Talk:Venus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Velikovsky

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)

In Wikipedia we give priority to science when writing about natural phenomena or planets. As you acknowledge, Velikovsky -a psychologist- was and still is disregarded and discredited in astronomy & planetary science, in part because of his use of comparative mythology. If I had to chose one single reason to not mention him here, it would be WP:FRINGE. A lot of high quality science and data are being obtained on Venus, and it is difficult to select and update the info from the vast number of publications available. Clouding actual information with mythology and novels does not serve. Perhaps his work can be mentioned elsewhere in a more appropriate context/article dealing with mythology, beliefs, and catastrophists. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to include a mention of him here under the "culture" section? Not as an alternative scientific viewpoint. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

There would have to be some overall noted cultural significance to Velikovsky re: Venus. Not seeing it [1][2][3]. Velikovsky is more crackpot inside baseball, not something you would see in a general article on Venus. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. A notable cultural influence excludes false statements and mythology. Consider that even Carl Sagan decided to address the public and warn against Velikovsky's statements. I see no need to perpetuate his pseudoscience and mythology in this particular article. Perhaps you can expand the section at Catastrophism that deals with his writings. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:43, 27 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)

crackpot = eccentric; impractical. Velikovsky presents a prosaic case but it has nothing to do with the real world and has never been practical. "inside baseball" as in you would have to be a Velikovsky fan to even know he had views related to the history of Venus. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Americans taking credit again

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)

Perhaps you should read the articles on Venera 1 and Mariner 2. Venera 1 was the first to fly past Venus, but it returned no data. Mariner 2 was the first successful encounter with Venus. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

What are west and east on Venus?

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)

Of course. I see no problem with your reverts. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The question was raised by User:Alexey Muranov, who seemed to be going by the notion that "west", at least as far as the Earth is concerned, is the direction opposite to the direction of the planet's rotation. At least, that is what I understood his objection to be. Perhaps he will clarify his position.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

In fact, i didn't know that North and South make sense on planets other than Earth either. I've seen afterwords that on NASA sites the terms are used for other planets of the Solar system too. I think it would be quite appropriate to include in the Cardinal direction article, for example (if there is no better place), a definition of North and South for all planets of the Solar system, and to link there from here. --Alexey Muranov (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

In any case, the Double sharp's explanation that "north is well-defined as towards the north pole - the one above the ecliptic" does not make (much) sense, because there is no "above". --Alexey Muranov (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, I was speaking loosely; really I should have been saying that the north pole of each planet in the Solar System is the one in the same celestial hemisphere, relative to the invariable plane, as Earth's north pole, which is the IAU definition. This is already at poles of astronomical bodies and axial tilt. Double sharp (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Venus' orbit of 224.7 days = 7.4 avg. Earth months (30.4 days)

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)

Hell?? You gotta be kidding

"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)

I agree; and it has a religious suggestion. Deleted. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

If it is there, would everyone's version what Venus compares with their religion should be added. Support deletion. Jim1138 (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Amen. Titus III (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Updated magnitude range

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)

Changes to magnitudes in Venus 'observation' section

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’.

I like your more concise version. Please use edit summaries when you make an edit, though. And sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will be substituted automatically with your username and date. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Venus .7 & Mercury .4 AU. Venus' orbit is 224.7 days = 7.4 x 30.4 days (avg. Earth month), GOD=7_4 Theory

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)

No because that is a non-notable coincidence. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Dead reference should be revived using Wayback Machine

<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>

-> https://web.archive.org/web/20190408090226/https://www.nasa.gov/feature/automaton-rover-for-extreme-environments-aree/

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)

The cited reference still works. Try again. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Surface photos

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)

If we have access to any of the Venera images, those should be given priority placement for sure. also, on a related note, I think all false-color radar images in the article need to be labelled as such, especially the one of the size comparison with Earth - this image is very misleading, since it compares a false color image of Venus with a real photograph of Earth. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I second that comment! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.118.63.109 (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I third it, and I've started a discussion about this topic at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Images of the surface of Venus. Past discussions both here and on Commons have established that these images are not free and also that Don Mitchell doesn't have the right to freely license them since they belong to some Russian government agency, maybe Roscosmos. But that isn't my wheelhouse and if you have different ideas about the copyright status, that discussion would be a great place to bring them up. A2soup (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Origin of Venus

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)

Venus 40-Day Regression

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)

Speculation on life on Venus in lede

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)

•  Done -I agree. Undue weight to this speculation, especially in the introduction. Rowan Forest (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Terraforming of Venus

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)

Clarification in order?

