Talk:Venus: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:13, 26 February 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,517 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Venus/Archive 2) (bot← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 01:58, 9 January 2025 edit undoTenebre.Rosso.Sangue995320 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,432 edits Reverting edit(s) by 2001:1970:4C5D:3C00:A032:C97A:812C:2618 (talk) to rev. 1264576242 by Lowercase sigmabot III: Vandalism (RW 16.1)Tags: RW Undo
(719 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
⚫	{{British English Oxford spelling}}
	{{Talk header}}		{{Talk header}}
		⚫	{{British English Oxford spelling}}
	{{Vital article\|topic= Science \|level=3\|class=FA}}
			{{Article history
	{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=FAC		\|action1=FAC
	\|action1date=16:50, 11 Nov 2004		\|action1date=16:50, 11 Nov 2004
Line 39:		Line 39:

	\|maindate=March 28, 2005		\|maindate=March 28, 2005
⚫	\|ftname=Solar System
	\|currentstatus=FA		\|currentstatus=FA

			\|action7=FAR
			\|action7date=2016-06-26
			\|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Venus/archive2
			\|action7result=kept
			\|action7oldid=726222876

			\| action8 = FTR
			\| action8date = 00:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
			\| action8link = Misplaced Pages:Featured topic removal candidates/Solar System/archive1
			\| action8result = removed

			\| action9 = FTC
			\| action9date = 09:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
			\| action9link = Misplaced Pages:Featured and good topic candidates/Solar system/archive1
			\| action9result = promoted
		⚫	\|ftname=Solar System

			\|itn1date=15 September 2020
	}}		}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=FA\|vital=yes\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject Astronomy~~\|class=FA~~\|importance=Top\|object=yes}}		{{WikiProject Astronomy\|importance=Top\|object=yes\|solar_system=yes\|ss-importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Solar System\|class=FA~~\|importance=~~Top~~}}		{{WikiProject Volcanoes\|importance=High}}
			}}
	{{WP1.0\|v0.5=pass\|class=FA\|category=Natsci\|VA=yes\|WPCD=yes\|core=yes\|importance=High}}}}
			{{old move\|date=24 August 2023\|from=Venus\|destination=Venus (planet)\|result=Not moved\|link=Talk:Venus#Requested_move_24_August_2023}}
		⚫	{{notaforum}}
			{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request\|Catfurball\|Important}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
⚫	\|maxarchivesize = ~~190K~~
⚫	\|counter = 2
	\|algo = old(60d)		\|algo = old(60d)
	\|archive = Talk:Venus/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Venus/Archive %(counter)d
		⚫	\|counter = 3
		⚫	\|maxarchivesize = 150K
			\|archiveheader = {{tan}}
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|minthreadsleft = 0
	}}		}}
			{{Annual readership}}
⚫	{{notaforum}}
			__TOC__


	== ~~Semi-protected~~ ~~edit~~ ~~request~~ on ~~19 August 2014~~ ==		== Presence of Phosphine on Venus ==

			The statement "By late October 2020, re-analysis of data with a proper subtraction of background did not result in the detection of phosphine" seems to have now itself been rendered outdated by the original team<ref>{{cite web \|last1=Greaves \|first1=Jane \|title=Re-analysis of Phosphine in Venus' Clouds \|url=https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.08176 \|website=arXiv \|access-date=16 Nov 2020}}</ref> who has now found a smaller amount of phosphine but still seems to have found phosphine none the less. Maybe amending this section to say the status of phosphine is still uncertain considering the multiple contradictory analyses of the atmosphere are now available. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>
	{{edit semi-protected\|answered=yes}}
			{{reflist-talk}}
	Under current and future missions please replace the date "2014" with "2016" when referring to the ESA's BepiColombo mission as 2014 is incorrect with 2016 being the projected launch year. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Reference:
	http://sci.esa.int/bepicolombo/47346-fact-sheet/ <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> ] 18:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

			== Use of narrow gaps instead of commas as thousand separators in science articles ==
	==Main image==
	Shouldn't the main image represent what the planet actually looks like, instead of a false-colour radar image without clouds? <b>]]<font color="#00b">]</font></b> 22:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
	:Perhaps. '''] (])''' 03:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
	::Agreed. I'd like to see it switched back, and plan to do so in the next couple weeks if there are no objections. —<B>]</B> <sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">]</sub> 20:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|Torchiest}} Now that the image has been changed, I started to miss the old one. The previous image is just a surface view from a radar, but it looks so much better :/ '''] <sup>(])'''</sup> 14:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

			According to the Manual of Style, you may use as a thousand separator either a comma or a narrow gap (obtained by using the template <nowiki>{{gaps}}</nowiki>).
	== surface image of Venus ==

			Nonetheless, the Manual of Style also states that grouping of digits using narrow gaps is “especially recommended for articles related to science, technology, engineering or mathematics”. This is due to the fact that it's the normalized way in the international standards (ISO/IEC 80000 and International System of Units), and also it's the recommended style by ANSI and NIST.
	I know the current image shows Venus as it actually looks like, but it is blurry and is low quality. The previous one, although possibly misleading, was much better looking. I would change it back '''] <sup>(])'''</sup> 14:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

			Proposal: Change to format numbers with gaps (i.e. "{{gaps\|1\|000\|000}}" instead of "1,000,000").
	== The HAVOC proposal ==

