Talk:Predator (fictional species)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Name

Is the name "Yautja" official or fanon? Ausir 23:35, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The name comes from the comics and novels. It's not fan fiction, but it's not from the movies either. Oberiko 23:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Any clues how it's meant to be pronounced then? Personally, I say YOWT-JAR or YOWTCHAR pomegranate 23:38, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

We should get an image of the Yautja and maybe some of their weapons.- B-101 19:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I believe that the name, like about 95% of this article, is essentially fan fiction. If you mentioned the word 'Yautja' to the producers and writers of any of the movies, they would probably have no idea what you were talking about. I think that including comics and books as main sources is a very bad idea; it's like including story, characters and general milieu on a movie/book's page based on events in an absurdly-unrelated tie-in videogame. --Gwilym 19:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Since this Since Wiki entry is titled "Yautja", I believe it's perfectly reasonable that the information included is gleaned from any 'non-canon' source (excluding unauthorised fiction). The word "Yautja" actually first appears in the Predator novels by the Steve and Stephani Perry, and in turn the novels are adpations of the Dark Horse comics - and of course, the inspiration of the Predator and Alien battles are the original movies themselves. Presumably, 20th Century Fox had some input, or at least the final say, in the content of each story/comic/game - so where does the canon stop and the fan fiction begin? In my opinion, it's permissable to include all and any Predator information in the "Yautja" entry, since it encompasses details from the entire Predator mythos - much like an entry for any other fictional creature, for example 'Werewolf'. In short - as long as there are definate and well-explained differences between the entries "Predator (movie)" and "Yautja" there should be no problems. However, I wouldn't like to be the person who decides what information belongs in each entry... -- Joker, 16:30, 13th February (EST)

Yautja Info

1) I believe it is pronounced YAWTJAW.
2) The dreadlocks are in fact hair. They are woven as a right of passage for young Yautja. During the ritual, if any tears are shed, the locks are undone and the ritual starts anew.

Im sorry but you have made a mastake thay are not undun thay are torn out and started over agan. That state ment is takin from a AVP book whear a female human is acapted in the clan.

I would post more, but I believe it's just easier to give you a website.
http://members.toast.net/talien/michael/pdfs/predator.pdf

This document is designed for playing the D20 Modern game, though the info it gives is accurate(based mostly on the comics mentioned before).

I'd like to see a specific official reference on these points. Fanbase role-playing games don't cut enough ice with me (your mileage may vary). - Plumbago 09:54, 06 Apr 2005 (BST)

The information is based on the three movies as well as(and mostly based on) the comics by Dark Horse Comics.
http://www.darkhorse.com/search/search.php?frompage=userinput&sstring=Predator&x=0&y=0 <--That being a list of the AVP comics by Dark Horse where much of this info is taken from.

"I dunno about the rest of you but i say yah-oot-yah" --Predator

You dont now me but you Can call me Darth Vron. Yautja it self is darived from Japan so it is Japanese It has no translaton so dont evan look for one (I tryed) If any one knows how to right douwn the pronounceatin pleas do so but I now how to speak Japanese (Im taking Japanese as a class) I now how to say it but dont now how to right it down for you guys to understand Sorry :(

Nausicaan

Am I the only one seeing a strong connection between the looks of Yautja and the Nausicaans from Star Trek? Compare the pictures in the article with [some pictures of Nausicaans]. -- Ashmodai 14:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this page needs to be cleaned up. The author seems to be presenting a blog and not a difinitave source on the material. They, at times, seem to break the intellectual "fourth wall" and use nick names or personal opinion.

Predator 2 and AVP tie in?

I was just watching AvP today, after watching Predator 2. I can't help but notice... Do the predators in AvP have the same masks as the Yautja at the end of Predator 2? I'm catching a strong resemblance, at the least here. I think they may even be the same ones... --Serow 05:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The first Preadtor killed wears the same mask as the Predator from Predator 2. The one we see have that knock-down drag-out fight with an Alien and lose wears that goofy keltic mask seen only at the end of Predator 2. The hero Predator, "Scar" wears the same mask as the Predator from the first movie. --Chan

Sound Replication

Unless I'm mistaken, the Yautja's ability to mimick sound comes from a recording device built in to their versatile wrist computers (the game "Predator: Concrete Jungle" captions during cinematic sequences explicitly say "Predator Playback" when the Yautja replicates sounds) and not any vocal ability, although they do seem to be able to speak human languages, since the elder Yautja told Danny Glover to "taaaaake iittt" at the end of Predator 2. Until someone can prove otherwise, I'm removing the portion of the biology page that claims they replicate sounds personally.

Yautja can imitate human voice to an extent. See the end of the original Predator movie. 202.89.180.65 05:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Further, I really don't think "Concrete Jungle" counts as canon. Not compared to the original source - the films. --Plumbago 16:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yautja

I'm with Joker on this one. Yautja it is for me. Hell, the species needs a proper name don't you think? 'Predator' is all wrong for kick off because that implies predation; hunting other species to eat. Saying that Yautja sounds a bit crap to me. How about Waritrax!? I need to get out more!

But Joker The Yautja only hunt thanings thay also eat so thay will eat homan if thay are hongry. Its stated in one of the books.

Sorry this part doesn,t look googd but the space jockey did not make the aliens because they show up in the past and the space jockey and the eggs are in the year 3000 something so the aliens were maybe the first to be on earth but then they well i think were wiped out on earth and the rest were taken of planet earth.

Does this contribution make sense to anyone?--Anthony.bradbury 22:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

not that the article is great

or anything, but everything below "ranks" section is garbage. "serious nutcases"?? I mean, really. the whole thing needs cleanup. but start there. please. ... aa:talk 20:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Talking about ranks, does the "Eta" rank come from the Japanese word, perhaps? -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 11:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wristblades

I really do not see why "wristblades" qualifies to be an article at all, but if it is retained it should be merged with this one.--Anthony.bradbury 22:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think all of the Predator weapon pages should be merged with this article. RebornSentinal

I agree with both of the above. Post Mortem 23:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Teeth

I removed some erroneous assertions about teeth. I kept the part about how the shape of teeth may not always indicate diet, which is I suppose true since no science is perfect. However, the assertion that the shape of human teeth suggests a herbivorous diet is laughable. If you look at cow teeth (As suggested) and a carnivore's teeth (say, a dog's) and then a human being's, you will probably think the dog's mouth looks more like the person's mouth than the person's mouth looks like the cow's mouth. The mere existence of grinding molars does not suggest a herbivorous diet, as carnivores have molars too. And the prominent canines in humans are not to be lightly waved away in this discussion. When determining an animal's diet from its teeth, ALL teeth must be considered. You can't leave some out in parentheses. Here is a page about teeth. --69.141.155.201 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ya your rigte about that but no one evar said that we where only plant eatars we can eat both thanks to are teeth but I now that dogs eat grass but thay do not grind it to a more usfall substans like cows are homans. On the other hand pradators have no teeth that can evan start grinding thay anly have teeth that can punctur and tear so thay can only eat meat and it also states in a AVP book that thay most of the time eat what thay kill.

Percentages in Bloods?

Where do those numbers come from? There is no source given and I see 105% on the percentages given, and that's not counting the ranks without given percentages =) -- SilentGuy 21:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Clean up Requested

The Yautja page is a mess, and it seems that several editors enjoy writing their own opinion or speculation about the Predator characters and universe. That isn't really appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

Let's try and just keep to the facts. Something like: This is the Yautja, they are seen in the Predator movies, video games, novels, and Dark Horse Comics. Here is there physiology, hunting methods, etc. as seen in these sources. If something is unknown, just say, "Unknown."

Oh, and if you can't spell and/or use good grammar, please message me what you want to add and I would be happy to proofread it for you.

Beatdown 13:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a decent job cleaning up the Honor section. Hopefully I was able to integrate the input by Killerman2 and make things a bit smoother and more understandable. Input is welcome as well as assistance cleaning up the rest of the article. Beatdown

Number of kills for Honored?

At one place in the article it says: Yautja with many kills, over 100 or more, are called the "Honored" At another place it says: Honored - The Elite of Yautja society. They have earned 1000 kills and are skilled in all ways.

I'm not a big enough fan to know which one is right, but somebody has to know. Please change and delete this part of the discussion.

This article needs to be renamed!

This article shouldn't be named, "Yautja", it should be named "Predator (character)", because the creatures are actually named Predators in the films that they originally come from, and Yautja only comes from the non-canon comics and books. Look at the end credits of "Predator" and "Predator 2" it reads, "Kevin Peter Hall as The Predator" not "Kevin Peter Hall as The Yautja".

ok spaz, its called predator (alien) alredy fool!