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)

British English?

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)

Queen of heaven

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 note the major problem first, like an easter egg link. But that does not mean there were many other problems, such as a link to an unrelated article (WP:OR), a claim not found in the sources provided (WP:V), a claimed quote "bright Queen of Heaven" not found in any source. The Waerden source and quote is not a description of a goddess and just because the quote (and the 5 other sources you added) are similar to a Wikipedia article title are not a good rational to link the article, Wikipedia article titles are not a reliable source and only 3 of the 7 goddesses listed in the article have an association with Venus. The paragraph IS NOT about the goddess / her appearance, its about "Early studies" of the planet's appearance. Goddess / appearance is covered in Venus#In culture, such as Babylonian - "divine lady, illumination of heaven" so moving the material there. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

We usually discuss the problems in the talk page instead of warring. The paragraph starts with "Though some ancient civilizations referred to Venus both as the "morning star" and as the "evening star", names that reflect the assumption that these were two separate objects, the earliest recorded observations of Venus by the ancient Sumerians show that they recognized Venus as a single object, and associated it with the goddess Inanna. Inanna's movements in several of her myths, including Inanna and Shukaletuda and Inanna's Descent into the Underworld appear to parallel the motion of the planet Venus" and Waerden content is a continuation of that. Warden states that the Babylonians belived that "the planet Venus was considered to be visible manifestation of the great Goddess Ishtar." The sources that I presented talk about the very same tablet and about the planet Venus, I don't know where you get that they are not talking about the planet when they said "The babylonians were the first to realize Venus was both the Morning Star and the Evening Star [...] The Babilonians Called Venus the bright Queen of Heaven" and "The clear implication is that a record was kept of the correlation of Venus' significant astronomical phases with important events in the king's life. [...] This is only natural for the planet was, after all, the visible representative in the sky of Inanna, the queen of heaven". So the paragraph is about the goddess and about the planet because it is about ancient astronomy which was not separated from religion at that time. The very sources that were in the paragraph before my edits state that. Rupert Loup (talk) 08:38, 28 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)

How is redundant? You are not demonstrating how it is not about the planet when the sources say otherwise, so it's your opinion WP:OR. The concept of heavens/sky in ancient Mesopotamia symbolised both physical and metaphysical concepts. In the Sumerian language, the words for heaven/sky and is An. The studies of Venus at those times were not separated from religion and they belived that Venus was the Goddess. They were not studing separated things. Rupert Loup (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

> they belived that Venus was the Goddess. They were not studing separated things.

This sounds like a synthesis or OR to my ear. At any rate, the relevance of Sumerian theology to the planet is a bit questionable. My intuitive feeling is that most readers will see this as a tangential factoid that has little bearing on why they are reading the article (but I am open to being corrected on that). Archon 2488 (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Archon 2488: see Inanna#As the planet Venus and its sources. I didn't create the paragraph by the way, if theology should be moved from it to the section about culture it should be moved as a whole including the mentions of Inanna and her myths. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You know, I think that I can use the content that is there to improve these sections. Rupert Loup (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The article you link is specifically about that aspect of Sumerian mythology which tangentially relates to the planet. This article is specifically about the planet, i.e. primarily from a scientific perspective, with a brief summary of the planet's significance to different cultures. So to my reading there's a huge contextual difference between the two articles – they are written for different audiences. As Fountains says above, too much content that is off-topic is likely to provoke a cleanup. I don't know enough about the ancient religion you mention to comment usefully on that, but I do have a feeling that its relevance to this article is tenuous. There is no way that this article can justify detailing every ancient culture's views on Venus, because it is too great a departure from its primary purpose. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Archon 2488: I used the content in that article and moved the information about Sumerian religion to the corresponding section about culture. Rupert Loup (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

provide etymology — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChandlerMinh (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Venus (mythology)#Etymology Rupert Loup (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hera associated with Venus?