			Note: I do the proposal instead of changing it myself because, since it's a featured article, I believe it's better to gain consensus beforehand.
	Should the article mention NASA's HAVOC proposal (High Altitude Venus Operational Concept)? A summary by NASA as well as a video can be viewed at http://sacd.larc.nasa.gov/branches/space-mission-analysis-branch-smab/smab-projects/havoc/

	] (]) ~~06:~~11, 19 ~~February~~ ~~2015~~ (UTC)		Thanks. ] (]) 11:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

			:I like the proposal and support it for the reasons given by ]. ] ''(])'' 21:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
	:I don't think a speculative mission belongs in the main Venus article. IMO, the perfect place for it is in ]. ] (]) 06:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
			::I second this. Using a space as a thousands separator is the internationally recommended version, especially when used in scientific works and I believe such an addition would benefit the article. <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:#00008B;background-color:transparent;;CSS">]]</span> 21:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::I don’t see a good reason for this proposal to be here at Talk:Venus. The appropriate place is ]. ] ''(])'' 03:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::Actually, the Manual of Style already states that the recommended style for "articles related to science, technology, engineering or mathematics" is using gaps instead of commas. I proposed it here at Talk:Venus because Venus is an semi-protected article, and, therefore, gaining consensus before applying any change to style is good practice. ] (]) 08:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::You have found consensus, especially considering interested Users have now had more than 48 hours to respond. I suggest you go ahead and implement your proposal throughout the article. ] ''(])'' 20:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
			:This is overall a pretty minor change that I doubt many people would care about, and I currently cannot think of a reason why anyone would strongly object. You're welcome to ] change it yourself, and if nobody reverts or objects it can be assumed that consensus lies in favor of such a change. ]] (it/its) 00:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

	== ~~Venus~~ ~~twin to earth~~ ==		== Retrograde Rotation ==

			There are multiple theories for the reason behind Venus' retrograde rotation, but none of them have reached consensus, so I believe the stated reason is being given too much weight, as the other potential reasons are not even mentioned. Additionally, the associated reference doesn't mention the rotation, at least in the summary. So I'd like to request a Citation Needed or Failed verification tag. More info: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/57 ] (]) 22:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	Venus which is near to the earth, and is not a suitable place to get settled due to high pressure and temperature according to recent research. Some notices about this planet can be studied from this website: . --] (]) 17:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
	:Actually, up in its atmosphere the conditions are relatively benign. The website you point to actually hints to that. --] (]) 17:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:58, 9 January 2025

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Venus article.
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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Venus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Venus is part of the Solar System series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 11, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
May 10, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted
June 16, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
October 15, 2006	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
January 8, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
August 27, 2008	Featured topic candidate	Not promoted
June 26, 2016	Featured article review	Kept
June 13, 2021	Featured topic removal candidate	Demoted
June 20, 2022	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 15, 2020.
Current status: Featured article

This

level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Top‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Volcanoes High‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 24 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Venus to Venus (planet). The result of the discussion was Not moved.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Venus. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Venus at the Reference desk.

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

Presence of Phosphine on Venus

The statement "By late October 2020, re-analysis of data with a proper subtraction of background did not result in the detection of phosphine" seems to have now itself been rendered outdated by the original team who has now found a smaller amount of phosphine but still seems to have found phosphine none the less. Maybe amending this section to say the status of phosphine is still uncertain considering the multiple contradictory analyses of the atmosphere are now available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmesco17 (talk • contribs)

References

Greaves, Jane. "Re-analysis of Phosphine in Venus' Clouds". arXiv. Retrieved 16 Nov 2020.

Use of narrow gaps instead of commas as thousand separators in science articles

According to the Manual of Style, you may use as a thousand separator either a comma or a narrow gap (obtained by using the template {{gaps}}).

Nonetheless, the Manual of Style also states that grouping of digits using narrow gaps is “especially recommended for articles related to science, technology, engineering or mathematics”. This is due to the fact that it's the normalized way in the international standards (ISO/IEC 80000 and International System of Units), and also it's the recommended style by ANSI and NIST.

Proposal: Change to format numbers with gaps (i.e. "1000000" instead of "1,000,000").

Note: I do the proposal instead of changing it myself because, since it's a featured article, I believe it's better to gain consensus beforehand.

Thanks. RGLago (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I like the proposal and support it for the reasons given by RGLago. Dolphin (t) 21:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I second this. Using a space as a thousands separator is the internationally recommended version, especially when used in scientific works and I believe such an addition would benefit the article. _ZZ 'S 21:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see a good reason for this proposal to be here at Talk:Venus. The appropriate place is Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style. Dolphin (t) 03:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the Manual of Style already states that the recommended style for "articles related to science, technology, engineering or mathematics" is using gaps instead of commas. I proposed it here at Talk:Venus because Venus is an semi-protected article, and, therefore, gaining consensus before applying any change to style is good practice. RGLago (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You have found consensus, especially considering interested Users have now had more than 48 hours to respond. I suggest you go ahead and implement your proposal throughout the article. Dolphin (t) 20:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This is overall a pretty minor change that I doubt many people would care about, and I currently cannot think of a reason why anyone would strongly object. You're welcome to BOLDly change it yourself, and if nobody reverts or objects it can be assumed that consensus lies in favor of such a change. Ark Hyena (it/its) 00:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Retrograde Rotation

There are multiple theories for the reason behind Venus' retrograde rotation, but none of them have reached consensus, so I believe the stated reason is being given too much weight, as the other potential reasons are not even mentioned. Additionally, the associated reference doesn't mention the rotation, at least in the summary. So I'd like to request a Citation Needed or Failed verification tag. More info: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/57 172.56.82.224 (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: