical, based on how one interprets it. Personally, I can tell you that as a staunch fan of the Alien franchise I do not consider AvP canonical...kind of hard to decide what is and what isn't canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.93.214.48 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 June 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: The movie fits with canon if the viewer so wishes, then.  Nothing in Alien vs. Predator contrasts or negates the canon of the ALIEN quadrilogy, and in a timeline of events in the universe it would not clash with known information.  The only inconsistency is the extremely short gestation period.  It was maybe a few minutes at the most, and I've even heard theories before the movie was even released to explain the gestation time difference between ALIEN and ALIEN3 that would explain it as being a hurried and quickened gestation, due to the queen being in 'danger'/chained and captive. --Drago 18:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's still a hasty explanation for the gestation period being shortened.  Also, another inconsistency is the Michael Bishop / Charles Bishop Weyland controversy.  Supposedly, Michael Bishop could easily have been a human being (made clear by his red blood in Alien 3), but they completely contradicted that with AvP. Unless it was a retcon (Which I think would royally piss staunch Alien fans off), AvP has a reputation of messing with the Alien canon.  At this point, I think it violates certain conventions of the Alien series and can be interpreted to be non-canonical. It should be mentioned that AvP is of disputed canonicity (is that the actual word?). Hell, I'd curse this movie and disown it if I had rights to the franchise, but that's just me. Crossovers aren't always canon, are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.202.104 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it was a hasty explanation.  It's one I've heard repeatedly given to explain the difference in gestation periods between the three movies, and was more pressed by the quickness of the development of the xenomorph in Alien 3 that burst the dog in comparison to the gestation period of the queen embryo Ripley was housing.  I never said it was a viable explanation, merely one that the movie writers may have latched on to.  Believe it or not a lot of them probably DID do a small amount of research and may have come across the theory.  Charles Bishop Weyland was a mistake I wasn't aware of at the time I made those responses.  However my response is still slightly valid, as the AvP movie at no point made any attempt to give an explanation for the origin of the xenomorphs as the topic starter claimed, but merely said that the Yautja brought the xenomorphs to Earth to establish a hunting ground - Never that the Yautja created them. --Drago 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories - Origin 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Uh, yeah, sure. Though that's going to piss off a lot of people who don't think AvP is canon. Tell me, is a crossover for any two franchises really considered canonical? Especially when it introduces so many plotholes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.202.104 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the Aliens Versus Predator games? The predalien is introduced there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.5.203 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate cannot rely entirely on example.  Whether it is a film, video game, graphic novel, novel, or action figure, the fact has not been resolved if the Predalien (or the like of any of these cases, such as the name debate) were under the original intent of the original writers, directors, etc.  If original intent is not confirmed, it does not deny the possibility of the Predalien, but it does make fitting it into the canon a more difficult procedure.  Subsequent creators who have added things to the canon can be looked at as successful or not (eg, the Alien Queen from Aliens, rather than the original origin for the eggs as shown in the alternate cut of Alien in which the eggs come from infected humans).  Ultimately, whatever works the best for the Aliens may be the case.  Until it is presented well enough, inferior examples of the Alien franchise, such as AvP can be brushed aside as ideas, while the canon is upheld by (even when contradictory) the first two films, for example.  But at the same time, examples of failure are not necessarily reasons to completely discard an idea.  It is possible to imagine the Predalien fitting into the canon (though I'm sure that it will cause even more debates about what to name it!). --Trakon 08:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predalien 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Xenomorph as a name 

