Talk:Alien (franchise)/Archive 1

Spin offs
I started a spin offs section here as they are set more in the broader fictional universe than any specific film. If it gorws (as there are novels, computer games, etc.) then I'd suggest starting a Alien in other media section or List of Alien media which would really be this section renamed and expanded. I'd suggest the former. See this category for more information Category:In other media (Emperor 16:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC))

Characters
There is now a List of characters in the Alien series‎ - feel free to help flesh it out. (Emperor 22:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Rumoured sequels
If people want to add any extra information in about an Alien 5 then they really need to provide references from reliable sources. A few statements have been removed in the past and will again until something concrete emerges. If you have infomation but aren't sure then drop a note in here and some editors will take a look at it for you. (Emperor 14:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

Senslessness
Yeah, um. I'd like to know WHY my edit was reverted. It wasn't a vandalism and yeah uhhhhh, Fox did say that. That seriously aggrevates me. Oh, and it was Fox's VP who said it too, of all PEOPLE. Oh well. 72.49.194.145 19:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Josh

Alien vs. Predator
I realize it was a crappy movie, but – why is there no section for Alien vs. Predator? Wasn't this considered part of the series? Or is it considered "non-canon"? (I'm not sure who would decide what's Alien universe canon, though.)


 * Even if AVP isn't canon, there should be some discussion of the relationship of that film to the rest of the franchise. Iamcuriousblue 04:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What about Ripley?
The character Ripley is the constant throughout the 'core' alien movies. She undergoes clear character development. Why not create a section on her? Also, every film (possibly even AvP) represents big buisness as somehow responsible for the events in the film due to their desire to exploit the aliens. I'm talking about a 'Recurring characters and themes' section here.--ChrisJMoor 21:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to clarify that Sigourney Weaver has recently stated she will NOT be doing an Alien 5, if one is produced. Stated reason was something along the lines of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". In other words, the Alien/Aliens films were classics and she wants to move on and do other stuff. 72.49.194.69 07:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Alien Saga (Documentary)
Is there room either in this article, or in its own article to be included in the big list of Alien and Predator stuff for the 2002 documentary Alien Saga? I submit that if Alien Loves Predator is included, so too should Alien Saga. Krisjohn (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested move
I suggest that we move this article to Alien (franchise) in order to be more inclusive of the various other aspects of the franchise besides the films (the comics, games, etc). This would be similar to the Star Wars article, which gives an overview and brief history of the franchise as a whole and serves as the parent/forking-off article for all the other articles related to specific branches of the franchise. The parent category for all things Alien-related has been changed to Category:Alien (franchise), so this move would reflect that inclusion. Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there were no objections, I've gone ahead with the move. I'm working on a big sweep of categorization right now (see WikiProject Alien/Article categorization), so although redirects will need to be fixed at least all the Alien and Predator-related articles will be properly categorized. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Franchise template
There is now a franchise infobox:. As this currently has an infobox I won't update it but thought it worth letting everyone know. (Emperor (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

