| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Venus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Venus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Venus is part of the Solar System series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This  level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 24 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Venus to Venus (planet). The result of the discussion was Not moved. |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Venus. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Venus at the Reference desk. |
 | There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
Presence of Phosphine on Venus
editThe statement "By late October 2020, re-analysis of data with a proper subtraction of background did not result in the detection of phosphine" seems to have now itself been rendered outdated by the original team[1] who has now found a smaller amount of phosphine but still seems to have found phosphine none the less. Maybe amending this section to say the status of phosphine is still uncertain considering the multiple contradictory analyses of the atmosphere are now available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmesco17 (talk • contribs)
References
- ^ Greaves, Jane. "Re-analysis of Phosphine in Venus' Clouds". arXiv. Retrieved 16 Nov 2020.
Use of narrow gaps instead of commas as thousand separators in science articles
editAccording to the Manual of Style, you may use as a thousand separator either a comma or a narrow gap (obtained by using the template {{gaps}}).
Nonetheless, the Manual of Style also states that grouping of digits using narrow gaps is “especially recommended for articles related to science, technology, engineering or mathematics”. This is due to the fact that it's the normalized way in the international standards (ISO/IEC 80000 and International System of Units), and also it's the recommended style by ANSI and NIST.
Proposal: Change to format numbers with gaps (i.e. "1000000" instead of "1,000,000").
Note: I do the proposal instead of changing it myself because, since it's a featured article, I believe it's better to gain consensus beforehand.
Thanks. RGLago (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I like the proposal and support it for the reasons given by RGLago. Dolphin (t) 21:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I second this. Using a space as a thousands separator is the internationally recommended version, especially when used in scientific works and I believe such an addition would benefit the article. ZZZ'S 21:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t see a good reason for this proposal to be here at Talk:Venus. The appropriate place is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Dolphin (t) 03:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, the Manual of Style already states that the recommended style for "articles related to science, technology, engineering or mathematics" is using gaps instead of commas. I proposed it here at Talk:Venus because Venus is an semi-protected article, and, therefore, gaining consensus before applying any change to style is good practice. RGLago (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- You have found consensus, especially considering interested Users have now had more than 48 hours to respond. I suggest you go ahead and implement your proposal throughout the article. Dolphin (t) 20:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, the Manual of Style already states that the recommended style for "articles related to science, technology, engineering or mathematics" is using gaps instead of commas. I proposed it here at Talk:Venus because Venus is an semi-protected article, and, therefore, gaining consensus before applying any change to style is good practice. RGLago (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t see a good reason for this proposal to be here at Talk:Venus. The appropriate place is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Dolphin (t) 03:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I second this. Using a space as a thousands separator is the internationally recommended version, especially when used in scientific works and I believe such an addition would benefit the article. ZZZ'S 21:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is overall a pretty minor change that I doubt many people would care about, and I currently cannot think of a reason why anyone would strongly object. You're welcome to BOLDly change it yourself, and if nobody reverts or objects it can be assumed that consensus lies in favor of such a change. ArkHyena (it/its) 00:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Retrograde Rotation
editThere are multiple theories for the reason behind Venus' retrograde rotation, but none of them have reached consensus, so I believe the stated reason is being given too much weight, as the other potential reasons are not even mentioned. Additionally, the associated reference doesn't mention the rotation, at least in the summary. So I'd like to request a Citation Needed or Failed verification tag. More info: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/57 172.56.82.224 (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)