Talk:Predator (fictional species)/Archive 1

message: Is the name "Yautja" official or fanon? Ausir 23:35, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Am I the only one seeing a strong connection between the looks of Yautja and the Nausicaans from Star Trek? Compare the pictures in the article with [some pictures of Nausicaans].
-- Ashmodai 14:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nausicaan]] 

message: I was just watching AvP today, after watching Predator 2. I can't help but notice... Do the predators in AvP have the same masks as the Yautja at the end of Predator 2? I'm catching a strong resemblance, at the least here. I think they may even be the same ones... --Serow 05:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predator 2 and AVP tie in? 

message: Unless I'm mistaken, the Yautja's ability to mimick sound comes from a recording device built in to their versatile wrist computers (the game "Predator: Concrete Jungle" captions during cinematic sequences explicitly say "Predator Playback" when the Yautja replicates sounds) and not any vocal ability, although they do seem to be able to speak human languages, since the elder Yautja told Danny Glover to "taaaaake iittt" at the end of Predator 2. Until someone can prove otherwise, I'm removing the portion of the biology page that claims they replicate sounds personally.
:Yautja can imitate human voice to an extent. See the end of the original Predator movie. 202.89.180.65 05:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, I really don't think "Concrete Jungle" counts as canon.  Not compared to the original source - the films.  --Plumbago 16:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound Replication 

message: I'm with Joker on this one.  Yautja it is for me.  Hell, the species needs a proper name don't you think?  'Predator' is all wrong for kick off because that implies predation; hunting other species to eat. Saying that Yautja sounds a bit crap to me.  How about Waritrax!?
I need to get out more!
But Joker The Yautja only hunt thanings thay also eat so thay will eat homan if thay are hongry. Its stated in one of the books.
Sorry this part doesn,t look googd but the space jockey did not make the aliens because they show up in the past and the  space jockey and the eggs are in the year 3000 something so the aliens were maybe the first to be on earth but then they well i think were wiped out on earth and the rest were taken of planet earth.
::Does this contribution make sense to anyone?--Anthony.bradbury 22:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yautja 

message: or anything, but everything below "ranks" section is garbage. "serious nutcases"?? I mean, really. the whole thing needs cleanup. but start there. please. ... aa:talk 20:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not that the article is great 

message: I really do not see why "wristblades" qualifies to be an article at all, but if it is retained it should be merged with this one.--Anthony.bradbury 22:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wristblades 

message: I removed some erroneous assertions about teeth. I kept the part about how the shape of teeth may not always indicate diet, which is I suppose true since no science is perfect. However, the assertion that the shape of human teeth suggests a herbivorous diet is laughable. If you look at cow teeth (As suggested) and a carnivore's teeth (say, a dog's) and then a human being's, you will probably think the dog's mouth looks more like the person's mouth than the person's mouth looks like the cow's mouth. The mere existence of grinding molars does not suggest a herbivorous diet, as carnivores have molars too. And the prominent canines in humans are not to be lightly waved away in this discussion. When determining an animal's diet from its teeth, ALL teeth must be considered. You can't leave some out in parentheses. Here is a page about teeth. --69.141.155.201 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teeth 

message: Where do those numbers come from? There is no source given and I see 105% on the percentages given, and that's not counting the ranks without given percentages =) -- SilentGuy 21:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentages in Bloods? 

message: This article shouldn't be named, "Yautja", it should be named "Predator (character)", because the creatures are actually named Predators in the films that they originally come from, and Yautja only comes from the non-canon comics and books. Look at the end credits of "Predator" and "Predator 2" it reads, "Kevin Peter Hall as The Predator" not "Kevin Peter Hall as The Yautja".
:ok spaz, its called predator (alien) alredy fool!
The article should be renamed "Predator (Character)". The way it is now would be like having the Keiichi Tsuchiya article called Drift King, or the Mr. T article B.A. Baracus.--Little Jimmy 04:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A new novel called Predator Forever Midnight came out in March that completely contradicted the previous AvP novels and gave the Predators a different culture. The Predators are now called Hish, not Yautja. The term Yautja only ever appeared in 3 novels which are now out of print AFAIK. The official name of this alien species has always been and always will be 'Predator', and all this Yautja crap all over Wikipedia should be changed to Predator. Perhaps the title of this article should be changed to Predator (alien race). This article needs to be completely redesigned so that canon information about the Predators is clearly distinguishable and separate from SD Perry's Yautja interpretation. There should also be information about John Shirley's Hish interpretation to show an unbiased article on Predator culture and biology.
So can I do this?
Yes it seems like the best idea. Would Predator (Alien) kill two birds with one stone? If not then I vote Predator (alien race) (Emperor 20:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Predator (alien) it is. I'm removing anything non-canon. I may deign to leave a single reference to the Yautja name. Chris Cunningham 09:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In the spin-offs they are given both names - Yautja is the most common but a mention of them also being called Hish is an idea. Possibly "called Yautja in older novels and Hish-qu-Ten in more recent publications" (not including the note on it being non-canon given the discussion below - as long as you highlight the source). (Emperor 03:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs to be renamed!