The article should be renamed "Predator (Character)". The way it is now would be like having the Keiichi Tsuchiya article called Drift King, or the Mr. T article B.A. Baracus.--Little Jimmy 04:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A new novel called Predator Forever Midnight came out in March that completely contradicted the previous AvP novels and gave the Predators a different culture. The Predators are now called Hish, not Yautja. The term Yautja only ever appeared in 3 novels which are now out of print AFAIK. The official name of this alien species has always been and always will be 'Predator', and all this Yautja crap all over Wikipedia should be changed to Predator. Perhaps the title of this article should be changed to Predator (alien race). This article needs to be completely redesigned so that canon information about the Predators is clearly distinguishable and separate from SD Perry's Yautja interpretation. There should also be information about John Shirley's Hish interpretation to show an unbiased article on Predator culture and biology.

So can I do this?

Yes it seems like the best idea. Would Predator (Alien) kill two birds with one stone? If not then I vote Predator (alien race) (Emperor 20:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC))

Predator (alien) it is. I'm removing anything non-canon. I may deign to leave a single reference to the Yautja name. Chris Cunningham 09:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm reading "Forever Midnight" by John Shirley, and I'm fairly certain that they aren't called Yautja, but "Hish-qu-Ten" is what they call themselves. Unless anyone has found elsewhere where they call themseleves Yautja, anyone mind if I change certain things from Yautja to Hish-qu-Ten? Guardbug 03:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Guardbug

In the spin-offs they are given both names - Yautja is the most common but a mention of them also being called Hish is an idea. Possibly "called Yautja in older novels and Hish-qu-Ten in more recent publications" (not including the note on it being non-canon given the discussion below - as long as you highlight the source). (Emperor 03:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

While I like Yautja, and is the reason I even went to this article, the Out of universe name is clearly "Predator(alien race). This is based on the "most widely known" naming policy. In this case meaning "most widely known to people in the real world. In universe, you could argue that yautja is most proper because it is what they called themselves, and humans in-universe rarely if ever used the word "Predator." If you wanna start an AVPedia (like Wookiepedia, then that is when you would include Yautja as a article. (Hish would then be a different article there.) IthinkIwannaLeia (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Alien vs. Predator (2004) canon or not canon?

It seems people here are having different opinions as to wether AVP is canon or not. So let us discuss here if it is or not.

I say, dispite how much of a bad movie it is, it is canon because it is an official 20th Cebntury FOX made Predator movie. But let use discuss.--Little Jimmy 00:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Keeping this on track

Right, I've moved the page and removed most non-canon stuff. I've also removed the AvP stuff for now; this is probably a mistake, but it's in the edit history. Please feel free to add things back when they've been rewritten in better English.

I'm going to go through and try to tidy the rest of this now. Without all the fancruft it should be much easier to tag things than need references and put things in proper sections. Chris Cunningham 09:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity of removing info that can be credited to an official source. If it's only been mentioned in a comic book then it is official even if fans don't consider it canon.--Marhawkman 01:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-Canon info is allowed to be added, just as long as you note with that info as you put it in that it is not canon. If you don't, people who read this article will get really confused when they watch the movies.--Little Jimmy 23:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There's far more non-canon info than canon. I'd really suggest that if someone wants to make an article for it they reclaim "Yautja" and add it in there with a note that the whole thing is non-canon. The non-canon info was making this very difficult to read. Chris Cunningham 07:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Help in the war of Canon vs. Non-Canon

I have been on going a massive quest through Wikipedia, changing any Yautja and non canon material reference I saw to Predator and canon material. I have done a lot in our battle in the canon vs. non canon war, but there is still more that has to be done.

Do me a favour, if you are browsing through Wikipedia, and you come across a bit on the predators that is ignorantly called Yautja or has any other nom canon material, post a note on that article that it is not canon, or better yet, edit it so it is canon.

Together, we can help spread the truth. --Little Jimmy 01:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Who decides what is canon and non-canon? AvP seems to cause some debate and yet their is a Xenomorph head seen in Predator 2 . Does this just include films (in fact there is nothing I can think of which connects both films - the second one could be non-canon, its just there is nothing much in it that contradicts the first one)? Aliens and Predators are both owned by 20th Century Fox but does that make licensed spin-offs canon? I'd imagine the adaptations are but beyond that? With things like Star Wars and Star Trek there is a well-established opinion on what is core canon (even if there is a grey area around the edges) - with Predator (even more than Alien) just about anything seems to be up for grabs and one could suggest the different strands exist within parallel universes, making the canon/non-canon distinction just the imposition of one's own value judgement on something that isn't a well-defined fictional universe but more a collection of various spin-offs from the first film in different media with each creator producing their own take on the general themes. I have been working on a few related entries recently but am unsure what one would count as canon beyond the original movie (a canon of one?). Are there published reference guides where this is clarified? Or some kind of definitive statement from Fox? (Emperor 02:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC))

It’s really simple; the things that are canon are the things which are officially made by 20th Century Fox, which so far includes only the movies. Things like the comics, books, video games and all that stuff are made by different companies, with the product simply licensed by Fox. To put it even more simply, the movies are official, but everything else is just fan-fiction with a “Licensed by Fox” sticker on it.

For more reasons, follow this link. --Little Jimmy 05:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't really provide an independent classification of the Alien/Predator canon (for starters it is completely unreferenced and as you have partly written it I don't think it is independent - I could rewrite it say something different. It needs a statement from Fox or someone associated). I still suspect there isn't a well defined fictional universe with solid and continuous creator control giving it an over-arching vision (which defines most of the entries on that list). Look at the Star Wars canon as an example - Lucas has kept tight control over the various spin-offs and maintains list of what is and isn't canon. The Alien/Predator universe is nothing like that. With the Alien/Predator output (including the films) everyone seems to have largely made things up as they go along (sometimes with the spin-offs influencing the films - like AvP). Again I'd be interested in an authoratative and independent source that says there is a canon. If it is just the films then it is hardly worth mentioning beyond things like the Predator language and the List of non-canon aliens and certainly not worth a "war" ;) (Emperor 14:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC))

I must agree with Emperor. Predator, Alien, and spin offs were never meant to form a coherent universe. Most of the confusion comes from when people tried. There are a grand total of 3 movies. The final one has been widely denounced as "non-canon", thus making >90% of all officially licensed material non-canon. This is totaly absurd. It's reasonable to mention the seperate souces for bits of info, such as whether it was shown in a movie, or in a video game. But the canon/non-canon classification system doesn't really work here.--Marhawkman 00:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm going to be lazy in this argument and just show you snippets of the Canon (fiction) article.

What is considered to be canon in this Universe are the movies, their scripts, the novelizations (not to be confused with the Dark Horse novels), some information from the DVD supplements (take with a grain of salt: writers have some priority over director's comments) and magazine interviews. Since the comic books and the Dark Horse novels contradict the events in the movies (and sometimes each other), they are not considered canon. Video games are also not canon for the same reason (whatever "information " that is "revealed" in them are to make them a bit more interesting; not to mention giving the players more difficult creatures to kill).

(NOTE: this quote no longer appears in the Canon article. It was most likely removed since the AvP universe does not have an official canon and is being argued about right here!)IthinkIwannaLeia (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, all the information in the official 20th Century Fox made Alien and Predator movies take precedent over any other Alien or Predator information.

One of the reasons why the comics, video games and novels are not canon is because they do not have any “quality control”. This means that pretty much anyone who wants to can make one and put anything they like in it, and then the product is just simply licensed by 20th Century Fox studios, even if these creators have absolutely no connections with to the original creators of the movies, or any guidance by 20th Century Fox. This is opposed to the movies which are almost totally under 20th Century Fox studios control, as they choose what is allowed to go into a movie and what is not.

Plus the comics/games/books/etc have far too many contradictions with the movies and each other as well to be concidered canon. There are some comics out there that have Hicks and Newt from Aliens still alive, some that have Predators meeting with the President of the USA, some that have Superman and all the other Marvel/DC characters in them, some call Predators Yaujta while others call them Herish, some say Predators invented the Aliens while others say Predators captured the Aliens while others say Predators stole the Aliens from the space Jockys. And so on and so on.

