Talk:Xenomorph

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There's a consensus to move away from the current title, and additionally, a persuasive argument that it's the primary topic for the term "xenomorph". (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Alien (creature in Alien franchise) → Xenomorph
• Xenomorph → Xenomorph (disambiguation)

– Per

Having the page simply titled Xenomorph I feel would be much more natural even if the page itself refers to the species mostly as the Aliens. The existing page of Xenomorph could be moved to Xenomorph (disambiguation). H*adesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Current title is ridiculous. Xenomorph is a perfect fit for the alien, and users can be redirected from disambiguated pages if they search for alien, no one is searching for the current title, and if they are - they probably need some sort of therapy. GimliDotNet (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per
  WP:CRITERIA. There is nothing "ridiculous" about the current title - the name "Xenomorph" is only known to sci-fi film buffs. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Only known to sci-fi buffs? The word "xenomorph" is used in Aliens and Alien: Covenant. I would get this argument if it was something used only in extended media or merchandise, but it has precedent in the source material itself.

  HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Xenomorph indicates less than half the outgoing traffic goes to that target, so the case isn't really strong. It's possible we're actually navigating readers badly, too. I would start just with sorting it up, and revisit in a few months. I also noticed some other formatting issues in the current list that I'll fix shortly. (Done.) It also doesn't make sense to go against
  WP:COMMONNAME. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support An article by Dictionary.com about the word xenomorph says: "Regardless of the creators’ original intentions or the objections of some fans, the name xenomorph has shown staying power. News coverage of additions to the Alien series, like 2017’s Alien: Covenant, refers to the aliens as xenomorphs." This is evidence that xenomorph is the common name for the subject. Vigilant Cosmic Penguin (talk | contribs) 🐧 18:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current name is absolutely stupid and an attempt to avoid a term deemed “in universe”. It’s a contrived title that absolutely no one is naturally navigating to GimliDotNet (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed on the first page of Alien, it'd be reasonable to assume a lot of traffic comes from there - if we look at https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Alien it shows that 142 views came from there. The previous link showed 613 views coming from "Xenomorph". Yet Xenomorph is only 1.76% of the incoming views at https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Alien_%28creature_in_Alien_franchise%29 because 11300+ come from search engines, 6350 come from unknown sources, 3140 come from the Covenant movie, etc etc. If we want to believe that there should be more 'natural' navigation here, it doesn't square well with all these thousands of page views. And they seem to be apparently successful views, because the outgoing traffic spreads out nicely, it doesn't sound like all those people are in the wrong place. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, you do know how search engines work don’t you? Hint, google. Xenomorph and it takes you straight to this page. GimliDotNet (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be condescending. How do you know that people are googling the name "xenomorph" and getting here as opposed to googling "alien" and getting here? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, another reason why it's hard to support the name xenomorph over alien is that there's such a drastic difference between the general usages of these words. For example see the comparison graphs in google books ngrams and google search trends (also without generic 'alien'). Certainly not nearly all of those are references to this creature, but this is indicative of what the typical English reader will understand best. Calling the main alien from the Alien franchise a name that isn't some variant of 'Alien' seems like it would be a peculiar choice for most readers. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know people are googling xenomorph, but I wasn’t the one that used search engine results as an argument against calling the article xenomorph, when search engine results have fuck all to do with naming the article due to the way search engines optimise search results better than Wikipedia. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very emotional about this topic. Perhaps it's time to take a breather. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay on topic and refrain from

WP:NPA GimliDotNet (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Um, you attacked me above, and then continued with profanities, ignoring the argument completely. I'm telling you very nicely that you need to stop being rude (and casting aspersions is another form of being rude, too). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not attack you, please withdraw that claim. The only person to make a

If "Sigh, you do know how search engines work don’t you? Hint, google." is an appropriate level of communication in relation to the argument I laid out, we must be having a very different impression of what a rational argument is supposed to be. I still don't see that what I wrote was addressed, and I fear we're completely off the rails here. If you feel offended by what I wrote, I apologize. (I am fine with profanity, but in this case it was a clear sign that we're not having a productive discussion.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I directly address your point. You claimed the thousands of page views (mainly from search engines and “unknown”) was evidence that xenomorph wasn’t a useful name. That’s not what that evidence shows. I’m done here though, as it’s clear you’re not reading what I’ve written GimliDotNet (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the claim was that we don't have evidence that 98.24% of traffic that doesn't come via a known lookup of "xenomorph" -- was actually the reader looking for "xenomorph", instead of them looking for "alien". That search engines optimize searches better than Wikipedia is likely true, but it is orthogonal to this discussion. Let's say Google &co. all worked around a completely bad Wikipedia title, and are bringing in all these thousands of views a month despite it being misnamed, so how do we only have a couple of discussions in the space of a decade, how are they not bringing more people who would be confused by and complaining about such a bad title? Anyway, I'm also not sure why we'd focus on the search engine traffic only, because that's about a third of the incoming traffic. The remaining two thirds of traffic is more thousands of views that aren't producing commensurate complaints, either. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Proposed title is more
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Xenomorph". (I'm sympathetic to the argument that readers might search for the creature via the name "Alien", but that's the kind of issue that's better solved by a redirect.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I like the argument linked at

  WP:CRITERIA. That one, however, is unlikely to be true - most readers or the average reader who is aware of the character wouldn't naturally use the term "xenomorph" for it when the movies about it are called "alien". The other documented aspect of naturalness is what editors use to link the article, so we'd benefit from someone going through Special:WhatLinksHere and examining that (usually a fair bit of manual labor because of pipe links). --Joy (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose. The name is a folk usage based on a mistake by fans. The word "xenomorph" is a generic term for extraterrestrial life. It is not and was never intended to be the creature's name. True, "Alien" isn't the creature's name either but at least the name "Alien" conveys that fact and doesn't imply the false claim that "xenomorph" is the creature's name. Serendi^podous 18:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Move, Different name. Moving to
  Xenomorph (Alien franchise) (an extant redirect) still makes the wording much less clunky and more concise. JeffUK 15:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move 1 to
  Xenomorph (Alien franchise), Oppose 2. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  For the avoidance of doubt, that's exactly what I'm suggesting too, I forgot there are two moves being proposed. JeffUK 16:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]