This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
An appropriate image needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be updated. Once this has been done, please remove the |needs-image=yes parameter from this template.
It seems in recent years this mission is refered to as Davinci+. Not sure what the "plus" is for, but does this warrant renaming the article? -- Darthdyas (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! The name of the mission was actually changed back to "DAVINCI" by NASA after the mission was selected. I was able to go into the text and delete the "+" off of the name references in the text but I can't seem to change the article title to reflect "DAVINCI" instead of "DAVINCI+"? I recommend that we include a reference that the mission was renamed DAVINCI from DAVINCI+ but that the page now be titled "DAVINCI" because the "DAVINCI+" name is no longer in use (I'm the Deputy Project Manager of the mission and having references to "DAVINCI+" still in public view is confusing some people). Arlin Bartels (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I'm not following the protocol properly. It's been many years since I used my editor account. I'm requesting for the article page to be moved from "DAVINCI+" to "DAVINCI" but I don't seem to have the admin level to make that change myself. I would appreciate it if someone with the proper access level can make the change. Arlin Bartels (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Major fixes needed - mixup of information with the VERITAS mission
There has been some confusion and mixup of information in the article. Information for a seperate mission to Venus called VERTITAS was incorrectly placed into this article. That one is a seperate mission from DAVINVI+. The two missions are related and got announced at the same time, but still different missions with different objectives. The DAVINVI+ mission will study the atmosphere and the VERTITAS mission will study the surface. The content for VERITAS needs to be removed from this article and maybe added to the VERITAS article where it belongs. Or maybe they can be merged into a single page covering both missions? Shortscircuit (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any misplaced information should be weeded out and put where it belongs, but I'm against merging the pages. The missions may be concurrent but they're also discrete. Wikipedia maintains separate pages for Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, for example. Tisnec (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The articles definitely should not be merged since they are completely separate missions. Shortscircuit, can you point out which information in this article is incorrect? --Yarnalgotalk23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is not as much incorrect information as I first thought. Actually it is only in the Objectives section, in the 3rd point for Goals. The information about studying the atmosphere belongs in this article but the information about studying the planet's surface and crust should be in the VERITAS article instead. I think a lot of news coverage talked about these 2 missions together as a pair, which is why this article alludes to both missions. So I suggest maybe the structure and wording of the article can just be changed to remove any allusion that the 2 missions are the same, and so it is clear they are 2 seperate but closely related missions with related goals. This news coverage distinguishes how this difference. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/02/world/venus-nasa-discovery-missions-scn/index.htmlShortscircuit (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to remove the incorrect information and re-structure the article to reflect this as best I can, but if someone with more experience can help to work on this I would be very grateful. Shortscircuit (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I possibly editted out a sentence in error, but I am not sure and either way the wording risked being confusing. I altered a segment that stated that "Before it reaches the surface, the ''DAVINCI''+ probe will take the first ever photos of the planet's intriguing, ridged terrain". The Venera programme was the first to transmit images of the planet's surface, so that statement is at least superficially incorrect.
Having had some time to dwell on it, it strikes me that the original author may have meant (or parroted a NASA press release that meant) that it would broadcast the first high resolution images, or perhaps the first aerial images of the planets terrain (I suspect both would be true statements). If that was the case, please revert and change accordingly. Either way the original sentence stood to be misleading to a uninformed reader who may not be aware of the early Soviet landers and the photographs they transmitted. P.Marlow (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I believe what you said about the original author's actions is right. Multiple articles talk about this point with an emphasis on high resolution and not the first ever. The point is high resolution images will let us study the surface of the planet. This has never been done before because previous missions to the planet happened decades ago before high resolution technology. Shortscircuit (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While it seems NASA has changed the project name from DAVINCI+ back to DAVINCI, as can be seen on the mission list index here, I can't find any sources that say when this happened or what the rationale was. If anybody finds some later, please work them into the article. When/if that happens, this page should probably be moved to DAVINCI, which currently redirects here. Tisnec (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Yarnalgo talk 17:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
