Talk:Predator (alien)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Merger proposal

I feel that merging the articles would create one insanely long cumbersome article.--Marhawkman (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, just like how it used to be a few moths ago. It was split up for becoming to crowded and slowing load times. And as per the guidelines if a section of an article becomes too long it should form its own page. It's all just fine how it is, why change it?LordJesseD (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Because the 2 articles that are proposed to be merged (Predator technology and Yautja language) are unencyclopedic topics concerned only with trivial information about a fictional universe. They mostly consist of original research and in-universe explanations and cite only primary sources (the technology article cites mostly the DVDs, and the language article cites only comics), therefore they also don't meet WP:V or WP:RS. The technology article, for example, has been tagged for over a year as needing additional sources for verification and being written in an in-universe style. The article is also rife with fair-use images, way too many than are necessary to explain the topic. Neither of these topics appears to meet the criteria of Wikipedia's notability guidlines on fictional subjects. They are mostly elaborate explanations of simple subjects that are interesting only to hardcore fans of the series, and Wikipedia is not a fan service. Any useful, referenced information in the articles could easily be pared down into a couple of paragraphs within this article. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I’m against the merger of these articles. The Predator technology and Yautja language articles are too long winded, cumbersome, unsourced, badly written, and overall irrelevant, to be included in this article. The only way I could see a merger even being feasible would be if the Predator technology and language articles could be condensed into the size of one paragraph.--Little Jimmy (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm suggesting with the merger. Merge the key information from those articles into this one, and dump the excessive trivia. For example, pare the "technology" article down to 1 or 2 referenced paragraphs about the props and special effects used in the films. Same with the language article. It could all be whittled down to a few really good, encylopedic paragraphs which could then be merged into this article in a "special effects" section or something similar. I'm not saying "dump everything from those articles into this one". I'm saying selectively merge the relevant information, then get rid of the fluf. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well that's actually a good idea. I support that motion!--Little Jimmy (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt, I'm not totally against this. To be sharp, I understand this. I just think that the work some of us have put in will now be a waste. Don't scold me for this, I already know what you'll say. There's also Alexa Woods which needs to be merged, and it ain't even on the template. List of Alien and Predator games also needs to be on it, too.