message: It seems people here are having different opinions as to wether AVP is canon or not. So let us discuss here if it is or not.
:I say, dispite how much of a bad movie it is, it is canon because it is an official 20th Cebntury FOX made Predator movie. But let use discuss.--Little Jimmy 00:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alien vs. Predator (2004) canon or not canon?

message: Right, I've moved the page and removed most non-canon stuff. I've also removed the AvP stuff for now; this is probably a mistake, but it's in the edit history. Please feel free to add things back when they've been rewritten in better English.
:I'm going to go through and try to tidy the rest of this now. Without all the fancruft it should be much easier to tag things than need references and put things in proper sections. Chris Cunningham 09:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-Canon info is allowed to be added, just as long as you note with that info as you put it in that it is not canon. If you don't, people who read this article will get really confused when they watch the movies.--Little Jimmy 23:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keeping this on track

message: Extended talk threads have a tendency to never end and never accomplish anything. Can we get some quick position statements please?
My personal position:
* Nothing is canon bar the first two movies.
* Information which contradicts the movies must not be included in this article.
* Information which does not contradict the movies, but supplements them in a way which clarifies something from the film, should be included when it can be referenced properly. This includes everything from director commentary to incidents in other films to asides in comic books, but it must be referenced.
* Incidental background information which does not directly relate to the films should either be abandoned or moved to something like Yautja (Alien Vs Predator universe). Such articles have been known to flourish where they read well, even if they aren't of great encyclopedic value.
* Normal rules apply for idle speculation, rumours, and anything else generally considered to be original research (i.e. don't have it on Wikipedia at all).
These are the basic guidelines I've used so far when editing this article. I think they represent the best way to move forward. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham 12:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK quick position statement: Unless someone can provide authoritative sources to show that there is a canon then trying to define what is and isn't canon is speculation and original research. See also. (Emperor 13:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well that is kind of what I thought I was getting at - unless someone can show there is a canon then trying to establish what is and isn't allowed in the article seems "pointless" (and may infringe the original research guidelines). The way forward is probably to keep the core content to the two films "In the films the Predators are depicted as..." then follow it up with information from other output "In the novel X they said this..." in following paragraphs. (Emperor 13:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Problem is without there being a canon it is just your opinion what is or isn't canon. Wikipedia isn't a place for people to impose their opnion on things. The fact that you are aiming at a "dictionary like definition" clearly pins it down as original research - we should be working to an official definition as it isn't our place to define one. If there isn't an official definition we have to be more inclusive. (Emperor 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sources are contradictory. We can't include everything. It makes the article read like awful mush. I'm working to try to form some sort of plan to get the article moving in the right direction. It doesn't necessarily need to be the correct one so long as we've got an edit history, but a decision should be made now instead of stalling this article indefinitely because of bickering about what is and is now officially sanctioned fluff. Chris Cunningham 14:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't a productive argument. I'm drawing a line for style reasons rather than ideological ones. Next time anyone adds loads of AVP fluff I'll move it to its own article. Then people can have a huge, unproductive argument about merging them, and I can ignore it in favour of editing the movie Pred article. Which may well be short enough to merge with the main movie at that point. Chris Cunningham 16:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay this is beyond silly. The article is about the predator characters. NOT ABOUT THE FIRST TWO MOVIES!!!!! So it doesn't matter what the source is. Video game, weird crossover comic story, Anything officially licensed is fair game. It'd probably be good to have references for the sources of info.--Marhawkman 12:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That is a great idea! Devide the article into seperate sections like, Predators: As Portrayed in the Movies, Predators: As Portrayed in the Comics, Predators: As Portrayed in the Novels etc. That way the reader can make up their own opinion as to what is canon and what is not without being confused by contradicting information. --Little Jimmy 12:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I favor the first approach. It's gonna be confusing and highly redundant if you repeat everything over and over. But if you have one section on their weapons then you can simply annotate that section with notes stating what differences there are between the films and other sources.--Marhawkman 17:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please excuse my sudden jump into this, but when seeing Hish content on here that someone who was equally insenced with it pointed it out to me, I had to make my 2 cents here.  I think that the content some of you deem "non-canon" (I prefer "secondary canon") should have their own sections on here instead of lacing it into the main sections, or give them their own full articles, so my vote goes to the idea above.  Have a section on the Yautja and their differences and then the Hish and their differences.  That way, they are separate, they are stated as non-canon/secondary canon and people can decide for themselves what to follow.  You can't force people, but at least be honest in showing them everything.  As much as I hate the Hish concept, I know it's in paperback form, so I feel that new fans should still know about them. Siliconsara 13:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you are a fan of the Yautja concept like I am, then I suggest NOT getting the book.  If I had access to a hobo drum, I would of burned my copy already.  If you must get it to see the trainwreck, buy it used or get it at a library.  Don't pay full price for it.  As for your ideas on separating content, I think it will do fine.  The main key point is that the content is rightly labeled as either "Yautja" or "Hish".  If you must merge some secondary canon into the weapons section, then make sure to clearly point out where the source is from.  That should satisfy everyone, hmmn? Siliconsara 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus on the canon things, please

