Template talk:Alien

Weapons

I don't think that the Weapons of the Colonial Marines warrants its own space on the table, it's a sub-topic of Colonial Marines. Considering that it may have a lot of subtopics (such as a listing of all known colonial marines, tactics, history, organization etc.) we'd best keep just the "parent" listed. Oberiko 16:59, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yautja

Does this really belong here? --Quasipalm 14:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Alien 5

Should this (click on heading) link be included in the template to provide complete coverage?? Not under 'Movie series', I think, being rumoured only, but perhaps under 'Related'??

I don't think that it really matters now becuase it has been deleted. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 20:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I added it. Wikipedia has a category for cancelled films, so there should be a link. --DotDarkCloud 12:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Alien Loves Predator

I think this template should only list canonical things, not fan extensions to the franchise. It seems to me Alien Loves Predator is not canonical. -- Jon Dowland 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If that's really some fan work, yeah, I agree. It doesn't quite fit here. However, there's yet another official crossover we forgot to add. It's the Batman/Aliens comics. Two series were published so far, several years ago. Should we add that link to the template as well? There's no article about it yet. It'd be the only red one there.--Kaonashi 03:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

aLp is 100x more notable and relevant to the Alien universe than AVH: Alien vs. Hunter (currently listed in this template). People do realise that AVH is nothing to do with Aliens (Xenomorphs) other than being a blatant cash in on Alien Versus Predator Pug50 (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul

As discussed on the Alien talk page I have overhauled the template and combined it the games. It is the same height but includes various missing entries. (Emperor 16:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

Red links

Rather than keep editting back and forth drop your arguements in here and we'll see what works best (Emperor 13:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

There are two guidelines, Wikipedia:red link and Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. One illustrates that you should NOT link to none created pages, and the other says that you should only do it if you have the intention to create the pages. That intention cannot be pushed on "other users". You cannot simply say "red links encourage editors to write articles", because that is not true. I have seen red links on any number of pages for months, if not longer. When the guideline says "YOU have the intention of creating the page", it does not mean that "YOU believe someone else will create the page". You cannot rely on the possibility of others creating the page. Also, you cannot simply say "I plan on creating them" and then never do it. As I stated on Mgiganteus1's talk page, if pages have not, at least, started to be created by a months time then it becomes clear that no one, including Mgiganteus1, have any intention of creating the pages and should therefore be unlinked. I have no problem if the pages start getting created, I understand that it can't be done in a day. But hiding under the guise of "I will create them" does not work. Bignole 13:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"One illustrates that you should NOT link to none created pages" - no it doesn't. Mgiganteus1 14:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You should really follow the links I provided, because I set up the second one to go directly to the right section. But, I'll copy and past it for you here:

Fielding hides his own opinions on the matter deep in Tom Jones: —What generally should not be linked In general, do not create links to: Plain English words. Subsidiary topics that result in red links (links that go nowhere) to articles that will never be created, such as the names of book chapters.

"The clear part of "to articles that will never be created" is what I'm talking about. You cannot hide under the guise of "I will create them," or "someone will create them", because if you don't do it then it won't get done. Here is a list of 3 pages (Aliens: A Comic Book Adventure, Alien vs Predator: The Last of His Clan, & Aliens: The Computer Game (Software Studios)) that I clicked randomly. They probably shouldn't even have a page, because they don't fit Wikipedia's criteria for "ability to support your own page". Some would be much better suited to be merged into one page cataloging several things together (until one day when there is enough information about one of those pages that it could support itself). Bignole 14:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. From the information there it is clear that the red link policy supports Mgiganteus1's position. You should not create red links to things that will never be created and by never they don't mean "not created by you within one month". The examples are pretty clear - they mean never ever. As in the example there is an entry on a book. There will never ever be an entry on a specific chapter and so the link shouldn't be created (if exceptional circumstances mean one has to be created then they can be at the time). Other than that they seem fair game as long as you think that at some point the entry will be created. If I create a red link I intend to start the entry (in fact it is partly a reminder) although I'm setting no arbitary time limit on it and if someone else wants to jump in and create it first then all well and good.