What's in a vacuum?
Bit new to this Wikipedia editing stuff, so forgive me if I've erred, but I found the phrase about the 'powerful vacuum' a little irritating, so I slightly edited this article. Vacuums don't do anything, since they aren't really anything, but the absence of stuff (like cold or black). I don't mind things getting 'sucked' from one place to another, just not by a vacuum, especially not a powerful one, since that's like having 'lots of nothing'. Dischuffed (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMS B-class assessment
Per a request at WP:FILMS Assessment department, I have reviewed this article to determine if it meets the B-class criteria. Looking over the article there are various tags that need to be addressed including citation tags, a merge tag, wikify tag, and expansion tag. The merge tag and expansion tags can be allowed for B-class, but the citations and wikify tags need to be addressed. In addition, I don't think that there should be a mention of every single special feature on every disc of the DVD. Instead, mention the best ones and convert it to prose. I'd also recommend going through and giving the article a copyedit. Once these issues have been addressed, please renominate. Let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Alien 3 section
"Due to studio changes to the second movie, Aliens, Sigourney Weaver was not interested in returning to the series" What studio changes ? These aren't expanded upon, or mentioned in the 'Aliens' entry, and they have no external reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.61.0.162 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Canon/Continuity?
Is there an reference to what is considered canon to the main series? For example, Alien: Newts Tale would fit into the overall scope very wll, but only if officially considered to be canon to the established continuity (main four films). --RedKnight (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the Alien franchise does not have an organized, officially established canon in the way that the Star Wars franchise does (see Star Wars canon). As a result, there have been inconsistencies over the years between some of the different media. For example, there were comic book series (Aliens: Outbreak and Nightmare Asylum, I believe) made after the release of Aliens which depicted the further adventures of Hicks and Newt years after the events of the film. However, in Alien 3 the Hicks and Newt characters were killed off while in cryostasis during the first few minutes of the movie. This completely contradicted the comic book story. Since this is originally a film franchise, and all of the other media (comics, games, etc.) are spin-offs of the films, the films are considered the primary canon (and it's worth noting that the canon between the films themselves is consistent; there's virtually nothing in any of the films that contradicts or conflicts with any plot points from the previous films). So for reprints of the post-Aliens comic book, the names of the characters were changed (to Wilks and Billie, respectively) so that the story wouldn't conflict as much with the film franchise. There were also comics made depicting the further adventures of Ripley after Aliens, but of course she died on Fiorina 161 during the eents of Alien 3 so these are not "canon" to the film series. To make a long story short, no there is no official canon that allows us to fit the stories of the comics in with the films, or the games with the films, etc., and being an encyclopedia it's not our place to try to synthesize these stories anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well explained, thank you. From my point of view I beleive that I will consider anything not on film "outside" main canon, or within an alternate reality or continuity.  The challenge then is to determine which other media (comic books specifically) are consistant within a single continuity or not.  The other challenge is to gather all the source material for a complete and adequate review.--RedKnight (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the comics are consistent with each other in much the same way that the films are consistent with each other, it's just that the 2 media aren't necessarily consistent to each other. Pretty much all the comics are published by Dark Horse, so I imagine that the different titles have some sort of interrelation at least to making sure that their stories don't contradict one another. The approach that the Alien WikiProject (which I confess is a very small project) has used thus far is to treat each form of media separately, as its own continuity. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an Alien wiki? The only one I was able to find was this one:, which is xenomprphic in general--RedKnight (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, not a wiki, a WikiProject: a group of Wikipedia editors working towards the common goal of improving Alien-related articles. It can be found at WikiProject Alien. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Zeta Reticuli
Ridley Scotts states in this article that the prequel is set on "a planet called Zeta Reticuli". Changing the article to say "A planetoid in the system of Zeta Reticuli", or something similar, is original research. Scott knows better about this film than any of us, maybe he has made a mistake, maybe he has decided that a planet will take the name of the system, only he knows, and until we have a reliable source stating anything different we have assume that it is the planet name. magnius (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Prequels: Budget/Rating
FYI, but I don't think it should be included in the article (yet): http://www.scriptflags.com/2010/09/alien-prequel-stalls-as-ridley-scott.html Ridley Scott allegedly wants 250 million and an R-/18-rating, while Fox wants to spend less and go for PG13 (US/15 (UK). But we shouldn't trust this publication: There's no author named for the article, no source for the information. But nevertheless I wanted to add it here for possible future reference, just in case it turns out to be true. EDIT: Same info from an alternate source, without any additional details: http://movies.sky.com/alien-prequel-stalls-as-scott-fights-fox —95.88.23.26 (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * More info; needs to be confirmed: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/10/fox_flips_for_damon_lindelofs.html —95.88.23.26 (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Prequels: Story
Apparently, story details got leaked, but it shouldn't yet be included in the article. Added here for later possible reference (major spoilers): http://www.webcitation.org/5te6IlaXH —80.130.172.181 (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Only added a link in the footnote, because some of the story details conform to Ridley Scott's own information. But nothing for the main text body. —80.130.172.181 (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Prequel Page
What about starting a separate page for the prequels? Seems to me there's enough to start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.24.118 (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, there isn't. The project is still in the preliminary stages of development: there's no final script, no one's been cast, and nothing's been greenlit. All information is still of the "they would like to do this...", "there are ideas about..." nature. A separate article shouldn't be started until the project actually gets off the ground & there is enough verifiable info about it to write a reasonably-detailed article. At this point the whole thing could still fizzle out & never get past the preliminary stages. WP:NFF advises against starting articles about future films that have not commenced principle photography. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Alien prequel canceled section
check Ridley scotts twitter or google it since it has been cancelled. heres several sources   feel free to find better sources since most search involving google points to this  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnie42 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Prometheus (film) Page/Re-direct
According to the talk page and Articles for deletion/Prometheus (film) the page was voted to be kept, NOT redirected. Unless there is a reason for the redirect, this page should be reinstated as per the the voting process Anthony of the Desert (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You should contact the closing admin, . I support the redirect. Per the notability guidelines for future films, we should not have articles until filming starts. If you are confident that filming will start, then if it happens, the article can exist without complaint. Otherwise, it is rendered as a footnote due to the level of uncertainty in the film industry. Alternately, you can create an incubated article where you can develop it until filming is verified to have begun. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 01:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Articles for deletion/Prometheus (film) the result was "keep and redirect to Alien (franchise)". What this means is that the article is redirected without the content itself being deleted. That way, if the film does indeed materialize, the previous content can be easily recovered from the history. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also renamed the heading to the film's title, and not "Alien Prequel". — Mike   Allen   03:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Image added
I kind of had to http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-figures-why-not-adds-photo-of-ridley-scott-to,28445/ —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Android info section added
ive put together a table of their details for reference - its a neat idea of colating their whereabouts ! VC 03:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcorani (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks, but this isn't the kind of content we're looking for. There's no value in creating a list of appearances and fictitious data about these characters. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Cast chart
I spent a good half an hour researching and building a cast table in order to improve the article as it was lacking some essential parts. I don't give a rat's ass if there's an article for the characters, the cast table acts as a monaker to every participant in the series. I added this since cast tables have appeared in all sorts of franchise articles, yet it's a huge problem here? Bullshit. It's not redundant as there's no cast list on this particular article. I see this as a major content removal without any meaningful reason other thn "it's ugly." RAP (talk) 18:15 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "monaker" is meant to mean (certainly "moniker" isn't right in this context) but yes, such a table is vastly redundant to the list articles and is simply repeating something that's already present multiple times over. Each film lists its cast and the character list articles are a summary of that; we don't need a summary of a summary. And we certainly don't need one with such a poor layout. I've removed it again, please read and understand WP:BRD before invoking it as the point is to discuss the merits of adopting a new change rather than defending the previous status quo. GRAPPLE   X  18:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And to defend "poor layout"; the row headings have no reason to take up a third (at least) of the table's entire width; the "CAST" cell clearly falls afoul of WP:ACCESS in terms of accessibility to the visually-impaired; and the structure chosen creates a large amount of unsightly dead space when an actor is only present in one film. Several films with a very limited number of overlapping appearances is not something that translates well to a table like this, which is why the lists were a much better choice in the first place. GRAPPLE   X  18:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever, man. Take the table and shove it up your ass for all I care. I'm done here. Hypocrites, the lot of you. RAP (talk) 18:28 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The table was a good addition to this article. It should be included.--Ephert (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can certainly appreciate the time and effort you put into the chart, RAP (I just spent several weeks building a large list article myself), but I honestly don't see what the useful purpose of this chart is. Like I said, we already have 2 character list articles (List of characters in the Alien series and List of characters in the Alien vs. Predator series) that list the cast & characters. We also have cast lists in every film article. So what's the point of presenting the same information a third time, in chart form? There have only been 2 recurring actors/characters in this franchise anyway (Weaver & Henriksen), so this chart doesn't really do anything to tie the franchise together or show links between the films. You've argued that "There is no guideline or policy saying there can't be one, no prior consensus not to include one", but where is the guideline or policy saying there should be one? Where is the prior consensus to include one? I've never seen any guideline or even discussion on this, so the lack of specific prohibition on it is irrelevant. Why is this huge table an "essential part" of the article? Why do we need it? It looks to me like a chart just for the sake of having a chart. And if you're going to threaten 3RR, you'd better be prepared to face that music yourself. Your attitude in your edit summaries and the above comments isn't helping your cause any. I'm of a good mind to trout slap you for 3RR and CIVIL. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ephert, why do you think it was a good addition? I'm interested to hear why you think it should be included. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I. AM. DONE. ON. WIKIPEDIA. Do as you please, you hypocritical control freaks. RAP (talk) 18:35 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm also interested in hearing from RAP an actual example of why I'm a "hypocrite", thanks. GRAPPLE   X  18:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean in general. Every single article on Wikipedia is created for a purpose to provide information that over time will see improvements and additonal info added. But no, any of that gets added and you immediately begin flinging bullshit like "redundant, ugly, go fuck yourself." You thirst for new content, but there's always an excuse not to include it. Everytime, and that shit i will not continue standing for. Good day. RAP (talk) 18:40 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * More isn't always better, and excuses like "I took time over it" don't hold any water. I'm sorry if you took time over it. It doesn't magically make it good. If your response to a calm explanation of why this one table is neither necessary, nor useful, nor particularly worthwhile, is to throw teddy from the pram, then yes, I will have a good day as there's one less sour grape to be dealing with here. GRAPPLE   X  18:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And one less asshole to concern myself about. Win fucking win. RAP (talk) 18:51 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * First, I think the characters' names column should be shortened to width=30% and the actors' names columns should have each column widened to width=14% so some of the longer names do not require two rows. This will make the table shorter in the vertical direction. Also, the table should be expandable with the default set to collapsed, so it will only require a lot of room if viewers want to open it and view it. Second, I think it is a good addition because it is useful to see which actors play each role in each film.--Ephert (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "I think it is a good addition because it is useful to see which actors play each role in each film." But we're already providing that information in the film articles themselves as well as in 2 separate character articles. What usefulness does this table provide that the lists we're already providing do not? Is there a particular value to lumping all the cast lists together in one place? How does that contribute to an understanding of the franchise as a whole, which is what this article is about? Especially given that there are only 2 actors who have appeared in more than 1 film in the franchise? These are the things I'm thinking when I see a big table like this. Since I can already see which actors played each role in each film quite easily in each film article, I question the necessity and usefulness of combining them all in 1 huge table. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know the standard for articles like this, but the Spider-Man in film has a cast table like the one that RAP added, so I think this article should have a cast table too, assuming the Spider-Man in film article is doing what is correct.--Ephert (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It's more of a case by case thing; the Spiderman films have a large amount of cast overlapping between them so the tables seem less empty. GRAPPLE  X  19:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not one to just go with "this other article has it, so this one should too". Like I said above, I've never seen a guideline or discussion about these tables one way or the other, so there doesn't appear to be any consensus about whether they're useful or not. It might be worth discussing at the WP:FILMS level. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it might be worth discussing there.---Ephert (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Box Office figures table
Please do not revert the edit which clearly states the true fact that the figures quoted are not inflation adjusted. Without this it may mislead people into grossly overestimating the number of tickets sold for the more recent films/movies. Perhaps anyone reverting the edit would care to find inflation adjusted figures to add to the table? Japanscot (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Top Critics" scores
I recently removed the Rotten Tomatoes "Top Critis" scores from the article. That edit was reverted with the summary comment "get consensus first". But in my edit summary I indicated that these edits were based on the Film MOS (specifically the section MOS:FILM). If you check that section of the MOS you will see that my edits were in line with it. The MOS was recently changed as a result of discussions that took place over several weeks (which you can read here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 45 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film). There is a consensus that has been established for a policy for all film articles, so I have reinstated my edit. 99.192.76.230 (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.92.87)

