Talk:Xenomorph (Alien)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Look, can the people constantly referring to the warrior aliens as "drones"

Please look up the word "drone" in a dictionary? A drone is a fertile male of an insect colony. Its purpose is to mate with the queen of another colony to produce offspring. There is no evidence in canon that the alien warriors are fertile, and indeed the evidence suggests that the queen does not need to mate. Serendipodous 11:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adult Aliens weak against fire? 2

I'm sorry I'll have to bring up an old topic, but didn't the young Chestburster show rather remarkable resistance to fire in 'Aliens'? It was caught on fire, and it last rather long time in the flames or a flamethrower? Opinions? 62.248.150.20 (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Opinions on what? It didn't die right away because, well, it looks better. Funkynusayri (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct?

In Alien³, another addition was made - that of a "super facehugger" that could impregnate two hosts with a Queen and a "Commander" embryo.[citation needed] This facehugger was larger and darker compared to the normal pink variety. This would explain why both Ripley and a dog were impregnated from one facehugger. The super facehugger was found by some of the inmates, who thought it a type of jellyfish.

Ripley was the whole time inside the freezing chamber and couldn't have been infected there... isn't it more probable she was infected in Aliens inside the Research Lab before she woke up. One of the 2 live facehuggers there might already have infected her and still lived long enough to seem dangerous. Oli obk (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's original research; we can't really comment on it aside from what is shown in the film: an abnormal facehugger with abnormal reproductive habits (impregnating twice). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've watched through this movie 3 times in the past few days. There are no "super facehuggers". The inmates find only Alien slobber and a shedded skin. If the reference is to the ox scene, that's a standard facehugger being held up in a poorly lit area. Watching this on high def, you can see the yellowish skin tone, just heavily shadowed. This scene isn't canon anyways, but that's by the by.

Everything about the "superfacehugger" is purely conjecture. There's no information to be able to source it. I vote we remove the entry, IMHO. (Bobbo9000 (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Watch the deleted scenes and the director commentary. Xihr (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance of Alien - Runner

In Alien³ there is another change of the Alien appearance. It has no "tubes" on his back [Giger said (on the special DVD to Alien³) that he invented those tubes so that the Alien could rest its head on them while staying on two feet. But this creature does not need them.] You can clearly see on the third movie, that this beast has no "tubes" on his back. Does anybody know why those Aliens really have them and why the "Runner" does not?

- My guess, and this is conjecture, is that during the gestation process there is room for mutation or perhaps the assumption of traits is not always exact. The tubes might be a genetic disposition in the xenomorphs and have nothing to do with the host. Perhaps like hair and eye color there are dominant and recessive genetic code, and some of the xenomorph breeds are more or less prone to certain characteristics. --Kyrandos (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well isnt it obvious, even though I'm only a kid, (elementary) that Runner does not need tubes because it's primarily a quadrupedal, so why would it need to rest it's head? Ammonight423 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of raptus

Would the intended meaning of "raptus" not be more likely to be "kidnapper" or "rapist" rather than "thief", considering the lack of a direct English translation of raptus? Both would be more reasonable translations considering the behaviour depicted in the films. Also, the producers of the Quadrilogy box set would be unlikely to have employed a Latin expert to create a tiny reference on the menu of a DVD. Pug50 (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's true, then they could have gotten what they meant wrong for exactly that reason, so it doesn't necessarily make the "translation" wrong. Xihr (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the translation is wrong, just that there are at least three possible translations of the word from Latin to English. "Kidnapper" or "Rapist" would make sense, whereas "Thief" makes no sense at all; The Alien has never stolen anything (other than people: kidnapping) Pug50 (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Termite-Based?

