This template is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System 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.
Template started using the content of Extraterrestrial life#See also and added to each article it references. If you feel strongly that it should not be on your article then take it off the article but kindly leave it on the template. -Arb. (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for this nice template! There are some articles that I don't feel really belonging here. I will remove scientific skepticism as completely unrelated, for example, but I have doubts for example on Area 51): what do you think? Should we maybe find an inclusion criteria? --Cyclopiatalk 14:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Inclusion criteria sounds like a good idea. Any idea how to go about documenting it? I'd been planning to go through the related categories and add any likely looking candidates; inclusion criteria would guide that task. -Arb. (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we explicitly exclude fiction, for the reasons already cited.--Michael C. Pricetalk 22:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree. I have no clear-cut ideas on a criteria. I would include what has a direct relevance with extraterrestral life/intelligence speculation, but leaving out exoplanets (including them gives the idea that they are positively suspected to host life, which is misleading), ufology (which could have a template in itself) and fictional stuff. --Cyclopiatalk 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, exclude exoplanets and UFOlogy. Not sure how we formalise that, though.--Michael C. Pricetalk 23:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
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. Pricetalk 21:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Upon reflection, there might be exceptions. For instance I've left the template in Fred Hoyle's rejection of chemical evolution, since it seems appropriate, even though I removed it from the template, since it seemed covered by panspermia. --Michael C. Pricetalk 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 the Astrobiology template into the Extraterrestrial life template.
2) rename (move) the destination template Astrobiology.
The Wow! 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)
Good change that to "signals". But, I thought it was an artificial satellite. Why is there doubt it was anything more than that? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)