Talk:Predator (Predator franchise)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Predator (Predator franchise) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Rewrite is coming.

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)

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)
Finally! We have a savior! lol! Thanks, anyways. I may help. — Enter Movie (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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)

There is barely any information about the Predators now. Pretty much all of the useful information is gone. Who wants to know about crap like design, film portrayals, and special effects and creature evolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.59.153 (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

This is awesome work, Jimmy. Thanks for being bold and getting this article back on track. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure. The design and conception is about how the Predators were designed and brought on screen, whereas the characteristics section is purely fictionDark hyena (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work guys! I just logged in now about to start adding sources, and what do you know, you guys already have started and added more information! I would like to thank you all for the support.--Little Jimmy (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no problem! Feel free to add more if you see anything missing. Some refs for the "technology" article would be great. Dark hyena (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

I think that may be a bit too tricky. I've only read AVP:P, AVP:HP and P:CW, and I gave them away years ago, but I can guarantee, I remember enough to trust what I've written down. The rest, I got from references cited on http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Highrise/7256/. Dark hyena (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

for the spamerr who thinks that females are larger there are different sources that source how ever is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.76.220 (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To the spammer who keeps messing up the biology section

"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) hello i am the anonymous user thankyou for the re write and please seperate book in information from movie information e.g which gender is lager and stronger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.76.220 (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps this should be locked for the time being

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)

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)

[edit] Different picture for the "Film portrayals" section

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)

I'll try to find a good pic. — Enter Movie (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, that's IT!

Clearly, there are some people here who for some reason or other, hate the idea of female Predators being bigger than males, and that Predators killed dinosaurs. Sources have been provided, yet this hasnt stopped these people from making consistent edits of the same points WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION.

So here's the point of this page. Present your case, or quit editing those points until you've read the sources for yourselves. Dark hyena (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not deleting the information, but the reason I think people are deleting that info is because it's not canon. — Enter Movie (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
mabe we should try to differentiate what comes from comics,movies and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.81.60 (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
About canon. A major problem with the Predator franchise is the fact that a canon has never been established; never has a director, producer, writer or whatever come out and officially said, "Only "this" source is canon". While my personal belief is that only the movies are canon and everything else if full of crap (e.g. Predators originating from Earth? Batman and Superman living in the same fictional universe as the Predator? Give me a break), the fact remains that since there is no official word on what is canon, all sources are valid for this article. But this shouldn’t be a problem, because if all the information in this article is sourced, you can check what the source is and then choose if you want to ignore it.--Little Jimmy (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I think the only canon materials are the films. — Enter Movie (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Silly movie.... There is no canon. Wikipedia doesn't care about what may or may not be considered canon anyways.--Marhawkman (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"I agree. I think the only canon materials are the films"

Prove it. Find one sourced statement by a Predator filmmaker or author stating that.Dark hyena (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, man. I just said I thought. But films are usually the only canon materials (when a piece of work is started out in a film), unless said otherwise by the creator(s)/director/producer or if the franchise is rebooted. It's like saying RoboCop vs. The Terminator is canon to the Terminator universe, but it's really not 'cause it doesn't fit into the timeline. Or that the Chaos Halloween comic books are set within the film's continuity when Halloween: Resurrection directly contradicts them. I mean, do you actually consider Superman & Batman vs. Aliens & Predator to be canon in the Predator universe? Here are quotes from the canon (fiction) article:
Material that is considered canon usually comes from the original source or author of the fictional universe, while (some) spin-offs and adaptations to other media are more likely to be non-canon and fan fiction is almost always non-canon.
Generally, "Expanded Universes" are not considered canonical; by analogy with the idea of a canon of Scripture (see Biblical canon), such stories are considered "apocryphal." — Enter Movie (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are any of the Predator nicknames sourced?

Just wondering. "Scar", "Celtic", "Wolf" etc... Are they given in the Movie novelizations or something? Dark hyena (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)
Then source it--Little Jimmy (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Predator Technology article

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)

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)

My idea is to add stuff like who designed what weapon and it's hitory etc. See my more recent additions there as examples.Dark hyena (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] differentiate

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)

Mess? Worse? Well excuse me, but before the rewrite, this article was very nearly deleted. Secondly, THEY ARE ALREADY differentiated. Just look at the references provided! The distinction between comic and film is already given. The provided references remove the need to write something as cluttering as "this was shown in such and such". Just look at the refs, and decide for yourself what is acceptable or not. No filmmaker has of yet stated that the comics and videogames are non-canon. Until then, the book and VG references have every right to be there.Dark hyena (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Earth origin

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)

[edit] Satisfied?