message: Were this predators appearing in Andromedas's "Delenda Est"?
:No but the Predator is clerly a major inspiration - they even mention say the word "predator" in the trailer for the episode  which if it was a straight steal they'd never do so I assume it is a tip of the hat to the original. Best I can recall from that episode (which is a very pivotal one as it is the point where things started going wrong in the future) the aliens are from beyond a dimensional rift and don't just have stealth technology but can put themselves out of phase with our existence - basically the Predator with a fancy pants pseudo-scientific twist. Good episode though. (Emperor 22:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Appearance?

message: Hi. Number one, I do not consider this my article. If some or all of my edits are changed, reversed, or otherwise, I won't have much to say. I stumbled across the page while reading other things. I have a place in my heart for these big nasties, but am by no means a Predator expert. This article still needs help, and there hasn't been much movement lately. I have some experience with rewriting/rewording other people's work in my real life, and so I thought I'd take a stab. I have offended people in the past (not on wikipedia) when so doing, but I've also received compliments and requests for additional help.
Which is to say, my qualifications amount to "I was bored". IANAProfessional.
My intent has been to reword while maintaining concepts. I have moved and removed sentences that were redundant or out of place, reworded entire paragraphs, and generally tried to clean things up. I got bored before I started going through the armor section. No, I do not have ADHD. But I'm going to go play games now. I hope that I've been of more help than harm :) -- Kisc 05:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. I have been trying to do this myself aswell, but there is far too much garble here for me to sort out on my own. This article still needs a lot of work, because as of now, it really only helps people who already know what the Predators are, instead of helping people who are new to the creatures as the article should.--Little Jimmy 06:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some general editing

message: It might be worth noting that Star Trek has paid tribute to the Predator characters twice.  First with the Nausicaans, which really only share the pinchers around the mouth, but in that, look very similar as it's a rare feature in aliens in popular science fiction - obviously a tribute.  Second, with the Kradin, who look more similar.  Memory Alpha links follow:
*http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Nausicaan
*http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Kradin
I'm sure Star Trek isn't the only other series which has paid tribute to the Predators; a section on Predator knockoffs would be great.
209.209.140.19 01:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section in David A. McIntee's book which touches on this. I wasn't sure how solid it all was and while that is a legitimate reference I'd like something from the Star Trek side saying that is what they had in mind (but onbviously they might want to void that for legal reasons). I'll dig out other examples from the book and throw them in and we can see what people think. Perhaps a "Predator in popular culture" section as I'd imagine things like The Simpsons have given them a nod (ditto with Alien). (Emperor 16:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Trek references

message: The Predator fits in :Category:Fictional characters with the power to turn invisible or doesn't since it's his armor that does that? igordebraga ≠ 13:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The examples are people who are actually invisible. There may need to be a category on fictional characters with stealth technology if we can think of more examples. (Emperor 14:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: IMHO, we here at Wikipedia make no distinction between what is and is not canon. We merely report any information from primary, secondary and tertiary sources as we find them, and it is up to the readers to glean any information that they may. Shrumster 11:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It is also noteworthy that the trimming down of Canon (fiction) has removed AvP and a lot of others with dubious claims to even having a canon (identifying canon is often a fun game for fans but such things may not be of great interest to those actual creating such things. There are good examples of canon but this isn't one of them). Rather than "such and such in non-canon sources" we need to identify the source so "such and such in the novels which has also features in the games" for example. (Emperor 12:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canon vs Non-Canon

