Talk:Alien vs. Predator (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Old topics on this talk page are automatically archived by MiszaBot after 30 days of inactivity. To view inactive discussions, please see the archive pages. Once an archive reaches 130K in size, a new one is automatically created.
          This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Films     (Rated FA-Class)
Film portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the American cinema task force.
          
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated FA-Class)
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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
          
WikiProject Antarctica / Norwegian Antarctica (Rated FA-Class)
Antarctica portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This page is supported by Norwegian Antarctica work group (marked as Unknown-importance).
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and how best to improve it.
WikiProject Horror (Rated FA-Class, Mid-importance)
Horror
Horror portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film and literature 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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
          
WikiProject Alien (Rated FA-Class)
Alien portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alien, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Alien and Predator science fiction franchises 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Featured article Alien vs. Predator (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Archives
1, 2, 3

Contents

[edit] Assessment/Review being conducted by Mspraveen

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that need to be resolved with a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 19, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS): Pass
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Pass b (citations to reliable sources): Pass c (OR): Don't Know
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused): Pass
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: Pass
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.: Pass
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Don't Know b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Pass
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

[edit] Notes

I. Minor observations about Prose

  • In the Plot section
  1. "Meanwhile, three Predators land and kill off the humans on the surface" - It isn't like chopping off, is it?
  2. "The two ally with each other...and escape to the surface" - Too many pauses in the sentences making it difficult to read. You may consider making it more readable.
  3. "The Alien queen emerges and the three do battle in the vicinity of the whaling station" - do battle?
  4. The editors may please check for the prose in the plot section once again.
User:IllaZilla did so
  • Alien director Ridley Scott had talked with Cameron and thought; "I think it...
  • Use of semi-colon does not seem to fit into thesentence structure.
  • It may be re-written as - ... talked with Cameron and thought, "I think it...
  • Same follows for such quotations in the text.

Done. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • In the Reception section, "It grossed $38.2 million over its opening weekend" - Typo
  • In the Effects and creatures section, use of profane language could be avoided: "Yes, we make you wait 45 minutes, but once it goes off, from there until the end of the movie, it's f***ing relentless". You may see Wikipedia:Profanity

II. Citations

  • If I noticed this right, 2004 Yearly B.O. Results shows the film in 33rd position as against 44th in the text.
  • I doubt if the critics are allowed to view the film in advance. The relevant citation only talks about is about the film's delay in release was costing the movie valuable publicity and coverage by movie reviewers.
  • In the Cast section, "In the novelization of the film the Predators are referred to as "Scar," "Celtic," and "Chopper" or "Gill," though the film's credits list only Scar." and "The Alien played by Woodruff is listed in the credits as "Grid," owing to a grid-like scar"
This appears to me as your opinion unless promptly cited from published sources. You may refer to Wikipedia:No original research.
  • In the Story and setting section, "Five Predators were originally intended for the film, although budget limitations only allowed for three" - Citation needed.
  • In the Filming and set designs, "For the whaling station miniatures and life size sets, over 700 bags of artificial snow was used, which equates to roughly 15-20 tonnes." - citation needed.
  • In Effects and creatures section, "...which Woodruff claims "is what the Predator is all about"" - a direct quotation needs a citation.
  • In the Alien 5 and sequel section, need for citations for the direct quotations.
  1. "kill the validity of the franchise"
This is in the same sentence with another quote and is cited at the end of the sentence. Don't want[1] it like this[1].
  1. "To me, that was Frankenstein Meets Werewolf. It was Universal just taking their assets and starting to play them off against each other...Milking it."
  2. "I think it would be a lot of fun, but the most important thing is to get the story right"

Fixed. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

III. Broadness in its coverage

  • The inline citations refer to the DVD features such as Audio commentary, The Making of Alien vs. Predator. Relevant details about the DVD has to be added to this article.
Done M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So is the case with the soundtrack. A quick search online gave me this webpage.
There isn't enough content for its own section although there is an interview that says who composed the soundtrack so i can briefly mention that. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Managed to scrape what little info their is available to create a section. M3tal H3ad (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Any additional information about the DVD sales, if available, should be added.
  • Director's cut seems 7 minutes longer than the original version. Some information about this, if available, will add to the broadness of the article.
Done M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Were there any special film festival screenings for this film? If so, it should be included to this article.