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

Its actually much better now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.81.60 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Movie novelizations

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)

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)

[edit] Predator vision

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)

Infa-Red is actually the Predators natural vision. The reason why in the first movie the vision was red when the Predator took off its mask was because of all the ambient heat of the jungle. The mask when in Infa-Red vision mode merely acts as filter between body heat and ambient heat. In Predator 2 the reason why there is no "red vision" is because there is not as much ambient heat in the slaughterhouse, rooftop or wherever else the mask is taken off. It was all explained here, but it looks like somebody deleted it.--Little Jimmy (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appearances necessary?

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Back where we came from

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)

Explain.Dark hyena (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In detail. Marhawkman (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to explain. The Characteristics, Expanded universe and In popular culture sections are all written in a primarily in universe style and are as of now of little relevance to somebody who does not know much about the Predators (hence why they would be reading the article in the first place). These sections do not detail the any of the “making of” side of the Predators; while they detail events that happened in the Predators fictional universe, they do not detail the who’s how’s what’s when’s and why’s about the creative process of this fictional universe. Not only that, these sections are also sparsely sourced. And to top it off, these sections are each vastly longer than the Concept and creation section, which is perhaps the most relevant yet sparsely touched on section in this entire article. That is what needs to be fixed about this article. Remember, the Predators are not real creatures, they are fictional, and that needs to be elaborated on.--Little Jimmy (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

I feel that merging the articles would create one insanely long cumbersome article.--Marhawkman (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, just like how it used to be a few moths ago. It was split up for becoming to crowded and slowing load times. And as per the guidelines if a section of an article becomes too long it should form its own page. It's all just fine how it is, why change it?LordJesseD (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Because the 2 articles that are proposed to be merged (Predator technology and Yautja language) are unencyclopedic topics concerned only with trivial information about a fictional universe. They mostly consist of original research and in-universe explanations and cite only primary sources (the technology article cites mostly the DVDs, and the language article cites only comics), therefore they also don't meet WP:V or WP:RS. The technology article, for example, has been tagged for over a year as needing additional sources for verification and being written in an in-universe style. The article is also rife with fair-use images, way too many than are necessary to explain the topic. Neither of these topics appears to meet the criteria of Wikipedia's notability guidlines on fictional subjects. They are mostly elaborate explanations of simple subjects that are interesting only to hardcore fans of the series, and Wikipedia is not a fan service. Any useful, referenced information in the articles could easily be pared down into a couple of paragraphs within this article. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I’m against the merger of these articles. The Predator technology and Yautja language articles are too long winded, cumbersome, unsourced, badly written, and overall irrelevant, to be included in this article. The only way I could see a merger even being feasible would be if the Predator technology and language articles could be condensed into the size of one paragraph.--Little Jimmy (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm suggesting with the merger. Merge the key information from those articles into this one, and dump the excessive trivia. For example, pare the "technology" article down to 1 or 2 referenced paragraphs about the props and special effects used in the films. Same with the language article. It could all be whittled down to a few really good, encylopedic paragraphs which could then be merged into this article in a "special effects" section or something similar. I'm not saying "dump everything from those articles into this one". I'm saying selectively merge the relevant information, then get rid of the fluf. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well that's actually a good idea. I support that motion!--Little Jimmy (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt, I'm not totally against this. To be sharp, I understand this. I just think that the work some of us have put in will now be a waste. Don't scold me for this, I already know what you'll say. There's also Alexa Woods which needs to be merged, and it ain't even on the template. List of Alien and Predator games also needs to be on it, too.