Well I'm still a high school kid, but over the years I've been studying this stuff, and honestly I do believe in aliens. What confuses me is, this whole race of xenomorphs is either termite or ant-based creatures. Both of them have "Warriors" and "Workers" as well as a little egg sac that they use. The queen is able to remove herself from the Egg Sac as in Termites she can't, but ants also give the proof that only one queen can last the ants a life time by herself. Therefore, I think we should not quite assume the fact these guys are one of those insect based creatures, it would just make more sense. Oh, and either way both types of insects have or had Kings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecutnut (talk • contribs) 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what your point is, but regardless it qualifies as original research. The purpose of Wikipedia is to report notable facts with reliable, third-party sources, not to invent new "facts" and present them as truth when there is no reliable basis for them. Xihr 05:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well to be fair this IS the discussion area, and not the article. Anyways to the original poster; you shouldn't look at this as 'what are the xenomorphs modeled off of?", because while of course Ridley Scott used insects as inspiration, there's nothing saying he chose any specific TYPE of insect. Further, in terms of the movie/game/comic reality, this is a unique species. To say it is based off of another earth species is wrong - they have only recently in the movies ever come in contact with earth, and the liklihood of any earth insect playing a part in xenomorph ancestry is pretty much nil. --Kyrandos (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC) ::
This is the discussion page for the article. You appear to have mistaken Wikipedia talk pages for an Internet forum. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There is actually an analogy to ants in the second movie:

"Each one of these things|comes from an egg, right? So who's laying these eggs? I'm not sure. It must be something|we haven't seen yet. Hey, maybe|it's like an ant hive. -Bees have hives.|-You know what I mean. There's, like, one female|that runs the whole show. Yes. The queen. Yeah. The mama. And she's badass, man.|I mean big. -These things ain't ants.|-I know that." Funkynusayri (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geiger's original idea does not jive with mindless bugs

There needs to be a part of the article discussing the first movie version as a stand alone universe seperate from the rest of the series. In Geiger's Alien he shows alien hierogyphics and suggests that they had their own culture. It is also thought that the Space Jockey was created by the aliens and that they also sent out the SOS signal as a trap. This of course is before the later movie Predator so there can be no theories about the aliens being created by the Predators projected onto the Space Jockey idea. Also the Alien in the first movie is indestructible, while Ash is reanimated he says that they can't kill it. Also the first movie has deleated scenes that shows Dallas being turned into an egg, so no Queen exists in the first movie's universe. This Alien also rapes Lambert with its tail which theoretically could impregnate her, so as horrible as it sounds this is probably what happened to Dallas. 70.211.25.105 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC) tlhowell1970@gmail.com

Sorry, that's all original research. We're not here to discuss theories about fictional material, or debate what is "canon." IMO this whole article needs to be worked on according to guidelines at WP:WAF. IllaZilla (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it original research? Sources-Geiger's Alien, Alien DVD deleted scenes. The Alien in the first film is an indestructible killing machine. The Aliens in 'Aliens' can have their heads held down by humans and are crushed easily? Part of the horror of the first film was facing your certain death at the hands of an unstoppable force of evil. This idea is destroyed by James Cameron's hive, bug, queen, drone bullshit.75.197.189.99 (talk)tlhowell1970@gmail.com —Preceding comment was added at 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That you're not fond of the later movies is really neither here nor there in the context of an encyclopedia entry about the Alien across all of the movies. Xihr (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
All of your statements about alien heiroglyphs and them having their own culture and creating the space jockeys et al are fan theories and therefore qualify as original research. As Xihr says, this has no bearing on an encyclopedic article about the Alien as a movie creature in general. Plus, as you seem to be ignoring, in the first film all the characters had to fight the alien with were homemade flame throwers, so of course they didn't damage it much. In the 2nd and 4th films and AVP they were attacked by marines/mercenaries with high-powered guns, so naturally these did more damage to them. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring it, it has no bearing on my argument. They are not in the same universe so to speak. First movie, no queen. Ask Dan O'Bannon the creator of the monster.75.199.64.4 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)tlhowell1970@gmail.com

That statement is obvious original research, which is why the opinion has no expression, and cannot, in the article proper. Xihr (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As a side note to the OP, "Geiger" is a misspelling of H.R. Giger's name. Pug50 (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because you didn't see the Queen in the first movie does not mean it was not there. Kiljoy1337 (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article lacks significance

In my opinion, such a long article about a fictional character in an inconsequential movie series does not belong in a general interest encyclopedia.

A general interest encyclopedia (again in my opinion) is a concise introduction to general knowledge. This article is appropriate to science fiction fan literature.

I believe this article should be reduced to one paragraph and merged with one of the alien movie articles.

