Talk:Life on Europa

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Life on Europa redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Astronomy: Solar System

	Astronomy portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
	This redirect is supported by Solar System task force.

Biology Mid‑importance

	Biology portal Life on Europa is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with Europa (moon) on 10 June 2016. The result of the discussion was merge.

Merge

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 no consensus. MartinZ02 (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Europa (moon). There is not enough information unique to this possibility of life on Europa 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 Europa, 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) 13:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the section on Europa (moon) should give a short summary and have a {{Main|...}}-link to here with this page going way further into details. --Fixuture (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Europa (moon) has a readable prose length of 27 kB, which, according to WP:SIZERULE puts it solidly in "length alone does not justify division" territory. I can't see anything else that could justify the division of the main Europa article. Contents of this article should go into Europa (moon)#Potential habitability or Europa (moon)#Subsurface ocean if they are not already present in those sections. A2soup (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (copy-paste from other talk page). Well that's assuming an article stays the same length it had 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]

You misunderstand: I am talking about the guidelines for creating spinoff articles from the main article for the topic, not about creating new articles from scratch. Europa (moon) is the main article about Europa and this is clearly a spinoff article. There is a preference for keeping all information about a subject in the main article until the main article gets too long. I am arguing that according to the guidelines for how long is "too long", Europa (moon) is nowhere near too long, so we shouldn't be making spinoff articles, but rather incorporating the material into the main article. A2soup (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - User DNBoards needs to understand and collaborate in the project instead of pushing his fringe quote mining. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, that's your perspective BatteryIncluded, I could as well ask why you aren't collaborate and helping to build up this article. Why do you think he's doing fringe quote mining? --Fixuture (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if DN-boards1 next writes an article about the speculation of the Moon being made of cheese, I should tag along? He did it with Mercury, and specifically left out the critical info that there has never been life there. When he understands the gist, he will have support instead of policing. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Merge Callisto and Ganymede into their respective parent articles, keep Enceladus and Europa due to having enough material for separate articles. With Europa and Enceladus being generally considered the best bet for life besides Earth (along with Mars, Titan, and Venus), those two should be kept, with Callisto and Ganymede merged. DN-boards1 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a difference between having enough material and enough information. The information is nearly zero and it only indicates of potential habitability. Quoting hundreds of references stating the same speculation/hypothesis does not make the information any deeper nor relevant. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, publicity announcements issued by agencies and reprinted in newspapers and magazines are not especially reliable sources. They are not, for example, typically peer reviewed. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough information to get this article to considerable length by going a bit further into the details than the Europa (moon) article does. Both a higher level of detail and more info on the current stance and well-founded speculations (which need to be marked as such) by scientists concerned with the topic are of high interest to the public. In addition to that wouldn't you expect that there's going to be more information coming by time? --Fixuture (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I'm "voting", now, since the creator of the page is also voting. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:21, 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 Better served in the main article. There isn't much to cover. If and when we have a Europa mission to search for life, or an orbiter chances to find evidence, then we'll have something worth dedicating an article to. — kwami (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But we do. Two of them. JUICE and the Europa Multiple-Flyby Mission. Neither has been launched yet, though. Juno's on its way and should get there next years, maybe by chance it'll stumble upon something. DN-boards1 (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the spacecraft have found evidence (or even arrived at Jupiter) yet, so WP:CRYSTALBALL is relevant here. A2soup (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A2soup did you read the article? Of course it's not about life that has been proven to exist on Europa but about the research/potential of life there. --Fixuture (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami argued that the topic you describe (research/potential of life) is not notable since there have been no missions searching for life yet and no evidence for life yet. DN-boards1 responded that we do have two missions searching for life and they may find evidence. I responded that per WP:CRYSTALBALL, DN-boards1's response to kwami is not a valid argument since the missions have not begun yet and no evidence has yet emerged. A2soup (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there is valuable info and discussion about (potential) life on Europa nevertheless. I'm getting the impression you people wouldn't want an article on that topic despite the high public interest and the existent material until life has been proven to exist there. And that is just ridiculous and the reason why WP:CRYSTALBALL is inappropiate here: it's not a requirement for this article that life has been proven to exist on Europa. As a sidenote: people will google this topic and have the choice between watching some semi-scientific BBC documentary or whatever, reading one of the many articles on that topic of which none truly summarizes this topic and half of them being of mediocre quality and reading a Wikipedia article which summarizes the current stance of things on this topic in an informal way. Which options would you want to give them? Those missions and their intentions should also be summarized in this article, as well as anything else that's of importance/relevance to the topic of "Life on Europa". The papers in the "further reading" section alone contain enough summarizable info to warrant this article and to get it to an sufficient length. --Fixuture (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is trying to remove the content from Wikipedia: this discussion is about merging and is not at AfD. The redirect would remain after merging, and any content not already in Europa (moon) would be moved there. I just think the content would be better in the main Europa article rather than here. There are several reasons for this: 1) a separate and underwatched "Life on..." article has strong potential to develop into a POV fork where speculation on habitability and possible life is overreported and given too much weight, and 2) the information is better understood in the context of other information about Europa's geology, exploration of Europa, etc. A2soup (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missions to Europa have nothing to do with notability. Sources that discuss the possibilities do. --JorisvS (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this topic passes WP:GNG due to the large number of writings on the topic. The Europa article can certainly have a summary, but the detail should be in this, otherwise the parent article becomes too bloated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You !voted to merge at Talk:Life on Enceladus-- what do you think is different here? A2soup (talk) 23:50, 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 08:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe you grasp the scope of this article. The "Life on" articles - with the exception of Mars and Venus, where life being present is considered the fact by about as many astrobiologists as there are that don't - are about speculation. The article is named that BECAUSE all the other such articles are. You're not quite grasping the scope of the article, my friend. DN-boards1 (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you serious? Did you even read the article? It's about the research about potential life on Europa. --Fixuture (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am aware there are proposed astrobiology mission to Europa, and am also aware that any info derived from them would be available in 13 or 20 years at best\, so it is premature to create an article based on the same speculation (even if from 100 sources). We already toned down 3 of your sensationalist "life articles", and in my opinion, this stub still stands only because the planet actually has a habitability potential. Again: at this point of knowledge, a concise subsection in Europa with high quality references on its habitability potential should suffice. Merging the key concepts and papers is not censure, is responsible editing. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Coverage of academic speculation is fine, why fragment the information? It's going to be seen by far more eyes in the main article. Also fragmenting subjects into stubs risks permanent deletion per WP:BARE WP:PERMASTUB WP:TOOSOON.--Savonneux (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppoose. There is enough material available to go beyond what should be said in the parent article.

