Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TurokSwe (talk | contribs) at 01:57, 21 October 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Timeline of the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Timeline of the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is all fancruft; it's material that is entirely trivial, adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia and beyond that, doesn't even serve its purpose for fans of Alien, Predator or AvP. The reason for this is that the content isn't even accurate; the three franchises follow separate timelines and continuities, with different scales for the events-- one significant one is that in the Alien continuity, the original founder of Weyland is Peter Weyland, who founded Weyland Corp in 2012, while AvP has a Charles Bishop Weyland who founded a similar-sounding company called Weyland Industries at an undetermined time. Attempting to put these timelines together is not only fancruft, but original research that simply does not work. On top of that, not a single source is secondary; everything is first-party. I appreciate the attempt to build up the Alien, Predator and AvP articles, but this one just doesn't cut it. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 23:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 23:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 23:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 23:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue it is very much valuable and definitely serves its purpose as it clarifies the timeline of events in this fictional universe, akin to the Star Trek timeline article, and I am certain that many fans will appreciate an article such as this (not all fans, of course, but we're not all picky). I would consider your claim of supposed inaccuracy false and arbitrary, as the three franchises don't follow separate timelines/continuities at all, and I would argue that claim of separate timelines as merely regarding personal preference and fan-speculation, because for all intents and purposes they do take place in the same universe, they merely follow different storylines within the same timeline/continuity. It's that simple.
Charles Weyland is clearly presented as the original founder of Weyland Corporation/Weyland Industries, and there's a time gap of eight years (where literally anything could have happened) between the death of Charles Weyland in 2004 and Peter Weyland suddenly rising to power in 2012 as he runs the very same company, so there's absolutely no contradiction here (it would have been a considerable contradiction if Peter founded his iteration of the company while Charles was still alive though) nor is there any actual reason to suggest that any title or brand takes place in a separate universe (after all, Alien vs. Predator intentionally takes place on the same timeline as the Alien and Predator films, so at best you could have argued that Prometheus is the odd-one out here, but even that series has been connected to Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator so the conclusion is unavoidable).
On the contrary, everything flows on and continues relatively beautifully, even if not entirely perfect, but no fictional timeline does. Again, with all the media taken into consideration, for all intents and purposes these franchises takes place in the very same timeline/continuity/universe and there appears to be no actual reason to attempt to separate them other than personal preference. They are simply far too interconnected. Not to mention attempting to separate them would be a confusing mess, and the simplest and most logical approach is to assume continuity, especially when everything fits together so well and when 20th Century Fox doesn't really care how much they connect these franchises as long it makes money, and it obviously does or else they wouldn't still be continuing in persistently promoting and acknowledging a shared universe through films, games, novels, comics, and various other media and merchandise. - TurokSwe (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard delete This is total fancruft without proper sourcing or notability. It's just another example of Turko's continued attempt at forcing AvP cruft onto this website, which is the reason he was topic banned for a time. This is fine for a Wikia, but not Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any minor issues such as proper sourcing can be fixed, and the timeline helps the reader keep track of the events transpiring throughout this elaborate fictional universe in the same manner that for instance the Star Trek timeline article does. I'm not "forcing any fancruft" at all, I'm simply constructing a timeline based upon known material from the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe as it actually exists, and surely you're not suggesting the contents in the article aren't present in existing media relating to these franchises? They do have sources after all. I understand the reality of these franchises being connected is strangely really uncomfortable for some people and therefore I must be triggering some kind of nerve by even suggesting that Alien vs. Predator exists (and it undeniably does), but that would not only seem like an overreaction over mere products of entertainment but it also hardly seem like sufficient reasoning for opposing the existence of this article, and the same can of course be said about using argumentum ad hominem fallacies. I would hope that we could avoid that as it doesn't make for a very civilized and productive discussion. - TurokSwe (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they share a timeline, then why are you the first person to try and put them together? Your sources certainly don't do that for you. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 15:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's like asking "if my wife is really pregnant then why doesn't the baby have a name yet?" It simply doesn't follow logically that "there is no shared universe" just because nobody up until any specific point has decided to construct and publish a Wikipedia article on the timeline of said universe. When such an article is published or who published it first is completely irrelevant. That's just nonsense. The sources and media listed in the article (as well as multiple sources and media yet to be listed) makes it abundantly clear that a shared universe exists. I don't see how this could possibly be ignored (objectively speaking). - TurokSwe (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nonsense, as I wasn't referring to just Wikipedia; I was referring to the intrinsic basis of this article. The three timelines that you've scraped together into one make for purely original research - they do nothing but contradict each other and are complete fancruft, devoid of any encyclopedic or even accurate value. I'd suggest you read Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX, as you're mounting the exact same campaign that you received the six-month topic ban for earlier this year. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 19:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed logically incoherent nonsense, as previously explained, and I merely used Wikipedia as an example, but perhaps you'd like to elaborate and clarify. This article is certainly far from being the only place to acknowledge a shared universe, but I suppose that's irrelevant. What supposed considerable contradictions exist within the timeline and how do they actually matter in comparison to contradictions found in other fictional timelines from other franchises? Because to my knowledge there are no clear contradictions present, and certainly none that contradict a shared universe, and all the information listed in the article is verifiably accurate. I'm not sure what you're trying to have said with "NOTSOAPBOX", nor do I see how this situation is in any way similar to the odd situation from earlier this year (other than two individuals in particular reacting strangely and strongly negatively towards my attempts to improve and expand the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator articles, still leading me to increasingly suspect the explanation being some kind of personal anti-AVP-bias which tends to be a big trigger for some fans). - TurokSwe (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH. Alien (franchise) is quite sufficient. Also, the level of detail is way, way, way over the top, e.g. "Last known case of cholera", "Days after his 14th birthday, Peter Weyland is granted a Method Patent for a synthetic trachea (a cure for lung cancer) constructed entirely of synthetically-engineered stem cells. It is his 12th registered patent to date." Clarityfiend (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd like to make the same case in regards to Timeline of Star Trek. - TurokSwe (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally not fond of timelines at all, especially not for in-universe ones for franchises, but I would never compare Star Trek to this.★Trekker (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly? - TurokSwe (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Timelines in general are inferior to articles becuase they don't give much context, as for being in-universe, Wikipedia in general bans in-universe descriptions, this should apply to timelines as well.★Trekker (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd considering Wikipedia is riddled with in-universe descriptions and nobody bats an eye. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're resorting to Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS now. And actually, people do bat eyes at that, and there are tons of people who spend hours trying to fix that issue.