In this 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)

New images

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)

"History of Venus" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Infobox image

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)

•  Done -- Kheider (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are we still using Mariner 10 photos?

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)

I think the issue is copyright, Wikipedia has a very strict image use policy. Are the photos from Venus Express, Akatsuki or MESSENGER license free? or Copyright free? If you can prove it than you can add it, or you can ask for somebody with image experience to add it in. However, you make a good point! Hope this post helps!MaximusEditor (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE! I just went to Mercury's article page and they are using images from MESSENGER, so perhaps there are images of VENUS on wikicommons or maybe floating around the internet that are license free, I will try to look into that.MaximusEditor (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2020

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)

What on Earth do you mean not been confirmed. It was peer reviewed for years before it's official announcement and will likely be further repeated. You need to justify why we should say they haven't been confirmed. Confirmed by who? IronyMaam (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also WP:FORUM Dylsss (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

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)

Phosphine discovery

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)

I don't see that extant life is mentioned at all in the lede of Enceladus, maybe I'm just missing it. I'm meh on a separate paragraph in the lede here for the phosphine; it seems a little breathless given that the report hasn't had much time for scrutiny yet. In any case we should be more cautious than pop-science type coverage. We also don't need to repeat the finding three times in the body of the article. VQuakr (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The discovery of complex chemistry in the geyser plumes is mentioned in the lede of the Enceladus article. The study is peer reviewed and in a reputable journal, and involved observations using more than one array, but of course there can always be more study of the issue and no-one is saying this is a discovery of life per se. No great issue with your other edits. FOARP (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This keeps getting removed from the lede. Can people please stop doing this without discussion? When the head of NASA says it's an important discovery, then it's an important discovery until the weight of scientific discovery says otherwise and definitely not "over-hyped". No-one is saying that there is definitely life there, only that we have discovered a biomarker there for which there is no known abiotic explanation and life may be present. FOARP (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed it warrants a sentence, but with less hype than is communicated in this version. VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It's an exciting discovery and I hope they follow up on it, but there have been other discoveries that hint at the possibility of life. This one didn't come out of nowhere and wasn't the beginning of the discussion. As such I'm changing the phrasing back to discuss it as one example of a discovery that enlivens speculation about life on Venus, rather than making it look like it was the singular discovery that raised the possibility of life on Venus. —VeryRarelyStable 01:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a pretty important discovery given that there is no known abiotic source and the detection was confirmed on multiple telescopes. I've tried tweaking the wording since I think stating that this is an example of "speculation" implies the wrong thing (i.e., the presence of phosphine is only speculation). FOARP (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's the problem: there has not been a long history of research on, specifically, whether there is life on Venus. If we talk about research on Venusian life then all we have are two very recent observations (the phosphine this month, and the light absorbance properties observed last year). That's not enough to warrant a paragraph or even a sentence in the lede. It's intriguing but it might all be debunked by Christmas for all we can tell. On the other hand there has been speculation about life on Venus for over a century; it's a topic of enduring fascination. That is worth talking about in the lede, along with the discussion of Venus's cultural and mythological significance. But that's a long history of speculation with occasional concrete observations, not a long history of research accumulating observations that support the hypothesis of Venusian life, which is what the current wording seems (to me) to imply. —VeryRarelyStable 02:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you're overly weighting recentness when judging importance. Whilst it is true that there could conceivably be a "debunking" of this discovery by Christmas, this is also true of other things mentioned in the lede (e.g., conceivably we may discover that it never had oceans, or that the present state of the atmosphere was not the result of a runaway greenhouse effect). Even long-standing observations of a planet are subject to revision (e.g., resurfacing of Venus by volcanism is a relatively recent theory for which good evidence has only emerged in recent decades, it was only recently that good evidence of recent volcanism emerged). Meanwhile the importance of the discovery for, for example, the choice of the next NASA Discovery mission, is already apparent. FOARP (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

PS - Randall Monroe appears to be reading this discussion. FOARP (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Trivial?