Check out the Croation version of Hicks' page, if any of the English pages were like that (example: Ellen Ripley) would they be keepable? I was going to update, add sources and do some rewriting on a number of the pages to include at least one picture and be helpful and informational, but I guess that project is out the window now. I support this motion of merging and cleaning. By the way IllaZilla, to quote Private Frost, "Boy's definitely got a corncob up his ass." Loosen up just a little.LordJesseD (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully it won't be a waste, because we'll be able to salvage the most useful information during the merge. Side note: the List of Alien and Predator games is my own little project that is still very much in progess with a long way to go. I plan to add it to the template when it's in decent shape. It was just too complex to build in my own userspace but isn't anywhere near finished yet. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully. I still know a few other articles that really need to be cleaned. Like the list of characters from Aliens. --LordJesseD (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My point here is that you'd need to take an article that consists of several pages and condense it into 2 paragraphs. This completely removes all useful information. This is an encyclopedia, people read it to learn things. There is no real reason why things need to be "short and simple". Leaving out tiny details is good. Reducing something to the "bare bones" removes it from being encyclopedic and leaves it as little more than the header for a real article.--Marhawkman (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of all the "several pages" in those articles, there are maybe 2 paragraphs worth of actual referenced encyclopedic analysis/commentary. The rest is fan synthesis of fictional information, in-universe explanations, 3-sentence sections of fictional speculation built around movie screenshots, and other useless trivial information that I would call "cruft" (though I'm sure others will take offense to the use of this word). Most of it is original research and also does not meet the notability guidelines for fictional subjects or the manual of style for writing about fiction. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is an encyclopedia, yes, and it incorporates elements from specialized encyclopedias like ones dedicated to film or science fiction. But even those, if they are good, approach their subjects from a real-world perspective and restrict themselves to critical commentary rather than fan analysis and synthesis. To draw a relevant comparison, Wikipedia is not the Colonial Marines Technical Manual. These articles were spun-off from this main article apparently for the purpose of paying fanservice and elaborating on unimportant details about trivial fictional subjects, and any relevant information they have could easily be merged back into the main article. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Really? What's your definition of properly referenced? WP does not require articles to be based on anything but the source material. In the case of fictional works, an article is considered poorly referenced if it ISN'T derived at least in part from the source material. This article is derived primarily from the source material. Notability isn't really an issue since it's a SUBarticle and not really an article in it's own right. As for "fan analysis and synthesis", I must disagree. The article, as written, largely sticks to repeating and condensing information from the movies.--Marhawkman (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinkning different, now. What do you have against these sub-articles? I'd say 89% of us are happy with how they are. I mean, do you have some vendetta against Aliens and Predators? Do you stand to make a profit from removing/condensing this? Does it make you feel special to waste the peoples time who spent it writing those sub-articles? Let's review the technology. A) they mostly appeared in the movies. B) the expanded univerese is the comics and games. The movies are referenced, the comics are, and the games will be. That's the media they are shown in, and they're referenced. What more is there? This is getting to be a joke. They're quite fine how they are. Seriously, what is your real problem with it all? If this is all 'useless trivia', why do you care? All this merging will simply implode itself and become how it is now. Are you some jaded fan? Why does this all seem to be offending you, having a few details on things?--LordJesseD (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Quite the opposite, actually. I'm a big fan of both series. I created and launched WikiProject Alien, in fact. But one of the major reasons I did so was because there were so many sub-articles like these that are clearly not appropriate for Wikipedia and need to be dealt with. As a response to you both (Marhawkman & LordJesseD), here are some relevant policies/guidelines as to why articles cannot consist entirely of primary source analysis, and why articles about trivial subjects in fiction are usually not considered encyclopedic (bolding indicates my own emphasis):
  • WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Note the insistence on secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which this article lacks. In fact, WP:N further states that this is an essential criteria for a topic to merit a stand-alone article.
  • WP:V outright states that "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Further: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
  • WP:NOR states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
  • WP:FICT advises: "For articles on fiction, reliable sources may cover such things as design, development, reception and cultural impact. This is real-world coverage because it describes the real-world aspects of the work. Fictional coverage describes the work's fictional elements, such as the setting, characters, and story." There is only 1 short paragraph in the "technology" article that uses out-of-universe, or "real-world" perspective (the "Design" section), and maybe only a few sentences in the "language" article.
These articles rely entirely on primary sources and consist entirely of fan synthesis of these sources. Note that notability of articles is not inherited from other articles on the subject, and all articles must be built around secondary source material (even what you may call "sub-articles"). In other words, "Predtor technology" is not considered a notable subject simply on the basis that "the movies are notable and the creature is notable, therefore this sub-topic related to them is also notable." For a topic to merit a stand-alone article, it must have been the subject of third-party critical commentary published in reliable secondary sources outside of Wikipedia. I highly doubt that the specific topics of the fictional language and gizmos used by the fictional Predator creatures has generated enough third-party published analysis to merit a stand-alone article. As I've said, this could all be explained neatly in a few paragraphs in this article using real-world context (design & creation of props, concept & writing of the characters' items, etc). Anything more than that is far more detail than Wikipedia wants and amounts to fancruft (after all, Wikipedia is not Wookiepedia). --IllaZilla (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of the rules and guidelines. Sometimes I feel they need to be bent. I know that you created WikiProject Alien, but I just feel a bit annoyed that these pages are gonna be scrapped, and I couldn't help but lash out. For now before they're merged, I will update and tidy them, just so it's a little nicer for the mean time. Here's an idea, once it's all merged, why not have a gallery for a few of the images? --LordJesseD (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you're taking the time to tidy them. I'm not actually merging the articles myself, at least not in the immediate future. I'm working on other projects like categorization at the moment. But nominating them for merger and giving a detailed rationale was definitely part of the project agenda, so I wanted to get the ball rolling on that. I'm glad there are dedicated editors like yourself who are willing to take on the tasks of cleaning up and polishing the articles, even if we disagree on whether they should be kept. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and my apologies for my previous outburst. For now, I'll work on adding infoboxes and cleaning/polishing. I also think that any use of xenomorph provides a in-universe perspective too, so the replacement with Alien will be needed, no? And, yes, I use a capital A because xenomorph is a biological name, and Alien is a title. My english skills are a little rusty, though. --LordJesseD (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You're 100% right on that one, IMO. That's why the article on the creature was moved from "Xenomorph (Alien)" to "Alien (Alien franchise)". I realize that title sounds silly, but it was decided as the best way to disambiguate it. In all the films the credits list the creature as "Alien" or "The Alien", I believe (I'm positive that AVP:R did). "Xenomorph" was used as a categorizing term in Aliens, where it was only said once (then repeated) by one character. Basically it's like saying "an insect" or "a mammal"'s a categorizing term, not a name. Several of the comic series and games did pick up on the term and continued to use it, but it's never been a name for the creature. So yes, if you see it, please change it to "Alien". --IllaZilla (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Plus, a "Alien" is the most common name, so it's needed, despite how good xenomorph sounds. Also, for the Marines-related articles, Bishop too, I've/will color/ed the infoboxs green, mainly becauase it's a military color, and because it's the color of their armors in Aliens. --LordJesseD (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Time for my two bits again.