message: I've watched the death of Blain from the original Predator frame by frame and it doesn't look like a blue boomerang to me at all.  It looks like the energy/projectile from the Predator's shoulder cannon, and I don't see any justification for believing it's anything else. ---- Chris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.184.50.31 (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the shoulder Plasma Cannon--Tapok 18:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blue glowing bomerang weapon?

message: should the predaliens actually be here? they are not the same species as predators, they should be in a xenomorph article --Ditre 16:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Predaliens getting a mention in BOTH is relevant. Predator DNA has a strong influence on the Xenomorph embryo to make it unique, so it fits into the Predator page, whilst the genetic variation in Xenomorph development makes it relevant here. --Tapok 23:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: predalien

message: Edited the Plasma Caster section to include the fact that the laser sight can be mounted on top of the weapon and be operated without the helmet, as seen at the end of Predator 2. Steve m203 12:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plasma Caster

message: I noticed only a brief mention of the scaring that is done during AvP in the article.  Not having read any of the extended universe material is there any evidence or explanation about this past AvP?  Dragonranger 01:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ritual Scarification?

message: "The only thing that stands against the information that says the predator is attracted to heat is the antarctic setting in the 1st AVP movie."
Well, as far as I kinow the antarctic location was chosen (as hunting grounds) because it provides an even more challenging environment for the predators, so it doesn'T exactly stand against their homeworld being hot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.253.118 (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there's no solid contradiction. Remember that this temple was not in an arctic climate when it was built. Exactly why they were in that frozen temple is not known. It shouldn't have posed as a real hunting ground because there was only a captive queen there. One of my personal theories is that they were there to extract xeno eggs, but when the human intrusion started, they had to duke it out first. Sybaronde 20:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Homeworld

message: I have decided to put up an original research template on this article, since much of the information is based on the personal interpretation of the different books, comics and movies. Much of this article information is based on (unverified) original research such as this:
1. For instance, in Predator, the Predator does not attack anything for the first 40 minutes of the film while it is deciding whom to stalk, eventually coming to the conclusion to hunt the military squad.
2. But this predator used his cloak as much as possible, even when 'challenged' by several people, until water from a fire extingiusher system rendered it inoperative, so it was somewhat lacking in predator 'honor.'
3. It also doesn't seem to work against Xenomorphs, possibly because the Xenomorphs use their scent sense to "feel" the pheromones given off by the Predator.
4.  Besides this, it has also been suggested that the mesh is a part of the camouflage system.
A bigger example is the Homeworld section. While the simple sentence: "Nearly no information is given about the Predator homeworld in the films.", would be sufficient, more none-verified information is given after that;
It is also possible they live on a much colder world, where their infrared vision would be much more suited, and because they were able to withstand the cold of Antarctica in Alien vs. Predator, temperatures that would've killed a human, with not so much as a shiver.
Original research; "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position."129.16.49.138 19:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research?

message: They remember me of the Unreal Tournament series race the Skaarj. Any mention in the article? Mallerd 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Skaarj]]?

message: Edited the discription of the wristblades to state that in Aliens vs. Predator 2 game, the removal of the Predator's wristblades causes pulmonary arrest, as stated in the PDA lab journal found in the medical cabinet. As opposed to cardiac arrest, which is false.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.73.237.114 (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wristblades

message: So what's the deal with the scatter gun? 'A last resort weapon' - whats the point? They have the plasma caster why do they need to change it into a gun that fires a net of energy? I don't like the sound of this weapon - just sound pointless to me and i think AvP:R looks really good - sounds to me like this weapon will ruin the movie for me :( - well maybe ill find out when the games comes out  —Preceding unsigned comment added by S-m-r-t (talk • contribs) 16:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scatter Gun

message: In the next few days, I'm going to go though this entire article, adding sources and deleting anything I see as being irrelivent. This post is a warning so you don't go and add something that may be deleted later. If anybody has any objections, you better say them now.--Little Jimmy 07:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A fair warning

