![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I find the absence of any mention of Velikovsky a bit strange. While his theories have been disregarded as scientific by mainstream science, he has had a large cultural impact, through both his writings and followers (including James P. Hogan and his novel "Cradle of Saturn") and his impact on the sociology and philosophy of science. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see your points. As an aside, I don't think a notable cultural influence would exclude false statements and mythologies. Cultural influences don't have to be positive. ps what does "more crackpot inside baseball" mean? Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The first human spacecraft to enter Venusian space was Venera 1, not Mariner 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.83.196.246 (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Since this has become a point of contention on the article: the IAU defines the north pole as the "axis of rotation which lies north of the solar system's invariable plane". That fixes the direction of north on Venus, which in turn fixes east, south, and west as 90°, 180°, and 270° clockwise of north respectively. By this definition Venus is tilted about 3° and spins retrograde (west to east); the rotational angular momentum has nothing to do with it. There is indeed a competing alternate definition following the right-hand rule that also has many adherents, but surely it makes more sense to follow what is official? Double sharp (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
This should be added to the article... Venus' orbit of 224.7 days = 7.4 avg. Earth months (30.4 days). Venus .7 AU & Mercury .4 AU. 73.85.203.55 (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
"The surface of Venus is often said to resemble traditional accounts of Hell." Often said by who? Please provide one source which describes Hell as having ANY similarities to the surface of Venus other than being "hot". Should we also include this statement in the description of the Sun's atmosphere? Why not? Statement doesn't, imho, stand up to scrutiny. Compare conditions at surface of (sunside) Mercury, Mars or the atmospheres of the Sun, Jupiter, or Saturn (at 1 atm pressure). None of them are pleasant. Statement should be removed: it is not helpful, useful, and lacks any scientific validity.174.131.63.233 (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The new values of brightest and faintest apparent magnitude in the 'infobox' were reported in a peer-reviewed journal article that includes updated equations for computing planetary magnitudes. Those formulas will be used to predict magnitudes for future issues of The Astronomical Almanac published by the U.S. Naval Observatory and Her Majesty’s Nautical Almanac Office. The equations were solved at daily intervals over long periods of time in order to determine the magnitude extremes. The paper in Astronomy and Computing can be located at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2018.08.002.
As noted in the journal article, Venus is not completely dark even during a transit of the Sun because sunlight is scattering forward by the planet’s atmosphere. The value of faintest magnitude reported here corresponds to Venus during such a transit.
The section on 'observations' is rather awkward as it is currently written. For example, the information pertaining to the 2017 apparition of Venus is too narrow and it is already outdated. However, the magnitude values are approximately correct so I did not change them or edit the section in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planet photometry (talk • contribs) 14:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Edited the first paragraph of ‘observation’ section. The mean apparent magnitude and its standard deviation were added. Removed magnitude info for the 2017 apparition because it is too narrow and already outdated. The old quoted value of ’36 days’ between inferior conjunction and brightest magnitude is based on a too-simplistic formula for magnitude and it is incorrect. Furthermore the interval is not always the same due to orbital eccentricity. So this was changed to ‘about a month’.
This article should include... The average distance from the Sun is Venus .7 & Mercury .4 AU. Venus' orbit is 224.7 days which is 7.4 x 30.4 days (avg. Earth month). Along with the 4 primary lunar phases of roughly 7 days (~7.4 days) and the lunar year + 7 day week + 4 days = solar year, these are BIG examples of GOD=7_4 Theory. 73.85.200.142 (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nasa.gov/feature/automaton-rover-for-extreme-environments-aree |title=Automaton Rover for Extreme Environments (AREE) |last=Hall |first=Loura |date=1 April 2016 |work=NASA |access-date=29 August 2017 |language=en}}</ref>
And, possibly, the current status of that proposal should be reflected in the article. It is not currently listed at URL https://www.nasa.gov/missions .
192.118.27.253 (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
How come the main article on Venus includes false-colour images reconstructed from radar data, but does not include actual images of the surface of Venus made by Venera landers? I'm talking specifically about images listed on Don P. Mitchell's website: http://mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogVenus.htm . Some of the images underwent complex processing by Mitchell and are copyrighted by him, as explained here: http://mentallandscape.com/Copyright.htm (although I think he may be persuaded to re-license these under a free license for use on Wikipedia). However, many of the images are original unprocessed Soviet data that are, I believe, in public domain. At least the Russian Wikipedia has approved the use of one of these images: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:Венера-13_-_Цветное_фото_поверхности_Венеры.jpg . Someone smarter than me should clarify the legal status of the original Soviet images of Venus and add them to the article. --46.242.13.224 (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The article does not comment on the theory of Venus’s primal union with and “separation-at-birth” from its earth twin. Or, as some believe, Jupiter. Orthotox (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
MODERATOR: As observed from Earth, Venus has a 40-day regression every ~19 months. 73.85.202.151 (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the lede beginning "Since 1963, claims have been..." speculates on life in the clouds of Venus. As interesting as this is, it seems too speculative for the lede. It's already in the Life on Venus article, why not leave it there until it becomes more than speculation? Sanpitch (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Please add a section that briefly describes terraforming the planet Venus. As well as linking to the full page wikipage referenced as Terraforming of Venus. Thank you. 71.9.12.168 (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The introduction states that “Venus ... never appears to venture far from the Sun, setting in the west just after dusk and rising in the east a bit before dawn.”