WP:N: This subject probably not independantly notable. that's why I keep calling it a sub-article. It exists ONLY because the main predator article was getting too long. This is permissible. Also from WP:Notability: "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content". See Wikipedia: article Size that is the only reason why there is more than one page to start with.

WP:V: this works differently in regards to fictional works. third party information is not normally used to write articles in fictional topics, only for establishing notability.

WP:NOR: It's not synthesis, or interpretive analysis to make a list of things done in a movie.

WP:FICT: So? I don't see how that's a mandate that all articles must have a section on that at all. The article DOES have some of that already. Why is this a problem?

"built around secondary sources"? I don't see where you get that from. Fictional topics, as a rule, CANNOT be written that way because secondary sources are not considered authoritative.

As an example of the differences inherent in fictional and nonfiction, Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran this article is based primarily on Third party information. Why? A Primary source would be the battle itself. A secondary source would be eyewitness testimony of what happened in the battle. Most of what is known from the battle comes from the statements made by Kapitan detmers and his crew. Why? There are no other witnesses. All other information about the battle is based on data from the ship wrecks and critical commentary about the battle.

In this case, the only information that is considered reliable enough to actually base an article off of it is the primary source. Why? the rest are generally considered non-authoritative.--Marhawkman (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To address your points, I will transclude a reply I posted in an AfD yesterday to another editor, because I feel that you share some of the same misconceptions:
1) That "subarticles" or "spinoff articles" are some kind of special category of articles that have their own separate criteria for notability and verification. This is completely untrue. There is no special classification for "subarticles". There are no distinctions between "regular articles" and "subarticles." There are only articles, and the relevant policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT) apply to all of them regardless of their subject matter. If there is enough information and supporting secondary source material to warrant splitting a specific topic from an article off into its own stand-alone article, only then then it is justifiable to do so. Article length is not the sole reason.
2) That these "subarticles" are exempt from Wikipedia's rules that articles must reference reliable secondary sources, and may be based only on primary sources. Again, this completely contradicts all of the core policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and WP:N, which state the exact opposite.
3) That because Wikipedia incorporates elements of specialized encyclopedias, and that because there are encyclopedias devoted to science fiction, that Wikipedia can therefore not exclude articles about trivial science-fiction related topics. Again, this is an incorrect assumption. A good science fiction encyclopedia, being first and foremost an encyclopedia, will consist mainly of real-world analysis of sci-fi topics (ie. notable franchises, books, and films) and base its analyses on primary and secondary sources. Otherwise it is not an encyclopedia, but a manual, guide, or novel (ie. the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual). Again, all article topics on Wikipedia are subject to the criteria of verifiability, original research, and notability, regardless of what field of interest they relate to.
4) That notability of an article's subject is somehow "inherited" from other articles about the general subject. In other words, since the Alien and Predator movies are notable, editors have free reign to create whatever "subarticles" they wish that relate to the series in any way, and the notability of those topics is somehow "inherited" from the "parent articles" and is therefore not debatable. In all the annals of Wikipedia I have never seen anything to support this idea, and it completely contradicts the core policies and inclusion criteria such as notability, verifiability, and original research.
As to the point that "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content", that means that every fact or piece of info presented in an article does not necessarily need to be notable in and of itself. The subject of the article, however, must still meet the notability guidelines in order to qualify for a stand-alone article. These articles synthesis topics from a variety of different media: films, comics, games, etc. which do not have an official continuity or canon, therefore it is synthesizing information and making interpretive analysis of that information. Any article that relies only on primary sources is by default making an interpretive analysis of those sources, which is the definition of original research. WP:FICT and WP:WAF give clear guidelines on how to write about fiction from an out-of-universe perspective and how articles about fictional topics must discuss these topics in a real-world context. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a manual or guide to fictional universes. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 :???: did you read the article size thing? when you split an article because of a size issue, the two pages are treated as a single article for most purposes.--Marhawkman (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, in the ship battle article you point out as an example, I see a bunch of secondary sources used as references. These are books, articles, TV specials, etc. done by historians and the like analyzing the battle and the firsthand accounts of it. The article is not based entirely on primary sources, it uses plenty of secondary ones. I think you're confused about what primary vs. secondary sources are. A testimony by one of the ship's captains would be a primary source, because they were at the battle and witnessed it firsthand. Secondary sources are written by third parties unattached to the subject, in that case historians. No secondary sources are used in the Predator technology & language articles, and they are indeed required regardless of the article's subject matter. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you didn't pay enough attention. I was mentioning the battle as an example of something where you CAN'T use primary sources. Kapitan Detmer's writings about it don't even count there.--Marhawkman (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how writing fiction in an encyclopedia could be of any objective use for a reader. I would recommend merge and cleanup on all three articles, with further concentration on creating the character and the character universe. Concentrating on relevant and non-fictional information about the character, language and technology should easily shrink the proposed article to a quick loading stage. aeris 03:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerisama (talkcontribs)