message: I'm not sure if I should go around editing things willy nilly, so I'll leave it here for a senior to edit if necessary. If this isn't the correct place to say this, apologies.
The statement, "This is shown in Alien Vs. Predator when the predators had to find there plasma casters within the pyramid, they had to earn them first." is incorrect, as the facility only awakened the hive once the plasma casters were removed in the first place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.2.194 (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Edit

message: I have been looking at the "notoble predator" section and noticed a that someone added a couple of predator toys from the kenner toy line company , anyways i think the "clan leader" and "night stalker" should be deleted seing as it comes from a toy line company and therfore not canon. I mean if we left it there consider how many other predator toys there would be! Not to mention they are not NOTABLE predators at all, i know i could delete it right now but i didn't want to be a jerk and delete it before asking all of you, So what do you guy's think? delete it or not?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.148.187 (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: delete

message: "Yautja" is just a non-canon name from spinoff material (what is it from a book or comic?).  Non-canon names are just that:  non-canon.  This page should be moved back to "Predator (alien)". 
:A surprising amount of material in this article does not differentiate between movie-canon and non-canon spinoff materials.  A future revision may have to more properly delineate them, but that's for the future.  Right now, can anyone cite "Yautja" as canon at all? --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article does not properly differentiate canon and non-canon

message: The whip section ive been looking at has been changing almost everyday, ive read (in this article) that its made out of a  xenemorph tail to xenemorph teeth.What the heck is it! Can someone show me where they get there information from. and if some one puts something as absurd as a xenemorph anything please show me or put a link that can show me where you got that info from! Everything someone puts sounds like bull,can someone prove otherwise? (and the reason you dont see anything in the whip section now is because i erased it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.156.46 (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: whip

message: This whole article reads as if it was written by a twelve year old.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.234.155 (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crap

message: ok folks, here it goes.  I have just read the whole talk page, and it has changed my mind.  I have decided that pretty much everyone is wrong (except Maybe Emperor).  
the Alien vs Predator franchise does not have a canon.  It doesn't have this for two reasons: 1.  There has never been an official statement on what cannon is from the creators/lisence holders (Fox).  
2.  On a more basic level, Alien vs predator doesn't have a shared universe!!! 
The second point has barely been discussed.  In the this day and age, shared multimedia universes are so common place that it is hard for us who spend too much time on Wookieepedia to remember that not every franchise has one.  Look at it this way:  the Predator movie shared a continuity.  The Alien movies share a continuity.  The comic books share a continuity (some of them).  The AVP movies share a continuity that pays a nod to the alien movies by naming two characters in their stories after the company in the Alien movies. Other than these two supporting characters, and the alien and predator species themselves, none of the various works refer to the others.  Do to the lack of inter-referencing and the blairing conflicts and inconsistancies, it is clear that the various properties do not fit into a shared multimedia universe.  This is not so odd.  Remember, it was not until the silver age of comics that comic book companies created the shared universe idea for their various properties.  
That being said, the issue of canon for the entire AVP line is irrelavent.  At best you can talk about what is canon for the various properties.  It might be interesting to find out which comics dark horse considers canon for their Alien, Predator, and AVP lines (most likely, the stories included in their various omnibuses).  The two different sets of novels have their on universes as well.  I would definitely argue that the AVP and the Alien movies are even in separate universes, because the company/government in the Alien movies (set in the far future) seem to think the Aliens are a new discovery, even though the US government and the company founders had access to several dna samples.  Of course you could interpret the companies interest in the aliens as a Rediscovery of the aliens their founder encountered, which explains their great interest in it.  But that is really a reinvisioning or a Retcon solution.  
Once again, other than the characters of the predator and alien, there is very little to link the various properties (no creative directions or inter-property references to past events etc.)  
That being said, the only place that a shared universe becomes important is when one comes to organizing a wikipedia article.  If you make sure you follow the conventions of wikipedia (i.e. out of universe perspective, starting with, this is a character created for the movie franchise_____ and has had appearances in ________.  You will run into little problems.  As long as you site everything, all information should be included.  When conflicts exist, they should be mentioned and sourced.  For instance a secion should be titles "Culture", and say,"While the movies keep the predator species and culture mysterious, its various spin-off products have exponded on some aspects.  It is clear from the movies that the predators place great emphasis on the hunt and have a strict set of rules for the hunt.  In the Alien vs Predator trilogy of novels, they are called the Yautja and......The post AVP(movie) novel, ____ they predators were called Hish, and they......."  So on and so forth.  
Diffenent weapons, when mentioned should have sources/appearences after them.  If you are cutting or changing things because they are not "canon", that is your opinion and it is wrong.  If someone places a reference on info, leave it alone (this of course does not include fanon.  I don't think anyone disagrees with this.  Fanon, in this contest would, at best, fall under independent research/creation).  
If you want to talk about the internal canon of the various properties (comics and such, they belongs in a different article.
Finally, this article lacks documentation and has lots of conjecture/original research and is in desparate need of a rewrite.  Someone that knows how please place a "needs documentation" and "does not conform to a wikipedia standard flag at the beginning of the article.  
And yes it should be renamed "Predator (alien race)" because the word Yautja or Hish is not recognised in all the various properties (which do not necessarily share the same universe).  00:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no Canon!!!