​ 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)

What consequence follows from the fact that some Russian official at some unspecified time said that "Venus is a Russian planet"? Was it a claim of ownership and if so what legal weight does this person's word carry in international law? Why is this single statement so important that it gets an entire top-level section to itself? —VeryRarelyStable 02:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This off-the-cuff remark shouldn't get a section to itself, or for that matter appear in the article at all. —BillC ^talk 06:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a policy on trivial information: WP:IINFO Rupert Loup (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of Wikipedia policy on what's notable and what's trivial, but unfortunately for our present purposes most of it is about what's notable enough to have a whole article to itself, rather than just a mention. However, I just checked out the four news articles cited at the end of the paragraph. What they're all about is a routine announcement about the future of the Russian space programme in light of the phosphine discovery. Journalists faced with such dull subject matter routinely look for the most provocative thing they can find in the story, which can be quite unrepresentative of the main topic, in order to compose a headline that will have at least a slim hope of grabbing a few passing readers' attention, and that's what's happened here. I'd say that counts as trivial. —VeryRarelyStable 11:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Dedicating an entire section of the article to an apparently off-hand remark from a Russian official here is very clearly WP:UNDUE. At most, we could mention in the section on exploration that Venus has been the target of a number of Russian/Soviet missions and mention the "Russian planet" remark in that context. FOARP (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to the article about this which I think is more than sufficient. As this Popular Mechanics article points out, the statement is not meant seriously, and refers to the rich history of Soviet missions to Venus in the period 1967-1984. In as much as it is relevant to this article at all, it is because the Soviets used to think of Venus as "their" planet (i.e., the one they were focusing on) whilst Mars was "NASA's", and this mindset has carried on into the modern day. FOARP (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

SO2 vs. SO3

Regarding:

"...formed by sulfur dioxide and water through a chemical reaction resulting in sulfuric acid hydrate"

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)

I want to cancel in advance a potential Matilda effect about Venus habitability

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)

Whether this is a major discovery, further research will need to determine. If there does turn out to be native life on Venus, this conversation will change. In the meantime, if you want Yeon Joo Lee's work to be acknowledged, I agree, and my advice is: don't blow it out of proportion prematurely, because other editors will just revert your edits. To allay your fears, tomorrow's popular knowledge comes from today's scholarship, and I can assure you that no scholar uses Wikipedia as a source. Sometimes they use it as a source of sources; the most important part of any new information added to Wikipedia is therefore the citations. —VeryRarelyStable 00:49, 8 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)

"Closeness" to Earth

This statement

"However, it spends a large amount of its time away from Earth, meaning that it is the closest planet to Earth for only a minority of the time. This means that Mercury is actually the planet that is closest to Earth a plurality of the time.[117]"

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)

I think I understand your comments but there are so many spelling errors and typing errors that readers can’t be certain. Before editing the article please closely check your work immediately above and fix the errors. Thanks. Dolphin (t) 00:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I had typed this quickly from my phone and hadn't checked - I've now revised the comment in the talk thread, and will carefully adjust the text on the article - thanks! Bjohas (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Your change to the article is an improvement. Dolphin (t) 01:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review

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)

DrKay, Could you clarify which statements in the article are unsourced and which sources are not RS? (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Resolved[4]. DrKay (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

what is the brightest object after the Moon?

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)

Probably the meant sentence was "the second-brightest natural object in Earth's night sky (after the Moon)". (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

thanks--142.163.194.123 (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 19:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Statements regarding etymology, mythology, or culture are overemphasized

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.

I think it's okay to have a sentence about the origin of the planet's name in the first paragraph. The cultural elements of the article are not given undue weight. Praemonitus (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

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)

A sidereal day is not the same as a solar day. A Venusian solar day is 116.75 Earth days. A Venusian year is 224.7 Earth days. The ratio is 1.92. See Venus#Orbit and rotation for more information. Praemonitus (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Footnote 140 does not say Venus can be seen at midday

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."

No, it's not "astronomically impossible" to see at midday; it's just very hard to find. But I see your point. Praemonitus (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 article regarding habitability

Water activity in Venus's uninhabitable clouds and other planetary atmospheres Mapsax (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• USSR Venera 13 1982 - Venus ground recolorized.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

"Kwerralye-pule" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Where is the size diameter.