As observed from Earth, Venus seems to slowly change its position in the sky in such a way that it either sets in the west just after dusk, or rises in the east just before dawn. It does not set in the west after the Sun and then rises before the Sun the next morning, as the current introduction seems to suggest.
I would suggest to (at least) change “and” to “or”.
Greetings!
Edit: done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobus.nl (talk • contribs) 16:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Despite the prominent banner proclaiming that the article is written in British English, it uses at least two American spellings: "sulfuric" instead of "sulphuric", and "catalog" instead of "catalogue".
Maybe it's time to remove that banner? I think a lot more users worldwide use American English anyway.
AstridRedfern (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
About this edit, first the content was reverted under the excuse that was WP:EGG, then that was OR, and now because "sources are about Venus' appearance, linked WP article is about a goddess" when the whole paragraph IS about the goddess and about her apearance, the links that are already there are indeed about the goddess. Naming different policies to revert my edits every time and ending with a sound explanation in order to keep warring seems WP:GAME. Rupert Loup (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
We usually discuss the problems in the talk page instead of warring
, yes, we do, its called WP:BRD, please follow it. I have reverted back to as edited by CousinJohn (talk | contribs) at 16:47, 21 April 2020, this is the "Discuss" part. It does not matter how many sources you add, Queen of Heaven (antiquity) is not about the planet. It is not about Venus' appearance. It is about Goddess and less than half are even associated with Venus. So it is tangentially related to Venus#In culture (hence that edit). I notice Venus#Early studies and Venus#In culture have redundant material, specifically Inanna. Redundant/off topic material is a reason for cleanup, not adding more (Wikipedia articles should not have redundant material). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
provide etymology — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChandlerMinh (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Inthis source, it says that Venus was also referred to by the Greeks as the "star of Hera", and that the star was identified as/sacred to both Aphrodite and Hera. Any comments on this? 47.72.38.134 (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The image displayed in the infobox is false-color image, using ultraviolet data for blue. Also the comparison is not between old and newly processed views, but two newly processed views, with natural and enhanced contrast. It's all on the description page: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA23791 Szczureq (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect History of Venus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#History of Venus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 11:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The photo in the infobox is not in natural colors, it is contrast-enhanced false color image using data from ultraviolet sensor. Please correct the misleading caption. Szczureq (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, let me be real here. The photos of Venus taken by Mariner 10 are probably the most famous views of Venus around, but I feel they may be a bit outdated.
Would it be possible for us to use something from another mission, such as Venus Express, Akatsuki, or MESSENGER? Or are there no full-disk color views from these spacecraft? TheWhistleGag (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This edit requesttoVenus has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Astronomers have recently found the presence of Phosphine in the Venus's atmosphere, which is usually an action of microbials activity, hinting to the existence of a living organism. However these studies have not yet been confirmed. Sana Ismail (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
In the 3rd paragraph, someone should change the word "bacterias" to "bacteria", as bacteria is the plural and bacterium is the singular. So "bacterias" is incorrect.
136.49.255.70 (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
This is an important discovery and should be prominently included on this page, with the necessary caveats that this is only a potential biomarker and indicates that Venus may host living organisms. The comparison is with the discoveries on Enceladus which are of what is rather less strong a biomarker than the phosphine on Venus which is prominently mentioned in the lead of the article. Similarly the mention of the possibility of life on Mars is also mentioned prominently on the page in the leading section. FOARP (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Is there a policy on “trivial” information? I would like to include it somewhere, so could you aid in placing it in the article.Manabimasu (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding:
Sulfur dioxide + water is sulfurous acid (H2SO3), not sulfuric acid (H2SO4 - sulfur trioxide + water).
Also, why is it necessary to talk about hydrate? Aren't they chemical compounds?
--Mortense (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
In 2019, during her doctoral thesis, Yeon Joo Lee discovered that the light absorbance of the upper cloud layers was consistent with the presence of microorganisms. A few months later, in September 2020, and inspired by her work (and the 1967 work by Carl Sagan and Harold J. Morowitz), an article in Nature Astronomy announced the detection of phosphine gas, a biomarker, in concentrations higher than can be explained by any known abiotic source.