That said some of those examples hardly qualify as a stub (there should at least be an introductory paragraph) and I'd favou leaving them as red links a bit longer while the information is gathered to create a fuller stub. (Emperor 15:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

I'm not saying it says "1 month", I was personally saying that. What I was getting at is that I've seen plenty of links that have sat uncreated for much longer than a few months, making it clear that no one has intentions of creating them. The example being used isn't the only possible example, it's just providing a clear example of when not to link. But, if pages are not going to be created (regardless of whether they should or should not be created) then you shouldn't link them. And several of the pages already qualify for deletion based on lack of content...and if you visit those links it's clear there is a lack of content. It would be much easier, especially for those older games, comics, etc, to merge all "similar" material into one page that can actually support itself. Bignole 15:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"But, if pages are not going to be created (regardless of whether they should or should not be created) then you shouldn't link them." On the contrary, if a subject warrants an article of its own then it should be linked, regardless of the time it will take for the page to be created. Mgiganteus1 15:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There two fairly separate issues:

Never means never - there are various entries that will never be created and shouldn't be red linked to. This isn't the case here. If they are legitimate entries then they are OK for red linking as if there is the possibility they could be created then it is crystal ball gazing if you can say they never will be created.

Some of thsoe stubs are too short and leave themsevles open for deletion (I do wonder if this was partly as a rush to un-red link them?) but they are all potentially good solid entries they just need expanding. (Emperor 15:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

That works both ways. It's "crystal ball gazing" if yo usay they "will be created eventually," or "they have the possibility of being created". So does Saw 18 have that same ability to be created. Should be create a link to that?

As I said, merge them together until they can be expanded to support their own page. Editors have developed this sense of "if we leave it alone, it will eventually be taken care of" attitude that does not promote a good encyclopedia. Take care of it now, and if you are ABLE to expand it then do so on a joint page until the point where that section/page becomes obsolete to individual pages. There is something called notability that needs to be reached to support a page. Simply saying "this is a game, published by so and so, created by so and so," is hardly notable for it's own page. Bignole 15:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines say never and show examples of things that can never be created. That has to be the working assumption and you'd have to establish something could never be created. I'm not saying that they will necessarily ever be created (as that would be crytsal ball gazing) but the criteria is never.

Again notability is a separate issue and you'd need to apply the notability criteria for the specific topic (not the content that currently exists) - so the game deserves an entry if it meets the general criteria not if there isn't much info in the stub. The informaiton is out there (I have for example expanded the Aliens: The Computer Game (Software Studios) entry with bits and bobs I had to hand previously) and I'm sure there is plenty of information on each of the others out there. Micro-stubbing is a problem though and should be avoided unless a proper stub can be added (hence leaving the re links up a bit longer until all the ducks are in a row). (Emperor 16:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

The first two I linked aren't even microstubs, they're non-existent. Again, to avoid both red links and pages with nothing more than a title, create ONE page that holds all of the information, until they can be expanded. There is no sense in going through every link on the table, starting a voting system, and determining if it needs to be deleted pending an expansion. Just merge them all together till they have that information. Bignole

Question

I asked this at the film project, so I decided to ask it here as well. Why exactly is Predator lumped in with Alien? They have had a bunch of crossover movies, games, etc... but not all are related. Wouldn't it be better to split them into two templates? Or possibly three? Alien, Predator and Alien vs Predator. I don't see why they should be lumped together, when all of the things they've been aren't related (and don't feature both characters as well). RobJ1981 19:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There is so much crossover if you tried to make 3 templates they'd end up being much larger than a single one. An Alien entry would need the AvP one. An AvP entry would have both Aliens, Predator and AvP templates - the size of which would be more than the current one. As they have had a lot of crosovers then we can assume they exist in the same fictional universe (or multiverse) with strong links between them, and only minor links beyond the two, so they make a well-defined "set" - if you are interested in Aliens you are a lot more likely to navigate to Predator ones and vice versa. So it really comes from classification there is a big grey area between the two and clearl lines around them both so they work well together. (Emperor 20:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