It is a lot easier to just accept they are not canon.--Little Jimmy 03:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that it is unreferenced (and so could easily count as original research - let alone the fact that you have written parts of it so it is hardly independent  ;) ) I am arguing not what should or should be considered canon but that there is basically no canon (or not one worth arguing over). Compared to the majority of that list (e.g. the likes of Buffy, Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, etc.) there is no strong central creative control, no over-arching vision and no generally agreed upon list of what is or isn't canon. If there is independent and reliable sources that contradicts that then post them up. (Emperor 03:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

Ahh but by the same token, it has never been stated by an official source that they are canon either, unlike say, the “Enter the Matrix” game was stated by the creators of the “Matrix” series that it was canon.--Little Jimmy 00:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you are refering to specifically but the mention of the Matrix is a good example of he kind of thing that ticks the boxes of the criteria for the existence of a canon. Looking down the list on the canon entry over half of it just doesn't count and others are suspect (see my comments here about the worst offenders). Unless there have been clear statements from the creators (like the Matrix) then defining what is or isn't canon seems to be more of a sport for fans (especially helped by the Internet) and Wikipedia isn't the best home for the vagueries of fan speculation. If people want to suggest that there is a canon (here or on other topics) then they are going to have to provide rock solid sources to suggest one exists. So far I haven't seen any evidence that one exists within the Alien/Predator franchise and I'm still waiting for someone to provide some. (Emperor 01:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

Someone questioned whether Enter The Matrix was canon or not? Here's the "Connection to the films" segment I happened to find in the ETM topic page

Enter the Matrix was designed, like The Animatrix, to be an integral part of the Matrix series. Many previous movies have been adapted as games, but in this case, the game expands upon the story told in the films. Enter the Matrix includes two hours of live action 35mm film footage written and directed specifically for the game by the Wachowski brothers (and later included as part of "The Ultimate Matrix Collection" on the "The Matrix Reloaded Revisited" DVD). The martial arts moves and in-engine cutscenes of the game feature actions captured directly from the films' actors and stunt doubles to recreate their unique fighting styles while suspended from wires while under the supervision of the series' fight scene choreographer Yuen Wo Ping. (Dibol 16:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

What I'm getting at is because there is no official statement of what is canon or what is not, we have to go with the next best things. Now, because all the things which aren't the movies are not official 20th Century Fox productions, they are, by that definition, not official Alien or Predator merchendice and thus not canon. It's like if a Harry potter book was not writen by J. K Rowling, sure it has Harry Potter and co. in it, but it is not real. Add to that the fact that they have too many contradictions with the movies even if we wanted them to be canon, and that is enough proof for them to be discounted from the canon.--Little Jimmy 02:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

But the next best thing is speculation and without references, sources, etc. it is original research. Take the Harry Potter analogy - it is the equivalent of the books being written by different authors but all published by Bloomsbury. Unless Bloomsbury were exerting tight control over the content of the books (and the story arc) and making clear statements about what they considered canon then one can't say there is a canon. In the case of the films they had a success came up with a good story for a sequel then a few more. There is no masterplan or overarching creative vision. The thing is there needn't be a canon to produce a great set of films. If you want to show there is then it needs to be shown with solid references to authoritative sources. (Emperor 03:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

Question: With no "Official" word on what's canon, then what's to stop people from just using the largest most complete version? IE Darkhorse comics. Answer: nothing. I think we should skip the concept of canon completely here, and just tag everything by source.--Marhawkman 01:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You know in starwars thay have added many stuff that is not offecal part of the film but It still counts as part of the film line. All the Alien, Preader, and AVP books do count. But the AVP film was don by fox but not by eather one of the origenal righters of eather films just like the alean moves was don by defrent people so do thay not count ether? The only spin offs of the films or the books are the comics wich have the Preds and aleins with super man, Batman and evan the turmanaters wich may I remind u have nevar been seen in the books pluse the oreganel AVP games also follow the time line of the films. So The Yautja shold count as a name. Just because another book says its not the first name that classifys theme is the name as in the film Aliens Thay say Xenomorph from there on its also sayed as the name as seen in Alien 3 whene she ask thro the computer if thay shold Kill the Xenomorph and thay say no. A littel about AVP the film, I am a huge fan of bolth films but whene that came out I can say I died a littel in side the film was a nice idea but not don right. The first problem it was boring, It was a boring seting with boring people (wow scintest so exiting) and there was only one good fight seen between the preds and aliens and about that book with the name change for the preds I will look for it and see if u ar right about the name change are if it is just the clan name (There is a defreans the clan is a small group in the race take The Dark Blade Clan if thay said that in pred langeg it whold sound like a name of the race but its not).--User:Darth Vron October 29 2006

Consensus on the canon things, please

Extended talk threads have a tendency to never end and never accomplish anything. Can we get some quick position statements please?

My personal position:

• Nothing is canon bar the first two movies.
• Information which contradicts the movies must not be included in this article.
• Information which does not contradict the movies, but supplements them in a way which clarifies something from the film, should be included when it can be referenced properly. This includes everything from director commentary to incidents in other films to asides in comic books, but it must be referenced.
• Incidental background information which does not directly relate to the films should either be abandoned or moved to something like Yautja (Alien Vs Predator universe). Such articles have been known to flourish where they read well, even if they aren't of great encyclopedic value.
• Normal rules apply for idle speculation, rumours, and anything else generally considered to be original research (i.e. don't have it on Wikipedia at all).

These are the basic guidelines I've used so far when editing this article. I think they represent the best way to move forward. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham 12:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK quick position statement: Unless someone can provide authoritative sources to show that there is a canon then trying to define what is and isn't canon is speculation and original research. See also. (Emperor 13:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC))

No, I mean position statement on what to do with the article, not summary of the pointless discussion above. What do you think should be included in the article, and what shouldn't? The talk page is supposed to be a means to an end, and we only get an end if there can be some consensus as to what should and should not be included in it. Chris Cunningham 13:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that is kind of what I thought I was getting at - unless someone can show there is a canon then trying to establish what is and isn't allowed in the article seems "pointless" (and may infringe the original research guidelines). The way forward is probably to keep the core content to the two films "In the films the Predators are depicted as..." then follow it up with information from other output "In the novel X they said this..." in following paragraphs. (Emperor 13:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC))

I reckon you have said exactly what should be done Chris Cunningham, plus it is something we can all agree on even if we are at dispute at what is canon and what is not.

P.S. On the Canon/Not-Canon thing, I think that only official 20th Century Fox products should be canon. It’s basically a dictionary like definition I’m getting at, Alien and Predator are official 20th Century Fox products, hence only things that come from 20th Century Fox are official. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about that.--Little Jimmy 03:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem is without there being a canon it is just your opinion what is or isn't canon. Wikipedia isn't a place for people to impose their opnion on things. The fact that you are aiming at a "dictionary like definition" clearly pins it down as original research - we should be working to an official definition as it isn't our place to define one. If there isn't an official definition we have to be more inclusive. (Emperor 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

Look, sorry, but this is nonsense. You're suggesting that until such point as Fox make an official statement on the subject, the movies are to be treated equally to people's random Geocities fansites, comic books and loosely-related game franchises? Not too long ago this article included a short movie about Batman fighting a Predator, is that useful to documenting the creature?

Sources are contradictory. We can't include everything. It makes the article read like awful mush. I'm working to try to form some sort of plan to get the article moving in the right direction. It doesn't necessarily need to be the correct one so long as we've got an edit history, but a decision should be made now instead of stalling this article indefinitely because of bickering about what is and is now officially sanctioned fluff. Chris Cunningham 14:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you would only include officially licensed material but you can't remove something from the article claiming it isn't canon when there isn't a canon as in "12:48, 1 November 2006 Thumperward (Talk | contribs) (rv to 59.95.40.23: 1key2chaos, please see talk page to discuss what to do with non-canon information)". We can't really pick and choose the "right" media - for example at one point with the Alien series a lot of fans considered Alien, Aliens and Mark Verheiden's comic book series as being canon and when the third film came out a lot felt the story this was non-canon. Of course, what we do or don't consider "correct" can't be used as a criteria for selecting what is appropriate for inclusion. The solution, as I've stated is to avoid relying on a non-existent (or at best unproven) canon as an authority for what should or should not be on this page - one of the sentences in opening section shows how this can all be done without it turning into a mess: "While in the title movies and a few select "VS" cross-overs the Predator is normally a villain, Predators are often portrayed as anti-heroes in the Aliens Versus Predator-based comic books, novels, and video games." You can describe the portayal in the films and then if an officially licensed product adds or contradicts it then tag on another sentence/paragraph saying so but being clear what the source is. So if a specific weapon has some properties expanded on in some other media than say what this is and where this appears. This then avoids issues like someone reading this and thinking "I have watched both films and that is not explained in either so its coming out". As an example some of the material removed in that "non-canon revision" would work - "It is stated in "Alien VS Predator Extinction" that the disc is mentally controlled by the Predator. Predators who train thier mental capacity are able to do this." it states the source and explains the difference - I might suggest having it a separate paragraph but it is an example of what I am getting at. This way people reading this entry can make up their own minds what they do or do not consider legitimate as we have no authority to impose our own views on it. (Emperor 15:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