I believe that in time this will become one of the most influenced discoveries in our times. Since Yeon Joo Lee was the first to find evidence, and since in all major sources only the last research is mentioned, I think we must stop a historic mistake, a huge Matilda / Mathew effect, an injustice before it's too late. Only proper mention of Yeon Joo Lee here and in all other major articles in the Britannica of the modern age can prevent. I'll be grateful for any kind of help to mention and edit paragraphs in all Wikipedia (especially the Russian one), for the sake of history. עידו כ.ש. (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Let's also be clear that there is no evidence that the discovery by the team at Cardiff led by Jane Greaves was inspired by Yeon Joo Lee's discovery. They appear to be separate pieces of evidence. The Cardiff project was already ongoing in 2017 (that's when the observations on JCMT were taken) so it is hardly possible that it could have been inspired by something published in 2019. this is not to say that Yeon Joo Lee shouldn't be credited for what she did discover - but she did not discover the phosphine biomarker and we should not say otherwise. All of this should also be governed by the overriding fact that life itself has not been discovered on Venus, and that the prime importance of the phosphine is at present we do not know of any abiotic explanation for it being there - in comparison, for other discoveries (including Yeon Joo Lee's) potential abiotic explanations have been offered. It may well be that there is also an abiotic origin for the phosphine and we just don't know what it is. FOARP (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
This statement
is quite misleading as it depends on what "closest" means. Basically, the usual definition (if there is one) means that the entire orbit (of Venus is this case) is closest to the entire orbit of the Earth. In that sense, Venus is closer than Mercury. The definition of closest as "which planet is closest to Earth on average" is essentially (mathematically) equivalent to "which planet is closest to the sun" and yes, Mercury is closer to the sun than Venus - of course, and - therefore - in that definition, Mercury is closest to the Earth. However, as the definition of ‘closeness to Earth' is equivalent to 'closest to the sun' it's better to just use the latter. Conversely, it makes sense to use "orbital closeness" as the measure of closeness to Earth. For the article, I propose to remove the statement, but insert a footnote to clarify. Any objections? Bjohas (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
This article no longer meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Unsourced statements and unreliable sources should be cited, removed or replaced. DrKay (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
If Venus is "the second-brightest natural object in Earth's night sky after the Moon", what is the brightest one after the Moon? ps I looked through the archives. Re Velikovsky, I don't think it is right that Wikipedia treats an article about a scientific subject differently from any other article. --142.163.194.162 (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit requesttoVenus has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article preamble claims that "Venus has been a prime target for early interplanetary exploration" because of its proximity to Earth. However, the concept of "proximity" is not well defined for objects that are in constant relative motion with each other. If one calculates the average distances over long periods of time the "closest" planet to Earth is in fact Mercury (source: simple back-of-the-envelope calculation), but Mercury is by no means the easiest planet to access from Earth (source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget). Moreover, the right time to initiate a trip from Earth to Venus is not when they are at their closest.
I recommend changing that line to mention low energy requirements and frequent transfer windows as a motivation for Venus's accessibility. I would avoid mentioning Delta-V explicitly as it would be somewhat off-topic Alobazombie (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
For instance, the second sentence of the first section's first paragraph reads: "It is named after the Roman goddess of love and beauty." The etymology of the planet's name is less important than its physical characteristics, and therefore should be placed after the physical characteristics have been introduced, such as in the third paragraph. But even this paragraph is problematic, as the language used in it is unjustifiably strong and broad. Also, the proper nouns morning star and evening star should not be in bold.
![]() | This edit requesttoVenus has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The percentage of a Venusian year versus day is 0.92 not 1.92 as shown. 24.95.90.252 (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I suggest changing: "The planet is bright enough to be seen in a clear midday sky[140]" (Observability section). Reason: The link in footnote 140 does not use the term midday, rather it says "broad daylight." To say "midday" somewhat implies Venus could possibly be seen then which is astronomically impossible, as it is never seen more that 3 hours before sunset or after sunrise. If indeed, theoretically, it's bright enough to be seen at midday, we need a source for that information, which footnote 140 is not. It could very well be otherwise, but in any event, the information given should match the source, i.e. change "midday" to "broad daylight."