message: 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)
replies: text: This has already been/is being discussed further up the page under 'Specific vs General', and I am working on a paragraph to insert explaining the use of the word. --Drago 03:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, they also call it a Xenomorph in the Alien 3 Special Edition, on the Alien Quadrilogy Boxset.  So it isn't only used once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.128.18 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, at least there's an article here. Who care's what they call 'em anyway? Xenomorph sounds cool to me. --Predator 05:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the entire article flawed? Isn't xenomorph a name established by constant usage among the fan base? It was mentioned in the canon twice, and besides, the creature was given no specific name (unless you count the I. Raptus designation, but that's not fully canonical, since it's not in the movies).  Xenomorph is the only really true designation available. It appears that the extremely widespread usage of Xenomorph qualifies that as the proper, recognized name, despite what you might think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.202.104 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you realize that the word also describes Yoda, Klaatu and Superman, fine.  To me it's a little like finding a lost island tribe and designating them as "The humans." --24.33.28.52 21:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entire article is fundamentally flawed 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I may make a project of that.  Good suggestion. --Teflon Don 21:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In accrodance with the peer review on this article, I have moved all the non-canon castes to the following article: List of non-canon castes in the Alien films. KILO-LIMA 17:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canon status 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have removed the fair use rationale from :Image:Queenybaby.JPG—however I have kept the other fair use rationales on all of the other images until someone else checks them; or would you rather me take them all off? I have also contacted the uploader, Predator, about the images. He has not, however, contacted me back and his last edit was on the 4th of February. KILO-LIMA 17:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rationales are all okay, just the fact that you put a review tag along with them seemed strange to me. --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: *"The word Xenomorph was coined for advertising the 1953 movie It Came from Outer Space."
*"In other words, the word xenomorph itself means little more than "alien form" and was coined by a US Colonial Marine in Aliens."
(I assume one is in real life, and the other is in the Alien movie universe?)
*"They can survive in extreme temperatures, are well-adapted to swimming, and can survive in a vacuum for unknown lengths of time. "
*"Xenomorphs, in all stages of their life cycles, have shown extreme vulnerabilities to fire, flamethrowers, and the like whilst cold is an inadequate precautionary measure except at the extreme."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.198.89 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call the Xenomorph's vulnerability to fire "extreme". The only two cannonical (that's it, seen in the movies) instances of a Xenomorph actually showing fear in the presence of fire involved the Queen in ALIENS, and that was A) because her eggs were threatened, and B)  Ripley applying her flamethower right in front of the Queen's face. In contrast, the Xenomorph in the original film attacked Dallas regardless of him carrying an incinerator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.45.187 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call it that either.  In the Alien vs. Predator PC game, it takes nearly five seconds of being bathed in flame from a flamethrower to kill an alien, and the only reason they die then is because the heat boils the acidic liquid inside them and they explode from the pressure.  Merely being set on fire with a glancing shot from the flamethrower, they will often run around screeching in what is apparently pain, continuing to attack for nearly half a minute before the heat builds enough to kill them for the reason given above. --Drago 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So many contradictions! 

message: 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)
replies: text: The hole is created by Ripley's blood.  She cuts her palm (for the third time!) on the Newborn's teeth, then flings a gob of blood against the porthole.  The Newborn's blood makes the hole bigger, but Ripley's blood is the actual cause of the breach.  Second, she's crying because she was forced to make a very tough decision--to embrace her human or alien side.  She chose human and killed the Newborn. --Teflon Don 06:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My interpretation of that scene was that an emotionally and mentally unstable Ripley was having to deal with the death of her 'child' for the third time - The first in Aliens when she found her biological daughter had died of old age, and the second in Alien 3 when she found her surrogate daughter dead immediately on regaining consciousness.  The link she shared with the aliens thanks to the genetic tampering was telling her the Newborn was her child and she had to protect it, and the human was telling her to kill it before it killed her and everyone around her. --Drago 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of the Newborn 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: No, they're standard warrior-types.  If they were a new caste, they would have at least gotten a mention in one of the myriad documentaries about the series.  We know about a "worker drone" caste which was never filmed or even sculpted; we would know about a Praetorian caste in the film. --Teflon Don 06:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, these are not praetorians. If you recall, all of the aliens in the second movie had unusual ribbed markings on their heads...this was mainly a technical problem, since the transparent cowls were prone to breaking during filming.  It's been rationalized in a number of ways, often as the aliens shedding the cowl once they reach a certain maturity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.197.103 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praetorians -- non-canon? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think the capital A is fine, because it is the film title. Cleaning up is going on well... But maybe I should have listened to you and place the mineral under "Allotriomorph"... It would have saved me a lot of "fun" with fictional character pages. --790 20:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK that's it. I won't touch the talk pages. Have a nice day. --790 21:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I think this article needs converting to the never ,  and  becuase all of the numbers are muddled up. --Kilo-Lima|(talk) 17:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References (1) 

