Jump to content

Talk:Alien (franchise)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.222.61.164 (talk) at 00:53, 1 October 2018 (→‎add AVP crossover series to movie list: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Split shorts and merge into the film articles

This is a divided RFC which inclines toward Opposing the proposal. Strongest opposition was stated as being against the merging of redundant material into the Prometheus article as having already been discussed in the marketing discussion of the material. Any new version of the material in this RFC would need to mention the problem of the redundancy of the material in the article. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that

  • 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

Afterwards, very small summaries (such as one sentence ones) can remain here indicating the shorts exist.

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)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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. SpintendoTalk 15:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SpintendoTalk 17:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 SpintendoTalk 18:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SpintendoTalk 19:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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): SpintendoTalk 21:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SpintendoTalk 14:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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.SpintendoTalk 15:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. — SpintendoTalk 13:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't remotely understand what it is that you mean here.★Trekker (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. — SpintendoTalk 15:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand now, I don't agree but I get it.★Trekker (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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. —KuyaBriBriTalk 02:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Board game from Poland (1988)

There was a game in communist Poland [1] --212.122.206.18 (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an officially licensed product?★Trekker (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the game's BoardGameGeek page: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/31586/obcy --Gonnym (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did a quick search over at BoardGameGeek and found the following games:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

"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)[reply]

add AVP crossover series to movie list

Crossover series

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alien_(franchise)&oldid=861925295"