Talk:Xenomporph (Alien)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Xenomporph (Alien)/Archive 1 was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: October 12, 2006

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Kilo-Lima (talk • contribs • email)

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Xenomporph (Alien)/Archive 1 has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Xenomporph (Alien)/Archive 1 has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 Adult Aliens weak against fire? 2 Alien Acid Description is Inaccurate 3 Does this need a clean up? 4 So many contradictions! 5 This article should be called "Creatures From The Alien Series" 6 Everything Else 7 Theories - Origin 8 Fact check 9 Debate 9.1 Specific vs General 9.2 Zygote/Gestate/Seed 10 "Drone" ? 11 Classes 12 This entire article is fundamentally flawed 13 Predalien 14 Bibliography 15 "Newborn" alien from Alien Ressurection 16 Death of the Newborn 17 Runners 18 Praetorians -- non-canon? 19 Canon status 20 Full body shot 21 Case ? 22 "Scientific" name 23 FaceHugger 24 Removed section 25 Featured Article 25.1 Images 26 Body shape 27 References 28 Title 29 Bolton's "Genocide" Art -- Restored 30 References 31 Origins of Queen 32 The Alien 3 super facehugger debacle 33 Spitting Acid 34 Alien king 35 Removal of #Homeworld Speculation and #Trivia 36 Meaning of Latin names? 37 Lead 38 Naming and origins of each? 39 GA failed 40 Alien variation 41 Parasitoid, not parasite 42 Senses of the Creature 43 Concerning changes to the article 44 the predator connection 45 Non-Canon castes 46 Uh...is the queen mating thing canon? 47 Facehuggers and the Double-jaw. 48 Species Name 49 Skeletal Structure 50 Implantation of Chestburster 51 Inflection

Adult Aliens weak against fire?

I noticed that the article says: "Xenomorphs, in all stages of their life cycles, have shown vulnerabilities to heat, such as fire and flamethrowers" When we have yet to see what a flamethrower, for example, would do to an adult Alien who could survive a bath in molten/boiling lead.

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

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

Alien Acid Description is Inaccurate

I'm not sure if anybody who wrote the parts about alien acid actuallly took chemistry in the past, but there's no real life analogue of such strong acid. There's not a chance in he** that that acid is hydrofluoric acid, which, incidentally isn't even one of the 7 strong mineral acids. Nor could the acid be sulfuric or for that matter, any other acid known to man. Lets keep the lovely pseudoscience separate from the real science.

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

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

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

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

Does this need a clean up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So many contradictions!

"The word Xenomorph was coined for advertising the 1953 movie It Came from Outer Space."

"In other words, the word xenomorph itself means little more than "alien form" and was coined by a US Colonial Marine in Aliens."

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

"They can survive in extreme temperatures, are well-adapted to swimming, and can survive in a vacuum for unknown lengths of time. "

"Xenomorphs, in all stages of their life cycles, have shown extreme vulnerabilities to fire, flamethrowers, and the like whilst cold is an inadequate precautionary measure except at the extreme."

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.

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)

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

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

"Not to mention the fact that nobody looking for information about the creatures from Alien is going to just type in 'xenomorph' in the search bar to find what they're looking for." --I sort of fixed this aspect of the problem by including a link to xenomorphs on the alien disambiguation page, and an additional link on the Alien film page. So if a person still can't find it, they probably don't know how to search in the first place, or don't know the movie and just remember the creature (which is itself not even a good excuse anyway because the average stranded searcher will, in a last resort, type in the broad term "alien" in hopes of it just happening to be there, and in this case, it is) (Note: this was not supposed to settle any controversy, but to remove possible confusion that was a basis of it while things settle out)--Dch111 22:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

HUDSON

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

GORMAN

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

WIERZBOWSKI

A what?

HICKS(to Wierzbowski; low)

It's a bug-hunt.

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

True, the species is never named. However, before H. R. Giger was picked up by Ridley Scott, STARBEAST was the original movie title by the original story writers Dan O'Bannon & Ronald Shusett. The term seems to have died off almost entirely. Now maybe people find the term laughable. In Alien3, it is referred to as a DRAGON. --Trakon 21:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything Else

We should get images of the Xenomorph at the different stages of its life cycle.-B-101

---

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

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

Sort of done --ZZ 09:53, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Such as? pomegranate 22:10, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

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

I'd be very happy to edit and upload screen-caps from my Aliens and Alien 3 DVDs, but, as B-101 says, I don't know if using such images would be permitted. If anyone knows what the score is, email me: thomashiles@gmail.com (because I probably won't check back this page for ages). pomegranate 01:43, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

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

---

Xenomorph = "Alien (life)form". I would like to change that to match instead with the Wiktionary's definition of Morph.