The template is pretty big now, so I would think a split would help things out. How could it be larger? Unless the template is missing key articles, there is nothing that could make it larger. Assuming Aliens fans like Predator (and vice versa) isn't always true. I think a poll or a discussion should happen about this. The template suggests Alien and Predator are completely related, but they aren't. RobJ1981 20:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be larger because the size is largely defined by the number rows and not so much on the number of items in it. So taking out the items and putting them in 3 different templates would result in 3 templates that are not a third the height of this one so when stacked they'd be taller than the current one. There are probably ways round this if everyone wanted to split them - like having most things in a "Another media" row. (Emperor 20:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

The red-links in the template could possibly go. Just because it was a comic, doesn't mean it's notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 07:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion above about red links. Some of those will be added in at a later date and while they could theoretically stay there under the red link policy I'd not object to them being unlinked for now on aesthetic grounds. When someone creates an entry it can be added in as it is no big deal (which is part of the point of the template). Obviously there is the arguement that some random passerby would be tempted into creating them but I am unsure how likely that is. They are linked in from other places so the naming should be fine so I'd lean towards aethtics unless anyone objects. (Emperor 15:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

Three seperate templates

Am I the only one that find this template to be a bit unruly? My biggest objection is that these are obviously 2 different subjects -- possibly 3. My proof for this is that there is no one primary article for this template. Most templates like this contain one main branch of articles -- for example...

{{Law_of_the_United_States}}

or

{{Batman}}

This template, while certainly comprehensive, is taking two separate branches and conflating them, imho. What do others think? -Quasipalm 00:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Does there need to be one primary article? The problem is that the 2 different branches are massively interwoven and are impossible to untangled. My concern about templates like the Batman one is that they aren't actually of much use. There is virtually no depth or breadth to them and so seem fairly pointless beyond hopping between the main entries in the topic. You can see more of the discussion behind the first entry here (Emperor 00:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

I've worked out a very different organization at User:Luna Santin/sandbox/X1 (permalink); any comments or suggested changes? As another option, we could try splitting along different lines -- say, one navbox for games, another for books/comics, and such. This box is getting more than a bit crowded and cluttered, I'd say. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks good, but overall: I think the comics section needs a lot of going through. I'm not so sure all those redlinks are notable to be made. Just because it contains Alien and/or Predator in the comic title: doesn't mean it's an instant article here. I'm still not thrilled about 2 series only related by a few crossovers in the same template. RobJ1981 11:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it - moving away from the two column approach has massively increased the height making it unwieldy. I do agree however, that the size is getting to be an issue and would support a split. Recently, I did some work on splitting the CSI franchise templates (scroll down to the bottom of the page). There is one general template and 3 others for the shows so you can mix and match accordingly. What I'd support is something like 3 templates: A core one with the films and misc (as these are the core of the franchise), one on books and comics (as these have a lot of crossover) and one on games (I think there was a gmes one knocking. That would be relatively easy to do - you could just remove the comics and games section and move them off to their own templates and then work on readding the new templates to relevant entries. (Emperor 16:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

As far as height issues go, if the templates default to Hide, then it shouldn't be an issue. I would think that the best approach would be two templates: one Aliens/AvP and one Predator/AvP. This allows access to crossover but also will prevent non-crossover topics from each side linking to the other. Girolamo Savonarola 02:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So it looks like there was a consensus reached years ago, but no one's done it. Can I ask why? Cause I'll be willing to do it, I agree that there probably shouldn't be an Alien template on a Predator related article and vice/versa.Iminrainbows (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see a consensus, and personally I prefer keeping it as one template. The two franchises began separately but have been intertwined since 1986, and many of the articles concerned would have to carry 2 or all 3 templates. Since the above discussion I've done some work paring down the size of the template, such as by merging stub articles into lists. I really don't see a problem with keeping these two franchises in 1 template, as they are pretty much inseparably intertwined. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I just saw a consensus because everyone who gave there opinion here was pro-splitting up the template, or so it seemed. I will leave the template alone. Iminrainbows (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Scores and Composers