IV. Fair use rationales

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note, below this review, showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Best regards, Mspraveen (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review. M3tal H3ad (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the following:

In the Effects and creatures section, use of profane language could be avoided: "Yes, we make you wait 45 minutes, but once it goes off, from there until the end of the movie, it's f***ing relentless". You may see Wikipedia:Profanity.

To quote Wikipedia:Profanity:

In original Wikipedia content, a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. However, when quoting relevant material from external sources, rendering a quote as it was originally spoken/written trumps our style guidelines. If necessary, you may indicate that the blanking was in the original quote by saying so in some way outside of the quote, for example by using "[censorship preserved]" or "[sic]".

Thus the guideline seems to explicitly state that the profanity should not be changed. There's no link in the references to the interview itself, so we don't know whether the original source used censorship or not, in which case I don't think we can make assumptions and must leave it spelled out, as it though it were being spoken and directly transcripted without censorship. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Following-up

  • No issues with the usage of profane language as a part of a full quotation. That missed my attention.
  • Avpmovie.jpg still needs the {non-free fair use rationale} template.
Done. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I doubt if the critics are allowed to view the film in advance. The relevant citation only talks about is about the film's delay in release was costing the movie valuable publicity and coverage by movie reviewers. - Was struck off with being addressed?!
The fact that the movie wasn’t screened for critics during the week of its release was the first indication that something was wrong M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • With so many citations going towards the DVD content such as Making of the film and Audio commentary, I assume good faith in skipping to know the veracity of these.
  • Good job on the DVD and Soundtrack sections. Adds breadth to the article now.
  • Were there any special film festival screenings for this film? If so, it should be included to this article. - Not addressed if the editors' research yielded anything.
Nothing i can find as the the crew were rushing to complete the film. There was the standard industry screening and this [1] although it doesn't look noteworthy or reliable. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Anderson chose Kloser as he is a fan of both franchises." - cite needed. A quick glance at the closest reference did not convince me.
The reason why we hired him is that he's such a humongous fan. Again I wanted to go with people's passion for the franchise, their passion for the movies. This guy's a complete Alien and Predator freak. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I hoped to have initiated you with the editors of checking the prose in detail. One more final check yielded me the following:
"Based on an original screenplay written by director Paul W. S. Anderson and Shane Salerno, the two were influenced in the writing process by Aztec mythology, the comic book series, and the writings of Erich von Däniken." - Needs to be re-written.
"As the battle continues most of the characters are killed off, leaving only Alexa and a single Predator to face off against the remaining Aliens." - Use of "Killed off" again.
Done. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"Unbeknownst to the others, one of the Predators is implanted with an Alien embryo." - Keeping the words simple would be apt for an encyclopedia.
Changed to unknown. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Another final check will be done after 2-3 days and a decision on this will be taken. I hope the above notes are considered in you making subsequent improvements. If you have any questions, please do write them on my talk page. Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

  • "Based on an original screenplay written by director Paul W. S. Anderson and Shane Salerno, the two were influenced in the writing process by Aztec mythology, the comic book series, and the writings of Erich von Däniken." - It wasn't addressed and since it was a minor change, I addressed this.
  • I doubt if the critics are allowed to view the film in advance. The relevant citation only talks about is about the film's delay in release was costing the movie valuable publicity and coverage by movie reviewers. - You should consider rewording the relevant text because, in my opinion, it does not really correspond with what argument you provided in response.
I changed this source to one from The New York Times. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In its current version, all criteria for a good article have been satisfied in my opinion, however, I did not emphasize too much on a certain aspect. Despite this, I am glad to report that this article's nomination for a good article has been promoted. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors, who worked hard and for being patient in bringing the article to this status. Congratulations!! Mspraveen (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed review :) M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Daily Habit James Cameron Interview

