Template talk:Extraterrestrial life
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This template was considered formerging withTemplate:Astrobiology on3 March 2013. The result ofthe discussion was "no consensus". |
Thank you for this nice template! There are some articles that I don't feel really belonging here. I will removescientific skepticism as completely unrelated, for example, but I have doubts for example onArea 51): what do you think? Should we maybe find an inclusion criteria? --Cyclopiatalk14:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a fictional item, on the grounds that if we tried to include all fictional aliens we'd have to list virtually every SF story ever written. There's still a general link to fictional extraterrestial life.--Michael C. Pricetalk21:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help keep Wikipedia tidy: If you remove an article from the template, please also remove the template from the article.-Arb. (talk)21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor ofCeres (dwarf planet) has objected to the template and removed it. Should it be on the template?-Arb. (talk)22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "Communication" section seems a bit of a mishmash. Would it be better separated into two: "Communication with" (or similar) and "Searches for"? There are sufficient articles to make both worthwhile but there is also the small issue of some overlap between the two.-Arb. (talk)11:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The science dedicated to the search for extraterrestrial life is called astrobiology; currently there are 2 templates on the same subject. I propose:1) to merge all the information from theAstrobiology template into theExtraterrestrial life template.
2) rename (move) the destination templateAstrobiology.
BatteryIncluded (talk)14:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TheWow! signal is of unknown cause or origin, we just have not even the slightest idea what it was, it could have been originated by humans, by nature, or by aliens playing games with us, but we don't know. So, it would be inappropriate to list it in the "misidentified signals" category of the template. To avoid problems, the category was renamed to just "Signals", following the style of the other categories that are named "objects", "bodies", "missions" etc. without attributing any spin. It's much better to keep the category named as "Signals".Sofia Koutsouveli (talk)20:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please, narrow down missions to these there either took place or at a very least are actively developed and already have an allocated funding? There's several missions on a list that are just a proposals, and it's relatively difficult to pick an actual missions between spam of various ideas.
IMHO list should include only an actual missions (as opposite to proposals), with normal text marking completed missions,Italics indicates active missions,(small brackets) text used to indicated launch date of a planned missions currently under development, † sign marking failed missions.SkywalkerPL (talk)09:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