what about adding the soundtracks and composers because certainly the Alien and Alien 3 scores are some of the best of Goldsmith and Goldenthal's careers. plus the music is an integral part of these movies. Ive been working on Goldenthal related stuff for about a year now like creating pages for his scores et cetera. Also im going to create pages for Goldsmiths most acclaimed scores, not all seeing as he did about 100 film and tv scores, including Alien and Star Trek: The Motion Picture (that score is utter genius) :) Terrasidius (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly doable. A "music" section could be added to the template. Music from the films was one of the areas I added at Portal:Alien in hopes we could get to it at some point. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that if there is a page/section for the scores. (Emperor (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

Cast and Crew

What to happen to the cast and crew list on the template? --71.178.250.89 (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It was way, way too long with too much minute detail. The template is for listing articles related to the series, not sections within articles. Since the Lists of Characters are already linked in the template, it's not necessary to link to every paragraph on every character within those lists as well. It's also not necessary to link every actor who was ever in an Alien film. The actors are also linked within the character list articles. I'm working on trimming down the number of articles in the template as I merge many of the minor/extraneous articles into list articles. Have a look at Template:Star Wars as an example (I use it as an example because WikiProject Star Wars has a number of featured articles to their credit and much of Wikiproject Alien was based on their best practices). So, in short, those sections were unnecessary because the list articles are already part of the template. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Batman and Superman movies had one so why not Alien/Predator movies. I just add the most important crew/cast on the list. --71.178.250.89 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You added nearly every actor from every film, plus all the characters they played, and lots of production staff, which made it way too long (see the diff). It's true that Template:Batman in popular media and Template:Superman in popular media do have fields for actors, but notice they only list the most notable ones. It's a succinct list that only includes actors who played major roles in the films and who have their own individual Wikipedia articles, and, in the Batman one, a single link to the List of Batman films cast members covering the rest. Neither lists the characters the actors played as well, nor the crew members or production staff. The difference and usefulness between those and your addition to this template is pretty clear. I would have little objection to a similar field being added to this template, but it would have to be a lot more succinct and less cluttered than the list you added, linking only the most notable persons with a single list to the "list of..." articles for the rest. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So why not add the most notable cast/crew? --71.178.250.89 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be pretty subjective to decide which cast/crew members are the "most notable", and since this template covers 8 movies the list would be unnecessarily long. Template:Star Wars doesn't even have those fields and is much more navigable. The purpose of the template, ultimately, is to allow readers to easily navigate between different families of articles within the same subject, not to list every article relating to that subject. I'd like to get some other editors' opinions on this. Anyone care to sound off? --IllaZilla (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Prometheus

Prometheus is not an Alien prequel, a sequel, or a reboot, but by saying "The keen fan will recognize strands of 'Alien's' DNA, so to speak," means it is an Alien related movie. There are plenty of sources that indictate such.[1] [2] [3] Racingstripes (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because it's Alien-inspired doesn't make it part of the franchise nor one of the films in the Alien series, so it doesn't belong in a navbox for that franchise. Avatar has "strands of DNA" from Dances with Wolves, Ferngully, Pocahontas, and Aliens, but isn't related to any of those films. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