Kevin Peter Hall's Height and Portrayl

This article states he stood at 7 foot 2 inches. His article says he was 7 foot 2 and a half. Either is plausable. But in John McTiern's commentary for Predator he states the Kevin was 7 feet 6 inches. He didn't specify whether this was in the Predator suit or not, but I believe not. Previously in the commentary he described Sonny Landham's body guard (6'6"), so maybe he was mistaken, as he seems to stumble a little in his commentary. I'm a bit unsure, if you look at the shot just as the Predator drops Dutch after observing him so that he can take his helmet off, the Predator looks massive and Arnold his roughly 6'2".

Also John himself states that he cast Kevin in the role of the helicopter pilot at the end of the movie and even points it out. The pilot of the chopper doesn't look or sound like Kevin, who I've seen in the making of of Predator 2. I could just be mistaken, though. I'm still very unsure of the facts about Kevin.

Although it would be more suitable to post his on Kevin's page, more people come here, and it is related to this article. Basically, I've no real idea of the truth about him, and I think it's neseccary to clean it up.LordJesseD (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Suits for Predator and Predator 2

When I listened to the commentary for Predator, John McTiernan states the suit weighed near 200 pounds (aprox. 110 kgs), and took about 5 hours or so to put on, and another 5 to take off. Kevin Peter Hall would wear a cool suit, similar to a race car driver's, which would keep him cool for roughly 2 hours. John McTiernan also had a "bungee rig" of sorts built (sorry for miss-spelling that if I did), which, to my knowledge, was used on the scene where the Predator jumps over a few rocks next to the waterfall after being unable to see Dutch, used to support the immense wait of the suit and actor, allowing Kevin to run. I think that if this information could be added to this article and the article for Predator, it would be useful. Also John Rosengrant says that the suit for Predator had much of the weapons (i.e. wristblades) and armor attached to the suit, but in Predator 2 much more of the Predator's inventory was removable and clip-on, done for a more realistic feel. (Except for the Predators appearing at the end in the spaceship). I should think this would be promising information for this article.

There's also something I disbelieve, that the suit for Predator, Kevin Peter Hall was unable to see out of it. I haven't watched the making ofs for Predator, but I know in Predator 2, the mask with the mandibles was tight-fitting with no eyes, and Kevin would wear contact lenses. I'm to believe that this was the technique used in Predator. So is this a false rumor, or am I mistaken? It's sourced in the article for Predator, but someone could have referrenced that to add fuel to the fire. I'm still open to the fact I'm in the fault, so feel free to prove me wrong.

