This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Content and format
Flowing this timeline's birth pains and near-deletion [1], I took the initiative to WP:Blow it up and start over. I hope other editors join in the collaborative and harmonious effort to create a useful and esthetically pleasant page. Having inspected the timeline of the Opportunity rover, and noted its time-proven format, I strongly favor narrative-like entries, and I open this space for discussion in that regard.
To newcomers, I would like to point out that this (all WP timelines) must be of relevant events and images, and it is not a place to paste every single WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER report on the mission (right: most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion), and note that this timeline is not a diary (WP:NOTDIARY) either. Happy editing and updating, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Sections
I would like to hear from other editors what would be the best long-term section formatting for this timeline. I do not believe creating sections by month is useful, but by driving trajects and study locations. For example:
(you get the point) -Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice job on the re-working, and well past time! This would seem to be an excellent place to start, in terms of organization. Equally as important, this article has gone back to being a community effort. Page protection requests should be used on future anti-community "outbreaks" (persistent reverts on a daily basis), requiring any potential multiple IP abusers to log in. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 01:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Please don't put words into everyone's mouth. The consensus at the AfD was that we don't want separate pages per day for the timeline, but there was no agreement over how to present information on Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory. Deryck C. 13:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
(A bit pointless to have this in two places, but I'll copy my responses here as well for the sake of it)
There was no agreement on how to present it, but there was broad agreement that the presentation as it was was not the right one. The version I reverted was the same one as that during the AfD, which was then reverted by numerous people, and was rewritten and steadily improved upon since. Saying that something is a consensus isn't "putting words into everyone's mouth", it's giving my reading of that AfD and what many people there said. I didn't claim "unanimous agreement" or anything resembling what you read into it. Fram (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Note the lack of difference between the pre-AfD close version and the version of today that I reverted from: [3]. Fram (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The consensus and agreements were (and are) that a timeline is not a diary (WP:NOTDIARY) nor a collection of news reports (WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS). The current -and stable- version is the outcome of several editors, while the old one is the sub-standard product of a single (banned) user who is against any collaboration and against the MOS. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
That's fine to me. I don't have any problems with the revert - I'm just saying the reason Fram cited for it wasn't valid. It's a consensus, but I doubt it's from the AfD. Deryck C. 18:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Habitability?
Planetary habitability goes way beyond the presence of liquid water. Going back at this Martian "wet age", NASA made no mention on the sterilizing solar and cosmic radiation effects, atmospheric pressure, freezing point and boiling point of water, daily temprature variation (rotational axis), magnetosphere, etc. Maybe MAVEN will provide some additional data on the ancient atmosphere.
I wonder if we should specify that the confirmed habitability factors are so far limited to geochemistry.
In the opening line of the status report they specify that scientists "found some of the key chemical ingredients for life" -- That is awsome, but they have to exist in a complex environmental context.
The mission will add information about the duration and diversity of habitable conditions. eg: Not a slam-dunk. Yes, the data (geochemical) is looking good at this crater, but lets not sucumb to the hype and remain objective. -Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I Agree - Remaining Objective Is The Better Road - *Entirely* OK With Me To Reword Relevant Text Accordingly Of Course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
