Jump to content

Talk:Venus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleVenus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starVenus is part of the Solar System series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2005.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 11, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
May 10, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
June 16, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
October 15, 2006Featured topic candidatePromoted
January 8, 2008Featured article reviewKept
August 27, 2008Featured topic candidateNot promoted
June 26, 2016Featured article reviewKept
June 13, 2021Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
June 20, 2022Featured topic candidatePromoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 15, 2020.
Current status: Featured article


Presence of Phosphine on Venus

[edit]

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a proper subtraction of background did not result in the detection of phosphine" seems to have now itself been rendered outdated by the original team[1] who has now found a smaller amount of phosphine but still seems to have found phosphine none the less.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 (talkcontribs)

References

  1. ^ 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

[edit]

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)[reply]

I like the proposal and support it for the reasons given by RGLago. Dolphin (t) 21:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. ZZZ'S 21:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see a good reason for this proposal to be here at Talk:Venus. The appropriate place is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Dolphin (t) 03:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ArkHyena (it/its) 00:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrograde Rotation

[edit]

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)[reply]