Water activity in Venus's uninhabitable clouds and other planetary atmospheres Mapsax (talk) 00:49, 1 July 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)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kwerralye-pule. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Kwerralye-pule until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
It is not on here 2601:402:4401:7750:E176:8683:1B2F:355C (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
For some insane reason, the best image we have, made by MESSENGER probe while on its way to Mercury, can't find its way to the title. Someone is contantly putting up ultraviolet, false colored image and even redacting the explanation that it is not visually realistic. Do we now need a consensus to display realistic stuff? Venus is one of the celestial bodies that hardly any laymen knows what it looks like because it's been systematically portrayed in false colors without any kind of annotation for decades, together with omitting any notion of true color images. Is it such a big deal to show the reality of it? Why does it have to be "instagrammed"? Venus looks like a gray-white ball with hardly any features. That's it. If someone doesn't like it, that's their problem. Lajoswinkler (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Venus lies within Earth's orbit, and so never appears to venture far from the Sun, either setting in the west just after dusk or rising in the east a little while before dawn.
Regarding the emphasised text above: This suggests that Venus never can be circumpolar. Utfor (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
However, I have later encountered some "deviations" as follows:Most of the time, Venus is either a morning star or an evening star, when it rises in the east a little while before dawn or sets in the west just after dusk, respectively
Is this assumed to be known to the reader, or would it be advantageous to state it clearly? Please let me know if you have any comments or any desired refactorings of the proposed text. Utfor (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
It is most easy to see Venus in broad daylight during the time between when it is most brilliant in the evening or morning sky, approximately 37 days before and after it attains inferior conjunction, and when it is at greatest elongation east or west of the sun, which occurs approximately 70 days before and after it attains greatest elongation.
The current image of Venus in the infobox is cropped. Is this the only one we have of Venus in "natural" light? Surely we can do better? Praemonitus (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, I often find hatnotes to be useless padding that take up lines better spent on the article. However, since this hatnote has been discussed already in AfD, I didn't immediately revert it:
I don't believe it is useful since "second planet" is highly unlikely to be ambiguous. I strongly suspect that it violates WP:NOTAMB. Praemonitus (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay, this is probably a bit trivial of me, but I find myself in (good faith!) disagreement with Praemonitus. They feel that Venus being the 3rd smallest planet is a detail best left out of the lead, and dealt with elsewhere in the article. I feel that its size and position in the list of planets (2nd from the sun, 3rd smallest), which were originally in the lead, constitute sensible key information that should remain. The best way to solve this disagreement would be a further opinion or two. What's the consensus? Elemimele (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Didn't that happen after Venus lost its oceans? The current page is out of date with the current research 69.174.155.5 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This edit requesttoVenus has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
173.61.148.96 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Remove the s*x word it’s offensive
![]() | This edit requesttoVenus has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the paragraph, "A statement was published on October 5, 2020, by the organizing committee of the International Astronomical Union's commission F3 on astrobiology, in which the authors of the September 2020 paper about phosphine were accused of unethical behavior, and criticized for being unscientific and misleading the public.[232][233] Members of that commission have since distanced themselves from the IAU statement, claiming that it had been published without their knowledge or approval.[234][235] The statement was removed from the IAU website shortly thereafter. The IAU's media contact Lars Lindberg Christensen stated that IAU did not agree with the content of the letter and that it had been published by a group within the F3 commission, not IAU itself." This is not about Venus but academia politics and I don't understand why there is an entire paragraph on it when the IAU itself does not support it, borderline defamatory towards Greaves and her co-authors.
Second point, in the following paragraph it says Phosphine was not detected after the re-analysis, this is incorrect, it reduced the estimate to a range which could be explained by abiotic processes. Please check all the papers published after the re-analysis and fix this.
Thank you. Starstranded (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The lede includes the following statement:
Well that isn't quite true as demonstrated by the Parker probe's 2020-2021 visible light images of the surface.[1] I.e. the surface can be viewed on the night side at long (red) wavelengths of visible light. How should this be re-written? Praemonitus (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Makes no sense 2603:7080:7F00:A71D:6413:D2B4:D740:D1E5 (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
In archive 3--- some mocked the description and asked for references. In literature of the 1960s/70s after it was found to be 800+ degrees F....it was indeed quite usual to call it hellish.
https://www.cnet.com/science/venus-is-hell-but-science-is-seriously-looking-for-life-in-its-skies/
https://spacenews.com/is-venus-a-living-hell-conversation-with-astrobiologist-david-grinspoon/
Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Maintaining this article is more difficult than necessary because of the extensive gunk in the form of inline citations and notes. It would be much simpler if the citations and notes were transferred to the reflist template containers. I'd like to propose making this migration happen so this FA can be more readily kept up to date. Does anybody object? Right now it's a mixture of inline references with references in the templates, so it would just be a matter of migrating the remainder. Praemonitus (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't the lead image show the whole planet, instead of part of it being cropped out? SevenSpheres (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
"The atmosphere obscures the surface of Venus, as it has the highest albedo in the Solar System, and sulfuric acid clouds cover the planet." The clause talking about Venus' albedo is in the middle of a sentence about its surface being obscured; this should be edited to read easier, or else be two sentences. 128.138.167.235 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The same source that we cite to say that Venus' sidereal day is 243.0226 Earth days on average also states that there is a 20 minute variation in the length of the day. This implies that significant changes in the atmosphere's angular momentum are being transferred to and from the planet. I didn't see this mentioned in the article, and this seems to be a significant abnormality that should at least be mentioned somewhere. 107.196.29.81 (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
"While Mercury comes more frequently close to Earth as well as Venus." What is this trying to say? It doesn't sound like proper English to me. Dionyseus (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This edit requesttoVenus has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change This Venusian sidereal day lasts therefore longer than a Venusian year (243 versus 224.7 Earth days) to Therefore a day on Venus is longer than a year on Venus. A sidereal day on Venus is 243 Earth days but a year is only 225 Earth days (243 versus 224.7 Earth days) SmartEagel (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
as many have seen I have been editing the lead. I tried to give it a structure and thread, to guid a common star gazing person to the more complex issues and details.