message: 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)
replies: text: I only remember one egg - I'm not willing to subject myself to Alien 3 again to check, however.  Since most of the conjecture around the 'super facehugger' involves the presence of only one egg on the lifeboat, I think it's safe to assume there was only one or conjecture wouldn't be so widespread as to how exactly it happened. --Drago 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just because one egg was seen on screen doesn't mean it's the only egg that was onboard... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.197.103 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This difently needs fixed, there WERE two open eggs shown onboard the Sulaco during the opening of Alien 3.  We see one on Ripley's face (note: its an ordinary one, not a "super facehugger"), thus it would have died shortly afterward.  The other hugger found its host in the prisoner's dog.  Remember the super facehugger never really existed in canon (ie it was never shown or hinted at in the films themselves) - even the Quadrilogys WORKPRINT edit doesn't count.  When they did the Alien 3 reshoots, they took out the super facehugger idea and went with the Queen from Aliens leaving two eggs on board the Sulaco - hence the two face huggers we see. --Parjay 17:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FaceHugger 

message: 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)
replies: text: There's no evidence in the original film that the Alien was LAYING eggs.  In the directors cut we see that the Alien has cocooned brett and he is almost turned INTO an egg - not the same as laying eggs.   Same goes for "eggs contained queen facehuggers".  You have no evidence to support any of that. --Parjay 23:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its all just speculation as there is no real evidence. --_-M o P-_ 23:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Queen 

message: 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)
replies: text: They also might turn into purple happy daisies after one year and sing songs about love and happiness.  But like the idea of an Alien king, that is total speculation and completely undemonstrated. --Xihr 00:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An Alien King appeared in a few drafts of Alien 3, but thats about it.  All non-canonical anyhow. --Parjay 00:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if there WAS an Alien King, he would pale in comparison to the queen like in so many, parasitic or not, insect species....Most like termites, actually. --Centurion Ry 12:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that there is an Alien king. like in insect colonies, drones that mate with the Queen --Sheep 15:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alien king 

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

message: I removed those section because noting is cited to back them up, and is therefore original research. --Iolakana|T 19:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of #Homeworld Speculation and #Trivia 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I concur. The new image is notable, perhaps; but it belongs in, as you say, a "Concept and creation" section, with the old image, or at least AN image from one of the films, taking the lead. I'd actually like to see such a "concept" section containing side-by-side images of the development of the creatures from one film to the next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porlob (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to the image, I've been writing a new lead to cut out most of the unorganization and in-universe perspective that clutters the entire article. Unfortunately I haven't yet seen Alien: Resurrection, so I'm not entirely sure the lead is accurate. If people want to check out my Personal Sandbox and offer suggestions, that'd be great. --Dark Kubrick 19:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No one has said anything, so I'm posting it. If you have problems, put them here. --Dark Kubrick 23:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn';t know about this until now.  The pic is good, but I felt Giger's art was the more beautiful image than the pic from AvP. Will write more later. --Jason Palpatine 20:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean by beautiful, but since the xenomorphs' main media appearances were the films, then a film image would best show them. Giger's art is important, but not right for the lead. --Dark Kubrick 20:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think there are better choices that could have been used if using a Giger.  But If using a movie photo is important, and one also prefers using something by Giger, an image from the original movie would do just as well. --Trakon 23:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Parasitoid, not parasite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Senses of the Creature 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Concerning changes to the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, because if there was two eggs, then there would be no need for the superfacehugger. I know, I think it should be converted to the   format. --Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You aren't following ... In the film there ARE two eggs, there's no IF.  The super facehugger doesn't appear; its non-canon.  Check the facts - when they reshot some of the film, they decided to go with the two eggs on the sulaco and two facehuggers and got rid of the superfacehugger which emplanted an alien into another animal - they reshot and made it a dog instead. --Parjay 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats wierd here is that it said the Superfacehugger can't impregnate humans.How does it impregnate Ripley then????Help? --40k carnage 00:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Alien 3 super facehugger debacle 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Non-Canon castes 

