This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Geology of Venus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Geology of Venus received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
(inserted for immediately reaching TOC. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 18:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC))
"Venus no presenta indicios de tectónica de placas, sin embargo, su superficie sí presenta varios patrones geográficos..." and "El activo tectonismo de Venus ha generado cinturones montañosos plegados.." Which one is correct? I would imagine the latter is right, but I just did a straight translation. Fernando Rizo 00:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Do we italizice the names of space probes or do we leave them normal? I'm seeing it both ways in this article. -- Titoxd 23:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Some more... the Spanish version of the article includes a false-color image that is referenced in the "Lava flows and canals" section. Do I just remove those references or should the image be placed on this page too? --Titoxd 00:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
'22% comprises of stereoscopic images' - 'comprises stereoscopic images' is more generally regarded as correct, I think, though both usages are recognised: cf http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=comprise To avoid a grammar war I suggest rewording this as 'including 22% stereoscopic images', or similar :-D --Keithlard 12:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
'Canals' vs. 'channels' - I've changed this because I think 'channels' is the more common usage in English; 'canal' is almost always used to mean an artificial channel (hence the confusion over the mistranslation of Schiaparelli's 'canali' of Mars as 'canals' instead of 'channels', implying the presence of intelligent life). -- Keithlard 15:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. It looks like the names of the books listed under "References" was translated literally from the Spanish Wikipedia article. Shouldn't the references be left as-is? I'm switching them back. -- Titoxd 23:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
"While the most popular theory is that the channels are the result of thermal erosion by lava, there are other hypotheses, including the heated fluids formed and ejected during impacts." - I couldn't find a reference for this, so I took it out. Does anyone else have a source quoting this hypothesis, or has it been obsoleted? While I was looking, I found this very recent paper on theories about the channel formation:
which outlines a new hypothesis, probably worth mentioning. Sorry if I was hasty in removing the ejecta hypothesis, but some of the information in the Spanish article is a bit out of date. -- Keithlard 10:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
So, it looks like we're done with the heavy-duty translating part. Now all that's left to do is to make sure that there aren't any gaps, copyedit, factcheck, and then expand the article so we can nominate it in WP:FAC. --19:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
It looks great! I think this is already the best and most comprehensive of the astrogeology articles. A big thanks to everyone who's worked on it so far, especially those who did the bulk of the translation (it's a slow and tedious process for me with my basic Spanish). I hope I haven't trodden on anyone's well-loved edits, or seemed to be taking over with my constant polishing and rewriting, but I've really enjoyed working on it with you all as my first serious Wikipedia project. I think we're well on the way to featured status. Great work, everybody! -- Keithlard 00:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Excellent images - should we nominate some of them for featured images? — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The Altimetry for Pioneer 12 is stated as "The altimetry data had an accuracy of 150 kilometers." that sound helluva inaccurate, no? Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 11:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to see this as a featured article. I think the main problem is organisation, which seems a bit illogical at the moment. How about this for a TOC to rearrange the article into:
"radar shows that they are rough and have not had time to be eroded down".
I don't think it's a matter of time - more that without water or wind to speak of, there's nothing to erode them down! Is this correct?
Image:Venera 9 panorama.gif 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 Wikipedia: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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Is the first line really encyclopedic? As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.170.20 (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, I do not think it is correctly formulated here:
The reactions probably include the deterioration of silicates by carbon dioxide to produce carbonates and quartz, as well as the deterioration of silicates by sulfur dioxide to produce anhydrate calcium sulfate and carbon dioxide.
One cannot get CO2 from CaSiO3 and SO2. Maybe CO2 reacts with the carbonate appeared in the reaction mentioned before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.226.100 (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a discrepancy in the first section:
versus
Aeolian erosion is the just a fancy name for wind erosion, isn't it? Is there evidence of it happening on Venus, or not? Rojomoke (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If the network of "normal faults" cris-crosses the surface of Venus, then can that network be construed, as some sort of "semi-mid-ocean-ridge" resembling planetological structure? I.e., some sort of "semi-spreading-zone" that "doesn't quite make it", do to the differences, between earth & venus ?? 24.143.65.75 (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The article claims that no probe has been able to survive for "more than one hour" on the surface, whereas the page on Venera_13 says that craft survived for 127 minutes on the surface. One of these two facts is surely wrong? --81.138.8.26 (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
is a new, lovely article that needs to be thoroughly overhauled and meshed with this article. Any Venusophiles got some free time? — LlywelynII 05:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I think this needs a bit more work. The idea of a periodic event is only one hypothesis. This is a recent article on the cyclic event but it's rather techy
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1893.pdf
Others treat it as a one off event. As for the timing of it, this paper says 0.2 to 1 billion years ago and it's a recent paper, December 2014, based on analysing the nearly 1000 Magellan survey craters
http://planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/4932.pdf
One hypothesis is that Venus had less atmospheric pressure before the event and the modern thick atmosphere is a result of volcanic outgassing during the stagnant lid upheaval.
I think it might be good if some of this was mentioned. Robert Walker (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Geology of Venus. 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:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.higp.hawaii.edu/~hamilton/abstracts/coronae.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to remove "soil" from this article, since it's a formally, scientifically recognized term for a mixture of dirt, biogenic organic material and organisms like fungi that supports growth of plants, but user Geogene keeps trolling by reverting it because he thinks errors in publications should be copied regardless of anything. Wikipedia is not a place to mindlessly copy information. Regolith is a broken (subcentimetre particles) material on the surface of planetary bodies, its finer fractions are called gravel, sand, silt, clay. Venus has no soil. That has been proven. We know what kind of place its surface is. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-soil-and-dirt https://www.britannica.com/science/soil Lajoswinkler (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2024 and 10 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Garnet.husky (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Atticusdarwin (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)