Talk:Xenomorph (Alien)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Archived old discussions: April 3, 2007

This talk page was very long and many of the discussions were outdated, so I archived it at Talk:Xenomorph (Alien)/Archive 1 so we can continue with fresh discussions. IllaZilla 02:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Article structure

I think the overall structure of the article is rather lacking. Basically I think we should follow the precedent set by other articles describing fictional characters, such as Spider-Man. Have a look at the overall format. There's a nice infobox, a history of the character's publication and appearances in various works, then it gets into the fictional character history/biography/etc. That's the way we should structure this article: by talking about the reality of the creature's creation (concept, design, special effects) and its use in the films (the main media in which the creature appears), then discussing its use/interpretations in other media, followed by the fictionalized descriptions of its physiology, etc. Plus I just think that infoboxes are very helpful and simplify things for a reader. I'd get to making one, but I have other commitments right now so it'll have to be later. But if anyone else wants to get the ball rolling, please have at it. IllaZilla 02:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Spider-Man isn't the best example because he's primarily a print rather than film character, so here are some other good examples of articles about characters in film and television: Homer Simpson, The Doctor, and Spock. The overall structure of the Spock article is pretty good. IllaZilla 03:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

More good guidelines we should follow in improving the article: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)

Infobox

I've been working on the creation of an infobox template for "Fictional alien races" or "Fictional alien species" that could be used for this article, for the Predator, and probably for others. Here's what I've come up with so far:

Xenomorph

An Alien as portrayed in the film Alien vs. Predator (2004)
Homeworld Unknown. First encountered in the film series on LV-426 in Alien (1979). Later portrayed in Alien vs. Predator (2004) as having been present on Earth as early as prehistoric times.
Base of Operations Mobile
Official language Unknown. Sometimes portrayed in non-canon media as using echolocation and communicating via high-frequency sound waves.
Affiliation Unknown. Portrayed in almost all media as inherently hostile towards nearly all other forms of life.

Now, this uses a Star Trek template that I simply copied. I'm not a technical person and I have no idea how to create a new template for an infobox, nor how to create an independent infobox, and the pages on infoboxes don't seem to give any instruction. This box in its current form shouldn't be kept because it uses a Star Trek template and needs a template of its own to be created. It would be excellent if someone with technical knowledge could help with this, as I seem to have hit a dead end. Thoughts? IllaZilla 06:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

references in popular culture

SHouldn't there be a section for pop culture references? Or is it on another page, like for Alien itself? either way, don't forget Aylee from Sluggy Freelance.Mathwhiz90601 05:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Is the Cocoon Scene canon?