I'm 99% sure the mask Kevin would wear with the face cut-out and the helmet velcroed on, Kevin would see out the mesh "lenses." An interesting comment from Stan Winston on the makin of of Predator 2 was this: "Broad concept's the same. The difference is, this is a different individual. A different individual of the same species. As is a snake is a snake is a snake, but different snakes are different. Their colorings are different, different parts of their characterristics, their facial structures, suttle differences." I think that is quite an intelligent and meaningful comment that would do well in one of those small little blue boxes off to the side that noone ever puts in italics and it would be a viable relation to how the Predators all appear similar.LordJesseD (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds really promising. I'd support it, but how do you reference a commentary? By the way, the bit about the helmet being velcroed in is true. This is confirmed in the book "Winston effect".Dark hyena (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I knew that it was velcroed on, just didn't know (then) if he could see out the mesh. It was finite enough not to see into, but allowed someone to see out. To referrence a commentary I'd use the {ref}{/ref} (with the right characters) way. Just have it as, "Predator commentary, DVD, John McTiernan (year)." Just a simple referrence that provides the truth. By the way, would a picture of the contact lenses and the suit without the helmet help? All this information from the making ofs etc. would have to go in, we could use doubleimagestack-thing or I could Photoshop them together, or something. I think I might add Stan Winston's comment.LordJesseD (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Predator's Vision

Okay, this is a slightly tricky subject. In Predator he has infrared vision while his helmet is on. When he takes it off, we see it's all mostly red. Thus: The original infrared camera they used on Predator was genuine. But because everything in Mexico is so hot, everything appeared the same. For it to appear blue with the helmet on Joel Hynek, the visual effects supervisor, said to cover the area in ice water and have the actors stand next to a fire before shooting. I'm to believe they did this with the guerilla camp scene in Predator.

But it was phenomonal work, and apparenyly John McTiernan simply filmed the other senes normally and took the film to a visual effects place and just painted it 'infrared' to save the effort. Also, he says they could move the infrared camera very much either, saying something like they could only move it about 4 feet from its rig. So it's our fan belief that the Predator's helmet filters ambient heat and body heat, while his natural vision doesn't. Well, in Predator 2 they used a true blue ifrared camera which recorded in greyscale and they added a color motif later. This is why the infrared looks far better in Predator 2. On a trivial note, the opening scene of the Predator overseeing Los Angeles was recorded with a police helicopter. But in Predator 2, we see the Predator without his helmet, his vision is the "normal" infrared, again because Los Angeles isn't like Palenque, Mexico.

In, Predator 2 we see other visions, same for AVP and Requiem, including the Alien vision. These don't really concern me. Although in Requiem Wolf takes off his helmet and sees in the red vision (even though it's a ship in a cold forest, but it could have been hot from re-entry to the Earth, although how could he touch it?). I just think the above information could be helpful to the article from a design POV.LordJesseD (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest including all this in a section on vision or special effects, with references to the behind-the-scenes featurettes you mention. Since you obviously have the desire and access to the features, I think you're in the best position to do it. Edit away! --IllaZilla (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I might start a new part under the creation section. I'll call it "Vision effects." Calling it "POV effects" would make it in-universe. Really I just got this from the commentaries. I only listened to the commentary for Predator 2 for about a minute, too, so I'll go over that before I do anything. Thanks for your support.LordJesseD (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Science of the hunter

To anyone who has seen the extras on AVP:R, could you perhaps talk about what was mentioned in the documentary "Science of the hunter" or the Predator homeworld? Dark hyena (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Omission of Triceratops skull

Please check this link;

Compare with;

They look exactly the same. Clearly a triceratops. The concept of Predators hunting dinosaurs in the Cretaceous period is not new. It was covered in the graphic novel Predator: Homeworld, in which one scientist character speculated that Predators caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