message: if you want an yautja article that is seperate from the all incompasing Predator(alien race) article, that would be ok.  It should be short article that says, "Yautja is the name that the Predator aliens called themselves in the novels.....in these novel, the predators had the following aspects.....this interpretation seems to coincide with.... and conflicts with the discription of the predators seen in ....."IthinkIwannaLeia (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: split the article

message: There are way too many unnecessary pictures on this article. And 8 of them don't even have a fair use rationale. So I'm gonna delete some of them. If anyone has any objections, you may post here. Thank you. — Enter Movie (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: This article is an act of vandalism! The name Yautja and Hish has never been used as the name for Predator in the movies! It it a fan made name and it is not cannon! Also the names Yautja and Hish may be the names of the Predators in the books but they were not written by the person who created Predator so therefor both names are not the true names for the Predators! There should be no information about the names Yautja and Hish! Another thing if the creator of this article removed my deletion tag you can get your posting rights taken away or banned by the Administrators! It needs to be renamed to Predator (alien) or Predator (alien race)! This article needs to be deleted or renamed! General Mannino (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Enter Movie (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: General Mannino, please note, editors have the right to remove deletion templates if they disagree with the proposed deletion, as User talk:Jman2k3 did with your tag on this article, please do not mislead other editors if you are not sure of the relevant policy, see WP:PROD#Conflicts. Also, please do not use capitals in headings. MickMacNee (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete or rename 

message: I've had a read through the article and I have realised something. The article is of almost no use to anybody who does not know about the Predators already. The article seems to only be writen by the fans for the fans. For anyone who does not have any knowledge about the Predators (hence why anyone would be reading this article in the first place), this article will just fly right over their heads.
:Ok, why the hell would anyone be searching predators if they wernt a fan?
For example, the article needs to have the following:
# A propper introduction that fully explains the scope of the article. For example "The Predators are a character created by (insert here) for the movies (insert here) and their role in the movie was (etc.)", not just the half arsed one we have now.
# The parts that we already have writen need to go into more depth, not just how they are now where you would only understand what it is talking about if you already know what the Predator is.
# More information about the real life Predator (i.e. Who made it, how they made it, why they made it etc.) and not just the information about the fictional character that we have now. 
# Links to more detailed articles, such as the articles on the The Predator movies, links to the articles about their special effects teams etc.  
--Little Jimmy 22:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Little Jimmy has spoken about some significant points. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The article is far too long and contains barely any non-fantasy information on subject. WP:NOT#INFO says Wikipedia's coverage of works of fiction should provide sourced information on the works' real-world context, such as development, production, distribution, and cultural reception and impact. Summary descriptions of plot, characters, and settings are appropriate when paired with such real-world information, but not when they are the sole content of an article. This applies both to stand-alone works and to series. The article therefore needs to be rewritten from scratch. 84.167.255.252 13:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs to rewriten

message: This article has been renamed from Yautja to Predator (alien) as the result of a move request.
 - move to original title of Predator (alien). Keith D (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *He didn't delete any discussions. He archived them because the talk page was too long. Enter Movie (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *As per my previous comment to you General Mannino , please do not make accusations towards other editors if you do not know what you are talking about. MickMacNee (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: *Oppose - Predator alien species is highly ambiguous. Perhaps Predator (Predator film franchise) would be better. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Okay, I'll repeat myself again. There are way too many unneccessary pictures on this article. Not every weapon needs a picture. — Enter Movie (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way Too Many Pictures 