Weyland-Yutani Corporation: "Building Better Worlds"
I believe that the Weyland-Yutani corporation really should have its own Wikipedia article instead of a search for it being redirected to this article on the Alien franchise. Considering fictional corporations such as Cyberdyne (Skynet), InGen, and CHOAM all have their articles, it is a real shame that Weyland-Yutani corp does not. 199.87.224.33 (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Section blanking
The entire "Expansion in Video Games" section has just gone. We'd better talk about this. What do you all think? 2A01:E35:8AB6:1930:E518:B3A9:325D:24A1 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Another editor removed it without explanation. I've restored it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

"Indirect Prequel"
This bit seems messy, and I think it would be better if Prometheus was moved to just after Alien Resurrection. As it is set in the same universe, and considered canon. Unlike the Alien VS Predator films. Charlr6 (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Prometheus is set before Alien 1 and features Weyland's CEO. The film sets the plot for Alien 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.225.164.144 (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Canonicity doesn't matter - it's not an entry in the franchise, so it cannot be placed after Resurrection.--MrChristensen (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

New sequel
The events of both Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection will be ignored by the upcoming sequel Alien 5, which may be directed by Ridley Scott. AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry; we have you covered! ;) D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 10:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Complete reorganization is necessary
This article suffers from significant organizational issues. I'll go through some and try to work with the community to see how we can fix things up.
 * Ridley Scott has proclaimed that Prometheus is the first of a direct prequel series of four films that will tie straight into the continuity of the original Alien film. We need to reclassify and reorganize this page to clarify that Prometheus is not an indirect prequel but in fact an Alien film, hence its sequel is named "Alien: Paradise Lost".
 * I believe we should, for the series, have subsections for "Main series" and "Prequel series", with the latter including the films beginning with the Prometheus installment.
 * We need to decide how to include the credits for the prequels and Neill Blomkamp's project in not only the infobox, but the cast and crew sections.
 * The cast and crew sections include two video games, which seems like a waste of space. We should simply remove those from there, as they're not a good fit.
 * The template for Alien, AvP, Predator and Prometheus seems to be too broad. I think it should be split up. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 00:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For #4: I have no problem with removing them, but I've seen them removed before and then later re-added by someone else. It doesn't matter to me either way. But, I noticed that an anonymous IP added non-recurring characters. This table is for recurring characters only, with all characters on List of Alien characters. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you remove them, I will support you. It's a designation for the films in the franchise and those alone. Remember, however, that this is for the primary canon of the main series and the prequel series, so we'll need to add Prometheus, Alien: Paradise Lost and Alien 5. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 09:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I highly disagree with removing them. Making the reader navigate between three different templates instead of one condensed version makes locating related articles far more confusing. It's like trying to find a name in a phone book that has been torn in three and hidden in different parts of the house.Little Jimmy (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, any concerns about what is or isn't "canon" is both irrelevant to anyone who is trying to locate all the articles related to the series, nor does any official source dictate what in the series is considered "canon" anyhow.Little Jimmy (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, the original template was not "condensed"; it jumbled the content of three different franchises and made navigation very difficult. Considering the breadth of each franchise, it's necessary to give each of them their own. Hell, the AvP and Predator templates are still sizable on their own. AvP is still linked up in each of the templates, as well as the counterpart Alien and Predator franchises, respectively. The canon this article is following is the current iteration that is being developed, including the main series and the prequel series, both of which have new installments being produced. The sources for the prequel series and Alien 5 describe a streamlined canon that links Prometheus to Alien and Alien 5 to said continuity, so that is what is the focus, first and foremost. The AvP crossovers are still included, but are given a similar treatment as what the Lucasfilm Story Group has done with the pre-Disney expanded universe content, where it's considered non-canon. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 10:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hell, I didn't need to respond so extensively. Little Jimmy, recent sources do say that the main series and prequel series are the currently-followed canon of the Alien universe and the current developers of the IP are in a position to say what is canon. This really isn't a topic of debate at this point. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 05:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Franchise logo
I have taken the liberty of putting the infobox image as being the logo as it appears in the 1979 film, the anthology collection and Alien: Isolation. Aliens, Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection have different logotypes, while that of Alien: Covenant is fairly close to the original logo. Considering that the original logo appears on half of the materials for the series, are we content with utilizing it, or should we go with the precise logotype of Alien: Covenant and count things by the most recent iteration? D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 22:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What is there currently is not much of a logo. Personally, I think the previous picture that was there, of the cover of the anthology box, was fine. - the WOLF  child  15:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As said on WikiProject, I'd say change to Covenant logo. Some editors could argue that would change and hasn't even started filming yet. But we are a constantly changing and updating website. A new logo wouldn't hurt, and could easily be changed again if need be. At the moment, it is really bland and like Wolf said, not much of a logo. Charlr6 (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I could look at changing it to the form of Alien: Covenant, which actually has a bit more spark to it. The anthology box set is perfect for the home distribution section and I really believe we should continue to keep this page formal and encyclopedic by including proper logos... just I wasn't sure which one. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 21:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we utilize the logo as it appears in Alien: Covenant, or would we rather just put the anthology box set back in the infobox? I won't lose sleep over either decision, but I'd like to get some consensus. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 01:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, first, let's look at the caption: "The Alien logo, as it appears in Alien: Covenant." How can it "appear" in something that hasn't been made yet? And there's no link to what it's supposed to appear in. The average reader wouldn't know what that's talking about. (Also, it's a sentence fragment, so no period should be used per WP:CAPFRAG.) Now, again, as with the tables, this is still 2015 and this is not supposed to be released until 2017. It's just too early. And a lot of things could happen between now and then (WP:CRYSTAL). The image itself is fine because it doesn't say "Covenant", but the problem is - the caption does. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Musdan77, something did seem off when I wrote the caption yesterday. Do you think it would be appropriate to say "The current logo of the franchise", as it's the latest graphical depiction? D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 20:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, "current" is not normally a very encyclopedic word - but if that's agreeable to everyone, I won't go against it. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I implemented the caption "The current logo of the franchise". My perspective is to let the new content rest and ripen for now, at least from my end. I think we should all focus on expanding the page and perhaps have it creep towards GA quality. There's plenty of potential with this page, as Alien is a huge film franchise- even bigger since Ridley Scott has reaffirmed that Prometheus is in fact the first chronological installment. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 05:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Alien Quadrilogy DVD Box Sets - no mention of 2014 edition
I've been scouring the internet trying to find out whether the 2014 issue of the "Alien Quadrilogy" DVD box set is identical to the 2003 issue of the "Alien Quadrilogy" DVD box set, or whether it incorporates upgrades from more recent blu-ray issues, or whether it's different in any other way. I've been completely unsuccessful, including in this article's Home video releases section. So, does no one know? Does no one care?108.13.99.101 (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Prequel series
Ridley Scott and 20th Century Fox have contradicting statements, with Scott saying that there are two films beyond Alien: Covenant, while Fox says there is one. This creates a difference between a trilogy and a series (or quadrilogy). Should we play it safe and change all the designations of "trilogy" to "series", until at least further notice? D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 02:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Weyland-Yutani?
Weyland-Yutani redirects here, but there is nothing about is here. At all. What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.220.34.167 (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Alien characters is up for deletion
There is an AfD for List of Alien characters. If anyone would like to give their input, feel free to do so. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 23:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Alien 5 is an Alternate Universe
I'm not sure if this will go very well with anyone here but over at Town Hall Theatre in Broadway, Sigourney Weaver was giving a Q&A Session on the celebration of Alien Day in regards to the upcoming Neill Blomkamp Alien sequel. We know that Neill Blomkamp had said that he had no intention of undoing Alien 3 and Resurrection, but what Sigourney Weaver says is pretty... interesting.