I will not undo the recent edit for now, as I feel this is open to discussion. Any thoughts? Dark hyena (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It's properly sourced so we don't have that as a reason not to include it. Only concern I can think of is how to write it in.--Marhawkman (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
If you're looking at a movie still, drawing your own conclusions, and then adding them to the article, then you're conducting original research. If the only reference is the film itself, and you're drawing conclusions or posing theories beyond "there is a skull resembling a Triceratops", then those claims are not properly sourced. The commentary track on the DVD only makes mention of the space jockey skull, not any others. So unless you have a reliable source then it's inappropriate to draw your own conclusions, as you did in the text you added: "It is implied in Aliens vs Predator: Requiem that the Predators may have visited Earth during the Cretaceous period, as shown by a triceratops skull being on display in a trophy room." (citing the film itself). This is an encyclopedia, after all, not a detective agency. We need to be adding sourced, real-world analysis rather than trying to identify every skull in the 3-second scene and invent our own theories about them. For example, without a reliable source it's equally plausible that the directors threw that skull in as a reference to the Triceratons of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles stories. I'm not saying they did, in fact I think your claim is much more likely, but I'm illustrating how it's inappropriate to make theories & draw conclusions without proper sources. That's why I removed the claim. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Very well, but by that same logic, a reference would be needed to provide evidence that the skulls to the left of the Predator are indeed human. Dark hyena (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Not really, because we're not making any further claims about them. We can of course say that there's a trophy room filled with skulls of various species; that is plainly obvious & easily verifiable. But your text went well beyond that: "It is implied in Aliens vs Predator: Requiem that the Predators may have visited Earth during the Cretaceous period, as shown by a triceratops skull being on display in a trophy room." You are making inferences/assumptions about backstory plot elements that are not stated or shown in the film, nor discussed in the commentary or other sources, based on what you think is "implied" by the prop. Stating what appears on screen and making claims about what it implies are 2 different approaches. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, would simply adding triceratops to the "featured species" thumb caption with no further detail or assumption be all right? I just find it illogical to omit it, when even the most dedicated wikipedian will not bat an eyelid over the non-referenced identification of human skulls. Dark hyena (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess that would be fine. The reason I don't think anyone bats an eyelid over identifying the human skulls as human is because it's blatantly obvious. Besides, we know with 100% certainty that they hunt humans in the film series. I mean, there are 2 movies that are entirelyl about Predators coming to Earth to hunt humans. Nobody bats eyelids over saying that the Alien skulls are Alien skulls either, since there are 2 movies about them hunting Aliens and we see the Predator in that very scene skinning an Alien skull. We just don't look at the skulls and make inferences like "oh, that means that they've been visiting planet x for y number of years." That would be a claim not explicitly supported by the source. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
another example would be the skull display case in Predator 2. On appeared to be of a predatory dinosaur. Most likely a tyranosaurid.--Marhawkman (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldnt go that far. Though tyrannosaur-like, a close inspection shows it really isnt that similair. It has two lower jaws, and multiple eye sockets.Dark hyena (talk) 10:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Really? got a picture? I wanna see this. it sounds interesting.--Marhawkman (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain you're referring to this? Or maybe another skull in that scene but I can't find a good pic of it. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
different skull. *scurries off to google*--Marhawkman (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I re-watched the scene on my DVD & I see the skull you're talking about. It's to the left of the ones in the above pic. Unfortunately I can't find a screenshot of it on google, but I did find this which is from a diorama model made by a fan recreating the scene. Looking at the model and the freeze-frame of the film on my TV I'd say the model is pretty damn close to the actual prop in the film, and in either case clearly not a tyrannosaur. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah I see. Well that settles that little controversy. :) --Marhawkman (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger of language article

Well I went ahead and merged the language article. I know that information I merged in is minimal, but honestly everything in that article was original research, speculation, an unsourced stuff about fan communities. In fact the only 3 "references" were links to fan sites. Honestly I barely found anything salvageable to merge, except to mention that the author of the novel series created a language set for that series. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

People like you ruin wikipedia. Why do you delete things? Cant you do anything constructive? Perhaps go and search for sources for the historic articles and leave other articles alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Removing original research and unverifiable information is not "ruining" Wikipedia, it is improving it. Creating articles about trivial fictional minutia, and filling them with original research and fancruft, is what's ruining Wikipedia. These types of articles are regularly and rightly deleted or merged. If you don't like that, then Wikipedia probably isn't the place for you. —IllaZilla (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Original research

"In 2004 a Predator ship arrives in Earth orbit to draw humans to an ancient Predator training ground on Bouvetøya"

There was noting in the movie that was done to included humans in their hunt. The humans in the move always seemed to be in the way. The Predators may have been planning on bringing hosts with them. That seems as authentic as what the article states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The humans did theorize, upon translating the heiroglyphs, that the "heat bloom" which Weyland's satellites had detected had been created for the purpose of luring humans to the pyramid to serve as hosts for the Aliens. There weren't any other humans around for thousands of miles, so they wouldn't have had any hosts otherwise. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Predator chirp/noise

Is there any information regarding the sound predators make, I believe it to be a relivant topic that should be included in the article - RVDDP2501 (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