It is not on here 2601:402:4401:7750:E176:8683:1B2F:355C (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

We usually just quote the radius, which a reader can easily double to get about 12,104 km. Certes (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

True color image of Venus continuously being removed from the title

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)

This reminds me of a similar discussion regarding the lead image for Uranus, which can be read here. My understanding of the problem is that spacecraft don't generally attempt to reproduce the human visual spectrum. I'm not sufficiently learned to say whether various reprocessing efforts for "true color" are actually accurate. NASA is a credible source, so I'm inclined to take them at their word. However, the picture of Venus in question wasn't advertised as true color when NASA made it available. The image on the left is simply described as "newly processed" and the picture next to it (which I believe is also on Wikipedia) is "contrast-enhanced". I don't have any real suggestions here, except to be keep in mind that spacecraft optics are not generally designed to replicate the human eye. Tisnec (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

An image in a spectrum other than visible light, or an image that is a composite of several spectra, is not less "real" than a visible-spectrum image. We don't need or want the first image to be a featureless light gray ball when technology allows us to see more detail in the cloud structure by using a broader imaging spectrum. VQuakr (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Vague phrasing

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)

I think the statement wouldn't necessarily be applicable above the arctic circle, when you get the midnight sun phenomenon with no dusk or dawn. In that case Venus would be circumpolar. Praemonitus (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Praemonitus You are completely right. I landed on the following:

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

However, I have later encountered some "deviations" as follows:

• Venus can reach an elongation of 47 degrees, which makes it possible that the planet is well above the horizon in a completely dark sky (Sun's altitude more than 18 degrees below the horizon).
• As mentioned, Venus can be circumpolar within the arctic and antarctic circle. Would a statement of this be appropriate in the article?
  • It may, moreover, be circumpolar well outside the polar circles at certain times.
  • At the same latitudes it may be circumpolar, Venus is at some other times down all day.
• Even if Venus is not circumpolar as observed from the vantage point, it may (at certain times) be observed in both evening twilight and morning twilight -- before and after the same night -- and this may continue about a month or so. Example: the inferior conjunction of 2009 for observers in the northern hemisphere.
• When Venus is too close to the Sun, it is not observable at all.

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)

Most of the points about Venus are true of Solar System planets in general, as they all orbit within the zodiacal belt and may be visible throughout the night at certain latitudes and periods of the year. It doesn't seem an especially useful thing to point out. The Observability section covers much of the rest. Praemonitus (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Praemonitus That's true. But literally the lead section is not accurate. If an impatient reader reads the lead, and nothing more, it might be that they misunderstand. I have an idea of a guideline encouraging to state the obvious, but I'm not sure I remember it correctly, but if it exists: should it be applied here? Utfor (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's just true for the overwhelming majority of the people on planet. But your suggested rewording seems fine to me. Praemonitus (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Praemonitus Great! I just made it live. Utfor (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Needs copy edit

User:Praemonitus

Venus#Daylight_apparitions

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.

• Utfor (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's a head scratcher. It added with this edit. I'm going to remove it as unsourced and inexplicable. Praemonitus (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Praemonitus Thank you for your response! Utfor (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Cropped image of Venus?

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)

It was just swapped out; fixed now. [5] VQuakr (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. It's not as visually accurate but is certainly more informative. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

To me a true-color featureless white ball isn't as good of infobox image as a false-color one that shows the cloud structure. VQuakr (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Hat note

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:

"Second planet" redirects here. For other systems of numbering planets, see Planet § History.

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)

• Support removal per reasons stated. Utfor (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

size of Venus

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)

Thanks. I have no problem with you disagreeing with that point. The problem for me is what does it tell you that is meaningful? It's the third smallest out of eight. I learn nothing from that. To me it's just trivial clutter in the critical start of the article and it really belongs somewhere else. Cf. MOS:LEADCLUTTER. What is important is that it is about the same size as the Earth, and that's already mentioned in the second paragraph. Praemonitus (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's not something I'm going to throw a wobbly about (I was feeling grumpy earlier, sorry). My reasoning was that if you asked a random person in the street to define the planet Venus, "third smallest" was one of the things I'd expect some of them to say, so I reckoned it was a lead-worthy characteristic. But I'm quite prepared to be wrong! Apologies for any offence. Elemimele (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