Check out the Croation version of Hicks' page, if any of the English pages were like that (example: Ellen Ripley) would they be keepable? I was going to update, add sources and do some rewriting on a number of the pages to include at least one picture and be helpful and informational, but I guess that project is out the window now. I support this motion of merging and cleaning. By the way IllaZilla, to quote Private Frost, "Boy's definitely got a corncob up his ass." Loosen up just a little.LordJesseD (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully it won't be a waste, because we'll be able to salvage the most useful information during the merge. Side note: the List of Alien and Predator games is my own little project that is still very much in progess with a long way to go. I plan to add it to the template when it's in decent shape. It was just too complex to build in my own userspace but isn't anywhere near finished yet. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully. I still know a few other articles that really need to be cleaned. Like the list of characters from Aliens. --LordJesseD (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My point here is that you'd need to take an article that consists of several pages and condense it into 2 paragraphs. This completely removes all useful information. This is an encyclopedia, people read it to learn things. There is no real reason why things need to be "short and simple". Leaving out tiny details is good. Reducing something to the "bare bones" removes it from being encyclopedic and leaves it as little more than the header for a real article.--Marhawkman (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of all the "several pages" in those articles, there are maybe 2 paragraphs worth of actual referenced encyclopedic analysis/commentary. The rest is fan synthesis of fictional information, in-universe explanations, 3-sentence sections of fictional speculation built around movie screenshots, and other useless trivial information that I would call "cruft" (though I'm sure others will take offense to the use of this word). Most of it is original research and also does not meet the notability guidelines for fictional subjects or the manual of style for writing about fiction. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is an encyclopedia, yes, and it incorporates elements from specialized encyclopedias like ones dedicated to film or science fiction. But even those, if they are good, approach their subjects from a real-world perspective and restrict themselves to critical commentary rather than fan analysis and synthesis. To draw a relevant comparison, Wikipedia is not the Colonial Marines Technical Manual. These articles were spun-off from this main article apparently for the purpose of paying fanservice and elaborating on unimportant details about trivial fictional subjects, and any relevant information they have could easily be merged back into the main article. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Really? What's your definition of properly referenced? WP does not require articles to be based on anything but the source material. In the case of fictional works, an article is considered poorly referenced if it ISN'T derived at least in part from the source material. This article is derived primarily from the source material. Notability isn't really an issue since it's a SUBarticle and not really an article in it's own right. As for "fan analysis and synthesis", I must disagree. The article, as written, largely sticks to repeating and condensing information from the movies.--Marhawkman (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinkning different, now. What do you have against these sub-articles? I'd say 89% of us are happy with how they are. I mean, do you have some vendetta against Aliens and Predators? Do you stand to make a profit from removing/condensing this? Does it make you feel special to waste the peoples time who spent it writing those sub-articles? Let's review the technology. A) they mostly appeared in the movies. B) the expanded univerese is the comics and games. The movies are referenced, the comics are, and the games will be. That's the media they are shown in, and they're referenced. What more is there? This is getting to be a joke. They're quite fine how they are. Seriously, what is your real problem with it all? If this is all 'useless trivia', why do you care? All this merging will simply implode itself and become how it is now. Are you some jaded fan? Why does this all seem to be offending you, having a few details on things?--LordJesseD (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Quite the opposite, actually. I'm a big fan of both series. I created and launched WikiProject Alien, in fact. But one of the major reasons I did so was because there were so many sub-articles like these that are clearly not appropriate for Wikipedia and need to be dealt with. As a response to you both (Marhawkman & LordJesseD), here are some relevant policies/guidelines as to why articles cannot consist entirely of primary source analysis, and why articles about trivial subjects in fiction are usually not considered encyclopedic (bolding indicates my own emphasis):
  • WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Note the insistence on secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which this article lacks. In fact, WP:N further states that this is an essential criteria for a topic to merit a stand-alone article.
  • WP:V outright states that "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Further: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
  • WP:NOR states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
  • WP:FICT advises: "For articles on fiction, reliable sources may cover such things as design, development, reception and cultural impact. This is real-world coverage because it describes the real-world aspects of the work. Fictional coverage describes the work's fictional elements, such as the setting, characters, and story." There is only 1 short paragraph in the "technology" article that uses out-of-universe, or "real-world" perspective (the "Design" section), and maybe only a few sentences in the "language" article.
These articles rely entirely on primary sources and consist entirely of fan synthesis of these sources. Note that notability of articles is not inherited from other articles on the subject, and all articles must be built around secondary source material (even what you may call "sub-articles"). In other words, "Predtor technology" is not considered a notable subject simply on the basis that "the movies are notable and the creature is notable, therefore this sub-topic related to them is also notable." For a topic to merit a stand-alone article, it must have been the subject of third-party critical commentary published in reliable secondary sources outside of Wikipedia. I highly doubt that the specific topics of the fictional language and gizmos used by the fictional Predator creatures has generated enough third-party published analysis to merit a stand-alone article. As I've said, this could all be explained neatly in a few paragraphs in this article using real-world context (design & creation of props, concept & writing of the characters' items, etc). Anything more than that is far more detail than Wikipedia wants and amounts to fancruft (after all, Wikipedia is not Wookiepedia). --IllaZilla (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of the rules and guidelines. Sometimes I feel they need to be bent. I know that you created WikiProject Alien, but I just feel a bit annoyed that these pages are gonna be scrapped, and I couldn't help but lash out. For now before they're merged, I will update and tidy them, just so it's a little nicer for the mean time. Here's an idea, once it's all merged, why not have a gallery for a few of the images? --LordJesseD (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you're taking the time to tidy them. I'm not actually merging the articles myself, at least not in the immediate future. I'm working on other projects like categorization at the moment. But nominating them for merger and giving a detailed rationale was definitely part of the project agenda, so I wanted to get the ball rolling on that. I'm glad there are dedicated editors like yourself who are willing to take on the tasks of cleaning up and polishing the articles, even if we disagree on whether they should be kept. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and my apologies for my previous outburst. For now, I'll work on adding infoboxes and cleaning/polishing. I also think that any use of xenomorph provides a in-universe perspective too, so the replacement with Alien will be needed, no? And, yes, I use a capital A because xenomorph is a biological name, and Alien is a title. My english skills are a little rusty, though. --LordJesseD (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You're 100% right on that one, IMO. That's why the article on the creature was moved from "Xenomorph (Alien)" to "Alien (Alien franchise)". I realize that title sounds silly, but it was decided as the best way to disambiguate it. In all the films the credits list the creature as "Alien" or "The Alien", I believe (I'm positive that AVP:R did). "Xenomorph" was used as a categorizing term in Aliens, where it was only said once (then repeated) by one character. Basically it's like saying "an insect" or "a mammal"...it's a categorizing term, not a name. Several of the comic series and games did pick up on the term and continued to use it, but it's never been a name for the creature. So yes, if you see it, please change it to "Alien". --IllaZilla (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Plus, a "Alien" is the most common name, so it's needed, despite how good xenomorph sounds. Also, for the Marines-related articles, Bishop too, I've/will color/ed the infoboxs green, mainly becauase it's a military color, and because it's the color of their armors in Aliens. --LordJesseD (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Time for my two bits again.