This isn't a productive argument. I'm drawing a line for style reasons rather than ideological ones. Next time anyone adds loads of AVP fluff I'll move it to its own article. Then people can have a huge, unproductive argument about merging them, and I can ignore it in favour of editing the movie Pred article. Which may well be short enough to merge with the main movie at that point. Chris Cunningham 16:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You are, of course, welcome to remove what you don't think should be in the entry but other folks have at least as good a justification (possibly better) for everting your changes. Unless there is a consensus on what should be here there is just going to be a lot of wasted efforts and once we hot 3 revisions we are only going to end up back here. I would also oppose any attempt to merge this entry with the first movie as that is just a product of your opinion about what should and shouldn't be in this article which (with enough time and effort on your behalf) would become little more than an article about the Predator from the films when surely the point of this article is because the creature turns up in a wide range of media and is more than just the monster from the film. (Emperor 17:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

Okay this is beyond silly. The article is about the predator characters. NOT ABOUT THE FIRST TWO MOVIES!!!!! So it doesn't matter what the source is. Video game, weird crossover comic story, Anything officially licensed is fair game. It'd probably be good to have references for the sources of info.--Marhawkman 12:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the non-canon information should be brought back but it should be placed in separate categories. Possible categories are: Predator comics, Aliens vs Predator comics, Predators vs various superheroes, Aliens vs Predator video games, Aliens vs Predator novels (Yautja), Predator Forever Midnight (Hish).

That is a great idea! Devide the article into seperate sections like, Predators: As Portrayed in the Movies, Predators: As Portrayed in the Comics, Predators: As Portrayed in the Novels etc. That way the reader can make up their own opinion as to what is canon and what is not without being confused by contradicting information. --Little Jimmy 12:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That could get messy as the differences may just be minor. I don't see a problem with just tagging on an extra paragraph on the end of the relevant sections - for example the Smart disc and Netgun (and Plasmacaster) section. There are differences between the two films so do we keep the article on the first film and then add a section for Predator 2 or just note the differences where they happen? There aren't vast differences and they may as well be noted in the relevant section. (Emperor 13:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

I favor the first approach. It's gonna be confusing and highly redundant if you repeat everything over and over. But if you have one section on their weapons then you can simply annotate that section with notes stating what differences there are between the films and other sources.--Marhawkman 17:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the only thing the comics and games have established about the Predators is a few new weapons and tactics. We should have just two non-canon sections "Yautja" and "Hish". The three Aliens vs Predator novels include chapters from the Predator's point of view and have lots of new information about the Yautja that hasn't been established anywhere else including culture and biology. However, the new novel Predator Forever Midnight also has chapters from the Predator's POV with lots of information but it's all completely different. In this interpretation, Predators are called Hish, they undergo hormonal shifts that cause them to change sexes, they have 'kill-glands' which cause them to go into berserker rages, they have a slave race called the Amengi, which created new technology for them, etc.

Please excuse my sudden jump into this, but when seeing Hish content on here that someone who was equally insenced with it pointed it out to me, I had to make my 2 cents here. I think that the content some of you deem "non-canon" (I prefer "secondary canon") should have their own sections on here instead of lacing it into the main sections, or give them their own full articles, so my vote goes to the idea above. Have a section on the Yautja and their differences and then the Hish and their differences. That way, they are separate, they are stated as non-canon/secondary canon and people can decide for themselves what to follow. You can't force people, but at least be honest in showing them everything. As much as I hate the Hish concept, I know it's in paperback form, so I feel that new fans should still know about them. Siliconsara 13:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is enough information on Yautja and Hish society then sections on them is fine. My objection was on having different sections on minor differences in the weapons as shown in different media - as long as they are sourced (as they are). I'd suggest adding the Yautja and Hish sections into Biology and culture. An alternative is to expand the Predator novels entry or a bit of both. On a sidenote I haven't read Forever Midnight - is it worth it or would it annoy me? :) (Emperor 15:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

If you are a fan of the Yautja concept like I am, then I suggest NOT getting the book. If I had access to a hobo drum, I would of burned my copy already. If you must get it to see the trainwreck, buy it used or get it at a library. Don't pay full price for it. As for your ideas on separating content, I think it will do fine. The main key point is that the content is rightly labeled as either "Yautja" or "Hish". If you must merge some secondary canon into the weapons section, then make sure to clearly point out where the source is from. That should satisfy everyone, hmmn? Siliconsara 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That all seems reasonable - go for it. And thanks for the tip on the book - I might check it out if I'm feeling masochistic or I spot it cheap secondhand (Emperor 16:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Appearance?

Were this predators appearing in Andromedas's "Delenda Est"?

No but the Predator is clerly a major inspiration - they even mention say the word "predator" in the trailer for the episode [1] which if it was a straight steal they'd never do so I assume it is a tip of the hat to the original. Best I can recall from that episode (which is a very pivotal one as it is the point where things started going wrong in the future) the aliens are from beyond a dimensional rift and don't just have stealth technology but can put themselves out of phase with our existence - basically the Predator with a fancy pants pseudo-scientific twist. Good episode though. (Emperor 22:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

Some general editing

Hi. Number one, I do not consider this my article. If some or all of my edits are changed, reversed, or otherwise, I won't have much to say. I stumbled across the page while reading other things. I have a place in my heart for these big nasties, but am by no means a Predator expert. This article still needs help, and there hasn't been much movement lately. I have some experience with rewriting/rewording other people's work in my real life, and so I thought I'd take a stab. I have offended people in the past (not on wikipedia) when so doing, but I've also received compliments and requests for additional help.

Which is to say, my qualifications amount to "I was bored". IANAProfessional.

My intent has been to reword while maintaining concepts. I have moved and removed sentences that were redundant or out of place, reworded entire paragraphs, and generally tried to clean things up. I got bored before I started going through the armor section. No, I do not have ADHD. But I'm going to go play games now. I hope that I've been of more help than harm :) -- Kisc 05:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have been trying to do this myself aswell, but there is far too much garble here for me to sort out on my own. This article still needs a lot of work, because as of now, it really only helps people who already know what the Predators are, instead of helping people who are new to the creatures as the article should.--Little Jimmy 06:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be best to move the design and creature evolution bit up to the top and put them in their own section like "Creature creation" which leaves the "Appearances in film and print" section a lot tighter. I also think it is problematic having the first section about a fictional creature describing its biology and culture when it really starts with the creatures creation. (Emperor 19:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

Star Trek references

It might be worth noting that Star Trek has paid tribute to the Predator characters twice. First with the Nausicaans, which really only share the pinchers around the mouth, but in that, look very similar as it's a rare feature in aliens in popular science fiction - obviously a tribute. Second, with the Kradin, who look more similar. Memory Alpha links follow:

• http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Nausicaan
• http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Kradin

I'm sure Star Trek isn't the only other series which has paid tribute to the Predators; a section on Predator knockoffs would be great.

209.209.140.19 01:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a section in David A. McIntee's book which touches on this. I wasn't sure how solid it all was and while that is a legitimate reference I'd like something from the Star Trek side saying that is what they had in mind (but onbviously they might want to void that for legal reasons). I'll dig out other examples from the book and throw them in and we can see what people think. Perhaps a "Predator in popular culture" section as I'd imagine things like The Simpsons have given them a nod (ditto with Alien). (Emperor 16:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC))

The Preadtor is 'ripped' on in South Park too, in an episode about Butters. While it doesn't appear on screen, you get to see Butters from a predator's perspective (i.e. thermal vision, its trademark growling and the HUD symbols). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sybaronde (talk • contribs) 15:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Farscape had mercenaries with face masks and dreadlocks, familyguy had a couple direct references....buffy might have as well. Angel had an alien reference but No predator though. A predator in pop culture needs to exist, but does it already exist on the Predator(film series) site? if so, don't copy it here. IthinkIwannaLeia (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Category

The Predator fits in Category:Fictional characters with the power to turn invisible or doesn't since it's his armor that does that? igordebraga ≠ 13:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The examples are people who are actually invisible. There may need to be a category on fictional characters with stealth technology if we can think of more examples. (Emperor 14:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

Canon vs Non-Canon

IMHO, we here at Wikipedia make no distinction between what is and is not canon. We merely report any information from primary, secondary and tertiary sources as we find them, and it is up to the readers to glean any information that they may. Shrumster 11:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It is also noteworthy that the trimming down of Canon (fiction) has removed AvP and a lot of others with dubious claims to even having a canon (identifying canon is often a fun game for fans but such things may not be of great interest to those actual creating such things. There are good examples of canon but this isn't one of them). Rather than "such and such in non-canon sources" we need to identify the source so "such and such in the novels which has also features in the games" for example. (Emperor 12:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

I think that movies should be the primary source of information as what is seen in the movies is undisputable fact, for they are the "creatures" primary source in media. Non canon things can be mentioned, so long as it is not dubious fancruft, and most importantly, is properly referenced.--Little Jimmy 08:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Blue glowing bomerang weapon?