“When Neill Blomkamp started to talk to me about the sequel to this movie [Aliens], I thought, ‘Gosh, that would be so great to know that Ripley has a resting place, eventually.’ And wouldn’t it be great to end the series on—not that the other two didn’t happen but they’re in a parallel universe.”

This statement seems to have some heavy weight to it if we take into account that Neill Blomkamp isn't going to undo Alien 3 and Resurrection, but merely going around them.

Source: http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/alien-5/254909/alien-5-sigourney-weaver-talks-ignoring-later-sequels-alien-covenant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.1.74 (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Reverting back to previous content
It appears there have recently been some major unilateral contributions to the page, like the removal of the current logo from Alien: Covenant and moving the DVD box set from the home media release section to the infobox. Could we perhaps have a discussion about this, so we can at least attempt to reach consensus for the content of this page? I personally think it's nonsensical to have that box set image anywhere but the home media section, considering that we have the films' logos to go off of. But, let's all talk and see what consensus we can reach! D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 02:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * We have had many discussions since last year about making significant changes to the page, such as emphasizing that AvP is a part of a separate crossover franchise, considering Prometheus and its sequels to be a part of the prequel series and having the DVD box set below. It's all in the page archives. TurokSwe, if you have a massive edit proposal, you must first discuss it here and we can invite the regular editors to give their input. But reverting back to the content of a year ago, for what may be the sake of nostalgia, is simply inappropriate. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 20:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Where is the evidence of such discussions? I sure can't find any, and as far as I'm concerned, there should be nothing really problematic about my edits. The box image for the franchise, for starters, is much better represented by a home media collection of films rather than a blurry title that is even assigned to a sequel to Prometheus and not the main Alien series. The crossover films are a series of its own that includes the Aliens and so should be mentioned below the other films. The franchise is also commonly branded as Aliens instead of just Alien, and the creature itself is repeatedly recognized as a "Xenomorph". TurokSwe (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, I appreciate you engaging me in discussion, TurokSwe. The evidence is here, at Talk:Alien (franchise)/Archive 1. Prior to the announcement of Alien: Covenant, the layout was satisfactory, as there was no verification that Prometheus is in fact a part of the franchise. But with the announcement by 20th Century Fox, it became clear that it was and I opened up discussions about further emphasizing that Alien, Predator and Alien vs Predator are three separate franchises that should keep their content largely restricted to their appropriate pages. Additionally, the archives will show that we discussed the infobox image content, as well. Nobody made any bold edits during the reorganization without consulting the talk page and getting input from other contributors. On top of that, I brought up my proposals at WikiProject Film's discussion page. You know, if you want to open up more discussions or perhaps get an RfC or even a Dispute Resolution discussion going, I'd be more than willing to go along with it. I promise to request whatever consensus is met at this point. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 06:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Alien (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160320095616/http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2016/02/fox-sets-release-dates-for-two-new-marvel-movies-and-predator-sequel-moves-gambit-and-alien-covenant.html to http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2016/02/fox-sets-release-dates-for-two-new-marvel-movies-and-predator-sequel-moves-gambit-and-alien-covenant.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Alien (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to https://au.movies.yahoo.com/news/a/30691482/ridley-scott-noomi-rapace-wont-be-in-alien-covenant/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071013060316/http://www.gamespot.com:80/news/6162961.html to http://www.gamespot.com/news/6162961.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131015103257/http://www.gamespot.com:80/reviews/aliens-infestation-review/1900-6346310/ to http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/aliens-infestation-review/1900-6346310/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Just as a reminder about continuity/canon
For the first time in a year, we've had a wave of edits by a single editor attempting to state that Prometheus and Alien: Covenant are of a separate canon and that Alien belongs to a shared universe. As a reminder, 20th Century Fox has clarified that Prometheus and Alien: Covenant are components of what the studio has dubbed the "Alien Prequel Series", which leads directly into the original film and negates AvP. Therefore, there are currently six films that comprise this series and AvP is a separate crossover beast with its own separate canon from Alien continuity and the Predator continuity. I'm aware this was a cause for confusion after Prometheus was released and before Alien: Covenant was announced, as we had no idea in hell was Prometheus was, but that's not the case anymore. We have this discussion in the archives, but I'm leaving this here again, in case there is any further confusion in the foreseeable future. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 05:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Skerrit didn't play Ripley! 50.136.186.91 (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This page only says that Ripley was originally supposed to be a male character, played by him. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 08:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Storyline chronology
This "Storyline chronology" only includes recent works, why? It includes the films but only a handful of video games and novels, why not all? Are they part of a new canon that negates everything made prior the release of Prometheus à la Star Wars when its expanded universe what rebooted in 2013? If so, does anyone have a source detailing all this? Klow (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Future
There has been several editors that have retitled sections on this page with way too many words for a heading, and have also speculated on certain things. Specifically, the section regarding Blomkamp's cancelled Alien film needs only to be titled Cancelled sequel as it was intended to be a sequel to the original quadrilogy. Secondly though Scott has stated that there is an Alien: Awakening film in development, he has since stated that Blomkamp's film was going to be Alien: Awakening. It would seem that there is simply confusion as to what is going on here. Whether it's that Blomkamp's film was supposed to enter production after Alien: Covenant (which Ridley had said before), or the films have similar titles -- we don't know the answer. To speculate that the films are re-purposed versions of each other is completely incorrect and needn't be done on this page. Unless you have a source that states such, we need to wait until further information regarding this topic comes out. User:Nurseline247 where's your source?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Covenant tie-in shorts
Why are the Alien:Covenant tie-in shorts (crew messages, last supper, etc) covered in this article instead of in Alien: Covenant ? They are companion films to that film, so should be in that article -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2017
Alien Covenant Now Has 288 Reviews 207.172.180.75 (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 02:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alien (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605192545/http://gbxforums.gearboxsoftware.com/showthread.php?t=122193 to http://gbxforums.gearboxsoftware.com/showthread.php?t=122193

