Talk:Victoria (crater)

Untitled

Get ready people! Almost there!--Planetary 22:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a Victoria on the horizon pan, similar to the one over at Endurance crater as a compare and contrast? I'm a bit concerned about the picture to text ratio once we get there. MER-C 10:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait until we're on the rim, and for the full panorama. It will be much more informative (And spectacular) then faint bumps on the horizon (Rubs hands in anticipation)--Planetary 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Gallery Images

I have decided to replace the anaglyph images. There are a number of reasons for this.

• 1. Anaglyphs have problems with separation of the two views in large (panoramic)images.
• 2. At full resolution images are rather large.
• 3. The images show the size of the raw images. (The sides of these have been cropped to remove portions with single view.)
• 4. One gets a better impression of the distance of the far rim and the depth of the crater.
• 5. There is no rule stating that the images should be stitched. Requiring one is a form of arbitrary rule. Anaglyphs are not panoramas.
• 6. In the future a VR viewer might be required to make the transition from one scene to another seamless.

Also, see the comments on my talk page. --Jbergquist 06:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter for me, as I dont have the 3d glasses necessary to view those, anyway. I prefer color panoramas for this reason, appreciating Mars should be possible for anyone. --Planetary 14:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I occurred to me that some people might like some source material for a slide show on Mars. If the anaglyphs are downloaded and saved they can be viewed like any other image in a default viewer, a photo editor or MS Paint and enlarged and/or moved about for full effect. As for obtaining the red-blue 3D glasses, you might try searching for "3D glasses" on ebay or try the 3D market. The glasses that I have are from scientifics but are no longer available. Someone editing rover pages should have some on hand. --Jbergquist 08:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't. I never do online shopping of any kind, but if I find a physical store with them, I'd get them pretty quick. :)--Planetary 23:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Victoria Close Up

That image is beyond awesome. I don't believe I've seen an image of Mars that showed details like this. The rover and even individual rocks! -- Riffsyphon1024 22:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's Victoria, not Endurance. :) Changed the title for you. It really is incredible, actually. How lucky I am to be alive in this day and age, when modern science can give us such incredible things.--Planetary 23:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Um. Wish I could say something original, but can't. You can even see the rover tracks. Now to actually cut up the HiRISE image to add to the numerous stubs we have around here. MER-C 03:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Notable?

I've been wondering, is mentioning all the tiny craters actually notable? If it weren't on Mars I'd have wanted them deleted long ago. If you think about it, some random little crater out on the plains that Oppportunity visited for only a few days and didn't make any grand scientific accomplishments at isn't going to be talked about in 10 years. Emma Dean crater is the most obvious example, but so is Vostok crater. Eagle is obviously not applicable, but a long list of stub articles on every page about something notable (Meridiani Planum, Victoria crater, Endurance crater, etc) doesn't look particularly encyclopedic to me. Hirise imaging will be the only improvement they ever get, unless somedecade they're worth mentioning on an Opportunity Trail page as intresting place to rest your weary legs. If the new photos are enough to remove them from stub article status, then keep them. If not, remove them. --Planetary 05:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a deletionist somewhat reponsible for the deletion of about a hundred pages a day, yet I'd say they should stay. They're notable locations in their own right (e.g. Emma Dean was the place where they formally determined the nature of the Victoria annulus, and it composed of mostly this stuff). I wouldn't say "Mars rover cruft" yet, that would be if we had an article on every target: be it rock, crater or little patch of soil. MER-C 06:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well then, will those pages ever be full articles, or forever stubs? It's not as if anymore information can be added, but it wouldn't be right to remove the stub tags either. Choices!--Planetary 17:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose they could, if someone put a lot of effort into them and dug stuff out of the PDS. MER-C 03:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I spoke too soon: Category:Rocks on Mars just doubled in size. MER-C 03:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Layout

I had to relegate the anaglyphs to the bottom of the page because for some strange reason the gallery made the references totally disappear. (Here's the old version: [1]). And I had to comment out the traverse map. Oh well. MER-C 12:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Victoria crater on Main Page

Just a quick heads up, the HiRISE image of Victoria will be picture of the day on January 14 next year. MER-C 13:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Page move to Victoria Crater?

What are people's thoughts on a page move to Victoria Crater? We could still keep an entry at Victoria (disambiguation). Is there some manual of style we should be following? --Dgies 18:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most craters on Mars and lunar craters adopt this naming convention. So why fix something when it's not broken? And the official IAU rules say that the crater in Victoria crater is implicit. MER-C 01:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

MER-C is right. Keep it the way it is.--Planetary 00:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)