I've watched the death of Blain from the original Predator frame by frame and it doesn't look like a blue boomerang to me at all. It looks like the energy/projectile from the Predator's shoulder cannon, and I don't see any justification for believing it's anything else. ---- Chris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.184.50.31 (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

It is the shoulder Plasma Cannon--Tapok 18:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, saying otherwise is just silly. He ONLY had the weapons we clearly see, those being his wristblades and his plasmacaster. - Unregistered user.

Reptilitan or Arachnid evolution

I've always been fascinated by just how bizarre the predator looked. Looking at its face and body structure, I wonder if it is meant to be reptilian (the skin seem to point to that) or arachnid (the four mandibles) in origin. Like did it evolve from one or both of these animals? Just thought I'd throw that out there for anyone to stab at. Great article by the way. Personally, the predator always reminded me of a big sea crab (beady eyes). What do you all think? Scott Free 01:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It has never been stated in the films how they evolved. The only thing we know is the mandibles were suggested by James Cameron because he "Always wanted to see a creature with mandibles".--Little Jimmy 08:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's highly likely that they are an entirely different phylum altogether, being from another world with seperate evolutions. In fact, I think something in Predator: Concrete Jungle makes reference to Predator DNA being something unlike anything seen on earth before, but I can't provide an exact reference. --Tapok 23:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if they appear arachnid, crustacean or otherwise technically they can't be deemed so since they evolved on another planet so come from a phylum not evolved on Earth, despite any resemblance to earth animal groups —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protoform (talk • contribs) 2007-06-02T23:10:48

predalien

should the predaliens actually be here? they are not the same species as predators, they should be in a xenomorph article --Ditre 16:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Predaliens getting a mention in BOTH is relevant. Predator DNA has a strong influence on the Xenomorph embryo to make it unique, so it fits into the Predator page, whilst the genetic variation in Xenomorph development makes it relevant here. --Tapok 23:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Check this out, http://joblo.com/arrow/index.php?id=8303 I got the first pic! Isn't that awesome, the first pics. Somewhere we have to add this into some alien or predator article. Do not tell me that that is not cool!!! Somebody please insert it! Thanks! ManofSTEEL2772

Plasma Caster

Edited the Plasma Caster section to include the fact that the laser sight can be mounted on top of the weapon and be operated without the helmet, as seen at the end of Predator 2. Steve m203 12:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ritual Scarification?

I noticed only a brief mention of the scaring that is done during AvP in the article. Not having read any of the extended universe material is there any evidence or explanation about this past AvP? Dragonranger 01:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Weapons

Does anyone know what that "heat beam" was in AvP? Like can it be used to a degree as a huge weapon? or is that unknown? Cause I was wondering if we should put a bit more infromation on it in the article under weapons.

Its a plasma cannon you retard.

Prevolution

Everyone knows that the predators have changed since every appearance. But I want to hear all your theories here. My theory is that those different predators are probably different predator races. similiar to humans. you know how we have chinese humans, american humans, etc. well we all look different. those predators look different too, so it might be the same case.

Homeworld

"The only thing that stands against the information that says the predator is attracted to heat is the antarctic setting in the 1st AVP movie."

Well, as far as I kinow the antarctic location was chosen (as hunting grounds) because it provides an even more challenging environment for the predators, so it doesn'T exactly stand against their homeworld being hot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.253.118 (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's no solid contradiction. Remember that this temple was not in an arctic climate when it was built. Exactly why they were in that frozen temple is not known. It shouldn't have posed as a real hunting ground because there was only a captive queen there. One of my personal theories is that they were there to extract xeno eggs, but when the human intrusion started, they had to duke it out first. Sybaronde 20:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research?

I have decided to put up an original research template on this article, since much of the information is based on the personal interpretation of the different books, comics and movies. Much of this article information is based on (unverified) original research such as this:

1. For instance, in Predator, the Predator does not attack anything for the first 40 minutes of the film while it is deciding whom to stalk, eventually coming to the conclusion to hunt the military squad.

2. But this predator used his cloak as much as possible, even when 'challenged' by several people, until water from a fire extingiusher system rendered it inoperative, so it was somewhat lacking in predator 'honor.'

3. It also doesn't seem to work against Xenomorphs, possibly because the Xenomorphs use their scent sense to "feel" the pheromones given off by the Predator.

4. Besides this, it has also been suggested that the mesh is a part of the camouflage system.

A bigger example is the Homeworld section. While the simple sentence: "Nearly no information is given about the Predator homeworld in the films.", would be sufficient, more none-verified information is given after that;

It is also possible they live on a much colder world, where their infrared vision would be much more suited, and because they were able to withstand the cold of Antarctica in Alien vs. Predator, temperatures that would've killed a human, with not so much as a shiver.

Original research; "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position."129.16.49.138 19:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Skaarj?

They remember me of the Unreal Tournament series race the Skaarj. Any mention in the article? Mallerd 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wristblades

Edited the discription of the wristblades to state that in Aliens vs. Predator 2 game, the removal of the Predator's wristblades causes pulmonary arrest, as stated in the PDA lab journal found in the medical cabinet. As opposed to cardiac arrest, which is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.73.237.114 (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Scatter Gun

So what's the deal with the scatter gun? 'A last resort weapon' - whats the point? They have the plasma caster why do they need to change it into a gun that fires a net of energy? I don't like the sound of this weapon - just sound pointless to me and i think AvP:R looks really good - sounds to me like this weapon will ruin the movie for me :( - well maybe ill find out when the games comes out —Preceding unsigned comment added by S-m-r-t (talk • contribs) 16:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A fair warning

In the next few days, I'm going to go though this entire article, adding sources and deleting anything I see as being irrelivent. This post is a warning so you don't go and add something that may be deleted later. If anybody has any objections, you better say them now.--Little Jimmy 07:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Further Edit

I'm not sure if I should go around editing things willy nilly, so I'll leave it here for a senior to edit if necessary. If this isn't the correct place to say this, apologies. The statement, "This is shown in Alien Vs. Predator when the predators had to find there plasma casters within the pyramid, they had to earn them first." is incorrect, as the facility only awakened the hive once the plasma casters were removed in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.2.194 (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

delete

I have been looking at the "notoble predator" section and noticed a that someone added a couple of predator toys from the kenner toy line company , anyways i think the "clan leader" and "night stalker" should be deleted seing as it comes from a toy line company and therfore not canon. I mean if we left it there consider how many other predator toys there would be! Not to mention they are not NOTABLE predators at all, i know i could delete it right now but i didn't want to be a jerk and delete it before asking all of you, So what do you guy's think? delete it or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.148.187 (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Article does not properly differentiate canon and non-canon

"Yautja" is just a non-canon name from spinoff material (what is it from a book or comic?). Non-canon names are just that: non-canon. This page should be moved back to "Predator (alien)".

A surprising amount of material in this article does not differentiate between movie-canon and non-canon spinoff materials. A future revision may have to more properly delineate them, but that's for the future. Right now, can anyone cite "Yautja" as canon at all? --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well... If the comics are licensed then there has to be some credibility there (though not necessarily the case for crossover spinoffs, excluding Alien versus Predator of course). I did some expanding and improvements of the article, adapted from the format of what you see on the xenomorph article (as the series' are commonly associated with eachother, and practically thrive through each other now in the form of Alien vs. Predator films). The term "xenomorph" (I'm sure I don't have to state it, but I'm in defense so Ill just throw it out there lol) was technically non-canon to the Alien film series; it derived from a comic book spinoff as the term "yautja" did. Actor Bolaji Badejo who played the creature was even credited as the Alien (just as Kevin Peter Hall has been credited as the Predator in his film portrayals). Aliens officially recognized the classification, in response to its usage in the series' spinoffs, I don't recall if it was ever used again in the film series. Regardless, its minimal usage in the Alien film series still sees it recognized as a xenomorph throughout its article, which is why my judgement revamping this article led classification tweaking as one of the changes. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

whip

The whip section ive been looking at has been changing almost everyday, ive read (in this article) that its made out of a xenemorph tail to xenemorph teeth.What the heck is it! Can someone show me where they get there information from. and if some one puts something as absurd as a xenemorph anything please show me or put a link that can show me where you got that info from! Everything someone puts sounds like bull,can someone prove otherwise? (and the reason you dont see anything in the whip section now is because i erased it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.156.46 (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Crap

This whole article reads as if it was written by a twelve year old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.234.155 (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

- Totally. Looks like it's been written by a teenager. I vote for a complete re-write... (121.45.88.3 (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

notable predator's

I just thought all of you should know that i deleted this part in the elder section,"yautja from the dark blade clan" and "he is killed by the predalien in aliens vs predator requiem". First of all the fact that he is from the dark blade clan is total bull (if its from a video game and or the comics you should say that in the article). Also the elder is NOT killed in requiem, i think who ever wrote that section thought that the predator who shot and blew a hole in the ship in the beginning of requiem was him, but its not him seeing has how he doesn't have a cape and his mask is similar(which i see how you could be mistaken)but not the same mask as the elder,the elder mask doesn't have a mouth piece and has writing on it, and it has some sort of jewel hanging from his mask. I just thought all of you should know. and i am going to shorten the scar face section, its WAY to long!