Should we consider canonical the scene where Ripley finds Brett and Dallas cocooned and apparently mutating into eggs? If so then we should put more information about it, perhaps an image of the Brett-egg. I think it's plausible that an alien warrior can turn its prey into eggs when there's no Queen around, similar to how a laying worker bee can develop in a bee hive. Another theory is that this is vestigial remnant of a reproductive method the alien species had before they evolved Queens and that it doesn't work properly anymore. Another question is why Ripley didn't know where eggs come from in Aliens. Is it possible that she didn't realize Brett was turning into an egg? Is it possible that she forgot?218.215.130.98 04:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted scenes are not canonical. Also, as I recall there is no mention that the 2 encased characters were "mutating into eggs" or anything of the sort (unless it was mentioned in the director commentary, which I haven't listened to in a couple of years). It's just as likely (if not more so) that they were being cocooned so that they could be implanted by facehuggers, as the Aliens did to the colonists in Aliens, to the scientists in Alien Resurrection, and to the exploration team in Alien vs. Predator. Or just that they were being stored to be eaten later. As to your Ripley question, the scene was deleted and wasn't ever officially shown until the "Director's Cut" included in the Alien Quadrilogy set in 2003, 24 years after the original film was shown in theaters. Therfore it's perfectly acceptable that Ripley has no idea where the eggs come from until she encounters the Queen in Aliens.
Of course, this is all speculation since the scene was deleted and is never explained. Therefore although it might be worth mentioning the scene in the Alien article, it doesn't deserve mentioning here as any discussion of ideas/theories on the subject would violate WP:ATT/WP:NOR. -IllaZilla 03:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not there is an in-universe explanation for the "mutating into eggs" or not, that was at least the out-of-universe intent when they made the set. (Besides, Cameron's movie made the queen.)
Maybe the article needs to take an approach similar to genesis and the creation of Eve. I don't think it's our job as wikipedians to make judgments over what is canonical or not in a situation like this so much as it is our job to remain consistent on how to deal with the inconsistencies that arise when assembling an article. Or deal with it like the newborn. It was in the movie and it was another way for the aliens to reproduce. Was it canon or not, well that was not my decision (but I do think it was wikipedia's decision), but my opinion is that it was a poor story point. Anyway, what I'm eventually getting at is that whatever is decided, coolness or innovation and convenience should not be factors in the choice over whether or not it is canonical because it is not really our choice to make. --Trakon 22:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that deleted scenes are not canon. But now that the cocoon scene has been included in the Director's Cut it is NO LONGER a deleted scene. So my question is whether or not it is consistent with Aliens. Watch the scene again. It can be argued that Dallas is simply stuck to the wall but Brett is definitely mutating into something that is either an egg or looks a lot like an egg. It is a lot bigger than an egg though. The visual evidence is fairly clear and the idea of denying it and assuming they were just stuck to the wall is a very uncommon interpretation.218.215.130.98 04:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's been included in an altered version of the film released 24 years after the original doesn't make the scene canon. Sequels are based on theatrical releases, not deleted scenes. Since the scene we're referring to didn't exist in the original Alien, it wasn't used as a basis for scenes in Aliens and therefore exists outside the continuity of the films, making it non-canon. If you consider all deleted scenes that are later re-inserted into "special editions" of films as no longer being deleted, then you get into a storytelling nightmare as you have multiple versions of almost every film that often contradict one another (consider Star Wars...you'd have at least 4 versions of Episode IV alone!). You can't consider all later revisions of a film as carrying equal weight in the overall narrative. The original released version almost always take precedence as far as storytelling goes, especially since that is the version that sequels are based on, not later "special editions." The scene is still "deleted" from the theatrical release, which is the main source of continuity and canon. As for Brett "definitely mutating into something that is either an egg or looks a lot like an egg," that is speculation (whether it is a common interpretation or not), and falls under the description of original research. What we need to do here is review Ridley Scott's commentary on the scene and see what his intentions were for it, if any. Then we can adequately discuss them in the article with a reference. -IllaZilla 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Please sign your posts by typing 4 tildes (~~~~). You can also do this by clicking on the signature button above the edit bar (next to the "No W" symbol) or clicking on the 4 tildes next to "Sign your username" just below and to the right of the "Save Page" button. -IllaZilla 04:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Director's Cut didn't exist until 2003 but now that it does exist, the cocoon scene has become well known and it may be referred to in future sequels. The Special Edition of Aliens wasn't shown in theatres but is