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Board game from Poland (1988)
There was a game in communist Poland --212.122.206.18 (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it an officially licensed product?★Trekker (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the game's BoardGameGeek page: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/31586/obcy --Gonnym (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Did a quick search over at BoardGameGeek and found the following games:
 * Alien (1979) BoardGameGeek link
 * Obcy (1988) BoardGameGeek link
 * Aliens (1989) BoardGameGeek link
 * Operation: Aliens (1993) BoardGameGeek link
 * Aliens vs. Predator (1997) BoardGameGeek link
 * Expansion: Aliens vs. Predator: Alien Resurrection Expansion Set (1998) BoardGameGeek link
 * Aliens (2001) BoardGameGeek link
 * Alien Skirmish (2004) BoardGameGeek link
 * Aliens: This Time It's War (2010) BoardGameGeek link
 * Чужие против хищника (2010) [Ebay has the name as ALIENS vs. PREDATOR: Requiem] BoardGameGeek link
 * Legendary Encounters: An Alien Deck Building Game (2014) BoardGameGeek link
 * Expansion: Legendary Encounters: An Alien Deck Building Game Expansion (2016) BoardGameGeek link
 * Alien vs Predator: The Hunt Begins (2015) BoardGameGeek link
 * Expansion: Alien vs Predator: Alien Warriors Expansion (2015) BoardGameGeek link
 * Expansion: Alien VS Predator: Unleashed (2017) BoardGameGeek link
 * Vs System 2PCG: The Alien Battles (2016) BoardGameGeek link
 * Battle Yahtzee: Alien vs. Predator (2016) BoardGameGeek link

If BBG is a valid source, these games can be added to the Role-playing games section --Gonnym (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't find Aliens Adventure Game at BGG so did a bit of digging and its on its sister site RPG Geek. Found a few other Alien RPG games there: --Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ALIENS Adventure Game (1991) RPGeek link
 * ALIENS: Colonial Marines Technical Manual (1995) RPGeek link
 * Sundered Epochs: Aliens Versus Predator series RPGeek link
 * Mars Patrol (1999) RPGeek link
 * Alien Subversion (2000) RPGeek link
 * The Hunt (2004) RPGeek link
 * Aliens: Game Over (2004) RPGeek link
 * Aliens Versus Predator (2009) RPGeek link
 * Christmas on the Moon (2015) RPGeek link

Split shorts and merge into the film articles
I propose that Afterwards, very small summaries (such as one sentence ones) can remain here indicating the shorts exist.
 * the Prometheus tie-in shorts be split away from this article merged into Prometheus (2012 film)
 * the Covenant tie-in shorts be split away from this article and merged into Alien: Covenant