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

Theories - Origin

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

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

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

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.

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, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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)

Fact check

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

Debate

Should this section contain a discussion of canon as it pertains to the series? It might clarify some things; particularly, the notion of whether aliens are silicon-based or whether they incorporate silicon into an otherwise carbon-based chemistry. Teflon Don 08:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Specific vs General

I could be missing something here, but I believe that Xenomorph is the fan name for the antagonist lifeform found in the Alien(s) movie series. The characters in the series don't call the monsters specificly by that name. When the word is used by the characters it's used in the general sense to mean "something from the set of things which are alien shapes/lifeforms", rather than naming a specific species. -- anonymous, 00:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Zygote/Gestate/Seed

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

Yeah, but these games aren't canonical. I wouldn't trust just in-game evidence.

"Drone" ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For lack of better solution, I suggest that the word 'adult', 'mature', or 'imago' be used in connection with a fully developed non-Queen/non-Praetorian Xenomorph.

rwa 07:55, 30 January, 2006 (UTC)

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

Classes

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

This entire article is fundamentally flawed

The name "Xenomorph" is never used in any of the Alien films as the specific name for the species. To the best of my knowledge, the only use of the term is in the second film (Aliens) by James Cameron and in Alien 3 by David Fincher. It isn't a proper name but a group classification.

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, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Umm, they also call it a Xenomorph in the Alien 3 Special Edition, on the Alien Quadrilogy Boxset. So it isn't only used once.

Hey, at least there's an article here. Who care's what they call 'em anyway? Xenomorph sounds cool to me. Predator 05:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

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

• As long as you realize that the word also describes Yoda, Klaatu and Superman, fine. To me it's a little like finding a lost island tribe and designating them as "The humans."

24.33.28.52 21:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Predalien

Notice, the Predalien needs to move to the canon section of this article, because the predalien is in the Alien Vs predator movie, making it canon. -Izzy8900

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?

What about the Aliens Versus Predator games? The predalien is introduced there.

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)

Bibliography

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

"Newborn" alien from Alien Ressurection

Should a section be included to show off this creature? I think, considering all the other expanded universe information here we should have this as well. I don't want to write it because I'm not too familiar with the Newborn in particular so I don't want it to sound as outlandish as some of this stuff does (like the space jockey page (good god!)

Death of the Newborn

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

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

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

Runners

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

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)

Praetorians -- non-canon?

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

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

• Actually, these are not praetorians. If you recall, all of the aliens in the second movie had unusual ribbed markings on their heads...this was mainly a technical problem, since the transparent cowls were prone to breaking during filming. It's been rationalized in a number of ways, often as the aliens shedding the cowl once they reach a certain maturity.

Canon status

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

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

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

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

Full body shot

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

Several times in Alien the xenomorph towers over it's victims to instill fear, and I believe there are many full-body shots in Aliens as well. Alien 3 had fewer good shots due to the shoddy technique used to animate the creature, but there were also clear shots of it as well.

In all cases you'll most likely wind up freezing the frame and moving frame-by-frame to find the clearest shots. Drago 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Case ?

Shouldn't it be Xenomorph (with a capital 'X') in every instance? It's a proper noun, not a common noun..or is it? Lucien the Librarian 19:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

"Scientific" name

In the Alien Quadriligy, the menu of Aliens lists the scientific name of the xenomorph as "Internecivus-Raptus". [1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FaceHugger

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

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

Well, just because one egg was seen on screen doesn't mean it's the only egg that was onboard...

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)

Removed section

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

Although the DNA assimilation theory was popular, the idea of the xenomorphic embryo actually using DNA from the host was a matter of some debate, on the following points:

• Does a silicon-based lifeform like the xenomorph even use DNA? (This was addressed in one of the Aliens novels, where it was revealed that the xenomorph possesses more than the standard four DNA basetypes of A, G, C and T, but still does include those.)
• Could a silicon-based lifeform make some use of carbon-based DNA?
• Borrowing an entire host chromosome seems an unlikely possibility.