WP:N: This subject probably not independantly notable. that's why I keep calling it a sub-article. It exists ONLY because the main predator article was getting too long. This is permissible. Also from WP:Notability: "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content". See Wikipedia: article Size that is the only reason why there is more than one page to start with.

WP:V: this works differently in regards to fictional works. third party information is not normally used to write articles in fictional topics, only for establishing notability.

WP:NOR: It's not synthesis, or interpretive analysis to make a list of things done in a movie.

WP:FICT: So? I don't see how that's a mandate that all articles must have a section on that at all. The article DOES have some of that already. Why is this a problem?

"built around secondary sources"? I don't see where you get that from. Fictional topics, as a rule, CANNOT be written that way because secondary sources are not considered authoritative.

As an example of the differences inherent in fictional and nonfiction, Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran this article is based primarily on Third party information. Why? A Primary source would be the battle itself. A secondary source would be eyewitness testimony of what happened in the battle. Most of what is known from the battle comes from the statements made by Kapitan detmers and his crew. Why? There are no other witnesses. All other information about the battle is based on data from the ship wrecks and critical commentary about the battle.

In this case, the only information that is considered reliable enough to actually base an article off of it is the primary source. Why? the rest are generally considered non-authoritative.--Marhawkman (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To address your points, I will transclude a reply I posted in an AfD yesterday to another editor, because I feel that you share some of the same misconceptions:
1) That "subarticles" or "spinoff articles" are some kind of special category of articles that have their own separate criteria for notability and verification. This is completely untrue. There is no special classification for "subarticles". There are no distinctions between "regular articles" and "subarticles." There are only articles, and the relevant policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT) apply to all of them regardless of their subject matter. If there is enough information and supporting secondary source material to warrant splitting a specific topic from an article off into its own stand-alone article, only then then it is justifiable to do so. Article length is not the sole reason.
2) That these "subarticles" are exempt from Wikipedia's rules that articles must reference reliable secondary sources, and may be based only on primary sources. Again, this completely contradicts all of the core policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and WP:N, which state the exact opposite.
3) That because Wikipedia incorporates elements of specialized encyclopedias, and that because there are encyclopedias devoted to science fiction, that Wikipedia can therefore not exclude articles about trivial science-fiction related topics. Again, this is an incorrect assumption. A good science fiction encyclopedia, being first and foremost an encyclopedia, will consist mainly of real-world analysis of sci-fi topics (ie. notable franchises, books, and films) and base its analyses on primary and secondary sources. Otherwise it is not an encyclopedia, but a manual, guide, or novel (ie. the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual). Again, all article topics on Wikipedia are subject to the criteria of verifiability, original research, and notability, regardless of what field of interest they relate to.
4) That notability of an article's subject is somehow "inherited" from other articles about the general subject. In other words, since the Alien and Predator movies are notable, editors have free reign to create whatever "subarticles" they wish that relate to the series in any way, and the notability of those topics is somehow "inherited" from the "parent articles" and is therefore not debatable. In all the annals of Wikipedia I have never seen anything to support this idea, and it completely contradicts the core policies and inclusion criteria such as notability, verifiability, and original research.
As to the point that "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content", that means that every fact or piece of info presented in an article does not necessarily need to be notable in and of itself. The subject of the article, however, must still meet the notability guidelines in order to qualify for a stand-alone article. These articles synthesis topics from a variety of different media: films, comics, games, etc. which do not have an official continuity or canon, therefore it is synthesizing information and making interpretive analysis of that information. Any article that relies only on primary sources is by default making an interpretive analysis of those sources, which is the definition of original research. WP:FICT and WP:WAF give clear guidelines on how to write about fiction from an out-of-universe perspective and how articles about fictional topics must discuss these topics in a real-world context. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a manual or guide to fictional universes. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 :???: did you read the article size thing? when you split an article because of a size issue, the two pages are treated as a single article for most purposes.--Marhawkman (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, in the ship battle article you point out as an example, I see a bunch of secondary sources used as references. These are books, articles, TV specials, etc. done by historians and the like analyzing the battle and the firsthand accounts of it. The article is not based entirely on primary sources, it uses plenty of secondary ones. I think you're confused about what primary vs. secondary sources are. A testimony by one of the ship's captains would be a primary source, because they were at the battle and witnessed it firsthand. Secondary sources are written by third parties unattached to the subject, in that case historians. No secondary sources are used in the Predator technology & language articles, and they are indeed required regardless of the article's subject matter. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you didn't pay enough attention. I was mentioning the battle as an example of something where you CAN'T use primary sources. Kapitan Detmer's writings about it don't even count there.--Marhawkman (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how writing fiction in an encyclopedia could be of any objective use for a reader. I would recommend merge and cleanup on all three articles, with further concentration on creating the character and the character universe. Concentrating on relevant and non-fictional information about the character, language and technology should easily shrink the proposed article to a quick loading stage. aeris 03:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerisama (talk • contribs)

[edit] Merger of language article

Well I went ahead and merged the language article. I know that information I merged in is minimal, but honestly everything in that article was original research, speculation, an unsourced stuff about fan communities. In fact the only 3 "references" were links to fan sites. Honestly I barely found anything salvageable to merge, except to mention that the author of the novel series created a language set for that series. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Peter Hall's Height and Portrayl

This article states he stood at 7 foot 2 inches. His article says he was 7 foot 2 and a half. Either is plausable. But in John McTiern's commentary for Predator he states the Kevin was 7 feet 6 inches. He didn't specify whether this was in the Predator suit or not, but I believe not. Previously in the commentary he described Sonny Landham's body guard (6'6"), so maybe he was mistaken, as he seems to stumble a little in his commentary. I'm a bit unsure, if you look at the shot just as the Predator drops Dutch after observing him so that he can take his helmet off, the Predator looks massive and Arnold his roughly 6'2".

Also John himself states that he cast Kevin in the role of the helicopter pilot at the end of the movie and even points it out. The pilot of the chopper doesn't look or sound like Kevin, who I've seen in the making of of Predator 2. I could just be mistaken, though. I'm still very unsure of the facts about Kevin.