Why can't the YouTube video on the James Cameron interview not be in the article? For one thing, it is not a copyright violation. The YouTube Terms of Use states this:

D. In connection with User Submissions, you further agree that you will not submit material that is copyrighted, protected by trade secret or otherwise subject to third party proprietary rights, including privacy and publicity rights, unless you are the owner of such rights or have permission from their rightful owner to post the material and to grant YouTube all of the license rights granted herein.

That's on the Terms of use page under 6. Your User Submissions and Conduct. YouTube videos that violate copyrighted works usually get deleted within a week; that video has stayed on for over 1½ years. Also, the video was posted by Jordan Morris, the guy that interviewed James Cameron in that video, works for the show, and obviously had permission to post it up; otherwise, it would've been deleted by now. It's like saying this video, which was posted by universalmusicgroup itself, is a copyright violation, which doesn't make any sense 'cause the company posted it itself. — Enter Movie (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL doesn't prohibit linking to YouTube, but allows it only if the link meets the other external link guidelines, which in 99% of cases it doesn't. In this situation we already have the text transcript of an actual interview, rather than a 12-second byte from the red carpet (hardly an "interview") which only has 1 sentence by Cameron. The interview that's already used as a reference is considered a better link to use than the video because it doesn't consist of rich media and doesn't require plugins for a reader to be able to view it. We also can't make the assumption that if it was copyrighted it would've been deleted. Like with Wikipedia, copyrighted content can stay on YouTube for a long time without anyone noticing it. Yes, YouTube tries to police itself, but the fact that anyone can upload videos to it makes it notorious for copyvio. Therefore common practice on Wikipedia is to avoid linking to YouTube, especially if there is another (official) site with the same or better content. For example, with the Sum 41 video you used as an example, it would be better to simply provide a link to the band's official website or MySpace profile, which has their music videos available for viewing in an unquestionably copryright-compliant manner. Given all that, I don't see the point in linking the video since we already have a transcript of a better, longer interview that has context to it and multiple paragraphs of statements by Cameron. You also can't make the assumption about what Cameron's opinions were at what times, since the YouTube clip has no date on it. The interview already linked states Cameron's views in a much more thorough manner. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
"Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work." The link with the James Cameron interview is undeniably better, but the YouTube link shows a different opinion. But it's still a reliable 12-second interview (maybe the interview was longer). And it's just 12 seconds. I've visited YouTube for a long time and have seen the workprint Halloween and Cloverfield teaser trailers that was taken down within a few weeks. Like I said, Jordan Morris works for the show and the video has been up for over 1½ years. The video has been up since August 11, 2006, and if you click on the video, click more. . . under "About This Video," it has Check out the full video: where you can go to Pt. 1 or Pt. 2 of the full videos about the Pirates of the Caribbean 2 premiere, which was released after the interview with James Cameron on that other link. The point of showing the YouTube link is to show that James Cameron has a different opinion about the film in another interview. — Enter Movie (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that the main issue is that we really have no context on when he said that or where. We can't assume it was done in 2006 or at Pirates 2 or what. We'd have to find a way to mention this without giving it any context, which sorta seems to remove the point. --Bishop2 (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Check out the full videos. It's at the Pirates 2 premiere, and he's wearing the exact same costume as the video he was interviewing James Cameron. And since the Pirates 2 premiere was released after the 2-7-06, that YouTube video is definitely set after that Ain't it Cool News interview. — Enter Movie (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Even so, he never specifically cites AVP either. Only the interviewer does. This just feels too much like more of what we've been dealing with on this article - people who keep wanting to delete the Cameron section because it upsets them... --Bishop2 (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I'm not deleting the Cameron section. I'm adding more info. Anyways, back on topic: Like I've said, in the full videos, he's wearing the exact same costume and has the exact same microphone (and it even looks like it's the exact same crowd) as the YouTube one with the Cameron interview. — Enter Movie (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shane Salerno's credits

