Talk:Nostromo (spaceship)

Shuttlecraft

As far as I know, the contention that the Nostromo carried two shuttles comes from an early draft of the script and/or the Colonial Marines Technical Manual. Since the film itself obviously overrides earlier scripts, and since the canonicity of the Technical Manual is a matter of dispute, I won't mind if someone reverts this change. On the other hand, all of the "hard" technical specs we have come from the CMTM; if we don't consider that book an authority for the sake of the article, we'll have a very short page indeed.

See also - Nostromo (album)

Regarding the deletion of the "See also" section on 7 December 2006, 01:31: I agree with the deletion of the Haunted House and Event Horizon (film) links (since they are indeed "trivial, loosly connected items") and the derelict link (since it's "listed on the template" at the bottom of the page), but I feel the link to Nostromo (album) should be kept. The album's entire inspiration comes from the spaceship, which makes it directly relevant to this article, and the artist is considered sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. I propose that a link to Nostromo (album) should be included somewhere in this article - in a "See also" section, if there's nowhere more appropriate. --Slowspace 01:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that that link might be more appropriate for the the popular cultural references to Alien article or maybe the Alien trivia section, thanks for discussing.Daniel J. Leivick 03:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already added Nostromo (album) to List of cultural references to Alien#In music, because it's certainly relevant there. But of all the entries in that article, Nostromo (album) seems to be the only one which is completely, specifically relevant to the Nostromo spaceship. That's why I think it also deserves a link in this spaceship article. However, maybe it seems a little odd to have a "See also" section with only one link...? My choice would be to add the link, but if you strongly feel it's not appropriate, that's OK with me. --Slowspace 19:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not completely opposed to linking to the album. I do feel that the "See also" section is not appropriate "Trivia" would be better, it would be nice to dig up a couple more things to put in the section beyond the album. If I have time I will look for something else. Daniel J. Leivick 01:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hardly any of this information is cited

I took out the entire "specifications" section because it's not cited, fancruft, and possibly a copyright violation if the text is substantially similar to any of the spin-off media. Most of the Description section qualifies as fancruft, and none of it is cited, but I don't have the energy at the moment to do a rewrite. --Boradis 21:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"Many moviegoers have often mistaken the four-towered refinery as being the Nostromo"

Then why does the a picture of the refinery, on this page, have a caption saying it is the Nostromo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The picture in the info box is of both the refinery and the Nostromo. The ship itself can be seen at the very front of the refinery. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nostromo in Alien.jpg

Image:Nostromo in Alien.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) 18:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ron Cobb Nostromo(Leviathan) Book of Alien.jpg

Image:Ron Cobb Nostromo(Leviathan) Book of Alien.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) 09:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I don't think this page should be merged as it is too long to not be its own page. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is only long due to its overuse of fair-use images and overly detailed "description" section. The only useful bit, the "design" section, could easily be merged back into the main article about Alien in a section on the film's special effects and set designs. This entire article is unreferenced, and the Nostromo itself is not notable outside of the film Alien, as that is the only film in the entire franchise in which it appears (and it is destroyed at the end of the film). Separate articles about fictional spaceships that only appear in one film are far more detail than Wikipedia wants. Discussion of this ship is only relevant in context of a discussion about the film, so it should be merged back into Alien (film) as there is not enough secondary source material to support a separate article on it. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Second that. There's plenty of good info, but not enough to warrant a seperate article, even when properly sourced. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Nothing is harmed in having a separate article on this space ship if people are truly interested in further detail on it. Of course official policy backs up this viewpoint, i.e., Wikipedia is not paper, but I'm willing to listen to you cite policy that an indicates an article need be of an arbitrary size. --ShaunMacPherson (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)