Rocky143 (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your notion that the article should be reduced to a paragraph & merged, though I do agree that it is overly long and needs a lot of work to be brought up to Wikipedia's standards in writing about fiction. The alien itself is a notable fictional character that has appeared in (thus far) six international feature films, several comic book series, numerous video games, and other media (not to mention merchandise, etc) over the last 29 years. It's certainly a notable enough character to warrant an article about it, though I agree this article needs a lot of work. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Especially since it's well established that such articles are notable on Wikipedia. Anyone want to actually take a shot at trying to argue that the article on Klingons is non-notable? Fat chance, that. (And, while we're at it, they're not characters, they're a species.) Xihr (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The alien has become a pop-cultural icon, and is pretty damn notable in itself. But the current article is shit, too much fan-boy in-universe rambling, and too little discussion about the concept and designs. Funkynusayri (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused.

Yeah I just saw the new movie and am confused, in the beginning you see that the predalien does not show up on thermal, but when it fights the predator he takes his mask off and can still fight it even though predators see in thermal, so... what the heck? Maybe someone here can elaborate or maybe this is pointless and it was just a screw up on the people who made the movie.Kiljoy1337 (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure Predators see the same light spectrum humans see. Their masks are what have the different vision modes. --Kyrandos (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC) :
No they only see in thermal, just watch the first predator movie.65.32.239.201 (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with 'Predalien'

Someone was having a seizure when they typed the last part of the Predalien section. 24.31.249.138 (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific than that. Being constructive, as well, might help. Xihr (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the return of the fan fiction

Months ago I was part of a discussion that aimed at cleaning up the Origin of the species section by removing the fan fiction. Today I looked at it and found that the fan fiction had partially returned. First of all, Ridley Scott never said in any of his commentaries that the Space Jockey's race created the Aliens. All he said was that the Space Jockey's race used them as bio-weapons. I challenge anyone to find a quote from the commentaries saying that the Aliens were created by the race that built the Derelict. Secondly, the production team only ever used the term "Pilot" and "Space Jockey". The plural term "Space Jockeys" is entirely fan fiction so don't put it back into this article ever again. The only time the Space Jockey's race was given a name was in the novel Aliens Original Sin and they were called the Mala'kak. 218.215.149.63 (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by fan fiction, because that has nothing to do with what you're on about. You're trying to allude to the use of the term "space jockey" as an informal term for the species by the vast majority of people unaware that these aliens have been given an in-universe designation, in what many might consider a secondary or even apocryphal. I don't see what your problem is. Misterandersen (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be greatly appreciated if we could get this looking like the Predator entry instead of filling this to the brim with info that borders on original research. The Chibi Kiriyama —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.129.9 (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First image shown

Should be the original Giger designed alien, not the poppy Amalgamated Dynamics one. Why change it back? Funkynusayri (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the more recent image represents the creature as it has appeared in films for the last 10 years. It's been the introductory image for the article for a very long time, and you seem to be the only one adverse to it. Why should the "original design" take some sort of precedence, just because you like it more? The fact that you call it "poppy" makes it obvious you have a bias. The goal here is to provide an image that someone just glancing at the article will recognize, so the more recent one works better as it is more representative of the creature's appearance overall through amost 30 years of media. Plus, it's just a higher quality image and you can see more of the creature, like the tail. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The original design is what all the subsequent designs are based on, and it's the design the alien became famous for, and which has influenced countless other creature designs. If the quality of the image is a problem, well, it won't exactly be hard to find another one. It's not about what I like, but what most people in the world know the the creature for.
Also, the creature has only appeared like the newer picture you advocate in two movies, Resurrection and the first AVP. Not even the games and comics made since Resurrection adopted the new design, apart from maybe four comics at the most, two directly based on the newer movies. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Other than the ridge on the tail (for the swiming scene) and maybe a slight difference in the fingers, what's so "new" about the design? It looks basically the same. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
There are vast differences that might not be picked up by only watching the movies, I could list them all, but that would be rather irrelevant, but the design has been changed on every detail on the entire creature. You could take a look at these two replicas, original alien[1][2], and the Resurrection/AVP1 alien[3][4].
The two of us don't seem to be enough to work this out, so maybe someone else should come with an opinion. Here's a poster depicting the original alien, which I think would be cooler than the current one, if we don't simply get another screenshot[5].
Having this generic-monster Resurrection/AVP1 alien as the first, representative image is akin to having the King Kong design from King Kong vs. Godzilla as the first image on the King Kong page. It's ridiculous. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, while I disagree with you that the way the creature is designed in the more recent films is some sort of cheapening or sacrilege in comparison to the first film, I do see your point that a good image of the alien from the first film would probably be the best way to lead off the article. I just don't think that the image of the original alien that's currently in the article is better than the more recent image that's currently at the top. I'd be totally open to an entirely new image replacing either of those, but I think a good screenshot from the film would be the best way to go. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Awright, I'll get one if we both agree. And if I recall correctly, the newer designs have been cheapened up in the exact sense of the word; so Fox didn't have to pay Giger royalties for using his designs.[6]