There's been a bit of an edit war going on between myself and Truthpolice7 over the wording of the opening paragraph and the "origins" section concerning Shane Salerno's credits on the film. I believe that the following are correct:

Truthpolice7 seems to prefer a different version which I feel is less accurate, saying merely that Salerno "revised" the screenplay and that "Salerno was brought on to rewrite the script by Twentieth Century Fox". The reference that is used in the "origins" section is an interview with Salerno in which he states the following:

I worked on A vs. P for six intense months. I finished its development, wrote the shooting script, stayed on for revisions for cast, final budget and production notes and traveled to Prague to do on set work there. After that, I continued working on it back in Los Angeles when I returned. It was very exciting. I enjoyed working with Paul Anderson, who has a religious devotion to the first two Alien films and the first Predator film.

Based on that, it seems clear that Salerno's role was more than merely being "brought in by 20th Century Fox" to rewrite or revise the script. It seems that he played a major role in co-writing the screenplay with Anderson, and also wrote the shooting script. The situation is somewhat muddled by the fact that Salerno did not receive onscreen credit for his writing in the film itself, therefore he is not listed in the credits or on IMDb. I feel, however, that the article at present explains his contributions to the film accurately and in good detail, and I'm surprised that Truthpolice7, who purports to be trying to bring to light Salerno's role (as if there was some conspiracy to deny him credit), prefers a version that is less specific about his contributions and gives him less credit for his role. Salerno obviously played a major role in co-writing the film, he wasn't merely brought on for rewrites/revisions. I'm hoping that other editors who work on this article will chime in on this and offer their thoughts. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I admit there apparently was a problem with the reference link in some recent versions of the article. I found an older link that worked & fixed the reference there & here. This should help clear it up a bit, as I don't think Truthpolice7 was able to read the interview. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. It was bugging me. I tried to fix it earlier and was frustrated to see it removed; glad it's back. Now, I've seen Salerno described as the "closer" on the film, the last writer who did numerous touch-up re-writes to Anderson script over the course of many months leading up to the final draft. Early script reviews on sites like AICN claimed that he was listed as having done "revisions." I'm not sure if that makes him a co-writer or a re-writer, but both seem reasonable from the perspective of knowing he took an original script and proceeded to alter it multiple times for months. --Bishop2 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cast section