message: I'm suggesting splitting the "Equipment" and "Weapons" sections into a different article (probably entitled List of equipments and weapons of Predators). I mean, the page is getting pretty long and those sections contribute to, like, half the page. — Enter Movie (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I boldly split the article. — Enter Movie (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: The last version of the article pre-Yautja was this one. That's probably too far to just roll back to, but it's a good reference for where we were prior to the terminology change. I'll work on correcting this. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Manual search/replace has been run. Next step is de-fancrufting, which is going to take a long time. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That previous edition shows exactly what I'm talking about, there is a difference between talking about Predators, Predator and The Predator. The current opening statement The Predator is a fictional extraterrestrial species is grammatically wrong and confusing. In response to above, the original Predator is not some random bad guy, he is arguably much more notable than any of the other members of the species, so a clear opening distinction about the purpose and subject content of this article is more than necessary. MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's no more "grammatically wrong and confusing" than "the Cat is a small carnivorous species of crepuscular mammal". All that needs to be done to clear up the distinction between "The Predator" and "a Predator" is to point out that the Predators in the films did not have official names. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Predator is a singular character, Predators is the collective term for The Predator's species; Predator singular is a film and has no place in this lead section. Why can't you see this basic logic? No one would be searching an encyclopoedia for a character called The Cat, and if they were (i.e. Red Dwarf), they would not expect the article they found referring to The Cat to in the main be based on his fictional species and not his character). The cat analogy is completely spurious in this case. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've tidied the first sentence a little. I don't see that "The Predator" is any more notably individual than Alan "Dutch" Schaefer, who likewise fails to get his own article. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding me? What a ridiculous statement. Dutch isn't the founding basis of an entire franchise and subsequent endless fandom about Predators and what weapons they use, how their society functions and what they have for breakfast etc etc. 99% of non-franchise fans probably don't even know that there are more than one Predators. Don't get me wrong, I don't want a separate article for The Predator individual, but I want this article to be immediately understandable by all people, the example being myself who came here (or originally and confusingly to the Yautja article), when my original purpose was to read more about the original character. The article should seemlessly introduce the species and the subsequent attributed names, after making clear the distinction between The Predator individual and the existence of Predators as a species, rather than needing the reader to re-read the first sentence 3 times to get the picture. Is that such a terrible concept for you to accept that you have to try so hard to resist it? MickMacNee (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not "resisting" it; I'm just having a hard time figuring out what it is you want from me. You haven't suggested any sample prose to use. You haven't come up with any concrete details on how this should be done. You appear to be complaining that the article doesn't appropriately separate the film content on two particular characters from the mounds of fancruft, which isn't exactly news to me, but I don't see that this can be solved quickly by fiddling with the intro or the article title. Could you start a new section with some suggestions? Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave a sample opening sentence in the requested move above that was unilaterally closed before reaching a conclusion. It is not relevant now though due to the dropping of the (alien race) idea, which is why further clarification is needed.  MickMacNee (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've dropped the old opening and adapted your suggestion. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing the terminology 

message: That's it, now I have finally some time off I'm going to rewrite this entire article. I have given some months notice, and since there were no objections I'm going through with it.
Changes I'm going to make are:
*Every singe piece of information is going to be referenced. If you want to add something and you don't have a source, even if it is true, tough shit, find a source.
*The article will focus on the "real world" side of the creatures; who designed them, why they designed them, how they built them, what for, where were they featured, etcetera. The fictional side of the character will be condensed into one short section.
*There will be a distinction between what information comes from the movies, what from the comics, what from the books, and so on.
*Most of these pictures are not covered by "Fair Use Rationale" and will be DELETED.
So hold, I'm going to start work now.--Little Jimmy (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos on taking the time to do this. I suggest you take a look at using some appropriate notification templates, such as Template:Underconstruction MickMacNee (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally! We have a savior! lol! Thanks, anyways. I may help. — Enter Movie (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the praise. I could use some help when it comes to citing sources. I have got sources, but I don't know what would be the most professional way to cite them. I'm reading through this guide right now, but any tips would be appreciated.--Little Jimmy (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's an encyclopoedia, not a fan-site. Even if it warrants inclusion, it was a complete unredable tombe that requires rewriting for perspective and manual of style. Please respect the process started by other editors. MickMacNee (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, here are examples of good character pages: Michael Myers (Halloween), Jason Voorhees, Padmé Amidala. — Enter Movie (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, citing a movie/book IS a proper source.--Marhawkman (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If the "Characteristics" section is going to stay, I'd suggest moving it below "Concept and creation" Mcr29 (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well now that you mention it, here's something I would like to add: more precision when it comes to citing sources. As of now we have sources that just say, "It comes from this movie" or "it comes from this book". What our sources should be saying is the exact scene in the film, the precise page and even sentence in the book, and so on. The reason for this is so that we can be sure it is actually a source, and not just somebodies interpretation of a source.--Little Jimmy (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think someone should make a "notable predator's" section again to give detail on all the predator characters in the movies,games,comics etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.81.60 (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite is coming. 