There is no Canon!!!

ok folks, here it goes. I have just read the whole talk page, and it has changed my mind. I have decided that pretty much everyone is wrong (except Maybe Emperor). the Alien vs Predator franchise does not have a canon. It doesn't have this for two reasons: 1. There has never been an official statement on what cannon is from the creators/lisence holders (Fox). 2. On a more basic level, Alien vs predator doesn't have a shared universe!!! The second point has barely been discussed. In the this day and age, shared multimedia universes are so common place that it is hard for us who spend too much time on Wookieepedia to remember that not every franchise has one. Look at it this way: the Predator movie shared a continuity. The Alien movies share a continuity. The comic books share a continuity (some of them). The AVP movies share a continuity that pays a nod to the alien movies by naming two characters in their stories after the company in the Alien movies. Other than these two supporting characters, and the alien and predator species themselves, none of the various works refer to the others. Do to the lack of inter-referencing and the blairing conflicts and inconsistancies, it is clear that the various properties do not fit into a shared multimedia universe. This is not so odd. Remember, it was not until the silver age of comics that comic book companies created the shared universe idea for their various properties.

That being said, the issue of canon for the entire AVP line is irrelavent. At best you can talk about what is canon for the various properties. It might be interesting to find out which comics dark horse considers canon for their Alien, Predator, and AVP lines (most likely, the stories included in their various omnibuses). The two different sets of novels have their on universes as well. I would definitely argue that the AVP and the Alien movies are even in separate universes, because the company/government in the Alien movies (set in the far future) seem to think the Aliens are a new discovery, even though the US government and the company founders had access to several dna samples. Of course you could interpret the companies interest in the aliens as a Rediscovery of the aliens their founder encountered, which explains their great interest in it. But that is really a reinvisioning or a Retcon solution.

Once again, other than the characters of the predator and alien, there is very little to link the various properties (no creative directions or inter-property references to past events etc.)

That being said, the only place that a shared universe becomes important is when one comes to organizing a wikipedia article. If you make sure you follow the conventions of wikipedia (i.e. out of universe perspective, starting with, this is a character created for the movie franchise_____ and has had appearances in ________. You will run into little problems. As long as you site everything, all information should be included. When conflicts exist, they should be mentioned and sourced. For instance a secion should be titles "Culture", and say,"While the movies keep the predator species and culture mysterious, its various spin-off products have exponded on some aspects. It is clear from the movies that the predators place great emphasis on the hunt and have a strict set of rules for the hunt. In the Alien vs Predator trilogy of novels, they are called the Yautja and......The post AVP(movie) novel, ____ they predators were called Hish, and they......." So on and so forth.

Diffenent weapons, when mentioned should have sources/appearences after them. If you are cutting or changing things because they are not "canon", that is your opinion and it is wrong. If someone places a reference on info, leave it alone (this of course does not include fanon. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. Fanon, in this contest would, at best, fall under independent research/creation). If you want to talk about the internal canon of the various properties (comics and such, they belongs in a different article.

Finally, this article lacks documentation and has lots of conjecture/original research and is in desparate need of a rewrite. Someone that knows how please place a "needs documentation" and "does not conform to a wikipedia standard flag at the beginning of the article.

And yes it should be renamed "Predator (alien race)" because the word Yautja or Hish is not recognised in all the various properties (which do not necessarily share the same universe). 00:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

split the article

if you want an yautja article that is seperate from the all incompasing Predator(alien race) article, that would be ok. It should be short article that says, "Yautja is the name that the Predator aliens called themselves in the novels.....in these novel, the predators had the following aspects.....this interpretation seems to coincide with.... and conflicts with the discription of the predators seen in ....."IthinkIwannaLeia (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC) PS-my initial thoughts were to keep this Yautja because that is what they called themselves, but, once again, that is something to do from an in-universe perspective not a wikipedia perspective. I am gonna go check to see if their is a AVPedia right now. Bye IthinkIwannaLeia (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

There are way too many unnecessary pictures on this article. And 8 of them don't even have a fair use rationale. So I'm gonna delete some of them. If anyone has any objections, you may post here. Thank you. — Enter Movie (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete or rename

This article is an act of vandalism! The name Yautja and Hish has never been used as the name for Predator in the movies! It it a fan made name and it is not cannon! Also the names Yautja and Hish may be the names of the Predators in the books but they were not written by the person who created Predator so therefor both names are not the true names for the Predators! There should be no information about the names Yautja and Hish! Another thing if the creator of this article removed my deletion tag you can get your posting rights taken away or banned by the Administrators! It needs to be renamed to Predator (alien) or Predator (alien race)! This article needs to be deleted or renamed! General Mannino (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you dude! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.147.105 (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Enter Movie (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

General Mannino, please note, editors have the right to remove deletion templates if they disagree with the proposed deletion, as User talk:Jman2k3 did with your tag on this article, please do not mislead other editors if you are not sure of the relevant policy, see WP:PROD#Conflicts. Also, please do not use capitals in headings. MickMacNee (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please delete or rename this already. Everyone agrees that it should either be deleted or renamed so why isn't it already. General Mannino (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, this wiki encompasses all things Predator-related based on the franchise as a whole, not strictly on the movies or original creative minds. Even IF the original creator hates it, the information is based on books and comics from the franchise, licensed by 20th Century Fox. Until TCF expands on the franchise and comes up with the true species name for the Predator, it's information that belongs here. Besides, by your logic, every Marvel Superhero-based article should be marked for deletion, since each and every one of their characters has been passed around artists and writers for years.--68.111.245.180 (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to rewriten

I've had a read through the article and I have realised something. The article is of almost no use to anybody who does not know about the Predators already. The article seems to only be writen by the fans for the fans. For anyone who does not have any knowledge about the Predators (hence why anyone would be reading this article in the first place), this article will just fly right over their heads.

Ok, why the hell would anyone be searching predators if they wernt a fan?

For example, the article needs to have the following:

1. A propper introduction that fully explains the scope of the article. For example "The Predators are a character created by (insert here) for the movies (insert here) and their role in the movie was (etc.)", not just the half arsed one we have now.
2. The parts that we already have writen need to go into more depth, not just how they are now where you would only understand what it is talking about if you already know what the Predator is.
3. More information about the real life Predator (i.e. Who made it, how they made it, why they made it etc.) and not just the information about the fictional character that we have now.
4. Links to more detailed articles, such as the articles on the The Predator movies, links to the articles about their special effects teams etc.

--Little Jimmy 22:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Some correction needs to be made with the Xenomorph/Yautja hunting issue, specifically with Xenomorphs detecting Yautja.

--Duskshade 16:59 05 December 2006.

1. Citation of sources! Much of the information seems to be pure conjecture. If the fictitious elements are to be represented, it should be from verifiable sources, not what someone thinks should be included or made up themselves. SlashMatrix (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Little Jimmy has spoken about some significant points. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The article is far too long and contains barely any non-fantasy information on subject. WP:NOT#INFO says Wikipedia's coverage of works of fiction should provide sourced information on the works' real-world context, such as development, production, distribution, and cultural reception and impact. Summary descriptions of plot, characters, and settings are appropriate when paired with such real-world information, but not when they are the sole content of an article. This applies both to stand-alone works and to series. The article therefore needs to be rewritten from scratch. 84.167.255.252 13:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"The yautja design is credited to Jewish special effects artist Stan Winston." Does it really matter if Winstons is jewish??? who the f**** put this there????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.26.3 (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

This article has been renamed from Yautja to Predator (alien) as the result of a move request.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was - move to original title of Predator (alien). Keith D (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have listed this article in requested moves. Please do not remove the temlate at the top of this page until consensus is reached. The arguments I can see from browsing the talk archives so far are:

• As per policy, article names should be the most commonly recognised form
• The Yautja description is not established in the films
• The alien in the films is credited as (actor) as The Predator
• An alternative to Yautja, Hish, is also established outside of the films
• There is no consensus regarding what is canon in the franchise

A suggested lead sentence is as follows:

The Predator (alien race) describes the race of fictional aliens as depicted in the Predator franchise of films, books and games. While not established in the first two films, the alien character being merely The Predator, the names Yautja and Hish for its race have subsequently appeared in later works.