message: In the Alien Quadriligy, the menu of Aliens lists the scientific name of the xenomorph as "Internecivus-Raptus".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beowulph (talk • contribs) 03:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting us know. I have included it in the opening sentence. --KILO-LIMA 18:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was already in there, as was the other binominal scientific name from the comics, and there was no need to remove it).  Regardless of how it is displayed in the opening credits, the proper way to write the genus and species in binomial scientific notation is italicized with the first word (genus) first-letter capitalized and the second word (species) not capitalized.  Hence the proper form is Internecivus raptus, as it was already displayed in the text.  The fact that the DVD screenshot show it as hyphenated does not make a difference here; after all, it also shows it in all caps, do you think that's correct too just for the sake that you saw it in a screenshot? --Xihr 00:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other name (from the comic books) is Linguafoeda acheronsis. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  That, too, was clearly indicated in the section he deleted.  Welcome to why no one trusts Wikipedia. --Xihr 07:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, would you like to add it in yourself? You have the ability to edit the page. --KILO-LIMA 19:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did add it, as did those who pointed out the other scientific name from the comic books.  You're the one who reedited it to make it incorrect, and removed the comic book version. --Xihr 22:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The scientific name, according to the FAC, should not be added becuase "there is no scientific terminology for such a "species", because scientific taxonomy is not concerned with fictional beings". --Kilo-Lima Vous pouvez parler 21:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest making a "Trivia" section for this article and placing it under there? --Beowulph 23:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but do you have any other trivia, too? --Kilo-Lima Vous pouvez parler 17:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's tricky to make trivia sections for fictional characters. Every detail about them is trivia, after all. I think the best thing to do is to add it somewhere in the article (but not the introduction), making careful note that this is the scientific name in that fictional universe. --Kafziel 19:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scientific" name 

message: 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)
replies: text: agreed I'll try and clean that up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.237.27.211 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh...is the queen mating thing canon? 

message: Fetishistic symbols right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.144.1.251 (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehhh... you could say that, that's certainly how giger designed them. Just take a look at some of Giger's other work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.132.101 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facehuggers and the Double-jaw. 

message: 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)
replies: text: that is only on the alien vs. predator franchice, this covers only the first 4 alien movies and related media, and only that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.151.111.43 (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No where in AVP says that preds engineered Xenomorphs the movie said they brot them to earth to hunt them and used humens as hosts to breed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.92.128 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the predator connection 

message: 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)
replies: text: It was me who changed everythign from Xenomorph to xenomorph. I think it's best in lower-case becuase we don't say Cat or Elephant, do we? --KILO-LIMA<;/sub> 20:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, but then cat and dog are not artificial terms, coined by some character from a sci-fi movie, aren't they? They're pretty normal run-of-the-mill nouns. So please allow me to disagree. But: If nobody else seconds this notion, I'll accept that. Cheers. --Lucien the Librarian 20:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only capitalize it when it starts a sentence, myself.  Xenomorph isn't a particular creature - Just as Kilo-Lima pointed out, it's a generic name for all creatures of the species and no more needs capitalization than 'cat' or 'dog'. --Drago 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Skeletal Structure 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Implantation of Chestburster 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I found it after a quick Googling. I found it here - it seems to be heavily copied from WP. Is this the correct one: Aliens Colonial Marines Technical Manual, HarperCollins 1996, ? This might be useful too. Thanks, KILO-LIMA 21:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1st URL linked there is a copy of our existing article.  The second one is indeed the tech-manual. --Beowulph 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I managed to find my old copy of the Tech-manual and will paste some text from it regarding the Xenomorph here.  Since it's a direct copy, it's only for reference and will have to be deleted once it's been properly incorporated into the article. --Beowulph 21:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References (2) 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: They're definitely afraid of fire that's for sure. The weakness against fire might be true and is definitely true in the games at least along with their fear of fire. Lee Bricombe Wood's Aliens Technical Manual states that the acid blood is supposed to be a medium for electric potential in the aliens. Perhaps using fire on an Alien is like throwing a battery into a fire. --147.144.1.251 21:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the first and third films fire is used as a weapon against an adult alien. In Alien it's mostly because it's the only weapon they have available, but it seems to deter it. In Alien 3 Ripley mentions that fire worked for her against an alien before, and the characters use a fire created with flammable liquids to force the alien into a containment chamber. So yes, I think it's safe to say that they have some vulnerability to, or fear of, fire and flame. --IllaZilla 06:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adult Aliens weak against fire? 