Now the lead has been heavily restructured and edited in almost completly one edit, without any notes. While I also could do better writing edit notes, writing none doesnt tell qhy it was done. Since the lead has first undergone by me and now in this one edit so much change I thought I would here go through why what has/had its place and structure, and why it might have been changed now again.
So lets start with the first paragraph. My previous para, and I think also before, focused on a description by size and I focused it then more nuanced on its appearence. This made sense to start with since star gazers will be the main people to look up Venus and Venus' importance in Earth's sky is more of a long standing issue than its atmosphere, as it focuses now. So I tried to take the starting description by size to make it into a comparison and relation to Earth paragraph. First giving an ideao of how ig roughly differs and that its similarities are and have been important. Furthermore the size gave also an opportunity to make the appearance in Earth's sly of Venus easily understandable, while not omiting that Venus has this strong atmosphere, but in the first para still focusing on what that means in relation to Earth.
I get why the new lead version focuses on the atmosphere, since its its very strong characteristical feature. This is also the strongest part for me of the new version, but I still dont think that it is the right content for the first para, instead of the second, sonce as I said most teaders will want to straight know for example if Venus is the morning star and why, and how it compares to Earth. And I say that as someone who thinks Venus' atmosphere is the most intersting place for any near future spaceflight projects.
Venus is the second planet from the Sun and the only terrestrial object in the Solar System other than Earth that has a substantial atmosphere and is almost as massive and large as Earth. Like Mercury, Venus orbits the Sun always closer than Earth, resulting in it appearing in Earth's sky always inferior (close to the Sun) and at night as either a "morning star" or "evening star". Venus appears in Earth's sky also as the brightest natural object, aside from the Sun and Moon, due to its proximity to Earth and the Sun, its large size and high albedo.[19][20] These prominent appearances of Venus in Earth's sky have made Venus a classical planet, a common and important object for humans, their cultures and astronomy.
— Version 1
Venus is the second planet from the Sun and has the thickest atmosphere of any of the Solar System's terrestrial planets. With an atmosphere mostly made of carbon dioxide and sulphuric acid, Venus experiences a strong greenhouse effect, resulting in a mean temperature of 737 K (464 °C; 867 °F) at the surface. With a surface atmospheric pressure 92 times higher than on Earth, carbon dioxide at these conditions is at a supercritical phase of matter. Venus has no natural satellite.
— Version 2
Now onto the next paragraphs.
The second new para is about the surface, as a logical step after the atmosphere I agree, since that was also the logic of the previous version after the second para about the atmosphere.
Venus has a weak induced magnetosphere, but retains a thick atmosphere of mainly carbon dioxide, which creates a strong greenhouse effect. This results in an intense mean temperature of 737 K (464 °C; 867 °F) at the bottom of the atmosphere, where the thick atmosphere reaches a 92 times higher atmospheric pressure than Earth has at its surface, turning the air into a supercritical fluid. At the bottom of the atmosphere lies a terrestrial surface of volcanic origin. Water might have formed oceans on Venus before runaway greenhouse effects increased the atmospheric temperature, evaporating the water, which subsequently also disappeared from the atmosphere.[21][22][23] The dense atmosphere obscures the surface of Venus, covering the planet with opaque clouds of sulfuric acid that give it the highest albedo in the Solar System. The possibility of life on Venus has long been a topic of speculation, particularly in the clouds of Venus, featuring layers of more Earth-like conditions at roughly 50 km altitude, but despite recent indicative research, no convincing evidence has been found thus far.