widely considered canon nonetheless. In fact it came out on DVD first. When it comes to the Star Wars movies and Star Trek The Motion Picture, the latest versions are considered canon. When it comes to Alien, both the theatrical version and the Director's Cut were released on the same DVD so they are both the latest version. I think Alien The Director's Cut should be considered canon as long as it doesn't contradict the other movies.218.215.130.98 04:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I too want to know what Ridley Scott says in the commentary for the Director's Cut. But this commentary is only available on the Region 1 DVD so I can't get it. I've asked about this on several forums but no one has answered. I've heard a rumour that Ridley Scott said the egg that Brett was turning into would have a queen facehugger in it. Can anyone here confirm this and give an exact quote?218.215.130.98 05:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you that Star Wars is a completely different animal, since those films were re-released both in theaters and on video in several different versions. Also, with Alien we're dealing with sequels written by different writers and directed by different directors, versus Star Wars in which all the films were more or less Lucas' projects. However, I disagree with you that "the cocoon scene has become well known and it may be referred to in future sequels." Only those who have seen the Director's Cut will be aware of the scene, and this is a small fraction of the total number of people who have seen the theatrical version of Alien in theaters, on television, and on video since 1979. None of the 4 other films in the series have referenced it, and the issue of how the Alien's eggs are created was explained in Aliens via James Cameron's addition of the Queen, which is the plot device that has been used in all the films (and nearly all other media) since. I also disagree that the special edition is "widely considered canon." No other media in the Aliens series that I know of, whether films, books, comics, etc. references the scene or considers it canon (though I admit my knowledge is restricted mostly to the films). The Director's Cut has only been in place for 4 years. The original film has been in place for 28 years and has had 4 sequels and many secondary media based on it, without the inclusion of this scene. Remember, we're talking about sequels that are made by different directors, so they're not resorting (yet) to referring to each others' deleted scenes. But look, we're straying too far from topic here:
What we need is a consensus on how to incorporate deleted scenes and special editions into the articles. Let's take a look at how a featured article does it: Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope#Special Edition. They have a couple of short paragraphs which describe the later versions of the film and mention the most significant changes and other important aspects. Let's model our articles after that, and worry less about the canon status of particular deleted scenes. I think we ought to structure our articles around the stories presented in the original releases of the films, then discuss the special editions and other revisions in a later, concise section. -IllaZilla 05:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to watch/listen to the commentary right now but I'll get to it within the next few days & we'll discuss how to include it in the articles. However, I can virtually guarantee you that it doesn't make any mention of Queens or queen facehuggers, since the alien queen wasn't even invented until the sequel, by a different writing/creative team & director. -IllaZilla 05:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So what does Ridley Scott say on the commentary? I'm anxious to know.218.215.145.17 04:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone on IMDB gave me a transcript of the relevant part of the commentary: RIDLEY SCOTT: There is a marvellous panel of Gigers on the right, they have been beautifully done and we get teh fact that they are morphing, metamorphising changing into being consumed by whatever the aliens organism is...into an egg. Again that is beautiful its new very new no one has seen this kind of thing. It is one of the difficulties of going into this genre to think of something that is equally unique and it's difficult." I've been told that the books 'The Book of Alien' and 'Giger's Alien' also mention that the intention was for the alien to turn people into eggs. I do agree that the theatrical versions are the highest canon but I think the Director's Cut should be used as evidence too if we decide that it doesn't contradict the other movies. There's a screenshot of the Brett cocoon on this page: http://www.planetavp.com/al/Alien/DeletedScenes/index.htm218.215.137.20 10:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The cocoons and trapped humans were usually placed in the room or near the room in which the eggs were housed. Victims that are captured are saved to be pregnated later. The scene shows chestbursters erupting out of the cocooned victims indicating that an egg was placed in them. Not that they were mutating. They need live hosts to breed and the cocoon prepares the new facehugger' with hosts. Queen is never out of the loophole. They communicate to the hive and queen and if there is no queen the embryo mutates into a queen to reestablish the link. Even one facehugger can ensure the survival of the species.--132.79.7.15 14:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1) The scene does not show any chestbursters at all. 2) This is all fan-theory, which is not what this page is for. See the talk page guidelines at the top. --IllaZilla 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the species