MickMacNee (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Judging from your user and talk pages it doesn't look like you are an Administrator therefor you can not delete the discussions on here. General Mannino (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• He didn't delete any discussions. He archived them because the talk page was too long. Enter Movie (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• As per my previous comment to you General Mannino [2], please do not make accusations towards other editors if you do not know what you are talking about. MickMacNee (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose - Predator alien species is highly ambiguous. Perhaps Predator (Predator film franchise) would be better. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  I think Predator (alien) or Predator (Predator film franchise) is confusing as it can be thought to refer to the single Predator in the first film. This article deals with the species as a whole and all known members of it, so I think the article title should reflect that, as per WP:Disambiguation. MickMacNee (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support I also don't like the "(alien race)" part. "Predator (Predator film franchise)" is just too repetitive to me. I suggest Predator (alien). Enter Movie (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Rename to Predator (alien). It's the best name to give the article. General Mannino (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with "predator(alien)"

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Way Too Many Pictures

Okay, I'll repeat myself again. There are way too many unneccessary pictures on this article. Not every weapon needs a picture. — Enter Movie (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No need for a survey: just undo User:Rtiztik's mess

This page was originally at Predator (alien) (and has been for a year), and was moved unilaterally by User:Rtiztik on 27 December. This was against consensus, and has generated significant opposition. Someone needs to go and move the page back, repairing the page histories. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The move request has been made for the page and the survey is being used in order to form a consensus as to what the page should be named. Once consensus has been achieved the page will be moved, if that is what it the appropriate action. Keith D (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that we had an extensive discussion about this just over a year ago with strong support for the move away from the current title, I can't see the decision being any different. The problem is not the name of the pae (Predator (alien) is the best title, as it was then), it's fixing the page history after the article was copy-pasted over its redirect. Chris Cunningham (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah right, I see the problem now it has been explained differently. The move request seems to have complicated things as it was to a different name. Keith D (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Should be back to original name now - if there is a problem then let me know and I will see if I can fix it. Keith D (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as people have decided to take unilateral action, perhaps they would like to explain why an ordinary user might think that this article concerns all the predators aliens, rather than just the Predator in the first movie? MickMacNee (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact now the title together with the lead section makes absolutely no sense at all. I really shouln't have fucking bothered I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the lead section, I normally leave that up to the people who are more familiar with the article then try and fix it as part of the move, unless it is a simple spelling correction. The move to the title Predator (alien) was made to repair the cut and paste move that had taken place and as I though that the discussion above was tending towards that as the name those involved with the page wanted to see it at rather than the one that was originally proposed.

I originally was of a mind to relist it for another 5 days for further comments to be gathered but the repair of the cut and past move was required so I went ahead with that. If you wish to relist it for a further move then do so and open up a new debate, but from comments on the debate so far there was no support for such a move. Keith D (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The article concerns the whole race. The reason the article would not be seen as dealing exclusively with the baddies from the two films is that encyclopedias do not contain articles on random film bad guys. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Split

I'm suggesting splitting the "Equipment" and "Weapons" sections into a different article (probably entitled List of equipments and weapons of Predators). I mean, the page is getting pretty long and those sections contribute to, like, half the page. — Enter Movie (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I boldly split the article. — Enter Movie (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixing the terminology

The last version of the article pre-Yautja was this one. That's probably too far to just roll back to, but it's a good reference for where we were prior to the terminology change. I'll work on correcting this. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Manual search/replace has been run. Next step is de-fancrufting, which is going to take a long time. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That previous edition shows exactly what I'm talking about, there is a difference between talking about Predators, Predator and The Predator. The current opening statement The Predator is a fictional extraterrestrial species is grammatically wrong and confusing. In response to above, the original Predator is not some random bad guy, he is arguably much more notable than any of the other members of the species, so a clear opening distinction about the purpose and subject content of this article is more than necessary. MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's no more "grammatically wrong and confusing" than "the Cat is a small carnivorous species of crepuscular mammal". All that needs to be done to clear up the distinction between "The Predator" and "a Predator" is to point out that the Predators in the films did not have official names. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Predator is a singular character, Predators is the collective term for The Predator's species; Predator singular is a film and has no place in this lead section. Why can't you see this basic logic? No one would be searching an encyclopoedia for a character called The Cat, and if they were (i.e. Red Dwarf), they would not expect the article they found referring to The Cat to in the main be based on his fictional species and not his character). The cat analogy is completely spurious in this case. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tidied the first sentence a little. I don't see that "The Predator" is any more notably individual than Alan "Dutch" Schaefer, who likewise fails to get his own article. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? What a ridiculous statement. Dutch isn't the founding basis of an entire franchise and subsequent endless fandom about Predators and what weapons they use, how their society functions and what they have for breakfast etc etc. 99% of non-franchise fans probably don't even know that there are more than one Predators. Don't get me wrong, I don't want a separate article for The Predator individual, but I want this article to be immediately understandable by all people, the example being myself who came here (or originally and confusingly to the Yautja article), when my original purpose was to read more about the original character. The article should seemlessly introduce the species and the subsequent attributed names, after making clear the distinction between The Predator individual and the existence of Predators as a species, rather than needing the reader to re-read the first sentence 3 times to get the picture. Is that such a terrible concept for you to accept that you have to try so hard to resist it? MickMacNee (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "resisting" it; I'm just having a hard time figuring out what it is you want from me. You haven't suggested any sample prose to use. You haven't come up with any concrete details on how this should be done. You appear to be complaining that the article doesn't appropriately separate the film content on two particular characters from the mounds of fancruft, which isn't exactly news to me, but I don't see that this can be solved quickly by fiddling with the intro or the article title. Could you start a new section with some suggestions? Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave a sample opening sentence in the requested move above that was unilaterally closed before reaching a conclusion. It is not relevant now though due to the dropping of the (alien race) idea, which is why further clarification is needed. MickMacNee (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped the old opening and adapted your suggestion. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite is coming.

That's it, now I have finally some time off I'm going to rewrite this entire article. I have given some months notice, and since there were no objections I'm going through with it. Changes I'm going to make are:

• Every singe piece of information is going to be referenced. If you want to add something and you don't have a source, even if it is true, tough shit, find a source.
• The article will focus on the "real world" side of the creatures; who designed them, why they designed them, how they built them, what for, where were they featured, etcetera. The fictional side of the character will be condensed into one short section.
• There will be a distinction between what information comes from the movies, what from the comics, what from the books, and so on.
• Most of these pictures are not covered by "Fair Use Rationale" and will be DELETED.

So hold, I'm going to start work now.--Little Jimmy (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Kudos on taking the time to do this. I suggest you take a look at using some appropriate notification templates, such as Template:Underconstruction MickMacNee (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally! We have a savior! lol! Thanks, anyways. I may help. — Enter Movie (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. I could use some help when it comes to citing sources. I have got sources, but I don't know what would be the most professional way to cite them. I'm reading through this guide right now, but any tips would be appreciated.--Little Jimmy (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is barely any information about the Predators now. Pretty much all of the useful information is gone. Who wants to know about crap like design, film portrayals, and special effects and creature evolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.59.153 (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an encyclopoedia, not a fan-site. Even if it warrants inclusion, it was a complete unredable tombe that requires rewriting for perspective and manual of style. Please respect the process started by other editors. MickMacNee (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is awesome work, Jimmy. Thanks for being bold and getting this article back on track. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, here are examples of good character pages: Michael Myers (Halloween), Jason Voorhees, Padmé Amidala. — Enter Movie (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, citing a movie/book IS a proper source.--Marhawkman (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If the "Characteristics" section is going to stay, I'd suggest moving it below "Concept and creation" Mcr29 (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The design and conception is about how the Predators were designed and brought on screen, whereas the characteristics section is purely fictionDark hyena (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work guys! I just logged in now about to start adding sources, and what do you know, you guys already have started and added more information! I would like to thank you all for the support.--Little Jimmy (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no problem! Feel free to add more if you see anything missing. Some refs for the "technology" article would be great. Dark hyena (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well now that you mention it, here's something I would like to add: more precision when it comes to citing sources. As of now we have sources that just say, "It comes from this movie" or "it comes from this book". What our sources should be saying is the exact scene in the film, the precise page and even sentence in the book, and so on. The reason for this is so that we can be sure it is actually a source, and not just somebodies interpretation of a source.--Little Jimmy (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that may be a bit too tricky. I've only read AVP:P, AVP:HP and P:CW, and I gave them away years ago, but I can guarantee, I remember enough to trust what I've written down. The rest, I got from references cited on http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Highrise/7256/. Dark hyena (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think someone should make a "notable predator's" section again to give detail on all the predator characters in the movies,games,comics etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.81.60 (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

for the spamerr who thinks that females are larger there are different sources that source how ever is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.76.220 (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To the spammer who keeps messing up the biology section

"A warrior who would dare such would not be wise, for an insulted and angry yautja female was not something even a not-too-wise male wanted to create. Assuming the warrior was armed and expert, it might almost be an even match, but Dachande would put his wager on the female. His most recent partner had tossed him across a room during the heat of their mating and that had been an accident."