message: "A warrior who would dare such would not be wise, for an insulted and angry yautja female was not something even a not-too-wise male wanted to create. Assuming the warrior was armed and expert, it might almost be an even match, but Dachande would put his wager on the female. His most recent partner had tossed him across a room during the heat of their mating and that had been an accident."   
"Yautja females were bigger then males ... It also explained why this warrior was smarter then most of the yautja he taught. Females of any species were usually smarter then the males."   
   
(Aliens vs. Predator: Prey) Dark hyena (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the spammer who keeps messing up the biology section 

message: I mean, the only good contributions in the re-write seem to be coming from registered users. Unregistered users seem to do nothing but delete sourced statements, as if they were fanboys with an agenda against dinosaur slaughter and giant femalesDark hyena (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that the edits in question are "spam". Try discussing the removal of these points on the user's talk page. We shouldn't just go locking articles straight away. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps this should be locked for the time being 

message: Currently, we're using :Image:6098 16 19.jpg for this section; it's okay, but we could do better. We have images from all the movies (Predator, AvP 1, and AvP 2) with the exception of Predator 2; perhaps we can get one from there? Preferably one that shows off just the predator, rather than a random still of a scene that never appears in the movie (and has horrible color balance). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to find a good pic. — Enter Movie (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different picture for the "Film portrayals" section 

message: Just wondering. "Scar", "Celtic", "Wolf" etc... Are they given in the Movie novelizations or something? Dark hyena (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Scar, Celtic, and Gill (or whatever that third Predator's name is) was from the novilization of the first AvP film. Wolf was from the production crew. — Enter Movie (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Then source it--Little Jimmy (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are any of the Predator nicknames sourced? 

message: I figured I'd be more successful at gaining attention here. The article on Predator technology IS necessary (as far as any Sci-Fi article is) as it is a major characteristic of the species, all it needs is a major cleanup. I can't do it alone. Basically, this is merely an invitation.Dark hyena (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if I did it to the main Predator article, I guess I can do it to the Technology article too. I'll help! Do you have any ideas on how we should aproach this?--Little Jimmy (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predator Technology article 

message: We realy need to differentiate on what comes from the comics,movies,and games becuase the article looks worse than before.Becuase were mixing everything together into one big mess.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.81.60 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  differentiate 

message: It seems to me that the majority of angst from fanboys here comes from the "revelation" that predators are Earth natives. But have these guys even read "P;Homeworld"? NOWHERE is it explicitly stated that they definately came from Earth. It is only an idea presented by the comic's main character; Doctor Maya Bergstorm. She merely guesses that the Predators may have some Earth anscestry and that their constant visits were pilgrimages, as well as hunting trips. See? Nothing to worry about.Dark hyena (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth origin 

message: Is this recent edit compromise on "expanded universe" to your liking?Dark hyena (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satisfied? 

message: Are these considered canon? If so, could someone who has read them possibly contribute to the "official" characteristics, such as biology, culture etc? Do they give any insight lacking in the movies themselves on the non expanded universe Predators? Dark hyena (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider them canon, because the authors are just adding information that either they created themselves or used from earlier drafts of the scripts; there are reasons why screenwriters/directors/producers/studios delete some scenes. The only materials I consider canon are the theatrical cuts of the films. — Enter Movie (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie novelizations 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong (been a while since I last saw it), but in Predator 2, didnt the creature have infra-red vision regardless of whether or not he was wearing a mask? I have this memory of the freezer scene in which the Pred is unmasked and still retains thermal vision... Dark hyena (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predator vision 

message: Is it really necessary to have film appearances? The thought occurred to me when I realised that doing the same thing for the xenomorph article would really clutter it up due to the amount of films. Dark hyena (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a more berief version. Rather than detailing the whole movies, just the Presdators role in those movies.--Little Jimmy (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, exactly. The section is essential because it establishes notability, but we don't need to summarise whole movies in it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearances necessary? 

message: So half the article is full of fancruft again. This needs to be beaten back mercilessly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back where we came from