On the AVP:R DVD special features there is some commentary by the guy who made the noises. I don't recall what he said exactly, and I have no idea if he was the same guy who did it for the previous 3 films. Basically he makes the noises with his throat, and has slightly different sounds for different "moods" or expressions of the Predator. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps information on sounds should be placed in the language section.Mariomassone (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

why is it still on the table?--Marhawkman (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Because no one's carried it out yet. There was discussion (here), and I think the arguments in favor of merging were laid out pretty well, but nobody's actually gone to the effort to carry it out yet. The technology article is still completely devoid of third-party sources, and should be pared down to a couple of well-referenced paragraphs that would fit nicely in this article. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
why would they?--Marhawkman (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Why would they what? Fit nicely in this article? Why wouldn't they? One could easily fit a few referenced paragraphs in this article summarizing the technological aspects of the Predator characters. That's where this info belongs. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
why would someone bother? The subject is one almost guaranteed to lack reliable third party sources. It's one of those annoying topics where you can find just enough sources for notability but cannot write an article based on anything but 1st part sources. Then again, most fiction oriented subjects are like that. A paragraph in this article is great. But condensing all of Predator technology into a paragraph or two is inane. Oh and "I think the arguments in favor of merging were laid out pretty well," By you and you alone. In case you forgot, I was your most vocal opponent. You didn't really have any supporters.--Marhawkman (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone considered, there is way too much information there, and will be more in the future, for a decent merger.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
There is way too much plot summary and in-universe explanation in this article that could be significantly trimmed down. Additional real-world content would of course flesh it out properly. The Predator technology article is entirely in-universe plot summary and could easily be whittled down to a couple of paragraphs that would fit here nicely. This article is only 37K, not long by any standard. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Error (inconsistent information)

Kevin Peter Hall's wikipedia page says the actor was 6 foot 6 inch tall. This page quotes it at 7'2" and doesn't specify if this was *in* the suit or his normal height. (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo caption

I think it would be helpful is the unmasked faces photo had a caption that identified which of the films each of the four images came from. I'd like to know which is which. --JamesAM (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Cultural differences in "Predators"

I'm not trying to impose any OR on the article, but isnt it self evident just by watching the film that there are indeed differences in the way the "classic" and "super" predators hunt? I thought that if these observations are approved here, I'd add them to the "Culture" section. Here are three observations:

1) Super Predators use hunting "dogs"

2) Super Predators set traps (lures and leg-hold traps) rather than just stalk their victims

3) Super Predators seem to have no qualms about killing unarmed men (as shown by the killing of Edwin

4) Super Predators, as observed by Nolan, adapt and improve their martial prowess after every hunt

What say you guys? Mariomassone (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's try to stick to real-world perspective here. The last thing we need is more in-universe "culture of the Predators" stuff (for lack of a better word, fancruft). What we really need is solid, referenced, descriptive material about the concept, writing, design, creation, and special effects used in making these film monsters. I'm sure that if we approach from that perspective that a lot of these things will get mentioned anyway, as I'm sure the creators will touch on them in describing the concepts behind the "super Predators". Instead of writing the article only based on watching the films, gather some other sources like books and online articles, watch the behind-the-scenes features on the DVDs & transcribe some of the creator commentary...that kind of thing. Once book I can recommend is McIntee, David (2005). Beautiful Monsters: The Unofficial and Unauthorized Guide to the Alien and Predator Films. Surrey: Telos Publishing Ltd. ISBN 1-903889-94-4.  (though it only covers as far as the first AVP film).
As far as your specific comments, I'm not really comfortable saying that these are all distinctions between the "classic" and "super" Predators. (1) I haven't read much of the expanded universe Predator stuff (comics, novels, etc.) but I seem to recall that in at least one of the comics the "classic" Predators had hunting dogs, too. (2) The "classic" Predators certainly use lures, in that they imitate voices in order to draw out prey. I'm not sure if they use any traps (like the leg-hold Edwin steps in) in any of the expanded universe stuff either. (3) Edwin wasn't unarmed, and the super Predators didn't kill him...he had his poisoned scalpel, & it was Royce who stabbed him, then rigged his body with grenades. The Predator didn't kill him, he blew up. (4) Um, all Predators "adapt and improve their martial prowess after every hunt". Isn't that kind of the basis of their entire culture? --IllaZilla (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Predators Movie Inconsistency

It says that the final and largest Predator in the movie is defeated in single combat by one of the last two survivors. This, however, is inaccurate seeing as without the aid of the second survivor, the first would not have been able to defeat the Predator. Taken from the Predators (film) page:

"A fight ensues in which Royce successfully decapitates the Predator after being saved by a sniper shot from the recovering Isabelle." (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)