"Yautja females were bigger then males ... It also explained why this warrior was smarter then most of the yautja he taught. Females of any species were usually smarter then the males."

(Aliens vs. Predator: Prey) Dark hyena (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC) hello i am the anonymous user thankyou for the re write and please seperate book in information from movie information e.g which gender is lager and stronger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.76.220 (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be locked for the time being

I mean, the only good contributions in the re-write seem to be coming from registered users. Unregistered users seem to do nothing but delete sourced statements, as if they were fanboys with an agenda against dinosaur slaughter and giant femalesDark hyena (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that the edits in question are "spam". Try discussing the removal of these points on the user's talk page. We shouldn't just go locking articles straight away. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Different picture for the "Film portrayals" section

Currently, we're using Image:6098 16 19.jpg for this section; it's okay, but we could do better. We have images from all the movies (Predator, AvP 1, and AvP 2) with the exception of Predator 2; perhaps we can get one from there? Preferably one that shows off just the predator, rather than a random still of a scene that never appears in the movie (and has horrible color balance). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to find a good pic. — Enter Movie (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's IT!

Clearly, there are some people here who for some reason or other, hate the idea of female Predators being bigger than males, and that Predators killed dinosaurs. Sources have been provided, yet this hasnt stopped these people from making consistent edits of the same points WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION.

So here's the point of this page. Present your case, or quit editing those points until you've read the sources for yourselves. Dark hyena (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not deleting the information, but the reason I think people are deleting that info is because it's not canon. — Enter Movie (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

mabe we should try to differentiate what comes from comics,movies and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.81.60 (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

About canon. A major problem with the Predator franchise is the fact that a canon has never been established; never has a director, producer, writer or whatever come out and officially said, "Only "this" source is canon". While my personal belief is that only the movies are canon and everything else if full of crap (e.g. Predators originating from Earth? Batman and Superman living in the same fictional universe as the Predator? Give me a break), the fact remains that since there is no official word on what is canon, all sources are valid for this article. But this shouldn’t be a problem, because if all the information in this article is sourced, you can check what the source is and then choose if you want to ignore it.--Little Jimmy (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the only canon materials are the films. — Enter Movie (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Silly movie.... There is no canon. Wikipedia doesn't care about what may or may not be considered canon anyways.--Marhawkman (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"I agree. I think the only canon materials are the films"

Prove it. Find one sourced statement by a Predator filmmaker or author stating that.Dark hyena (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, man. I just said I thought. But films are usually the only canon materials (when a piece of work is started out in a film), unless said otherwise by the creator(s)/director/producer or if the franchise is rebooted. It's like saying RoboCop vs. The Terminator is canon to the Terminator universe, but it's really not 'cause it doesn't fit into the timeline. Or that the Chaos Halloween comic books are set within the film's continuity when Halloween: Resurrection directly contradicts them. I mean, do you actually consider Superman & Batman vs. Aliens & Predator to be canon in the Predator universe? Here are quotes from the canon (fiction) article:

Material that is considered canon usually comes from the original source or author of the fictional universe, while (some) spin-offs and adaptations to other media are more likely to be non-canon and fan fiction is almost always non-canon.

Generally, "Expanded Universes" are not considered canonical; by analogy with the idea of a canon of Scripture (see Biblical canon), such stories are considered "apocryphal." — Enter Movie (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Are any of the Predator nicknames sourced?

Just wondering. "Scar", "Celtic", "Wolf" etc... Are they given in the Movie novelizations or something? Dark hyena (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Scar, Celtic, and Gill (or whatever that third Predator's name is) was from the novilization of the first AvP film. Wolf was from the production crew. — Enter Movie (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Then source it--Little Jimmy (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Predator Technology article

I figured I'd be more successful at gaining attention here. The article on Predator technology IS necessary (as far as any Sci-Fi article is) as it is a major characteristic of the species, all it needs is a major cleanup. I can't do it alone. Basically, this is merely an invitation.Dark hyena (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if I did it to the main Predator article, I guess I can do it to the Technology article too. I'll help! Do you have any ideas on how we should aproach this?--Little Jimmy (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My idea is to add stuff like who designed what weapon and it's hitory etc. See my more recent additions there as examples.Dark hyena (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

differentiate

We realy need to differentiate on what comes from the comics,movies,and games becuase the article looks worse than before.Becuase were mixing everything together into one big mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.81.60 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mess? Worse? Well excuse me, but before the rewrite, this article was very nearly deleted. Secondly, THEY ARE ALREADY differentiated. Just look at the references provided! The distinction between comic and film is already given. The provided references remove the need to write something as cluttering as "this was shown in such and such". Just look at the refs, and decide for yourself what is acceptable or not. No filmmaker has of yet stated that the comics and videogames are non-canon. Until then, the book and VG references have every right to be there.Dark hyena (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Earth origin

It seems to me that the majority of angst from fanboys here comes from the "revelation" that predators are Earth natives. But have these guys even read "P;Homeworld"? NOWHERE is it explicitly stated that they definately came from Earth. It is only an idea presented by the comic's main character; Doctor Maya Bergstorm. She merely guesses that the Predators may have some Earth anscestry and that their constant visits were pilgrimages, as well as hunting trips. See? Nothing to worry about.Dark hyena (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Satisfied?

Is this recent edit compromise on "expanded universe" to your liking?Dark hyena (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Its actually much better now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.81.60 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Movie novelizations

Are these considered canon? If so, could someone who has read them possibly contribute to the "official" characteristics, such as biology, culture etc? Do they give any insight lacking in the movies themselves on the non expanded universe Predators? Dark hyena (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider them canon, because the authors are just adding information that either they created themselves or used from earlier drafts of the scripts; there are reasons why screenwriters/directors/producers/studios delete some scenes. The only materials I consider canon are the theatrical cuts of the films. — Enter Movie (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Predator vision

Correct me if I'm wrong (been a while since I last saw it), but in Predator 2, didnt the creature have infra-red vision regardless of whether or not he was wearing a mask? I have this memory of the freezer scene in which the Pred is unmasked and still retains thermal vision... Dark hyena (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Infa-Red is actually the Predators natural vision. The reason why in the first movie the vision was red when the Predator took off its mask was because of all the ambient heat of the jungle. The mask when in Infa-Red vision mode merely acts as filter between body heat and ambient heat. In Predator 2 the reason why there is no "red vision" is because there is not as much ambient heat in the slaughterhouse, rooftop or wherever else the mask is taken off. It was all explained here, but it looks like somebody deleted it.--Little Jimmy (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Appearances necessary?

Is it really necessary to have film appearances? The thought occurred to me when I realised that doing the same thing for the xenomorph article would really clutter it up due to the amount of films. Dark hyena (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a more berief version. Rather than detailing the whole movies, just the Presdators role in those movies.--Little Jimmy (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. The section is essential because it establishes notability, but we don't need to summarise whole movies in it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Back where we came from

So half the article is full of fancruft again. This needs to be beaten back mercilessly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Explain.Dark hyena (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In detail. Marhawkman (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to explain. The Characteristics, Expanded universe and In popular culture sections are all written in a primarily in universe style and are as of now of little relevance to somebody who does not know much about the Predators (hence why they would be reading the article in the first place). These sections do not detail the any of the “making of” side of the Predators; while they detail events that happened in the Predators fictional universe, they do not detail the who’s how’s what’s when’s and why’s about the creative process of this fictional universe. Not only that, these sections are also sparsely sourced. And to top it off, these sections are each vastly longer than the Concept and creation section, which is perhaps the most relevant yet sparsely touched on section in this entire article. That is what needs to be fixed about this article. Remember, the Predators are not real creatures, they are fictional, and that needs to be elaborated on.--Little Jimmy (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)