A more detailed explanation may be that a facehugger or chestburster was capable of deciphering its host's DNA, deciding upon which traits it would like to keep, and re-encoding the DNA of the embryo in order to obtain these "genetic ideas" for the resultant adult creature.

A facehugger's long period of attachment to its host supports that more was occurring than the simple laying of an egg. In the Alien fiction, it has been noted that the very few survivors of the alien impregnation process were often mentally unbalanced, prone to aggression, and known for feats of inhuman strength. Dr. Paul Church and Ripley 8 exhibited these traits to varying degrees.

Featured Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Images

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

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

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

Body shape

The body shape needs work, right now it's backwards (the aliens got more svelte as the films progressed, not the other way around) Beowulph 20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

From an effects stand-point, the Alien 3 creature takes the cake at being the most svelt while in rod-puppet form. The CGI versions of A:R (seem to be) leaner, but in AvP they look about the same as their suit counterparts.

References

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

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

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

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

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

Title

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

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

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

Bolton's "Genocide" Art -- Restored

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

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

(Broadacre 15:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

I've reverted the image back to "old blue" based on consensus preference. (Broadacre 11:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC))

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

For instance, "parasite" is not a verb.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

In truth, the whole lead should be completely re-written. The first change should be an indication that "xenomorph" is simply a substitute word for "alien".

(Broadacre 09:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

(Broadacre 18:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, how do we feel about the current lead? (Broadacre 11:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC))

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

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

References

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

Origins of Queen

In the original movie Alien, the single normal Xeno was laying eggs and capturing the human characters in preparation. I have heard that these eggs contained queen facehuggers. When an adult Xenomorph is away from the queen for an extended period of time, it will lay eggs containing "Queen Facehuggers"

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

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

The Alien 3 super facehugger debacle

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

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

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

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

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

Spitting Acid

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

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

Alien king

I know they are like bugs but there might be a alien king that make queens or was the orgin of the aliens and it may happean if the hive survies 1 year because in the movies and comics and games they last 1 day or week or month.

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

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

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

I don't think that there is an Alien king. like in insect colonies, drones that mate with the QueenSheep 15:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)# Cryptosporidium-137

Removal of #Homeworld Speculation and #Trivia

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

Meaning of Latin names?

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

Done. Although my Latin&Greek are weak, so there are likely more accurate translations. There is some evidence that encephalopod is archaic for cephalopod - can someone confirm this? [2] Vagary 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead

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

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

Whoops. Sorry about not signing that. :) Porlob 14:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Naming and origins of each?

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

• Starbeast (name in original script, virtually unknown)

• Alien (as the title of the first movie, though considered too ambiguous)

• Giger's Alien (as it is called in the book of the same name and among artists)

• Xenomorph (coined in the second movie, a more "technical" usage, though unpopular to some and unknown to many others)

• Bug (from the second movie, slang usage, though many spinoff creatures since have used the same word)

• Dragon (from the third movie, not as popular as the ambiguity is just as confusing as "Alien" itself)

• [any of the number of Latin names]

• [etc]

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

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

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

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

• Internecivus raptus

• Linguafoeda acheronsis

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

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

GA failed

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

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

Alien variation

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

Parasitoid, not parasite

Actually you will find that the larval form is not a true parasite - it is a Parasitoid. Parasitoids kill their hosts eventually to complete their life cycle, but parasites do not kill their hosts directly.

Senses of the Creature

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

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

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

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

Concerning changes to the article

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

the predator connection

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

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

No where in AVP says that preds engineered Xenomorphs the movie said they brot them to earth to hunt them and used humens as hosts to breed them.

Non-Canon castes

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

Uh...is the queen mating thing canon?

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

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

Facehuggers and the Double-jaw.

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

Ehhh... you could say that, that's certainly how giger designed them. Just take a look at some of Giger's other work.

Species Name

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

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

Skeletal Structure

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

Implantation of Chestburster

I think the claim that the chestburster is in fact the "tube" inserted into the host which then consumes the facehugger is a bizarre conjecture. In Alien, when Kane is being examined while the facehugger is attached, there is an apparent spherical object which has been implanted by the facehugger, just before, an egg probably or an undifferentiated embryo. This object is seen briefly before Ash, appear to hide it by moving the scanner when Dallas enters the room.

Inflection

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

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