Response delivered. - TurokSwe (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current page doesn't contain the issue that prompted the speedy deletion, and it's not original research in any way as the information is supported by actual sources. There are no separate timelines/continuities, and you have not yet shown this to be the case, and the evidence seem to suggest there is only one single timeline, and even if Fox has not explicitly stated what the timeline or timelines actually look like, for all intents and purposes there is only one single timeline as suggested by the available material. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Turko needs to be pronto topic banned again, for good this time. Before this incident I have already seen him back to his old habbits on Template:Alien (franchise), and I felt it was only a matter of time until he tried something bigger, and this is it.★Trekker (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Why do you resort to this juvenile antagonism towards me and how do you expect ad hominem fallacies to count as a considerable argument? - TurokSwe (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing the exact thing that got you topic banned before. It's not antagonism to point out that you constantly try to push AvP content on this site (the fact that you did so with major copyright violations this time is rather suprising tho, you should be too familar with Wikipedia by now to not fall in to those mistakes) and that that has gotten you topic banned before.★Trekker (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And what is this "exact" thing you're referring to? I'm not trying to "push AVP content on this site", I'm merely expanding the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator articles with actual material related to these franchises, and unless you want to argue that AVP doesn't exist, I would say this is a very odd complaint. You're not being very reasonable here by attempting to use every single mistake I make as some sort of argument against me and against the existence of this article. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pushing AVP cruft, and Stonewalling. Those are the exact things.★Trekker (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But you have yet to demonstrate that I've been supposedly "pushing any AVP cruft". And "stonewalling"? Coming from someone who insists on resorting to ad hominem fallacies rather than addressing the issue at hand, that's blatant hypocrisy if I ever saw it. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stonewalling and AvP pushing is why you were topic banned by an admin, if that isn't prof enough then nothing will be in your mind. Why exactly do you think you were topic banned for?★Trekker (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? I don't recall why exactly I was topic banned back then but I remember struggling to find any justifiable reason. Regardless, that's irrelevant to the topic at hand, and you can't resort to ad hominem fallacies every time we have a disagreement. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ridiculous, it's not ad hominem and it's not a problem with me, it's a problem with you Turko. If you don't realze why you were topic banned then you really need to be again, that would clearly be the only way for you to stop.★Trekker (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point regarding ad hominems. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete This is blatant original research and WP:SYNTH Wikipedia does not (or should not) do literary analysis, it should only report published analysis from reliable secondary sources. No secondary sources are cited here. No independent reliable source has asserted that these three works of fiction share a common time line or have shared continuity. Without such sources, this simply does not belong. Even with them there might well be a notability issue. This belongs on Wikia. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not original research at all, as made clear by the cited sources alone. More sources could of course be added if needed. The cited Alien: The Weyland-Yutani Report and the Fire and Stone comics alone blatantly recognizes the connection between these three franchises. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that were true, that doesn't remotly fix the problem that this page completly relies on first hand sources.★Trekker (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? - TurokSwe (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you honestly going to pretend now that you don't know what secondary vs first hand sources are?★Trekker (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, and please calm down, I'm simply struggling to comprehend your argument. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly calm, not sure why you would think otherwise.
Your behavior and attitude would suggest otherwise. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't. Pointing out issues with your editing is not being "uncalm".★Trekker (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I insist, and I didn't say nor imply that pointing out issues with my edits means you're not calm, but your persistence in resorting to ad hominem arguments while avoiding to have a reasonable discussion on the topic at hand you do not seem very calm, and it's something I hope could change. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well Turko then I guess that's simply what you belive, because I don't feel I have been "uncalm" or remotly unreasonable with you. I think you on the other hand have been very unreasonable, which is per usual when you're on the AvP topic.★Trekker (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the ad hominems. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it again, this page relies 100% on sources which are not independent of the subject, thus it fails to show notability.★Trekker (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) TurokSwe please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, or reread them. For several purposes, Wikipedia prefers or even requires secondary sources. It also demands independant sources, which are not quite the same thing. (Independent sources are generally secondary, but not all secondary sources are independent.) Primary sources cannot be used to support an analysis, nor indeed anything that is not fairly explicitly included in the source. Literary analysis in particular demands secondary sources, and also demands that the conclusions be found in the source. Combining multiple sources to reach a conclusion not stated in any of them is WP:SYNTH and that is what we seem to have here. Not acceptable. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm not sure what would qualify as a secondary source in this case. Noting that the cited sources are all related and all blatantly implies the same conclusion. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary source would be a notable reliable publication stating "this event in the AvP franchise takes place between this and this".★Trekker (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) comment TurokSwe A secondary source would be an independent reliable critic publishing an essay or article on the relations between the various franchises. Places like NY Review of Science Fiction publish such critical analysis routinely. If none have been published establishing such a time line, or at least asserting a shared continuity, then there can be no such article on Wikipedia. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PRIMARY says, in relevant part: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. That isw the point here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_the_Alien,_Predator,_and_Alien_vs._Predator_universe&oldid=922270917"