Talk:Life on Enceladus

Merge[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge, with 2 editors opposed. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Enceladus. There is not enough information unique to this possibility of life on Enceladus to warrant a separate page on the subject. There might, in my opinion, be a page on the more general subject of life on icy moons with subsurface oceans, but the editor (DN-boards1) who created this page on life on Enceladus, and several other very similar pages, has chosen otherwise. Really, we don't need a fragmentation of Wiki into lots of micro pages. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the section on Enceladus should give a short summary and have a {{Main|...}}-link to here with this page going way further into details. --Fixuture (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Enceladus has a readable prose length of 39 kB, which, according to WP:SIZERULE puts it just barely in "length alone does not justify division" territory, but far from "may need to be divided" territory. I can't see anything else that could justify the division of the main Enceladus article. Contents of this article should go into Enceladus#Potential habitability or Enceladus#Subsurface water ocean if they are not already present in those sections. I also support Isambard Kingdom's idea of a general page about the potential habitability of the subsurface oceans of icy moons, which could be quite informative if done properly. A2soup (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well that's assuming an article stays the same length it has at its inception. By this logic people shouldn't create any new articles then as basically all of them are pretty short at start. --Fixuture (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Keep Europa and Enceladus, merge Callisto and Ganymede into a "Life on Galilean moons", with Life on Europa having a small section there while linking to the main article. DN-boards1 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I'm "voting", now, since the creator of the page is also voting. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Cheers.

Merge. Not notable. — kwami (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since the merge discussion was brought up, the page has been expanded and further cited. DN-boards1 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All points still apply, however. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more citations to Life on Enceladus, all of them are already given at the main Enceladus article; indeed, the content at Enceladus is already pretty thorough on this subject, which raises the question of why we need the separate article Life on Enceladus. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What seems to be the most likely way/place humanity might find alien life is "not notable"? Are you serious? --Fixuture (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence has been found to suggest present or past life yet. "Most likely place" is clear WP:CRYSTALBALL. Worth mentioning in another article, but certainly not worth its own article. A2soup (talk)

No evidence has been found to suggest present or past life yet. "Most likely place" is clear WP:CRYSTALBALL.

Well it's the talk page here. This can't go into the article of course - I attempted to explain why this article is notable.

Worth mentioning in another article, but certainly not worth its own article.

Why? I'd say this is some heavy bias on your side. --Fixuture (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Speculation not notable enough to grant a stub relying on WP:CRYSTALBALL. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not just speculations but also scientific findings which are likely to grow within the next years/decade. Speculations should and are marked as such.

WP:CRYSTALBALL says: Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. --Fixuture (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This "opposition" is ridiculous: User "Fixture" goes to the trouble to read transcribe the essence of why we can't make an article based on speculation (WP:CRYSTALBALL), and still he WP:DONTGETIT. I'm done with this and ask for the motion to merge this and all other similar articles made by DN-boards1. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your problem? Are you referring to point #3 of WP:CRYSTALBALL or a different one? I found #3 was the most relevant to this article so I assumed you referred to that one. And #3 doesn't state anything conflicting with this current article. To make that more clear I highlighted that it said "original research" and not "well-founded speculations by scientists concerned with the topic which are marked as such". It even goes on to say "Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions."

Anyway WP:CRYSTALBALL is inappropiate for this article in general anyway as this article is not about the prediction of/speculation about future events but about a subject of ongoing research.

--Fixuture (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll use plain language for those challenged: THERE IS NO DATA. So little green men will be notable, non fringe, non-crystal ball and will deserve their own article when biosignatures are discovered. I can't condense the 5 pillars of wikpedia any further. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is not much content here unique to this page, so what little is there can be merged and redirected to the habitability section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The article title is a false claim. There are no reliable sources proving there is "life" at that location. —Telpardec TALK 08:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]