I'm not sure what you want for a new image, the existing one seems fine to me, optherwise there are some production stills here[7][8][9] and a screenshot, perhaps the clearest view of the alien you get in the first movie. [10] The poster I linked to before[11] is about as valid as the picture of the "newer" alien, they're both promotional posters and not stills from the movie. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we should be using a picture of Giger's original Alien, not one of the many subsequent redesigns. It's the original and is what should be shown. Either though or show ALL the variations of the Alien, not giving preference to one over the other, just stating the facts (after all, isn't that what Wikipedia is for?). Gaunt (Gaunt) 10:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] predalien

In the predalien section it says that in an interview with Greg and Colin Strouse stated that the reason the predalien could inject embryo's in you was because it was a young alien queen. Well can somebody tell or show me where they found that interview? Because I highly doubt that it was an alien queen but im willing to prove myself wrong if someone would show me where that interview is. And if not shouldn't that part of the section be deleted seeing as it has no liable source of confirmation on it? (please respond)

  • Well, delete it if it is unsourced. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems the directors dissagree about that, while Colin has stated that the reproduction ability was adapted from predator D.N.A., I do remember reading about Greg saying the Predalien was a young queen. If you look at the ADI book, you can see the begining of a queens crest growing on The Predalien. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.191.63 (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pred-alien head transparent?

I was walking around the local mall, and saw AvP:Requiem figurines of the Predator, Alien and Predalien being sold. I purchased the Alien, but on closer inspection with the Pred-Alien, I noticed a small section of the creature's skull being transparent- lo and behold, I could see eye sockets, plus a skull that was much the same shape as a humans. This struck me as rather odd, that an idea that was used in the original Alien movie be re-used on a figurine, since I had not noticed or seen a transparent section on the creature's skull. I think it'd be of small interest to investigate, that's kind've cool. --68.111.245.180 (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I just checked a picture I picked up online, of the creature. It's low-quality, but I'm almost certain I can make out the transparency in the skull, as well as the eye sockets. I'm not going to add anything to the article, though, unless anybody agrees it's there- I just don't think it'd be right.--68.111.245.180 (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Praetorian

I am removing the Praetorian from the Hybridization (Alternate Forms) section of the article. They do not exist in the movies but in the expanded universe - which is what the List of castes from the Alien expanded universe article is for. S-m-r-t (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Praetorian's do not exist in movies and have their mention in the List of castes from the Alien expanded universe article - whoever keeps adding them - stop! They appear only in games and not in the movies. Thank you S-m-r-t (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • In that case, the "runner" should simply be referred to as "dog burster" here, as that is what it was referred to in advertisement, and the term "runner" is only used in the games. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alien or Xenomorph