These shorts are primarily associated with the films they are companion pieces to, so should be documented in those film articles, since they are part of their marketing, and extras. Thus they should primarily be covered in their associated film articles, and not the main franchise article, just the same as how the films are primarily covered in their own articles, and not here, where only short summaries of the films exist. -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support I am the nominator -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a franchise article and therefore it is rather fitting that it would mention all aspects of the franchise, the fact that they are advertisments does not really matter nor that they are associated with specific films, they not part of the released theatrical product. The Prometheus article is already very very long and a featured article, there is little here worth splitting there. I do think that it would be good if the Covenant article mentioned the shorts more though.★Trekker (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You say the Prometheus article is "already very very long". The proposal is to keep the bulk of the info on the main pages, not the franchise page, because a person looking for Alien: Covenant material is likely to begin looking there, figuring it's easier to find Covenant material on the Covenant page instead of wading through mountains of franchise material from the whole series (a page that is, itself, "very very long"). Taking this information off of the main pages wont shorten its length, rather, it only serves to break it up — by placing it on a second, franchise article — a practice which requires those who look first to the main page to then have to look through a second page in order to find what they're looking for. If you oppose this proposal, what you may lose in length by taking from the main pages you will make up for in time spent looking for the information on a second, franchise page. This is what I mean by needing to have an economy of pages. Spin tendo Talk 15:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In the case of Prometheus many of the shots are borderline unrelated to the actual film. The Prometheus article would not be improved by adding stuff about the promos to it. If someone is looking for info about the specific short film the would likely want to actually know specifically about them, not wade trought a long article like the Prometheus one which at most would give it a minor mention. These shorts are not part of the released film and would do best to be included under a separate section in the franchise article (which I did before but was removed with not so much as a motivation in the edit summary as far as I remember.) For example the Rick and Morty short has nothing to do with Covenant film besides being an add for it.★Trekker (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I'm wondering if you could elaborate on what it is, about these promos, that makes them "borderline unrelated" to the actual film? If I were to have asked you "Which shorts are you talking about?" you probably would have answered "The Prometheus shorts." If they were so unrelated to Prometheus, wouldn't they be referred to in another way? Would you agree that there is a certain level of Prometheus-ness or Covenant-ness to these promo clips that makes them indelible to the movie they were produced for? As far as Rick and Morty short, I would think that would best be covered under the Rick and Morty article. Spin tendo Talk 17:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of them are simply there to advertise the film, but really have nothing to do with the actual story besides featuring a character doing something. Having a plot synopsis for the shorts and their reception or a description of them in the main articles would seem off-topic to me. It's not part of the film just becuse it features a character from it. Or in the case of the Rick and Morty short, having nothing to do with it besides having the Alien creature in it.★Trekker (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ofcouse the Rick and Morty short should be covered in the the Rick and Morty article, but that solves nothing about where it should be mentioned in the context of this franchise.★Trekker (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But if a character originates in a film, such as Covenant, and is shown in some sort of promo short having nothing else to do with the film, AND if that character does not cross over in mention to any other Alien related film or property, my question would be how does that make it part of the franchise more so than of Covenant if the character originated in Covenant Spin tendo Talk 18:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your question doesn't seem to make much sense to me rigth now. It's not more or less part of the franchise if it is covered here or on the Covenant article, Covenant is already a part of the franchise as well, my point is that I think it makes more sense to cover the shorts in depth here than in the specific film articles sicne those are supposed to be about the films, not related parts of the franchise. The shorts as advertisments can gladly be mentioned in the film articles but I don't agree with excluding a bunch of info on them as if they didn't exists here.★Trekker (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * QUOTE: "The shorts as advertisments can gladly be mentioned in the film articles but I don't agree with excluding a bunch of info on them as if they didn't exists here." ★Trekker (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC) So having the information on the film page is NOT something you're against. What you're against is having that information ONLY on the film page — in other words, you want the info shared with the franchise page. This seems like a lot of unecessary duplication in order to ensure that the franchise page has something to do, ensuring it doesn't feel slighted by having material withdrawn from it. Spin tendo Talk 19:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Now you're back to not making any sense. Are you implying that I somehow think that the franchise article has feeling or something?★Trekker (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The article does not have feelings, but the editors who use it — including you — do have feelings, and it is the purpose of this talk page dialogue for you to express those feelings on how the page ought to be utilized. This isn't rocket science here — I'm simply asking you to explain why you feel the way you do about material either remaining or being removed from the articles — feelings which you've expressed before (such as disappointment, evident from your post below): Spin tendo Talk 21:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)  QUOTE: "...which I did before but was removed with not so much as a motivation in the edit summary as far as I remember." ★Trekker (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't like people undoing others changes without giving motivation, I think it disrupts article development and disscussion. I've already explained that I think a franchise article should cover all aspects of a franchise, not sure why that is hard to grasp. Now how are you feeling?★Trekker (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. I feel that when a franchise page "covers all aspects of a franchise" using information already locatable within an already-existing page under that franchise (i.e., Alien (franchise) vs. Alien: Covenant) it offers nothing more than uneccesssary duplication and clutter. I wanted to make sure that your Oppose vote was not motivated by your own desire to place material on the franchise page, material that was previously removed from the film pages (the "not giving a reason" notwithstanding, a removal which upset you so). Allow me to ask, if there were a consensus to keep your material that was deleted on the film page itself and not the fanchise page, would you support it being kept there? If that were the case then I'd think your vote ought to be Support. In the end, the choice of page shouldn't matter, it's that the material is placed somewhere (hopefully in just one location) that should be the issue. If that page is to be the franchise page, then we need a more specific reason than "I think it makes more sense to cover the shorts in depth here than in the specific film articles sicne (sic) those are supposed to be about the films ..." Because if something was produced to promote a film, then it already is about that film .  Spin tendo Talk 14:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that makes any sense. I don't want duplicate info in the articles, mentioning a short film in a film article and having a section dedicated to it in another article which covers it in depth doens't seem unreasonlabe to me. Also, just to clarify, my edit which was undone was that I moved a section, not that I added anything which was removed. I also don't feel like I need to justify my opinion anymore than I already have, if you just simply fundamentlay disagree that's fine, but I'm getting tired of being asked over and over again about my position (with some mildly condescending comments may I add). I have nothing more that I feel the need to add, I'll leave you to discuss with someone else if you have more to say.★Trekker (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"Mentioning a short film in a film article and having a section dedicated to it in another article which covers it in depth" ← This is the information I have been seeking from you this entire time, that is, that you want just a slight mention of it in one place (we'll call that Article 'A') while covering it in depth in another place (Article 'B'). As you can see from the Terminator (franchise) page as an example, Article 'A' is clearly the franchise page while Article 'B' is either the individual film pages or a seperate page created specifically for that item (i.e., merchandising tie ins List of Terminator video games). This is the complete opposite of what you want ("Mentioning a short film in a film article and having a section dedicated to it in another article" {the franchise page} ) The Terminator franchise page is an excellent example of the position I support (minimal franchise page content) and the one you oppose ("This is a franchise article and therefore it is rather fitting that it would mention all aspects of the franchise"). It's a shame you feel that you can no longer continue in this discussion. Talk pages benefit from everyone's input, and this discussion will be adversely affected by the absense of someone like you, who shows a great deal of interest and knowledge in the subject. Spin tendo Talk 15:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose As stated, by ★Trekker, this is a franchise article - not merely for films, "all aspects of the franchise". There are way too many shorts. Nurseline247 (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for Prometheus Pointless. The shorts are already covered in the Marketing section of the Prometheus article. DrKay (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support There needs to be an economy of pages here. Keeping material on franchise pages supports those who have created them in the first place. The creation of the Alien franchise pages and the branching out of material that came with it has created uneccessary redundancy and has fostered an accrual of clutter. Keeping material here (and off of the main pages) furthers that goal, and I oppose goals which maintain franchise page legitimacy. That opposition requires me to support this position. — Spin tendo Talk 13:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't remotely understand what it is that you mean here.★Trekker (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That material orginating from a main Alien-based source (such as promotional material for Alien: Covenant) should generally be placed in that main Alien page first and foremost (i.e., the previously mentioned Alien: Covenant's page) and that any mention of it on the franchise page be minimal. — Spin tendo Talk 15:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand now, I don't agree but I get it.★Trekker (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * This doesn't need splitting it needs removing. If I'm reading these right they're just adverts or promo materials. It needs to be summarised HEAVILY under a marketing section in the respective articles IF notable. The TED talk is alreayd covered at Prometheus, the Shaw asking for funding from Weyland video is not notable, it's just marketing material. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is the point, it is marketing for the individual films, so should appear in the film articles. Splitting and merging does not mean a complete verbatim move, it means splitting the material from here, and merging whatever is needed there. That does not mean a verbatim copy. What you propose is the same as this proposal, just with with restrictions on how the merge is done. -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The major marketing is already covered in Prometheus. The minor videos are no different than normal trailers and don't need mentioning per WP:TRAILER, so just delete them. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why the fact that something is short or used for marketing should matter. It seems like a rather dubious and biased distinction to make.★Trekker (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just adding my 2cents here. I was reading the Alien: Covenant article and couldn't even find a reference to its shorts. Whatever you guys decide, the main film article must have references to its auxiliary shorts. --Gonnym (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alien (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216052742/http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/12/05/sigourney-weaver-and-ridley-scott-to-team-up-for-alien-less-alien-sequel/ to http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/12/05/sigourney-weaver-and-ridley-scott-to-team-up-for-alien-less-alien-sequel/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Alien: Covenant 2" vs. "Alien: Awakening"
This one stuck out to me; hasn't the official title of the upcoming prequel film been revealed as "Alien: Awakening"? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Page rescue plan
With the recent AN/I resolution, we have an opportunity to clean up this page - which DisneyMetalHead has already kick-started splendidly. I believe a good franchise template to follow will be Star Wars, with its original series origins serving as a launching point for the newer prequel era material. What we should consider is that this page is an overview for the franchise, so individual, finer details should be glossed over if not imperative. Also, as it stands, AvP is taking up the lion's share of this page, which is inappropriate, considering that it's a separate crossover and should only warrant an individual section with a brief overview. Like the Star Wars page, I don't believe individual subsections for every little bit of media - including the films - is necessary. As such, we should condense the film sections to overviews of the original series and the prequel series. Today, I kicked off the setting section, but now the priority will be to clean up, condense and polish.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 01:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Each AvP film doesn't need its own section, just as the main Star Wars page doesn't have subsections for the various spin-offs, but focuses on the original/core content. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good work today! I took the liberty of condensing the theatrical films section, but there is a ton of work to be done yet. The page has become a bit of a garbled mess, with a lot of unreliable opinion pieces, WP:NOTNEWS violations and way, way, way too much AvP emphasis; there's almost more Predator content than Alien on the page about Alien! So, I'll look to the other sections tomorrow. Plus, the chart of crew members is a little awkward; this seems more like a STAT class lesson than an article.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 04:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not as familiar with the Alien articles, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but it seems your condensation of the film sections *might* be overkill. Maybe it's just how short they are relative to the AvP content, but you might want to consider reversing that change (for balance) until other sections on the article have been appropriately shortened. Particularly under the "Original series" section, which does not seem a sufficient overview (as opposed to the Star Wars article, which has entire trilogies to cover, so the condensation is more justified). It's not a bad start, and I would refer to it for future revisions, but as someone who's familiar with the Alien films, two short paragraphs aren't enough to communicate anything of depth. To be fair, the Star Wars article is also not a perfect example, as it too focuses on random details of the films' production without giving sufficient attention to the individual films and their impact as a whole. (Keeping in mind that each of its trilogies also has an article, while the Alien series doesn't.) Just my thoughts UpdateNerd (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As you saw, I rolled it back a bit. I may restore the overview for the prequel series. But, how about this, you can focus on the the theatrical films overview, while I can take on trimming down AvP to an appropriate length. And, I definitely understand time constraints-- take as much as you need.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 14:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a good thing to do it make something like List of Alien (franchise) media honestly. Like how Scooby-Doo, Naruto and One Piece has. That way it avoids this page having too much random cruft without any prose.★Trekker (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Star Wars and the Marvel Cinematic Universe have separate "List of films" pages as well. That allows this article to focus on the franchise as a whole, with appropriate 'Further info' links to the corresponding sections of the List. At some point, though, the question of how to address the related AvP and Predator franchises is going to come up, so I suggest thinking about it generally to find the best solution.
 * There could simply be a separate List article for each franchise; or one for Alien, one for Predator, with AvP repeated on both of them. Another suggestion would be to make a single "List of Alien and Predator films" article with three main parent sections. There's enough mainstream/reader interest in where the films reference each other (e.g. in the several paragraphs I removed from this article), which would fit nicely into such a page as a supplement to each productions' overview. Just a thought. UpdateNerd (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that including the AvP films is important as they are spin-offs of the franchise. The sections definitely need to be shortened, but excluding them and/or details regarding the movies is counterproductive. I would imagine that a short explanation of the plot setting for each film is good enough. Any development details could/should have be in a 'development' section. Additionally, I think all the trivial information regarding play-by-play updates on upcoming/delayed films should be condensed. The section regarding cancelled media is rather useless as it has nothing to do with the film series. Perhaps that could be moved to the second page you guys are talking about(?). The article definitely needed an overhaul.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a big fan of the color-coded film section. They added that to the Star Wars page, and there's been debate about the best way to arrange the table. An easier/better aesthetic in my own opinion would be something as follows --