Might I make the suggestion of ditching the cast section altogether and just incorporating the actor's names in the plot section. If they don't all go then it means that the other actors weren't important enough in the plot to need to be mentioned. IMDb already keeps a comprehensive "list" of the actors involved in the film, and MOS films for cast and characters wants real world information in that section, not just plot infor rehashed in a second section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen many other FAs that use the format this article is currently using for the cast section. Of course we're not listing every person in the film, but we're including the most notable ones (certainly any that have independent articles) and providing some bits of exposition that don't really fit in the plot summary. I don't really see any compelling reason to "ditch" the section altogether, though there may be ways to incorporate it into the "casting" section with better prose and real-world context about the most significant casting decisions. Wikipedia and IMDB exist independently of each other, even though we often turn to IMDB as a reliable source for film info. In other words, I can't see removing the section just on the justification that IMDB already has a cast listing. That's essentially saying "this info is already somewhere else on the internet, so we don't need it on Wikipedia". --IllaZilla (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because others do it doesn't make it correct. Many articles have gotten away with things that they shouldn't have, that doesn't mean this should hold itself lower. It clearly states in the FILM MOS, "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" that really belongs in the plot summary." I really don't see anything in the cast section that could not be deduced by simply reading the plot. Actually, we don't turn to IMDb for any reliably sourced info, because IMDb is considered an unreliable source. I'm suggesting removing it because it is unnecessary, and actually discouraged on the manual of style guideline for film pages. If you had the casting information there, instead of in its own section then that would be one thing, but you don't. You have a separate casting section, plus a partial listing of actors in the plot summary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the existence of it elsewhere makes it correct, I'm merely pointing out that there seems to be a precedent for this type of section in many articles which have passed an FA review (see these examples: 1, 2, 3, 4), so maybe it's something we should consider more carefully instead of just "removing it because it is unnecessary". If it's something that's common across many FA film articles, then maybe there's some value to it. The MOS section you're pointing out is a set of guidelines written by WikiProject Films specifically for that project and is merely that: a guideline...one which WP:FILM doesn't seem too feel too stringently about given that many of their FAs have sections like these and others don't. Just because the guideline exists doesn't mean we have to excise the section from this article altogether. I should also point out that WikiProject films has itself rated this article FA, so it doesn't seem that whoever reviewed it had a problem with the cast section in its current state. I'm not saying you're entirely wrong about the section's content, I'm merely saying we should consider other ways of improving the section or merging it with "casting" rather than just cutting it. Could it be improved? Certainly. Should we just delete it altogether? I don't think that we should.
Also, if IMDB is such an ureliable source, why do we provide links to it in the infobox and the external links section? I also see it frequently used to cite casting and production credits, though not in this article. Some parts of IMDB may be unreliable, such as "trivia" etc., but their cast & crew credits come from the films themselves and the WGA, and have a verification process that they go through. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
First, only 300 mirrors the lack of real world information in this article. All the other articles contain real world information in the Cast list section, with Jurrassic Park and V incorporating it more direclty into the list, as opposed to a prose section just below the list. How about it's redundant to the plot section. If you say "merge it with the casting section", then you're either getting rid of the casting section or getting rid of the cast list. You cannot merge and still have two separate sections, that defeats the idea behind "merging".
We've included IMDb for a long time and the only reason it is listed in the infobox and the external links is because of pure habit. IMDb is the first source to be ripped apart when an FAC comes. We cannot determine the reliability of the information they present, because the information they present is given to them by regular editors (like the ones that come here). The difference is that, although any random unregistered person and edit a page here, we actually require the sources to back them up. IMDb has been wrong on a number of films regarding their information, because they fail to actually check sources. Only certain films are actually certified by the WGA on IMDb's pages, not all, and that certification only comes well after the release of the film. If it's on IMDb then it's probably somewhere else; somewhere more reliable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that guidelines should be followed unless there is a good reason to ignore them. From what I can see, the fact that some other articles do it and that you believe the "exposition that don't really fit in the plot" aren't that good of a reason to ignore the fact that the guideline explicitely states not to turn the section into nothing but in-universe information. FILMS doesn't govern FAC process, that's the group of editors reviewing the article to make note of that particular guidance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Queen image

Obviously, we have some editors (or at least one) who really want this image in the article. Per the fair use criteria the image needs critical commentary to be acceptable. The image was first placed in the plot section, with absolutely no commentary at all, but then moved to the special effects section. This was better, but there wasn't anything there that needed an image to better illustrate what was being said. There's a single line about the Queen being made by animatronics and CGI; an image of either isn't necessary unless you have more commentary to support it. Remember, images are not supposed to be eye candy. A statement, "The queen created by computer animation", and then an image that barely even shows that computer animation is not acceptable. The image is unnecessary, as there isn't anything on the Queen's design other then some simple statement that they made a CGI version.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's unnecessary, seeing as we already have a couple of fair-use images used to illustrate the topics (1 for special effects already). Therefore an additional image is extraneous, and it's pretty clearly only being put in as decoration. The article is excellent without the queen image; let's go ahead and leave it out. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] some citations needed

in the opening paragraph: "mostly negative reviews", "wooden dialogoue" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.196.206 (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read past the opening paragraph and into the article body, you will find that they are cited in the "Reception" section. The lead forgoes the citations because it merely succinctly sums up the contents of the entire article. Everything in the lead is cited in the body sections of the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alien_vs._Predator_(film)"
Personal tools