Although it would be more suitable to post his on Kevin's page, more people come here, and it is related to this article. Basically, I've no real idea of the truth about him, and I think it's neseccary to clean it up.LordJesseD (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Suits for Predator and Predator 2

When I listened to the commentary for Predator, John McTiernan states the suit weighed near 200 pounds (aprox. 110 kgs), and took about 5 hours or so to put on, and another 5 to take off. Kevin Peter Hall would wear a cool suit, similar to a race car driver's, which would keep him cool for roughly 2 hours. John McTiernan also had a "bungee rig" of sorts built (sorry for miss-spelling that if I did), which, to my knowledge, was used on the scene where the Predator jumps over a few rocks next to the waterfall after being unable to see Dutch, used to support the immense wait of the suit and actor, allowing Kevin to run. I think that if this information could be added to this article and the article for Predator, it would be useful. Also John Rosengrant says that the suit for Predator had much of the weapons (i.e. wristblades) and armor attached to the suit, but in Predator 2 much more of the Predator's inventory was removable and clip-on, done for a more realistic feel. (Except for the Predators appearing at the end in the spaceship). I should think this would be promising information for this article.

There's also something I disbelieve, that the suit for Predator, Kevin Peter Hall was unable to see out of it. I haven't watched the making ofs for Predator, but I know in Predator 2, the mask with the mandibles was tight-fitting with no eyes, and Kevin would wear contact lenses. I'm to believe that this was the technique used in Predator. So is this a false rumor, or am I mistaken? It's sourced in the article for Predator, but someone could have referrenced that to add fuel to the fire. I'm still open to the fact I'm in the fault, so feel free to prove me wrong.

I'm 99% sure the mask Kevin would wear with the face cut-out and the helmet velcroed on, Kevin would see out the mesh "lenses." An interesting comment from Stan Winston on the makin of of Predator 2 was this: "Broad concept's the same. The difference is, this is a different individual. A different individual of the same species. As is a snake is a snake is a snake, but different snakes are different. Their colorings are different, different parts of their characterristics, their facial structures, suttle differences." I think that is quite an intelligent and meaningful comment that would do well in one of those small little blue boxes off to the side that noone ever puts in italics and it would be a viable relation to how the Predators all appear similar.LordJesseD (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds really promising. I'd support it, but how do you reference a commentary? By the way, the bit about the helmet being velcroed in is true. This is confirmed in the book "Winston effect".Dark hyena (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I knew that it was velcroed on, just didn't know (then) if he could see out the mesh. It was finite enough not to see into, but allowed someone to see out. To referrence a commentary I'd use the {ref}{/ref} (with the right characters) way. Just have it as, "Predator commentary, DVD, John McTiernan (year)." Just a simple referrence that provides the truth. By the way, would a picture of the contact lenses and the suit without the helmet help? All this information from the making ofs etc. would have to go in, we could use doubleimagestack-thing or I could Photoshop them together, or something. I think I might add Stan Winston's comment.LordJesseD (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Predator's Vision

Okay, this is a slightly tricky subject. In Predator he has infrared vision while his helmet is on. When he takes it off, we see it's all mostly red. Thus: The original infrared camera they used on Predator was genuine. But because everything in Mexico is so hot, everything appeared the same. For it to appear blue with the helmet on Joel Hynek, the visual effects supervisor, said to cover the area in ice water and have the actors stand next to a fire before shooting. I'm to believe they did this with the guerilla camp scene in Predator.

But it was phenomonal work, and apparenyly John McTiernan simply filmed the other senes normally and took the film to a visual effects place and just painted it 'infrared' to save the effort. Also, he says they could move the infrared camera very much either, saying something like they could only move it about 4 feet from its rig. So it's our fan belief that the Predator's helmet filters ambient heat and body heat, while his natural vision doesn't. Well, in Predator 2 they used a true blue ifrared camera which recorded in greyscale and they added a color motif later. This is why the infrared looks far better in Predator 2. On a trivial note, the opening scene of the Predator overseeing Los Angeles was recorded with a police helicopter. But in Predator 2, we see the Predator without his helmet, his vision is the "normal" infrared, again because Los Angeles isn't like Palenque, Mexico.

In, Predator 2 we see other visions, same for AVP and Requiem, including the Alien vision. These don't really concern me. Although in Requiem Wolf takes off his helmet and sees in the red vision (even though it's a ship in a cold forest, but it could have been hot from re-entry to the Earth, although how could he touch it?). I just think the above information could be helpful to the article from a design POV.LordJesseD (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest including all this in a section on vision or special effects, with references to the behind-the-scenes featurettes you mention. Since you obviously have the desire and access to the features, I think you're in the best position to do it. Edit away! --IllaZilla (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I might start a new part under the creation section. I'll call it "Vision effects." Calling it "POV effects" would make it in-universe. Really I just got this from the commentaries. I only listened to the commentary for Predator 2 for about a minute, too, so I'll go over that before I do anything. Thanks for your support.LordJesseD (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)