The idea that Xenomorphs were created by the Space Jockeys comes from fan-fiction, not literature. I've edited the page. I'd also like to point out that the term "Space Jockeys" is fan-made. In official sources the term "Space Jockey was always singular and referred to the individual. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.215.130.98 (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

I went ahead and cleaned up the section and removed the Queen section as it appeared to be entirely fan speculation. The space jokey bit is straight out of the DVD commentary so I think it is fine. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In the DVD commentary Ridley Scott says that the alien eggs were used as biological weapons by the Space Jockey's race. He doesn't say they were created by the Space Jockey's race. Or am I mistaken?218.215.130.98 04:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I'm actually not sure, I would have to check. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
He does (eggs were used as weapons) and doesn't (the Aliens were created by the Space Jockey's race). --David Be 20:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your changes. I also think that we should eliminate the term "Space Jockey" as much as possible, since it's never mentioned in the films. It's just a nameless, mysterious alien. I seem to recall Ridley Scott using the term later in the commentary included in the Alien Quadrilogy set, in which case it might be appropriate to mention it in this capacity, inasmuch as it was a term used by the production team (possibly after the fact) to identify the nameless creature. Regardless, I think that in all cases we should strive to avoid using neologisms or fan-created terms, even if they are widely used & accepted, unless they are attributable to a reliable source. This would include terms like "The Derelict," the names of most of the "castes" such as "Praetorian" and "Pred-alien" unless they are specifically labeled that in the video games & other tertiary source material, and to a lesser extent terms like "Facehugger" and "Chestburster" unless these are the terms the directors and other production staff used to refer to them. Not to resurrect an old argument, but I also disapprove of using the term "Xenomorph" as a designation for the Alien creatures, since they are only referred to as this once in the entire series and the designation is quickly dismissed by the other characters, whereas Ripley refers to it/them as "an Alien"/"Aliens" several times in the series (Aliens & Alien³, most notably). -IllaZilla 03:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The terms 'Pilot' and 'Space Jockey' are official since they were mentioned in the director's commentary and production documentaries. However they were always singular, never plural. I suggest we change 'Space Jockeys' to 'Space Jockey's race'. The term Xenomorph was used as the official name of the alien species in the novel Aliens DNA War. It even had a capital X.218.215.130.98 04:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine if we can cite that it is referred to as this by the production team, but the fact is that the term is never actually used in the film. So what we ought to do is mention, with a reference, that the production team referred to the creature as the "Space Jockey" and mention Ridley Scott's postulations about the creature's possible connection to the Aliens. Leave it at that. There's no need to expound on the subject or use the term repeatedly throughout the article as it only applies to a single scene in a series of 5 films that we're trying to synthesize here (not including the creature's appearances in secondary & tertiary media). -IllaZilla 03:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
As to your addition about "Xenomorph," the novel is at best a secondary source and its status as canon in the overall series is questionable. We really need to have a separate discussion about what is considered canon in this series of media, but briefly I would suggest that it goes:
  1. The films (including AVP & excluding deleted scenes)
  2. Officially licensed comic books & novels
  3. Video games
  4. Everything else
Deleted scenes and director/production team commentary are certainly worth including in an encyclopedic discussion of the films, but the theatrical releases of the films have priority over everything else as far as canoninity is concerned. Director's Cuts, extended editions, etc. should be discussed, but not explicity implied as canon since sequels are based on theatrical releases and not on deleted scenes. -IllaZilla 04:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Titled Origin of the Species? Well, anyway, I seem to recall that Ripley does call it a xenomorph in the assembly cut of Alien 3. And to digress, concerning the capitalization (in that movie), I'm not so sure if we can count on 85's capitalization one way or another (assuming the font he was typing to the company in was case sensitive). I mean, there are a few things working against him both in why he was called 85 and both a fictional and temporal separation gap (there are differing versions of English here and now in the real world). And as far as an out-of-universe reason for capitalizing the X... does anyone here have any idea how hard it is to find a species (not a genus) spelled upper case? Dogs are... oops, the beginning of a sentence. Okay what about humans? Ah man... rip off.