— Version 1
At the bottom of Venus's atmosphere lies a terrestrial surface of volcanic origin. There are very strong evidence from changes in atmospheric composition and imagery that there is current activity on Venusian volcanoes. Despite so, most craters in Venus's surface are in pristine condition, indicating weak geological activity on the surface. Without data from reflection seismology, the internal structure of Venus is largely uncertain; inference from other planets hypothesize that Venus has a core, mantle, and crust. In the past, water oceans is hypothesized to have existed on Venus before runaway greenhouse effects increased the atmospheric temperature, evaporating the water, which subsequently also disappeared from the atmosphere.[19][20][21]
— Version 2
Both versions contain the volcanic origin, while the old version does so only in one sentance. I do like the love that has been put into describing its geology and its history. While some of it might be intersting, I do though think it is by far too much and in the end too vague for that length, since it basically says it is volcanic but not much has been found out yet.
The last bit about the ocean is mostly the same as it was used in the old version and depends more on how the wording fits the location of the sentence in the lead.
In the old version on the other hand the whole second para focuses on the characteristic atmosphere and goes into depth about what it might mean for xenobiology and how Venus has starkly different environments depending on elevation, an exciting dynamic object of research. Furthermore I tried to structure the lead to explain yet again why it differs and how to Earth, while only hinted to I start the para with the magnetosphere, which is critical to describe how the atmosphere lacks what Earth has (water).
To move on, the third para was allmost one with large parts of the fourth, since it focused on orbital and rotational descriptions.
Venus is a planet without a moon (like Mercury),[24] and rotates (like Uranus) in a retrograde direction, meaning against its orbital motion, making the Sun in the sky of Venus move from its west to its east. With Venus' rotation being slowed by its strong atmospheric currents, to a sidereal rotation period of 243 Earth days, the longest of all the planets of the Solar System, and combined with rotating in a retrograde direction, solar days on Venus have a length of 117 Earth days,[25] just about half as long as it takes Venus to go around the Sun, having a solar year of 224.7 Earth days.[26] While Mercury stays on average closer to Venus or Earth than does any other planet to either,[27] the orbits and inferior conjunctions of Venus and Earth are closer than those of any other pair of planets in the Solar System, approaching each other in synodic periods of 1.6 years. The gravitational potential difference and delta-v needed for orbital transfers to Venus from Earth, is the lowest than to any other planet from Earth. This and the proximity has allowed Venus to be the most accessible interplanetary destination and often an attractive gravity assist waypoint for interplanetary missions. In 1961, Venus became the target of the first interplanetary flight in human history, followed by many essential interplanetary firsts, confirming in 1970 Venus' inhospitable surface conditions with the first soft landing on another planet. Crewed missions to Venus have been proposed particularly as gravity assist flybys for crewed missions to Mars, but also to enter the atmosphere of Venus and stay at cloud levels with Earth-like pressure, temperature, radiation and gravitation. Currently robotic probes are studying and will be sent to study Venus, having been providing crucial knowledge particularly about greenhouse effects, informing predictions about global warming on Earth.[28][29]
— Version 1
The new version of the paras do focus on the same roughly, but mix in some random peculiar info like the orbital dust or reduces the possibility of life to material of fiction.
Venus rotates in a retrograde direction, meaning in reverse of most planets' rotation motion, making the Sun in the sky of Venus move from west to east. With Venus' rotation being slowed by its strong atmospheric currents, to a sidereal rotation period of 243 Earth days, the longest of all the planets of the Solar System, and combined with rotating in a retrograde direction, solar days on Venus have a length of 117 Earth days.[22] The time it takes for Venus to orbit the Sun is about twice as long, having a solar year of 224.7 Earth days.[23] Venus's orbit contains a dust ring-cloud and is the closest to circular among all planets. Venus only has a very weak induced magnetosphere from the solar wind. Because of its reflective atmosphere, Venus is third brightest natural object in the sky. Venus has been known to humans as the "morning star" or "evening star" since the prehistoric times. The possibility of life on Venus has long been a topic of speculation and is shown in many past fiction works. In 1962, United States's Mariner 2 spacecraft was the first to successfully flyby Venus. Concurrently, from 1961 to 1984, the Soviet Union had launched 16 Venera spacecraft; among them were the first to successfully orbited, floated on Venusian atmosphere and landed on the surface. Due to the close proximity, high gravity and low change in the spacecraft's velocity needed, Venus is an attractive gravity assist waypoint for interplanetary missions.
— Version2
So alltogether I must say I do not see much gain, except that I get why you would want to put the special atmosphere in the first para, but that was also the case in the old version and it didnt reduce the atmosphere to its stereotypical hellish description, but instead gave it the space and own para it deserves.
I do though understand to give volcanism more space, but its difficult since not much is know as the new version points out mostly.
Last but not least its fair enough to mention Venus' use in fiction, but then again I think cultural importance as bright sky object should be given more attention. Its human exploration also shouldnt revolve around the space race who-came-first/most, but rather on what it ment to space flight and what it still means.
Speaking of, while I agree the old version could be worded more compact I did try to create a thread for the new reader to how and why humans explore Venus.