Perhaps something like this is the better option?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That table looks a lot better, but I would still make the two main banners different colors for contrast. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I implemented a version of 's table that retains the color palette of the previous version. I noticed that this page has grown to have a serious issue with unreliable sources and fancruft. I've so far found a grand total of... one source... to back up the claim about Alien: Earthbound. And, it's an unreliable one. I hope we can retain the brunt of the information.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 23:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the table looks great.★Trekker (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Covenant prologues
Alien: Covenant – Prologue: Last Supper redirects here (Alien: Covenant might be a better target) but is not mentioned, and Alien: Covenant – Prologue: The Crossing (also redirs here, though both go to anchors that do not exist) is mentioned very briefly, without sufficient information. Maybe there are others. These should be listed as part of the franchise with some basic info about them (how are/were they available, when were they released, etc.). There is a section at Alien: Covenant that covers them, plot-wise, but it's actually lacking a bunch of information, and the material that is there is too narrowly detailed, probably, for the franchise article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Another reason a "List of Alien and Predator films" would be a good idea. Specific promotional films aren't very relevant here. For now, I think they should link to Alien: Covenant as you suggested, but I don't see the short films section. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weird. I was just looking at that content, and now I'm not seeing it either. I may have gotten the page wrong (but at what other page would there be multiple paragraphs of material about these shorts?), or maybe I was looking at an old version.  Anyway, yes, a list would be good. Given their overlap, "List of Alien and Predator films" might work well as a stand-alone list article, and this article and the one on the Predator franchise could have smaller embedded lists. In the interim, I've retargeted all the redirs that I know of to go to the Alien: Covenant article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Found it. My eyes were tired. The material is actually at Talk:Alien: Covenant/Archive 1. It's enough material for a real article section, other than basics like release date, cast & crew, etc., are also needed (most of the material in that talk section is plot summary). 11:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2019
"February of 2019" = "February 2019" 2605:E000:9149:8300:8C39:927C:54DA:93BC (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅Done. Thanks. TwoTwoHello (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019
Change URL for cite_note-75 FROM https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/james-cameron-reveals-dark-title-new-terminator-movie-teases-hardened-sarah-connor-224538641.html TO https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/james-cameron-reveals-title-terminator-192724556.html