Also, I'm fairly confident that the artists who worked on the movies used terms such as "chestburster," "facehugger," and "space jockey." I seem to recall watching an interview on the Quadrilogy about why it was a "chestburster" and not just a "stomachbuster." They wanted it to be more violent in nature.
Another thing... I do not understand how an official novel can be a secondary source and how its canonical status can be questionable unless there has been some official reason to consider it as such. It makes sense that there could be different canons for each set of films, books, comic books, video games, etc. And it also makes sense that there could be typographical errors in the printing of a novel. So until there is some official reason for us to question it, anything that comes from the different forms of media centered on the alien is not at best a secondary source, but rather typographical error at worst.
There are a lot of passionate and inaccurate statements being made in the above discussions. That is fine for a talk page, but make sure you leave it out of the article. We all know that we need sources to prove things to be article worthy. I'm just saying this because I am not a fan of the method of accusation so much as I am of inquisition. --Trakon 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You raise some good points. What I was trying to get at is that the article uses all of these terms (xenomorph, chestburster, space jockey, etc.) primarily in an in-universe style (the fact that the article's now been tagged speaks to this). If we're going to use terminology like that in the article, especially ones like "space jockey" which are never actually used in the films, we need to explain how/why the production team came up with the nickname for it and then provide a reference for it. As to the novel, I haven't read it, but my basis for placing it and the comics second as far as continuity is that, even though it is officially licensed, this franchise is primarily a film franchise. It originated with movies and they are its primary form of media, so if some plot element in one of the films or future sequels contradicts something in the books or comics, the films take precedence as far as canoninity. As an example, I believe there was an officially licensed comic released after Aliens which had Ripley, Newt, and Hicks revived and battling more aliens years after the events of the film. Yet when Alien 3 came out, which was set immediately after Aliens, the Newt & Hicks characters were killed off in the first scene. Now, I agree with what you're saying that each set of media sort of has its own set of canon, and we should certainly present as much of this as we can in the article, but again this is primarily a film franchise and, inasmuch as this article is about the alien creature itself, we should focus on how it is portrayed in the films and then discuss the other "secondary" media in separate sections. -IllaZilla 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about Trakon. When I mention that the novel Aliens DNA War uses a capital X for Xenomorph I wasn't complaining about a typo. A capital letter implies an official name while a small letter could be just a nickname. Another thing, the terms 'facehugger' and 'chestburster' have been used in-universe although not in any of the movies. They were coined by Ash in his report to the Bio-Weapons Division. This report is on the Alien DVD. My belief is that novels, comics and games should only be considered canon if they are consistent with the movies. If not, then they should be ignored entirely. Most comics and novels have been contradicted by Alien Resurrection but some haven't.218.215.145.17 04:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not responding to just what you were talking about, but to everything that had been said so far. --Trakon 06:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with IllaZilla on the "Xenomorph" species name usage - "Alien" (capitalized) should suffice to refer to the creatures (as in the movies), while "Xenomorph" carries a taxonomic denomination implication... (cfr. "Offensive/Defensive behavior" and "Miscellaneous" sections).
I also propose, for similar reasons, to change the article name to "Alien (fictitious creature)" while waiting for a definitive solution, since it is the "name" used for the creatures in the movies, and more easily searched for by someone curious about the movies et al. I'm sort of new, here, and don't know what kind of responsability it carries. Another idea (to keep the existing links, to be slowly corrected) is to have a "Xenomorph (Alien)" page that would redirect to the "Alien (fictitious creature)" page. --David Be 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some corrections on the "Origins" section based on watching A1 and listening to the commentary. I also cleaned up that section and the two following, using present tense to stress it's "fiction-facts " the article deals with rather than "reality-truths", and eliminating fan-based speculation and theories. --David Be 23:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Offensive/defensive behavior