Thus I will be audacious and bring back the old version and I will then bring in some of the new content and look forward to discussing how and why what should come in or go.
Nsae Comp (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)/Nsae Comp (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Venus is the second planet from the Sun. It is a terrestrial planet and the only one of the Solar System with a substantial and thicker atmosphere other than Earth. Venus is the only Solar System object whith a size and mass close to Earth's. Orbiting the Sun, next closer than Earth, inside of Earth's orbit, makes Venus an inner planet of Earth, appearing in Earth's sky always close to the Sun in inferior position and subsequently (like Mercury) as either "morning star" or "evening star". Having a high atmospheric albedo, and together with its size and proximity to Earth and the Sun, makes Venus in Earth's sky the natural object with the highest maximum brightness after the Sun and Moon.[1][2] These prominent appearances of Venus in Earth's sky has made Venus a classical planet, a common and important object for humans, their cultures and astronomy.
Venus has a weak induced magnetosphere, but retains a thick atmosphere of mainly carbon dioxide, which creates a strong greenhouse effect. This results in an intense mean temperature of 737 K (464 °C; 867 °F) at the bottom of the atmosphere, where the thick atmosphere reaches a 92 times higher atmospheric pressure than Earth has at its surface, turning the air into a supercritical fluid. At the bottom of the atmosphere lies a terrestrial surface of volcanic resurfacing origin, with active volcanism, but lacking more active geology like Earth's Ocean moderated plate tectonics. The internal structure of Venus is largely uncertain; inference from other planets hypothesize that Venus has a core, mantle, and crust. Water might have formed oceans on Venus before runaway greenhouse effects increased the atmospheric temperature, evaporating the water, which subsequently was blown into space by the solar wind.[3][4][5] The dense atmosphere obscures the surface of Venus, covering the planet with opaque clouds of sulfuric acid that give it the highest albedo in the Solar System. The possibility of life on Venus has long been a topic of speculation, particularly in the clouds of Venus, featuring layers of more Earth-like conditions at roughly 50 km altitude, but despite recent indicative research, no convincing evidence has been found thus far.
Venus is a planet without a moon (like Mercury),[6] and rotates (like Uranus) in a retrograde direction, meaning against its orbital motion, making the Sun in the sky of Venus move from its west to its east. With Venus' rotation being slowed by its strong atmospheric currents, to a sidereal rotation period of 243 Earth days, the longest of all the planets of the Solar System, and combined with rotating in a retrograde direction, solar days on Venus have a length of 117 Earth days,[7] just about half as long as it takes Venus to go around the Sun, having a solar year of 224.7 Earth days.[8]
While Mercury stays on average closer to Venus or Earth than does any other planet to either,[9] the orbits and inferior conjunctions of Venus and Earth are closer than those of any other pair of planets in the Solar System, approaching each other in synodic periods of 1.6 years. The gravitational potential difference and delta-v needed for orbital transfers to Venus from Earth, is the lowest than to any other planet from Earth. This and the proximity has allowed Venus to be the most accessible interplanetary destination and often an attractive gravity assist waypoint for interplanetary missions. In 1961, Venus became the target of the first interplanetary flight in human history, followed by many essential interplanetary firsts, confirming in 1970 Venus' inhospitable surface conditions with the first soft landing on another planet. Crewed missions to Venus have been proposed particularly as gravity assist flybys for crewed missions to Mars, but also to enter the atmosphere of Venus and stay at cloud levels with Earth-like pressure, temperature, radiation and gravitation. Currently robotic probes are studying and will be sent to study Venus, having been providing crucial knowledge particularly about greenhouse effects, informing predictions about global warming on Earth.[10][11]
References
Jakosky
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Hashimoto_et_al_2008
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Shiga_2007
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).NASA_2019
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Castro_2015
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).nasa_venus
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Newitz 2013
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Dorminey 2018
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Please fix "witht" and add a space to "carbondioxide". Thanks! 99.58.165.77 (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm requesting to rename the article «Venus» to «Venus (planet)» as it is more accurate. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
The article has been locked for 10 years, apparently against vandalism. Have the vandals gone yet? 81.77.76.140 (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
There's no citation for the (extremely implausible) claim about the cause of rotation. At minimum, there are several possible causes, and there is no consensus. See astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/26 81.77.76.140 (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Could the image used for venus be updated to this NASA reprocessed of Mariner 10 https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/2524/newly-processed-views-of-venus-from-mariner-10/?category=planets_venus as a visual spectrum image or the infrared view from Akatsuki. https://www.planetary.org/space-images/venus-in-infrared-from-akatsuki-2
It is subjective, but I find those more visually appealing than the current MESSENGER probe one. 184.162.10.80 (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
