Talk:Venus

Presence of Phosphine on Venus

The statement "By late October 2020, re-analysis of data with a proper subtraction of background did not result in the detection of phosphine" seems to have now itself been rendered outdated by the original team who has now found a smaller amount of phosphine but still seems to have found phosphine none the less.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

"2nd planet" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2nd 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/2024 October 21 §  until a consensus is reached. Cremastra (u — c) 12:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Centered images for Venus?

Every other planet wiki page has the planet prominently centered in the frame. Venus is the only exception. Do we know if there is a color accurate photo of Venus with the same quality as the MESSANGER photo where the planet isn't cropped? CherrySoda (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to maintain perfect consistency between articles of a kind in every metric one can articulate. Due to Venus's lack of visible surface features, it is reasonable that nothing is lost here. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Remsense ‥ 论 23:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a very good photo and placement. It's as if the viewer receives the effect of traveling towards and around Venus, all within a still photograph. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It should also be noted that, to my knowledge, no probe has caught a mostly-illuminated disc in visible light without some cropping/artifact, and no mosaic of visible-light images (at least those whose licenses are compatible with Wikimedia) seems to be around. Visible light imagery is predictably of very low importance in Venusian exploration, so unfortunately I don't believe this will change anytime soon. ArkHyena (it/its) 09:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Use of narrow gaps instead of commas as thousand separators in science articles

According to the Manual of Style, you may use as a thousand separator either a comma or a narrow gap (obtained by using the template {{gaps}}).

Nonetheless, the Manual of Style also states that grouping of digits using narrow gaps is “especially recommended for articles related to science, technology, engineering or mathematics”. This is due to the fact that it's the normalized way in the international standards (ISO/IEC 80000 and International System of Units), and also it's the recommended style by ANSI and NIST.

Proposal: Change to format numbers with gaps (i.e. "1000000" instead of "1,000,000").

Note: I do the proposal instead of changing it myself because, since it's a featured article, I believe it's better to gain consensus beforehand.

Thanks. RGLago (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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. _ZZ^Z'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)

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)