I put in a reference to the scene in "Alien: Resurrection" where two Aliens (not xenomorphs: I support the idea that "xenomorph" is a word that should be used to indicate ANY alien species differing from Man, as opposed to "anthromorphic" - in shape of Man) kill a third to escape a cell —--David Be 23:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the third was only injured so they could escape. - Go to my profile to see the sites I go to. 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)hyuuga-sama

Miscellaneous

I put in a parenthetical citing an episode of inter-species communication - in "Aliens"
I also suggest not to use the term "xenomorph" because of its more general possible usage, but to use the term "Alien" because of its immediate recognizability among non-movie-familiar readers (cfr. the parenthetical in "Offensive/Defensive behavior") David Be 23:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Not Needed

Anyone notice lots of information on this page could, and should be transferred to my little pet project about uncannon castes?71.143.133.89 01:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)IrON MaiDeN

Reverted edit

My edit was completely relevant, and was not "fan speculation" it is clearly visible in the cannon material if one watches the movie. And it is paired with an intelligent example of the principle. If this is insufficient mark it with a "need citation" tag and I'll upload a photo if that's that it takes.

More VG Aliens

I added the Aliens from AVP (Arcade Game) into the list of Video Game Aliens. Is this a good idea?

That list could be put to a good use on the non-cannon page71.143.133.89 01:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Predalien movie dreadlocks error

It stated that the Predalien chestburster at the end of AVP had dreadlocks, when we didn't see any dreadlocks and on a offical replica of the chestburster, there was no dreads.

Your wrong look here Check this out, http://joblo.com/arrow/index.php?id=8303 Isn't that awesome, the first pics of the Predalien with dread locks. Somewhere we have to add this into some alien or predator article. Do not tell me that that is not cool!!! Somebody please insert it! Thanks! ManofSTEEL2772

Unfortunately, we don't get to toss in media, especially copyrighted pictures, or even links, just because they're "cool." You can add some meaningful content to the articles that discuss the new creature, then provide the link as a reference. And though I agree the creature in the pictures is awesome, there's nothing there that officially links it to the film. --IllaZilla 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah thats what you told me on the AvP 2 web page here on Wikipedia but I added them into the AvP 2 and Alien and Predator sites as a reference saying that it might be or may not be what the creature will look like.

The Predalien WILL have dreads according to all 3 trailers and the still released before the first trailer. 68.114.123.93 23:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Who cares? Why is this important? Are we adding a section on creature design and production? Otherwise just leave it out. --IllaZilla 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

about Drones

if you call workers as drones, how do you call males ? Even more there is no males a mentiontioned! In comarison in the artices Bee, Ant drones and workers are mentioned as different!

"Slimed"

one thing I never got is how they slime or cocoon people. Do they like hock it up as a lugi or what?

They barf on them.

I believe at least part of their goo is produced on their hands (and a personal deduction of mine is they are covered in slime, that is partially why they are shinny, I have a faint memory of seeing one of them using their hands to mold a coccoon or wall or somthing like that, but I'm not sure--TiagoTiago 16:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Super facehugger...original research?

OK the reference to the super facehugger confuses me. Is that implied or stated in the movies or do we have to jump to that conclusion because of what appears to be a hole in the plot? I could just as easily say the Alien Queen from part 2 carried two eggs with her hands onto the ship offscreen and that this explains how Ripley became infected by a facehugger and how another one infected the dog after the crash in part 3. My point is the super facehugger idea seems to me a leap of logic based on explaining what appears to be a continuity error rather than something implied in Alien 3.

--ksofen666 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:11, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

On the Latin names

raptus does not mean "robber". It means "robbed" or "violently abducted". The creators of the Latin name of course meant it to be "robber", but that should've been raptor. So the "literal translation" in the article is now the correct one, and the explanation is now in the footnote. The source you want is the wiktionary itself: rapere = "to rob", raptus = "robbed". This is no "alternative claim", as Xihr stated, but a correction of an obvious Wikipedia error. Very similarly, the alternative name is bad Latin: a) compound word, b) acheronsis instead of acheronensis (see e.g. this animal). This article has been WP-tagged to be cleaned up to explain the fiction and provide non-fictional perspective. That's exactly what I have done. So please refrain from reverting this and try to keep WP entropy as low as possible. Thanks. —Eickenberg 22:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Commander caste

Who keeps removing the Commander section of the Xenomorph page?! It's as real a caste as all the others.
The Commander section you are refering to appears to violate WP:OR and WP:V. To my knowledge it is never mentioned in any film or associated literature. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

King

What happened to the section about the king xenomorph. I know some females out their want the queen to be the most powerful but we atleast have to mention that there was a king xenomorph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoundBlast (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Where was this king xenomorph? All that was given as evidence was a single action figure. In canon, the king is non-existent. I moved the King to the non-canonical list. Serendipodous 13:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)