– There's a pretty good argument that there is WP:NOPRIMARY by either pageviews or long-term significance. In terms of views, the planet is somewhere between 3 and 4 times as popular as the goddess, which is not definitive for primariness given the goddess also gets a high amount of views, and also considering it's the primary landing page for typing "Venus". The planet is also named after the goddess, who continues to be of high cultural interest even in the modern day as a symbol of love, beauty and subject of numerous artistic masterworks. See also Mercury (planet). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
substantially greater enduring notability and educational valuebecause it's more durable and important than other topics. It's also
much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought. Per WP:DPT, the planet scores about three times as high as its nearest rival (Venus (goddess)) on page views, on incoming links and on search results. WikiNav shows less than 8% of Venus readers clicking through to the goddess, and an unmeasurably small number continuing to the dab. Being a clear primary topic, WP:TITLEDAB advises us to keep the planet at the base name. Certes (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The "Temperature" item in the right-hand sidebar is very misleading, stating it as 232 K, with a parenthesized explanation describing it as a "blackbody temperature". Exactly what this item is saying should be much clearer, so someone does not glance at it and take it as some temperature of the planet, given it is merely a calculation of what the temperature could be, the calculation including the effect of the albedo (of clouds in the atmosphere) regarding how much energy the planet receives (but not including the effect of these clouds on outgoing radiation). Possibly the heading for this temperature could be "Equilibrium Temperature" and the parenthesized note could say it includes the effects of albedo. Also, the linked cited source is no longer online, but a copy in archive.org could be linked. 74.69.160.254 (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This edit requesttoVenus has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the third paragraph, second sentence I suggest removing “the longest in the solar system”. This appears to be a description of the Venusian solar day length of 117 Earth days. While Venus does have the longest rotational period at 224.7 Earth days the solar day on Mercury (176 Earth days) is longer than the solar day on Venus (117 Earth days). Pcw20th (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Venus. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Venus. until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Hottest planet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Hottest planet until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The editnotice is for British English, but it should be for Oxford English. IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 10:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Science.nasa.gov/venus/facts says on Venus "sunrise to sunset would take 117 Earth days"
How do I reconcile that with the Wikipedia statement that the length of a solar day on Venus is 116.75 days? 71.191.49.80 (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
This section contains the following text: "Venus's small induced magnetosphere provides negligible protection to the atmosphere against solar and cosmic radiation, reaching at elevations of 54 to 48 km Earth-like levels." It's a bit unclear what this is referring to; is it saying that the radiation levels on Venus at an elevation of 48-54 km are similar to the radiation levels found at the surface of Earth? Or is it saying that the radiation levels at Venus's surface are comparable to those at 48-54 km above Earth's surface? I'm hoping someone can reword this to be a bit more clear. Lumberjane Lilly (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Since the original article is not editable. I have to voice my confusion about the material presented in this section. "Venus is the third brightest object in Earth's sky after the Moon and the Sun, therefore it has been important in human culture. Venus was the second planet to be visited by humans, with the first flyby by the Mariner 2 probe in 1962, the first atmospheric entry by the Venera 4 probe in 1967, the first successful landing by the Venera 8 probe in 1972 and the first orbiting probe by Venera 9 in 1975. As of 2024, there is no active probe on Venus, though it is a subject of three missions as a gravity assist waypoint." Specifically"Venus was the second planet visited by humans..." Humans have never set foot on another planet. Let alone one that is over 800° F. It may have been explored by humans but not visited, as per the definition from the Oxford Language Dictionary, which states "to go see and spend time with". No one went and saw or spent time with Venus. It was visited by probes not humans. I think it's an important clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:C900:17D0:54A4:C20B:FC96:8833 (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The lead now consists five paragraphs, which is too long per MOS:LEADLENGTH. As this is an FA article, it needs to be held to a higher standard so a reduction to four paragraphs is necessary. I attempted to tag it as such, but the tag was reverted without attempting to address the issue. The lead was of the correct length prior to [edit], so my recommendation is to restore the original lead and go from there. Praemonitus (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This edit requesttoVenus has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "The phosphine was detected at heights of at least 30 miles above the surface," to "The phosphine was detected at heights of at least 50 kilometers above the surface," Gwilio (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This edit requesttoVenus has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the section "Orbit and Rotation," it says "Venus has no natural satellites. It has several trojan asteroids: the quasi-satellite 2002 VE68 and two other temporary trojans, 2001 CK32 and 2012 XE133." While none of this information is incorrect, 2002 VE68 was given the name "Zoozve" on February 5, 2024. I think that 2002 VE68 should be referred to as Zoozve, since that is now its name.
Can someone check today's major changes in the lead of this feature article. The editor keeps reverting reverts I make to their large edits on planetary and other Solar System articles so can someone else take a look? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)