No offense taken. We just have different perspectives on the matter, and I'm only trying to keep the article up to FA quality standard. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like good information, how would having that in the lead discount FA status? - FlightTime (open channel) 23:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It is in the lede. I relocated it out of the first sentence per MOS:LEADCLUTTER. It's correct information, but it's a bit like saying South America is the fourth smallest continent: not very meaningful. It might be better to say it's the second largest terrestrial planet after the Earth. Praemonitus (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Could be "meaningful" to many of our readers. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That's... purely speculative. *shrug* Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Timing of the runaway greenhouse effect

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)

Yes, the article is correct on this topic but not the lead. I've updated the description. Praemonitus (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2022

173.61.148.96 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove the s*x word it’s offensive

 Not done: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2022

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)

Thank you. I agree with your first paragraph and have removed it per your request. As for the second, I attempted to reword it in terms of statistical significance per the conclusions of the papers, rather than a blanket denial. Will that work? Praemonitus (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Surface visibility

The lede includes the following statement:

Venus is shrouded by an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds of sulfuric acid, preventing its surface from being seen from space in light.

Well that isn't quite true as demonstrated by the Parker probe's 2020-2021 visible light images of the surface. 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)

I think it's ok as written. "Seen" and "imaged" are different words with different connotations. VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The words "from space" though suggest it is being imaged. Praemonitus (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagree; those words mean that the surface is readily visible from the surface. VQuakr (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

You're relying on every reader to interpret the wording with great care, which I don't think is likely. Praemonitus (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It's the most straightforward reading of it to my mind. Anyways, sounds like we disagree; let's let others weigh in. If a few days go by an no one else replies, this might be a good choice for WP:3O. Also if you'd like to propose an alternate wording I would like to see what you had in mind. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

A possible rewording is "...preventing its surface from being seen from Earth in light." More technically correct at least. Praemonitus (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I've implemented this rewording. Praemonitus (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

First sentence

Makes no sense 2603:7080:7F00:A71D:6413:D2B4:D740:D1E5 (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I modified it for clarity. Praemonitus (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

concern over scientists/science writers describing the Venusian surface as "hell" or hellish

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.science.org/content/article/armed-tough-computer-chips-scientists-are-ready-return-hell-venus

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)

I agree that the adjective "hellish" is frequently used to describe the surface conditions on Venus, even in serious scientific works. It could always be used in quotes. Praemonitus (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Reference location

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)

Okay, there are no objections. Praemonitus (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The migration and cleanup of citations is complete. Praemonitus (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Lead image

Current lead image

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)

That's the image provided from MESSENGER. The problem is that nearly all the suitable images of Venus are filtered and processed, rather than being in "natural" color. Praemonitus (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The image should be changed back to a version that shows the whole planet. This is awful cropping. Nrco0e (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The consensus has been that we use planet images in normal light. The one you introduced is a processed image. Praemonitus (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Oddly phrased sentence

"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)

I do agree that it reads quite oddly in its current state, however I don't know enough about the terms to know how to rephrase it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this: "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." Praemonitus (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it makes more sense, sounds interesting, and informs the reader better. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Variation in length of day

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)

 Done Nsae Comp (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Garbled sentence

"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)

"as well as" should read "than". It probably refers to this statistical anomaly: Venus is not Earth’s closest neighbor | Calculations and simulations confirm that on average, Mercury is the nearest planet to Earth—and to every other planet in the solar system. (Physics Today) Is that it? Even corrected, it is still too cryptic. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

When Mercury is on the opposite side of the Sun from the Earth, the two planets are separated by 222 million km. This is less than the maximum separation between Earth and Venus, 261 million km. Over the course of their full orbital paths then, Mercury is more often closer to the Earth than the Earth is to Venus. Praemonitus (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done (ChatGPT for my first time helped finding this text) Nsae Comp (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2023

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)

 Note: I'm not entirely sure on this one. The current wording is a bit weird, but "Therefore" gives some sort of implication. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead focus?

