This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
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)
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. GRAPPLEX 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. GRAPPLEX 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 facethatmusic 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. GRAPPLEX 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. GRAPPLEX 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. GRAPPLEX 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)
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)
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#Reception). 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. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC) (=184.108.40.206)
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. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)