Talk:Extraterrestrials in fiction

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture

Culture Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction High‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horror High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Fiction

This article merges fictional extraterrestrials (such as the xenomorphs) and puported extraterrestrials (such as the Greys). That's not very NPOV, you wouldn't put Bigfoot and Werewolves in the same category because they're both cryptids. The name should be changed back to "Extraterrestrials in Popular Culture"

Gray alien from Deus Ex

Should the Gray alien from Deus Ex Invisible War really be here? The first Deus Ex makes clear that the "Greys" aren't aliens at all, but constructed by MJ12 ("transgenics", much like the Greasels). Search for "Grays" here: http://nuwen.net/dx.html . On the other hand, the design was based on the "gray alien" stereotype, so if the point is to show Grays in general, it might pass. If so, that should be made clear, though. 84.49.88.22 (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, based on your description, that it shouldn't be there, similarities to the common depiction of aliens notwihtstanding. Xihr (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ET202.jpg

Image:ET202.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gray alien

Much more common in ufology than in fiction. placing him here is editorializing that ufology is fiction. i will choose a better rep.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Extraterrestrials in fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060408143706/http://www.iitr.ernet.in/departments/CE/people/faculty/facthtml/ashokfce.htm to http://www.iitr.ernet.in/departments/CE/people/faculty/facthtml/ashokfce.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Single source

Just to clarify, when I started this article it was basically bare-bones, and I'm building it from the ground up. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has a very complete entry and I'm using it as a reference as I build the article, but that's just the first stage. When I'm done with it I will start checking other sources and adding or citing as required, in the end the article should cite several ones, but I'm very far from that point yet. I barely starting with the early XX century, and most of the interesting stuff is still to be included. Cambalachero (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. I would probably have gone about it in a different way (reviewing all sources on aspect X and summarizing them before moving on to aspect Y and repeating the process, and so on), but the end result is what matters. TompaDompa (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

user:Cambalachero and AI image edit warring

This user has been re-adding a terrible quality AI-generated image they generated to the article despite the fact that three users (myself, user:Cremastra and an IP) have objected. user:Belbury supported its inclusion but did not object to my removal; only Cambalachero is fighting for it. Fighting to include your own uploads tooth-and-nail is bad enough but fighting to include AI slop is worse. The article already has a high-quality, iconic illustration of an alien invasion at the very top; it doesn’t need another vastly inferior one just because it represents the stereotypical vision of an “alien invasion”. Dronebogus (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the image in question is inappropriate for the article because it is AI-generated, redundant, and, as you point out, bad quality. (Why are people just standing in eerily militaristic order with an open line down the middle of the road? Is this an alien invasion or a fascist one? – and then there's some weird inexplicable blurs on the sidewalks.) Cremastra (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of you bothered to discuss the image until now, not even when I specifically requested Dronebogus to do so. I may point my concerns about the way you conducted yourself in this whole issue, but let's better jump to the topic at hand.

"High quality" and "slop" are only subjective assesments, and not good ones to consider when discussing images. If an image is AI or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the idea we're trying to illustrate, and if the image illustrates it for the layman with just a vague notion of the topic being written about. There are not good or bad images per se, but good or bad images for specific contexts. There's a reason we don't limit articles to use only featured images, not even during FAC.

The War of the Worlds image can be used at three places: lead image, "Antiquity" and "Types". It is a good image to place in the "Antiquity" section, as it is one of the most influential works of the era. It is an awful choice as the lead image, because it is not the most iconic work of extraterrestrial fiction ever (as in, the first one that people would think about when thinking about the genre). Star Wars, Star Trek, Alien, Avatar, E.T, perhaps Guardians of the Galaxy, have far greater credentials to ask for that honor. But it has to be a free image, ideally with alien-looking aliens rather than human-looking aliens (Spock would not be a good option for that reason) and fair use is not an option here, so I'm not sure yet of the ideal lead image. That's an issue (and the infobox) I was leaving for later, the article still has loads of contents to write about. And it is also an awful choice to illustrate the "Alien invasion" trope. The image is good to illustrate the work itself (and to drive home the idea that yes, this is a very old work we're talking about), but it was created a century ago, during a cultural zeitgeist completely alien to the modern one. A modern reader unfamiliar with the novel may see that image and have a hard time trying to understand just what is that even supposed to be. One of the animated furniture from "Beauty & the Beast", perhaps? When people think about an alien invasion, they do not think in something like that. They think in an ominous starship in the sky and armies of invader aliens marching in the streets. That's why I made the image in the first place. Cambalachero (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That wall of text is really grasping at straws here. And we have a free image of Spock. We also have Daleks and Xenomorphs to illustrate other more iconic fictional aliens, or an alternative illustration or two from WotW that makes it clear that the Martians are hostile alien invaders and not “animated furniture”. Dronebogus (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that File:Generic alien invasion.jpg is not a particularly good image to use here. There are several reasons for this. One if the visual appeal element—which is of course subjective, but if we have a case where we agree that image A looks better than image B, that should be taken into account (call it WP:Consensus or wisdom of the crowd, or just finding an option that is satisfactory to all or most participants). Another is that it is, and is designed to be, generic—if we want to illustrate (some particular aspect of) extraterrestrials in fiction, we should ideally get images that truly are examples of that, i.e. images from some work of fiction or another. I think File:War-of-the-worlds-tripod.jpg works just fine to illustrate the concept of the alien invasion, but in case others disagree I would also be entirely content with File:Amazing Stories 1927 08.jpg. There's also the option of grabbing a frame from the trailer for Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956), since the trailer itself is public domain (similarly, a frame from the trailer for the The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) is used at Mars in fiction#Enlightened); the trailer is already at WP:COMMONS, see File:Earth_vs._the_Flying_Saucers_(1956)_by_Fred_F._Sears,_trailer.webm.

More generally speaking, there are quite a few images from magazine covers that could be used for various purposes in the article (the article currently uses File:Amazing_stories_193010.jpg, and there are many more). I agree that we should want the WP:LEAD image to be clearly non-human, but I would also add that it should be obviously organic and not look like a machine or robot (so not a Dalek, for instance). Here a generic image of e.g. Little green men might be a good idea. Yoda might also be a good idea; there are some images at Commons we could use, though none of them are great. TompaDompa (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]