Talk:Extraterrestrial (TV program)

Shouldn't red dwarf cover all the sky when seeing from planet?
In movie red dwarf sun doesn't look very big when showing from Aurelia perspective.But shoudn't it cover all the sky? Luminosity of red dwarfs is hundreds of times smaller than that of Sun.So you need to come much closer to get the same amount of heat.It will look way biger than Sun from the Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.228.58 (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

POV
Isn't it POV to use the word "unfortunately":

"Unfortunately the largest non-pulsar planet yet found OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb (as of January 2006), has a mass of 5.5 times Earth's and orbits the red dwarf star OGLE-2005-BLG-390L. And everything smaller orbits pulsar PSR 1257+12."

This is clearly a POV. For example, a creationist would find it good that the largest planet has a mass of 5.5 times Earth's etc... So I suggest to erase the word "unfortunately".

Continental Drift on Aurelia?
If Aurelia had continental drift, then, it seems to me, land life would be a rather unstable proposition. Any creature that left the sea would either go extinct, or be forced to return to the sea, once the continent it was on moved either to the sunlit side or the night side. Likewise, there would be many seas that would drift to one side or the other Nik42 06:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Aurelia-like planets can not have continental drift. They are tidally locked with their parent star due to gravitational effects. For similar reasons, the moon has no plate techtonics. 88.111.122.220 23:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not true. The moon has no plate tectonics because it does not have enough fissionable material at its core and its surf/volume is higher, so it has frozen solid. And besides, without plate tectonics / vulcanism rebuilding the continents, erosion would destroy them in short order, esp. in such high wind/rain conditions. --72.252.40.68 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ripoff of Alien Planet?
I saw this show, I liked it, but I have a feeling that this show is a ripoff of Alien PLanet (love that show) because their release dates were close, and that their about alien planets (I don't hate extraterrestrial). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.226.86 (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The background of the two shows are a little different. Alien Planet is based on a book called Expedition, while this series is an extrapolation of scientist's expetations for the best places to point the TPF telescope (or a future planet finding telescope, should it be launched). Hope that helps. Coricus 04:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Other similar docus?
I have to admit that I really liked those shows. Is there more media available? [Besides "Alien Planet" which is just Sci-Fi] ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Fair use rationale for Image:AlienWorldCover.jpg
Image:AlienWorldCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

More Pictures
I don't want to sound like a illiterate, but this article could have more pics such a ones from wired magazine article on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpc100 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Devastating waves
This hurricane would generate enormous waves in the ocean and the waves would migrate outwards. Oceanographers should test how high these waves would be in the postulated nearby swamps and delta area. They would be wind driven waves and would not reach from the top of an ocean to the bottom like a Tsunami. None the less waves that Earthlings call freak waves might be regular. Simple bacterial and algal life would not be threatened.

Oh my poor little Centaurians! I'm not sure if they can exist. Semi aquatic aliens may be able to breath oxygen dissolved in water and may not be at risk of drowning but they could be dashed to death against rocks etc as easily as humans. I'm going to assume that they evolved round an area like the Mediterranean or Hudson Bay sheltered from the worst waves but conditions would have to remain sheltered for hundreds of millions of years there for complex life to evolve. Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Blue Moon vs Pandora
Has anybody noticed the similarities between Blue Moon and Avatar's Pandora ? Was James Cameron somehow inspired by the National Geographic show ? 200.168.20.35 (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Skywhales
Why are skywhales mentioned in the article? WTF are they? 140.141.218.186 (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whale-like creatures that swim through the sky. 84.198.56.38 (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Video
Doesn anybody know where I can find a video of this show anywhere on the internet, ive searched for about an hour and foundd nothing -.- 60.225.3.116 (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you'll still check this, but I believe that National Geographic has put the whole thing up on YouTube. However, please remember that talk pages should be used for discussion of the article, not the topic of the article. Chris (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Skywhale
It redirects to this article. But there's a 70s band by that name that really should have a page of their own. They're pretty big on prog rock communities. 189.103.69.191 (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Flares

 * Stinger Fans fold up to protect themselves.

That way they expose their actual bodies (the parts with the hearts) to the flares, don't they? It is unclear what Stinger Fans use to protect themselves, whereas Gulphogs use dead Stinger Fans and Mudpods take shelter underground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.169.168.165 (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Aurelia and Blue Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725225706/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com:80/channel/extraterrestrial/ax/main_fs.html to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/extraterrestrial/ax/main_fs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The whole article needs improvement (including a title change)
First of all, this was part of a television documentary, and it should be presented on Wikipedia as such. The article's info on the fictional planets and moons seen in the two existing episodes of the documentary is sound, but the issue is that it completely divorces the topic from the rest of the parent programme. This is severely unencyclopedic. The info on the planets should stay (and be further improved), forming the middle section of the article. The lead-in section should include the basic information on the programme, including a television documentary infobox (it is still available online, though mostly archived). Most of the External links can stay, but there should be some improvement for the sections between the core part of the article and said links.

Finally, this should be titled Extraterrestrial (TV documentary) or Extraterrestrial (Documentary), and the middle section should feature headings such as "Episode 1: Aurelia" and "Episode 2: The Blue Moon". I think it's a much better solution than the currently misleading "Aurelia and the Blue Moon" and forced redirection of Extraterrestrial. Anyone searching for this particular documentary will either not find it or find it in a roundabout manner at best. I fail to see how that fulfills Wikipedia's goals of being informative and accurate.

I'm open to further instructive criticism on improving the whole article. --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

--ZemplinTemplar (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There. I've tweaked the basics. Now it's a proper television documentary article, though still a bit barebones. I'll be working on improving the main body of the article to get rid of any in-universe descriptions left. If anyone has good suggestions for relevant references and links, feel free to join the discussion or add them yourself, where appropriate. Please do not move the article without a good reason. The documentary premiered on television, for which it was first developed. Any mentions of the planetary concepts' reuse in the touring exhibition are fine (it might even deserve its own little section), but we can't keep pretending the television documentary doesn't exist. As a suggestion for the future of the article: If someone only wants to link to the portion of the article that describes Aurelia and the Blue Moon, maybe he could make a redirect to that section of the article.