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)

Nsae Comp, thanks a lot for your debrief, I really do appreciate it, and especially about your comments on the lead's structure as it is exactly what I'm thinking about while rewriting: atmosphere, surface, orbit/rotation, human stuff. Personally, I think that my version of the lead is pretty chaotic, so maybe we should properly outline the new lead before writing it then? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's my proposal for rewriting the lead:

• The first paragraph would be about the broadest facts about Venus (distance from the Sun, its atmosphere and volcanism, the third brightest thing in the sky)
• The second paragraph would be a mix of facts about Venus's surface, atmosphere and magnetosphere
• The third paragraph should have some focus about Venus's orbit, but also about its history
• And finally, the fourth paragraph is about human's observation and exploration of the planet

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in collaborating to get this right.

Firstly I have difficulties to read out of your paragraph-vision what you dont like (other than maybe language/wording/length) about the current focus, set in the current paras?

Regarding your paras-vision I dont see much difference to the current version, except that you want more quick facts in the first para (particularly about volcanism) and that you want to introduce a statement about Venus' natural history (para 3), which I see no problem with, though I dont know what that would be, which could give a first catchy insight into Venus' natural history and still be lead material.

The problems that I have with the current version is mainly the language, I struggle to write easy sentences and still write them without being misleading/inprecise and at the same time not too long for the lead. Best examples are the sentences I edited yesterday, where I tried to compress that Venus is closer to the Sun and also the next inner planet while giving an idea what inner planet means, without outright explaining it, and using these details to explain why it is the third brightest object in the sky.

That said the current version is the optimum that I saw possible, but I will definately keep brooding over it and read and shuffle it in my head a hundred times more.

Another issue I have is that I realy like that in para four Venus' proximity leads to introducing its spaceflight history and ultimately accessibility. But at the same time it would be good to touch on its proximity in the first para, as you proposed, but then it is either duplocated or the fourth para is striped of this nice built up to spaceflight/accessibility to/of Venus. So I am not sure if and how this can be solved more elegantly, especially because accessibility should not be put first before Venus' spacial physical characteristics.

So to sum this up: content wise I am cought between valueing all that is currently said in the lead as needed and on the other hand wanting to make the lead more readable and concise, with the current version as the version that did/could accomodate all that.

Furthermore I would love to hear maybe a third opinion about what first time readers would need from the lead?

Last but not least here the current version:

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. 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. 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), 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, just about half as long as it takes Venus to go around the Sun, having a solar year of 224.7 Earth days.

While Mercury stays on average closer to Venus or Earth than does any other planet to either, 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.

Nsae Comp (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I have focused the first para now even more towards a para about the position, "rank" and relation of Venus among the planets particularly Earth, since that is what Venus has been about: the next closest in distance, size and brightness to Earth after the Moon and the Sun and before all other planets. Only then its characteristic atmospheric and surface conditions are discussed in more detail in the second para. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Added now a mention of fiction, as suggested by collegue. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

References

2 small typos

Please fix "witht" and add a space to "carbondioxide". Thanks! 99.58.165.77 (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Renaming the article

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)

Thank you for your request. However, Wikipedia has a policy, Wikipedia:Common name Wikipedia:primary topic, that says that the article for the most common use of the name should not have a disambiguating suffix . That is why the first line of the article tells readers that they can find other uses of the name at Venus (disambiguation). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Corrected my erroneous recollection of the policy name. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea: it would be consistent with Mercury (planet). However, I would opposite it because I think the planet is the primary topic for the term Venus. (Mercury is different because we must consider Mercury (element), which shares the common name Mercury.) If you still feel strongly about it, please feel free to start a requested move. Certes (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Also oppose because the next more common article would be the goddess, and that one is today mostly a symbol of the planet and women, the planet though is most often the main associated use for both the goddess its use for women. So Venus as a planet is clearly dominant, unlike with Mercury and the element even if the planet has been associated with the element. Last but not least Juoiter does not have "(planet)" either. Nsae Comp (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Article has been locked for 10 years

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)

Cause of retrograde rotation - citation needed!