message: 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)
replies: text: the above statment may be true but you must bare in mind that a xenomorth is a alien life form so the facts on earth may not apply to the alien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.23.116.11 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, person #2? Person #1 there has a point. You don't, unfortunately, probably because you either failed to really read the other post, or failed chemistry/physics. Chemical reactions indeed take place at different rates given different conditions, but the environmental conditions under which the known acids work are well-known, as are their reactions, which are considerably weaker than the ones produced by the chemicals contained in the "xenomorph" bodies. You say "you must [bear] in mind that... facts on earth may not apply to the alien", yet, did you even read what they said? Do you not realize, too, that specific chemical formulas are what they are, and thus, the acid would be same if it featured the exact same chemical composition (and if it did NOT contain the exact same chemical composition, that would mean it isn't the same acid!) Person #1 there merely said that it can't be a known type of acid, literally stating that it is "[not] hydroflouric acid... [n]or could the acid be sulfuric... or any other acid known to man." I don't see why you can't agree with Person #1, as he/she is right to say that it can't be any acid known to man, since it is very obviously MUCH stronger. Therefore, while obviously either an acid or a base, it is simply an unknown type of acid. The facts are simple - if it's described as an acid that is known today, then the film or material that states such is wrong and this article should note as much; if it's NOT described as a specific acid, then put simply we cannot, in the name of accuracy, name it as any specific acid, and at this point can only say "it is much stronger than any acid currently known today." (or some close variation of that) --4.238.8.12 20:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be an allotrope of hydroflouric acid. I'm probably the first one to mention that and I was just quoting Lee Bricombe Wood's book. --147.144.1.251 21:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep in mind that we're discussing a work of fiction. Discussion of how "realistic" the alien's acid may or may not be is about as appropriate as discussing whether lightsabers can actually be made. In other words, inappropriate and pointless. It should be addressed in the article as simply a "very strong acid" or some such ambiguous phrase. --IllaZilla 06:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alien Acid Description is Inaccurate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archived old discussions: April 3, 2007 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article structure 

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

message: 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:

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not Needed 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reverted edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: That list could be put to a good use on the non-cannon page --71.143.133.89 01:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More VG Aliens 

message: 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)
thread_title:  about [[Drone]]s 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think the third was only injured so they could escape. --Hyuuga-sama 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offensive/defensive behavior 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Super facehugger...original research? 

message: 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)
replies: text: You need to back this up with reliable, third-party sources, like is currently already done with the current definition. --Xihr 22:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn it. I already wrote above: the wiktionary specifically states that raptus, coming from rapere ("to rob"), means "robbed", not "robber", which would be raptor. So all I did is correct the wrong translation in the article. I'm using the same sources as the older version of the article. The footnote only contains the explanations of this error, which the filmmakers or whoever obviously did, and now also the secondary name from the comic books. And since you're so keen on "sources", I added the link to the acheronensis-animal, which clearly shows how professional scientists (not uneducated filmmakers from Hollywood) declinate latinized Greek terms such as Acheron. As for other sources on the Latin language outside of wiktionary (which is very accurate, if you ask me), you should maybe look into your own Latin dictionary at home, or visit one of the bazillions of online Latin dictionaries, e.g. at Perseus. --Eickenberg 22:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed the sources in your edit, and then went on to describe original research in your reference, rather than any notable, third-party references.  The place for original research is off Wikipedia; the purpose for references is to link to notable, third-party references, not to explain your original research. --Xihr 00:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen man, I did not remove the sources. I simply put them into the footnotes, as is usually the case with sources. They should not be in the main text. In addition I internalized them. They were html-links in the old version, and I changed them to internal direct links from WP to Wiktionary. The second link (this one) was only there to show the translation/meaning of foeda. To simplify the article, I re-linked to the source on foeda at the wiktionary. Reason: the old html-source was a large txt-file that you had to scroll through to get to the relevant information. Now it's much more convenient. And besides: what I wrote in the footnote is not original research. I simply corrected some translation errors made here at WP and additionally explained errors that the creators of the Aliens-canon, the DVDs, the filmmakers etc. have made. Please stop reverting my addition. --Eickenberg 01:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Latin names