According to this [4], the film is still set 30 years before Alien. Also, according to this [5], they quite literally mean DNA of the Alien creatures, not the metaphorical sense that you seem to be suggesting between films. If it's set in the same fictional universe, it should still be considered a part of this franchise, and should still be included in the article and template. If we find that it's in a completely separate fictional universe, then it should not be included. Basically I'm saying whether or not it should be included rests solely on the fact of whether or not it's in the same fictional universe. Does everyone at least agree on that? Byakuya Truelight (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, possibly not. The first source (MTV news) says "out of the creative process evolved a new, grand mythology and universe in which this original story takes place", indicating that it may not be in the same fictional universe. The other source sounds like a lot of rumor, with "an exclusive inside source". The film's not even fully cast yet & hasn't begun filming. Internet rumors about it change every day. Since Wikipedia isn't the news and has no deadline, we can afford to wait until the film is actually underway & concrete details are available. Let's not jump the gun here. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with IllaZilla that it is a good idea to wait to see if there is any explicit relationship with the Alien franchise. Based on current sources, the relationship is tangential at best. However, since there has been coverage about Prometheus in relation to the franchise, we should encourage "See also" sections, such as at Alien (franchise), to point readers the right way without officially listing it in the franchise template. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a "see also" link at the bottom of Alien (franchise) would be appropriate, until such time as the film's connection to the existing franchise (or lack thereof) is firmly established. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, right, I wasn't suggesting that we jump the gun on this. I'm just saying that if, down the road, we find out definitively that they share their universe, then we should be ready to include it. That's all. No rush to do anything before we know for sure. I'm just saying this ahead of time because the Template doesn't exactly have a space ready for the link if it DOES get included. Also, including a "See also" link does sound like a good plan for now. Byakuya Truelight (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It been stated that there will be Xenos in this movie. Thus making it a Alien movie.173.79.43.139 (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What's your source for this claim? Scott has said that it takes place in a new, different fictional universe. At this point the film is still in the pre-production stages and internet rumors change every day. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It was stated here. [6] 173.79.43.139 (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That is the the same source mentioned earlier up this thread. As I said before it seems quite dubious as it attributes its claims "an exclusive inside source" and sounds like a lot of rumor. The official press release states that the film has "a grand new mythology" and "a new universe". As already mentioned, internet rumors about this change every day and the film has not yet even begun production. Until it has actually started production and is verifiably part of the Alien franchise, it shouldn't be linked in the Alien template as the creator has said that it's no longer an Alien prequel, but a completely new film. The article is up for deletion anyway on the grounds of WP:NFF so we should at least table discussion until the AfD is complete. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Alien vs Hunter

I deleted AVH: Alien vs. Hunter as it's not part of either mythology. It doesn't have Xenomorph Aliens, and no Predators. Every single other article in the template has one or the other, either authorised or parody. Obviously it's named and the poster tries to suggest otherwise. Actually the "Alien" has "the lower body of a spider" and the "Hunter" is human. Barsoomian (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat outside view: "Parody" covers a lot and can be subjective. In the "Related articles" there are articles that are not "official" or "authorized".

• Alien 2 - An Italian "sequel" that was made before Fox or anyone else locked down the title. No real connection to the franchies other than to use it to make money.
• Alien Loves Predator - An unauthorized spoof in the for of a webcomic.
• Batman: Dead End - An unauthorized fanfilm.
• AVH: Alien vs. Hunter - The equivalent of Alien 2 with a look-a-like title and poster/cover to cash in on someone else's work.

Frankly, I can see why these are in the 'box since they amount to how others have appropriated the characters and/or titles for their own gain. That fits within the function of a navbox. Enforcing "official" becomes counter productive.

- J Greb (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not about "official", trademarks or copyright. Alien Loves Predator and Batman: Dead End are appropriate to include, because they are the characters, authorised or not. "Alien vs Hunter" (and "Alien 2", though I wasn't aware of that till now) aren't. They aren't parodies. They were just marketed to appear as related, the stories and the creatures clearly are not "Aliens". You have to draw a line somewhere. There are hundreds of movies with "aliens". A fair number obviously influence by Alien. IMDB lists 368 movies with "alien" in the title: Alien Apocalypse (2005), Alien Autopsy (2006), Alien Nation (1988), Alien Raiders (2008), Alien Trespass (2009), My Stepmother Is an Alien (1988).... Barsoomian (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've been reverted on the grounds it's "related". However, if it is, why isn't it even mentioned in any of the main articles: Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator at the head of the template? Barsoomian (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point you've been reverted because your removal has been contested and you are bulling through any way.

