Talk:Alien Resurrection

New Sequel

The events of both Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection will be ignored by the upcoming sequel to Aliens, which will be directed by Neill Blomkamp. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Note - Variety: New ‘Alien’ Won’t Undo ‘Alien 3′ or ‘Resurrection,’ Director Neill Blomkamp Says - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Rename: The Colon in the Title

While I'm aware the film's title is written with a colon on its IMDb page, I have never seen the film title written thusly in any official source. It's simply Alien Resurrection, sans colon. Most obviously, the film's official making-of documentary, One Step Beyond, does not use a colon for the movie's title. I propose the page name should be altered here to reflect that.--Leigh Burne (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Alien: Resurrection. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615162238/http://www.natoonline.org/infocus/05augustseptember/whedonuncut.htm to http://www.natoonline.org/infocus/05augustseptember/whedonuncut.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071225035055/http://tbhl.theonering.net/peter/faq.html to http://tbhl.theonering.net/peter/faq.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C290562%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F19971126%2FREVIEWS%2F711260301%2F1023
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lookingcloser.org/movie%20reviews/quickglancesA-G.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201133520/http://au.rottentomatoes.com/m/alien_resurrection/?critic=rotten&name_order=asc to http://au.rottentomatoes.com/m/alien_resurrection/?critic=rotten&name_order=asc

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) 04:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alien Resurrection. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216052742/http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/12/05/sigourney-weaver-and-ridley-scott-to-team-up-for-alien-less-alien-sequel/ to http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/12/05/sigourney-weaver-and-ridley-scott-to-team-up-for-alien-less-alien-sequel/

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) 12:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Image dispute

Both images has her clearly visible without being blurry. 1989 is better because of the film's release date. The actress looks similiar to her appearence in the film, which is helpful to the reader. Sebastian James what's the T? 20:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Sebastian James as the photo is more relevant to the article. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The current image has her in a still, standing position. The former one is a picture taken of her walking a red carpet. She does not look similar to her appearance in the film, and how is that "helpful to the reader"? QuestFour (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"Walking a red carpet" is nothing to do with the image quality here, which is not blurry and definitely fine. Did you actually watch the film? The current image is showing herself older, maybe that's why it is "helpful to the reader". Sebastian James what's the T? 21:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Nobody mentioned anything about the images being blurry. An image of her standing is better suited than a one of her walking. Also, the current image is the one used in the infobox of her article anyway, so I don't think there will be any confusion with the reader on that. QuestFour (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not clear whether she is walking or not because the image is cropped. And there's nothing wrong with an image of a walking person. This is not an infobox for a person, which means that it doesn't need an updated picture of that person. I don't see a point why did you even mentioned this and see it as a reasonable explanation for your edit. Sebastian James what's the T? 23:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it is very clear that she's walking. There's nothing wrong with that if it was the only picture available of her, but there's a picture of her in a still, standing position and that's more suitable. I only brought up the fact that it is the main infobox image of her article because you implied that the reader might not be able to recognize a newer picture because she's "older". QuestFour (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Walking or standing still, it doesn't matter. Both pictures show the actress equally good for representation, except for the fact that 1989 one is more relevant to the article. I am surprised that you are seeing your comment logical, though I shouldn't be since you have been also adding unsourced information with grammatical errors. The reader of the page is here for a 1997 film, therefore, if they are to be shown a photograph of the lead actress, they will expect to see a picture of her similiar to her appearence in the film. This has to do nothing with "standing still". Even the image on Commons shows that it is only used for Sigourney Weaver article on all the different Wikipedia languages, except for your edit of course. Sebastian James what's the T? 13:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It does matter, one is more preferable to the other. You keep bringing up the year argument even though it has no relevance whatsoever, your reason is that it won't cause confusion and will "help the reader". I explained to you why this won't be a problem. The other points you brought up about the Titanc edits and the image use on commons have nothing to do with this discussion, and I'm confused as to why you even mentioned them. QuestFour (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably because you are not here for constructive contribution? There isn't a preferable one in this case because walking or standing still "has no relevance whatsoever", and Commons was an example of usage. I suggest you read guidelines, such as MOS:MOVIE, before you get blocked. Sebastian James what's the T? 10:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

There is, as I have explained to you before, but it seems that you're not listening. You only see what suites your side of the argument, thus you see the time period as relevant and the position of the pictured actress as not. What pages the image is used on have nothing to do with anything, and the MOS you linked does not say anything about the time period of the photo. QuestFour (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

He does have a point about there not really being any rule against a picture from a different time period. But regardless why is an edit war happening over it? I don't think its really important enough for an RFC much less an edit war. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Never said that there was a rule against a picture from a different time period, so... Also, MOS:MOVIE and other guidelines were examples because the editor has been making unconstructive changes, such as adding unsourced information to film articles. Sebastian James what's the T? 13:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

If there's no rules, why are you edit warring over this? In pictures of people, a standing still/pose position is preferable over a walking/mobile position, that's not a rule but simply common sense. QuestFour (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Good story. Adding unsourced content is also more "preferable" than sourced ones to you, am I correct? Sebastian James what's the T? 12:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Answer my question, stop changing the subject. QuestFour (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

You are funny. I am not obliged to answer your question. The current image existed long before you changed it, so you are edit warring over it. At this point, you should've already dropped it. Sebastian James what's the T? 15:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you are. You reverted constructive edits with a motive that I explained, thus you are obligated to justify your reverts. Both NikkeKatsi and myself have explained to you that your arguments regarding the time period are irrelevant. Unless you have a valid reason why the image shouldn't be restored, I'm going to have to report you to an admin and undo your revision. Stop wasting other editors' time, this is your only and final warning. QuestFour (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure you have read NikkeKatsi's comment? Because they say "He does have a point about there not really being any rule against a picture from a different time period." and I said "Never said that there was a rule against a picture from a different time period". They have never said anything about "irrelevant", and you still don't have any other editors who support your opinion. Why are you still typing smarmy sentences and edit warring? As anyone can see, your reason to change the image hasn't found any resolution. Per WP:BRD, you should've come here when I reverted you in the first place, and I've already reported you to an admin. Just walk away and get over it. Sebastian James what's the T? 10:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, IMHO the original image was fine, and I can't see any rationale for replacing it with the other. The fact that she may be standing still as opposed to walking seems supremely inconsequential, whereas the fact that the original is closer in time to the movie is relevant. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)