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)

Proposed update to article main image

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)

Those are contrast-enhanced and IR images respectively. Fine to use in the gallery if licensed properly, but I think the infobox image should be as close to what it looks like to the naked eye as practical. VQuakr (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 24 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

---

• Venus → Venus (planet)
• Venus (disambiguation) → Venus

– 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)

• Oppose. The difference between Mercury and Venus is that pretty much everyone has seen Venus in the sky as it is the 3rd brightest object in the Sky after the Sun and Moon. Mercury (the planet) is overlooked because it is not very bright and always close to the glare of the Sun. Venus (the goddess) is not even observable. -- Kheider (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Another difference between Mercury and Venus, more relevant to disambiguation, is that Mercury (element) has more incoming links than Mercury (planet) and almost as many page views. No alternative meaning of Venus occupies a similar position: Venus (mythology) is a distant second to the planet. Certes (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• In the absence of any other more convincing evidence, I'm inclined to oppose. Consistently having more that 3-4x the views is pretty significant. And another difference with Mercury is that it is also the name of a common element, which is not the case here. older ≠ wiser 14:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support the planet is probably the most important topic but may not be primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. As a goddess, Venus is little more than a name. All the mythical traits and stories associated with her have been syncretised with Aphrodite. The disambiguation for Mercury isn't just about the god, but the metal as well. That does not apply here. Serendi^podous 16:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support The goddess has long-term cultural signignificance, but I do not think that the planet is particularly notable as a topic. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The planet is the clear primary topic here. The planet Mercury has a disambiguated title because of the element Mercury, not because of the god Mercury. There is a direct link to the goddess article in the hatnote. That's more than sufficient. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. As others have noted, the planet Mercury is also competing with a very notable chemical element in addition to the god. Even if it's assumed that 100% of the visitors to Venus (goddess) stopped by the Venus-the-planet article first (not accurate, many got there directly from links or from Google) and those views are subtracted from the planet's article, the remainder still has more than double the views than the goddess. SnowFire (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as planet is clearly primary topic. Comparator is Mars, not Mercury. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

And Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support Too many comparisons with Mercury in the replies but I'm not convinced the planet Venus should be treated as a primary topic even if the page has more views. I agree with the nominator's observations on the cultural significance of the deity. Killuminator (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The nominator directly references the Mercury article, which is why it is being addressed in the replies. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per nominator's observation that this topic is somewhere between 3 and 4 times as popular as the goddess and therefore more likely to be the end search term than all other topics combined per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. VQuakr (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on the long-term significance front as well, with the planet long studied by humanity thousands of years before and after the goddess was prominent and in also various places around the world where the goddess was never in fashion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I like disambiguation pages at the base name, but I don't think this is a good case for one. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the planet seems to have substantially greater enduring notability and educational value because 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)
• Oppose per Certes et al. Mercury (planet) only exists because of Mercury (element) not because of any gods/godesses. –Davey2010^Talk 15:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose lmao one has a whole lot more significance as an educational topic by virtue of, you know, actually existing Red Slash 05:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support The goddess has a big role in the culture. And a lot of other meanings. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Davey. SwansElite (talk) 09:53, 30 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.

Temperature

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)

I have no idea why they give it as 232 K but I have provided the article an archive URL as suggested. The surface temperature listed directly below is more obvious. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

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)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

"Venus." listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

"Hottest planet" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Editnotice requires updating

The editnotice is for British English, but it should be for Oxford English. IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 10:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Venus day

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)

NASA is rounding to the nearest whole number for a lay readership. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

"Clarify" template added to Physical Characteristics -> Magnetic field and core

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)

"Visited"?

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)

Yes, you have a point but "explored" has the same problem. The significant distinguishing factor is the close encounter as opposed to long-range telescopy. So yes we need to improve the wording but "explore" doesn't do it. Any better ideas? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead too long

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)

That's a possible solution, as that edit made major changes to the lead which greatly changed the lead of, as you mention, a feature article. The number of words doesn't seem excessive, and actually could be enlarged, but yes, that major relatively recent edit should have some analysis by editors who are familiar with the page and the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the tag had nothing to do with the actual word count. But yes, if nobody wants to consolidate the lead down to four paragraphs then a revert to the original seems like the appropriate bold action. This article has had enough edit reviews over time that the lead shouldn't need a complete rewrite like that. Praemonitus (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2024

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)

•  Done [6] VQuakr (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2024

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.

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Major changes in lead

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)