Background: Cite-Note 75 (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/james-cameron-reveals-dark-title-new-terminator-movie-teases-hardened-sarah-connor-224538641.html) leads to a story that does not mention Alien(s) at all. I was able to find a different yahoo.com story that does indeed cite the statement "In February 2019, Cameron announced that he is currently working on reviving the project." under the "Cancelled Projects" section:

both links are ultimately referring to Terminator related news, but the link currently used as a citation is devoid of any Alien related information.... I wonder if yahoo changed the article at some point? Thedeanius (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks! NiciVampireHeart 17:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

add AVP crossover series to movie list
Crossover series
 * Alien vs. Predator (2004)
 * Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007) 66.222.61.164 (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It is not clear what you are asking for. Those are already listed.  RudolfRed (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And even with that, it's content that does not belong on this page, as it only applies to the AvP franchise. I'm actually working on a separate draft rewrite that helps separate this ongoing issue out and improves on the quality of the Alien franchise alone, as this page as been far from perfect. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 20:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

OK just in AVP franshise this not in Alien but see Predator page have Crossver AVP films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:52E (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

'Awakening' as the title for the third prequel film
This hasn't been announced. Please use a reliable source for where someone close to the film has explicitly said that the newly announced project even has a title. Don't add Awakening without understanding that Scott was thinking out loud in the various quotes where he said this, and it's not clear which film he was talking about (most likely Blomkamp's, which was going to be called that). It could still be announced in the future that it's called Awakening, but sources such as Screen Rant, while good for the most part, are mostly fan-based and prone to errors such as this. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Who is "Daniels"?
In the Alien: Covenant (2017) synopsis, "Daniels" is mentioned twice with no antecedent. Nicthu (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Great idea - I've added the antecedent about her being a terraforming expert.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 09:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Another "Alien 5" apparently being considered
It might be noteworthy to add that yesterday (June 11, 2020) Sigourney Weaver stated that she has been shown a 50-page treatment for another Alien 5 (unrelated to Blomkamp's project) by series producer Walter Hill, but that she is unsure if it will proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3d08:5d81:e200:88b3:621f:bbb6:de68 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Implemented.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 09:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge List of Alien (franchise) films and television series into Alien (franchise). The content of the list page is a mere copy-paste of Alien, which admittedly is not necessary for expanding, as there have only been six films and no TV series - unless you count IGN's reposting of Alien: Isolation's cinematics. Creating a separate list was a questionable decision in the first place and after 1½ years, I just don't see the validity of having a copy-pasted, small page that has far less information in-line than even the franchise page.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 19:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As you are some of the other biggest contributors to this subject matter, I'd like to notify you about proposal and see what your input may be.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 19:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not oppose a merger – since it is mostly repetition. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I SUPPORT this merger, as a list page is not needful... the franchise page should be able to cover each individual installment just fine.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * And, how about you? You've been a driving force for this topic in the past, so I'd love to get your input, as well!  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 19:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, it seems to be almost entirely a duplicate of content in the Alien (franchise) article.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing
This article is missing a couple of movies, the Alien vs Predator and Alien Requiem.123.103.210.114 (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are covered in the Alien vs. Predator article.★Trekker (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. But the alien character is in those two movies too.123.103.210.114 (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, these movies are not part of this franchise since they were created from Dark Horse Comics and video games apart from original "Ripley vs. the Aliens" films, so they are in a different one. An Alien vs. Predator franchise section exists already, and there's also no other connection. In conclusion, there are no films missing from this article. nyxærös  16:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding to what Nyxaros pointed out, the page Alien (creature in Alien franchise) already covers AvP quite adequately and by the sound of it, you're primarily interested in seeing appearances of the character itself.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 04:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Web series
I wanted to gather some input on Alien: Isolation – The Digital Series - is it being given undue weight on this page? The scope of it showed that it was essentially a micro-project that practically flew under the radar, as it was more of an IGN creative exercise with a little involvement from the developer. But, if a reader were to look at this page, they would likely have the impression that it's tantamount alongside the six films. How should we treat this? Should we let it remain as is, or should we trim its presence down significantly and perhaps not even mention it in the cast and crew lists? At a personal level, I love Alien: Isolation, but the notability just doesn't seem to be there for me. But, I wanted to fish for consensus and pick my cohorts' brains.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 03:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm with you, DarthBotto. I always thought that it seemed out of place in that table among the others. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really mind it being there. But maybe it would be better to have a similar table at List of Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator games that can cover the cast and characters of the games.★Trekker (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, . I too am a huge Alien fan, but the inclusion of a video game spin-off digiseries that has nothing to do with the movies should be minimized on this page. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How about you, ? You've become increasingly involved with the page, so it may be nice to hear your thoughts!  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 20:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed inclusion of AvP in the infobox + article
Alien is quite literally the only franchise (along with Predator) I've come across whose crossovers are framed as an entirely separate entity. Not included in the franchise infobox, at the bottom of the article etc. I understand fans really hate these movies (and the comics have had to suffer via association) but by the definition of a media franchise they should still be considered part of one larger franchise. When you look at other crossovers, such as Freddy vs. Jason, Sadako vs. Kayako, Godzilla vs. King Kong - all of those movies are considered to be direct installments of BOTH of the crossed-over franchises, whereas Alien vs. Predator is completely detached? Whose decision was that? What is the criteria?

Look at the X-men movies, both Deadpool 1 & 2 are considered to be installments of the franchise despite being its own sub-series obviously, the Rocky franchise has Creed I & II. Yet AvP 1 & 2 are outliers? Harry Potter & Fantastic Beasts also form one larger franchise. This lack of consistency renders the term "media franchise" absolutely meaningless. Fans don't really get to dictate whether something is or isn't included in a franchise.

Therefore, I propose to include the AvP works (novels, comics, films) in both of the franchises' infoboxes, and rewriting the lead of the Alien vs. Predator article to be about the film series, because that's what the article is about anyways. Mind you, I've had a hand in originally separating them here like this a few years back but I've given it some more thought now. What does everyone else think? --FollowTheSigns (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Alien 3 Link
In the sidebar, the link for Alien 3 goes to the Wikipedia page for the soundtrack rather than the film. I don't know how to fix that!

goes to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_3_(soundtrack)

should go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_3

Blueluck (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)