|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Deletion
- 2 Pic
- 3 The real Martians
- 4 Oppurtunity to create New Article on terminology of life on other planets (NOT LITTLE GREEN MEN!)
- 5 Canals
- 6 Image copyright problem with Image:Mars attacks ver1.jpg
- 7 Merge
- 8 i am so sorry ... i am unable to understand russian .... and i DO really really want to know about a russian boy named Boriska Kipriyanovich
- 9 Move: not primary topic
11/30/04: The bulk of this 'article' was removed because it's supposed information did not match what is currently known to science about the planet Mars or the existance of alien life. In short, quoting something a psychic imagined in a vision is not the same as finding evidence of martian life. Aliens and their cities and belief systems should only be discussed in spectulative terms until such a time as they can be physically proven to exist. A more appropriate approach for this article would be to discuss the various forms of intelligent Martians that have appeared in science fiction books and movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2004 (UTC)
Is this picture from a War of the Worlds cartoon, or is it just another one like the sketch of tripods from the Tripod article? Scorpionman 15:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's from the Classics Illustrated comic book. CFLeon 22:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah...I have that. Someone on The War of the Worlds talk page mentioned an old English film which he couldn't find any information on. I'm wondering if this was a live-action film or an animated one? Scorpionman 03:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The real Martians
there no such things of " The real Martians" and does not exist and just a cartoon just like Marvin the Martian from Looney Tunes blieve me or not? KanuT 16:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- There may be real martians, microbacteria living underground, perhaps, and there will probably be colonisation of Mars in the future by humans. So to place in the article that real martians are only found in cartoons is uncited, unlikely (on an all-time lasting scale), and in general... unsuitable for Wikipedia. ~ 15:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppurtunity to create New Article on terminology of life on other planets (NOT LITTLE GREEN MEN!)
Organisms on Mars are referred to as Martian. What are organisms (e.g bacteria) on the other planets referred to as?
I have often been curious about this, Wikipedia only cites Jovian as life on Jupiter. Where can the OFFICIAL information be found? I may have heard the terms Venetian (Venus), Plutonian (Pluto) and Neptunian (Neptune) used in various books. However on Wikipedia none are mentioned and the latter is referred to only as a fictional race in Futurama! I am just curious for myself, although other people might be as well. So this could be a good opportunity for a Wikipedia user who is knowledgable in Astronomy and Grammer, to perhaps create an article/list or contribute this information to other articles. Please could you let me know if anyone decides to do this as I would be most interested, thankyou. Ryan4314 05:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we have Venusian for life on Venus, and as for life on Pluto, Uranus, Saturn, etc, there are very few recorded instances of reported "aliens" coming from there. I know only of the Space Brothers being reported from the latter two, and an "etherial green energy" (as it's reported on one website) from Saturn and pre white humanoids (like white Grays) from Uranus. As for fiction, Uranian (there's another term) and other Sol system aliens are very rare apart from Martians. As for an article on the terminology of these species, I don't see the need, but instead we could place the adjectivial form of the planets on their pages, e.g:
- As for the article of Neptunians, if you can cite your sources, then there should be no reason against expanding the article to include species in other notable works of fiction. ~ 14:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I agree, I think this information only warrents enough to be added to the planets respective article. Thankyou for adding Venusian (I was unaware of that as you can see above) and Uranian. Is there anyway you can prove it is Uranian though? Some boffins at NASA must've made up an official terminology, is there anyway to find out?
- P.S I assume Terran is used for us? Ryan4314 19:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt that "Uranian" is used for Uranus (that's just the term I use for it), but yes, I do believe that "Terran" is used for Earth (although most commonly by proponents of the UFO mythos and sci-fi producers. In cases like this, French is probably an easier language to use as a Martian would be "Une extraterrestrie de Mars" (or something similar), a Uranian would be "d'Uranus", etc. And as for the Nasan boffs (if only Nasa was a planet...), you could always search on their website. ~ 14:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I may have to consider trying to getting the information from NASA directly. However I will delay it for a bit, to give time for others to contribute to the discussion. You may also be interested in the Talk:Mars discussion, as I've proposed your idea for the opening line. Ryan4314 18:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- NASA's not needed, the names of inhabitants (or rocks or whatever) are the adjective forms of the names. The link above gives the list. The only two problems are that 'Earthing' (or 'Earther') got into the popular media and is now common, and the term 'Venusian' is preferred by many to the more accurate 'Venerian' (Isaac Asimov, in an article, indicates this is due to the connection with 'veneral disease'.) CFLeon 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
There should at least be something about the supposed canals on Mars that led many people to believe that there was some kind of Martian civilization there. 188.8.131.52 21:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Mars attacks ver1.jpg
The image Image:Mars attacks ver1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Opose. The core of the information in both articles are different; this one is focused on fiction, while Life on Mars is a scientific astrobiology article. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Support There is no proof or disproof for either one, so no reason to treat them differently.
Oppose: "Martian" refers to (hypothetical or imaginary) intelligent life on Mars, while "Life on Mars" is (at this point, anyway) restricted to hypothetical unicellular organisms. There's no overlap at the present time. RandomCritic (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
i am so sorry ... i am unable to understand russian .... and i DO really really want to know about a russian boy named Boriska Kipriyanovich
he claims that he is the one of martian that is born on the earth by reincarnation .
here is the link from youtube ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Xcn436tyI
i know that it sounds crazy and this question should not be asked here ....
but i got no way to know about it more .... at least ... there was a link and an article mentioning about him in the version of chinese wikipedia .
for making sure of my consideration , i try to clarify the information .... that is why i leave this message here ...
- This news article is from the english Pravda is a start: Boriska, boy from Mars, says that all humans live eternally.--Auric (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Move: not primary topic
As noted at Mars in fiction#Martians in fiction, fiction about (indigenous) Martians is largely a nostalgia topic. I haven't looked back to see if perhaps treating them as the primary topic for "Martian" was justified when the page was named, by enuf of the other topics lagging behind the creation of this sense that it did outweigh all the others that now exist. But it seems clear, now, that (given that WP:PRIMARY TOPIC does not mean "most popular topic") there is no primary topic for the the word.
--Jerzy•t 00:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)