I think article should be retitled Alien. I realize that using Xenomorph to refer to the creatures allows for greater flexibility in differentiating them from other aliens in general. However, Xenomorph is not a uniquely specific and descriptive term for that life form. Its merely derived from the Greek Roots xeno and morph meaning “strange form” or simply Alien. The term is used once and in a very broad sense by Gorman, who is trying to sound impressive by using technically overblown jargon. All of you janitors/sanitation engineers will appreciate what I mean. A tiger may be a type of cat, but a Xenomorph is just another way of saying Alien. In addition, outside of the core of Alien fandom who have adopted that word, Xenomorph is widely unknown among the general public. Your average movie goer thinks of them as the “Aliens” and would have to be reminded of Gorman’s quote. Although Alien is equally as nonspecific as Xenomorph, it is the term with the overwhelmingly widest usage and would be the term most likely referenced in any Wikipedia search. The article should be designated as Aliens (also referred to as Xenomorphs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.181.47.130 (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It was originally titled Alien and was changed long ago. Let's not go back and forth on this. Xenomorph is the technical name that appears in several of the movies and is canon. Xihr (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It's canon in the context of Cameron's 'Aliens' and was referenced thereafter as the Xenomorph (damn stupid name that it is in the first place). Gormon used it in Aliens as a way of showing the limited military mindset. It is the Alien, plain and simple, and this article should be changed back to reflect that, quoting it and using it in context as is the basic premise of Wikipedia. Besides, it also respects the original film where it was simply the Alien. Gaunt (Gaunt) 10:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No one is saying that the word isn’t canon or that the term shouldn’t be used in the article. If this was a journal article for a Sci Fi publication being read by hard core fans then it certainly would be appropriate to have Xenomorph be the title. However, this article is disseminated to the general public, the vast majority of whom are more familiar with A.L.F. than the term xenomorph. The overwhelming reference throughout the movies, books, video games is Alien. It is likely to be the predominant term used in wikipedia searches. Do you want an article that’s by fans for fans or one for the public at large? There is precedent for this with other articles. Puma concolor is the taxonomic name for a cougar. However, people in western Montana and Idaho refer to them as catamounts. Which do you suppose it is used as the article title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.181.47.130 (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Also, look at the titles of all the films after Alien - they're not called Xenomorphs, Xenomorph 3, Xenomorph:Resurrection, Xenomorph Vs Predator or Xenomorph Vs Predator:Requiem. The word Xenomorph is a bit of pretentious nonsense used by Gormon in Aliens to show superiority and limited thinking - this whole article should be changed to give the word 'Alien' the precedence and only give one or two references to Xenomorph as the word introduced in Aliens. BTW, there's an interesting thread on this very matter here: [12] Gaunt (Gaunt) 18:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The point is, we've already gone through this argument before and the article got renamed from Alien. Going back and forth between names forever is not productive. Please view the archives. Xihr (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I've read the archives, from what I can see it was never conclusive what to call it, just a bunch of people deciding that THEIR name (Xenomorph) was RIGHT and that it should be called Xenomorph, despite the fact that the name is only used consistently by hard core fans of the comic books. Let's fact it, it's a damn silly and highly pretentious name and the use of it in this article smacks of some people who have their own agenda and simply wish everyone to call the Alien the Xenomorph. No doubt it makes them feel superior even though it's wrong. Gaunt (Gaunt) 09:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I've read thru the archives and what really jumps out at me is the number of times xenomorph is actually used. If I'm being overly presumptuous I apologize but most of the contributors to these discussions seem to be the hard core fans. Yet, aside from the whole Alien vs. Xenomorph Debate, Xenomorph isn’t mentioned nearly as often as Alien. If the term is so predominant among the fan base then why not use it? Why hasn't it supplanted the Alien label? A fundamental question has been asked that I think it deserves an answer. Who is this article being written for? If its purpose is to as a sounding board for Alien Aficionados to show off, then so be it. But if you are targeting a wider audience then why not use the term that is in general usage among Alien novices and experts alike.JDelp (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Finally some one came to their senses and renamed this article.

[edit] Alternate life-cycles

I've got a bit of an issue with this "Super chestburster" since there seems to be no basis for this whatsoever. In Alien3, only regular facehuggers (and their corpses) are seen and it's made very obvious at the beginning of the film that there are multiple facehuggers aboard the ship before the jesttisoning of the EEV (at least three). I'm going to have a look at 3 again tonight because I don't remember ever seeing an implication that one facehugger was able to latch more than once and that the scene the author refers to about the 'black jellyfish' is where they discover the first shedded skin of the runner. (Bobbo9000) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slight Problem With 'Intelligence'

The article as a whole is an impressive piece of work, however, I find some weakened logic behind the statement relating the intelligence of the xenomorph as "roughly similar to that of a typical predatory mammal." How many 'typical predatory animals' have spaceships?

ScatChambers (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The xenomorphs never built or piloted spaceships themselves. What do you mean? Dark hyena (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Watched Alien again. My mistake. Always thought that the unidentified alien in the chair when the crew of the Nostromo search the crashed ship was a xenomorph. On another viewing, actually paying attention to the shape of the being it is obviously more humanoid. I guess I just ignored the origin of that being in favour of the Giger original or Giger influenced surroundings attributing all such material to the xenomorph.

ScatChambers (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] There needs to be a pop culture section

If this article is going to justify itself, we need to show what kind of impact the Alien has had on wider culture. I'm not that good at that sort of thing, but Wikipedia never seems short of people willing to make pop culture references. Well, now I am giving you permission to do it. Give me something to work with, and I will redraft it. Serendipodous 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:AR Swim.jpg

Image:AR Swim.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)