Comment It's been a month. Someone wanna close this with No consensus? Because that's what it seems like to me. --DN-boards1 (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The article is capable of further expansion, and I believe that will be happening in coming months and years. I also agree a close is called for, and I see no consensus to merge as well. Jus da fax 12:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this is already well-covered in the main Europa (moon) article, and will continue to be because the speculation about life there is the only reason it's an exploration priority (sorry, but you know it's true). If you move that stuff over here, you'll have two half-articles, instead of one quality article (Europa) and this, which seems to be a stub about some hypothetical mission that may or may not ever fly. Geogene (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Those who want to expand the article should have the chance to do so. Life on Europa is not a established fact, but neither is Life on Mars, which hasn't stopped WP having an article about the speculation and the research.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I feel the need for them to merged mainly because the article is only eight sentences in total. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 03:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Habitability ≠ life

In his characteristic style, user DN-boards1 still won't get the scientific terminology straight. Assessing the satellite's habitability (inert physical environments) is not "looking for life". This page, again misrepresents the sources into falsehood. A waste of electrons having to cleanup after this guy daily. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A) "this guy" is a girl.

B) Looking for life is also a priority. The EMFM and JUICE are both partly looking for habitability and partly for life. It's not just habitability. DN-boards1 (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're not at all 'partly looking for life'. At most the chemical composition will be assessed, which is squarely part of investigating habitability: if the chemical composition is right, its habitability is higher (i.e. chance that there is life is higher), but it says nothing about whether there actually is life. --JorisvS (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert by Isambard Kingdom

Let's discuss the revert by Isambard Kingdom of my expansion of the very short section titled "Plumes." The referenced source is quite clear on the current status of the possible plumes, and giving that information improves the article, in my view. The edit summary is of additional concern, in my view, as it certainly can not be considered welcoming to a first-time editor to the article. Jus da fax 13:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you. Jus da fax 13:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removal of article tags

I'm not seeing a valid basis for the tags at the top. Though still very short, the article is well-referenced, and I suggest we remove both tags. Jus da fax 13:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. I've removed them. --JorisvS (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

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. MartinZ02 (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Life on Europa be merged into Europa. The content in the Life on Europa article doesn't contain any information not already covered by Europa, and the Europa article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Life on Europa will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. MartinZ02 (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support And I hope this time around, commons sense will prevail. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.