There are reasonable grounds for the inclusions. If you feel it is inappropriate, show consensus for it either here, at the Aliens Project, or WP:FILM. Edit warring over it is a no go.

IMDb is going to be a very, very hard sell since it is not considered a reliable source for content on Wikipedia.

As for additional "Alien..." films, products, shows, etc. Yup, hell of a lot of them. How many of them in any respect mirror or mimic Fox's franchise? How many of them were released to capitalize on that franchise? How much of a spurious argument is that?

"Related" goes both ways. Both articles point out the linkage. And if mention on the franchise page is "required" all the related articles fail.

- J Greb (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The IMDB is the simplest way to get a list of movie titles. Do you honestly think they don't exist? Who is making "spurious" arguments now? Really, maybe there aren't 368 "alien" movies. That exact number wasn't the point, it was that there are a huge number of "related" films if you are so indiscriminate. The question is whether articles that are not even mentioned in any of the lead articles, THAT DON'T HAVE XENOMORHS IN THEM, should be included. And I don't care about any project pages, I am discussing this template and this is the talk page for this template. Barsoomian (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

OK

Location of discussion: 3 options for non-disruptive discussion were pointed out depending on how many casual eyes were wanted on this. The first being here. The others were for the potential of a larger editor pool.

Yes, IMBd is a simple way to generate nice bites. But most editors tread lightly with it since it is not considered a reliable source.

And yes, an implied argument to add all the films since `79 the include "Alien" in the title is spurious, at best.

As for criteria. In all honesty "inspired by" isn't it. Both articles include clear statements that the films designed to cash in on Fox's franchise by name confusion. If other articles are similarly structured, inclusion may be warranted.

As explained in the article, AVH: Alien vs. Hunter is a mockbuster based on the AvP franchise. The connection is clear. Alien Nation and the other 300-something films you mention are simply films with the word alien in their titles. So while they may be alien-related films, they are not Alien-related. The final section of this navigation template is not for films "that have xenomorphs in them" (who decides what qualifies as a xenomorph anyway?), but for related articles, and I certainly think AVH: Alien vs. Hunter qualifies as such. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents: It makes no difference if these films are part of the franchise, or even if they feature the titular Alien and Predator characters. The name of the section clearly says Related articles, meaning articles that have significant, if tangential, ties to the overall topic of Alien/Predator. The AVH article directly states that the film is a mockbuster of AVP, therefore it has a significant relationship to the topic area of Alien/Predator (one can hardly discuss AVH without mentioning its relationship to AVP) and should be linked through the navbox. It is by the same logic that Prometheus is linked in the same section: It is not part of the Alien franchise, and does not feature the Alien creatures, yet it began its development as a prequel to Alien, and is by the same director, so it has a direct relationship to the topic area of Alien and can hardly be discussed without mentioning this relationship. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"the same logic that Prometheus is linked" ????? We really are far from speaking the same language. OF COURSE Prometheus is very closely "related". "AvH" is not at all. How you define "related" is obviously far from how I do. But since you seem to want to include AvH here, why isn't it even mentioned in one of the actual Alien articles? If you can't find an appropriate place to do so, how "related" can it be? Barsoomian (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Related" is a two-way street: One can certainly discuss Alien, or even AVP, without mentioning spoofs or rip-offs of it (of course, if one wanted to discuss such rip-offs, one certainly could: see Alien (film)#Imitations). However, one can hardly discuss AVH without mentioning its relationship to AVP. Being a "related article" does not mean that it has direct and obvious ties to the franchise (such as featuring the titular Alien/Predator characters), it means that the article in question is topically related to Alien/Predator in such a way that the ability to easily navigate between it and other Alien/Predator-related articles might have some utility to readers of the encyclopedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)