Talk:Mars 2

message: In light of their substantially identical content Mars 2 and Mars 3 should be merged.  A couple of paragraphs describing the different results of the two missions don't necessitate two complete articles.  Eluchil404 10:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh gosh, then it would be great if e.g. Mars 2 at least had a link to Mars probe program! (sdsds - talk) 03:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes it would. No point in doing it though, since someone will eventually merge the articles, given the probable result of this discussion. Ricnun 21:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Other articles often cite Mars 2 as the first probe to ever orbit another planet and the first to ever orbit mars.  However the Mariner 9 article claims that probe narrowly beat Mars 2 to the red planet.  Could anybody verify for certain what the orbital insertion date for Mars 2 was?  The article currently states 27 November 1971 but if it were that simple why would Mars 2 usualy be given credit for first probe to orbit another planet?  The orbital insertion date for Mariner 9 is given as November 14 1971.Zebulin 05:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mariner 9 arrived at Mars about two weeks earlier, which is now fairly well supported by the sources provided in all the articles.  That being said, remember that the Cold war Space race was on at the time, and the media in the east was not a media free of government control, so a lot of stuff got claimed at the time that was not so.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  first probe to orbit mars? 

message: Why not wheels?  How did this work?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.139.6 (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rover on skis 

message: Almost the same as the Mars 3 article, but different page:
http://ru.knowledgr.com/00068913/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%812  3er40 (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just FYI -- the Mars 2 and Mars 3 articles are most definitely not copies.  Another user said it best -- "The Russian article has the exact same Wikipedia internal links, as well as (wikisource) and is almost certainly a mirror."  Unfortunately, there are a lot of poor copies of Wikipedia articles floating around on the web.  The edit histories of the Wikipedia articles prove that they were constructed over time, instead of being copy-pasted from another source.  Wingman4l7 (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Copy of Russian Source 

message: The corresponding Russian Wikipedia article is "Марс-2", and what Soviet material I have on the programme also refers to "Марс-2" and "Марс-3". Shouldn't this article's name also be hyphenated? Kolbasz (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphen 

message: The beginning of this section was a disgrace to Wikipedia. There was bad grammar and capitalization, and one sentence is pitifully inadequate for describing the lander's demise. Strangely, the sentence used the coordinate template correctly and even added a source for their claim. Such high-quality actions seem at odds with the quality of the sentence structure, which confuses me- why would someone take the time to put accurate coordinates and a source, but spend no time writing a good sentence? Anyway, I fixed the sentence to comply with grammar rules, split it off into a new section, and added an expand tag. I'm also thinking the account of the crash is at a bad place in the article. I think it should be near the end, but I'm not a very active editor, and so I don't know what the best thing to do would be. I'll leave that decision to more knowledgeable people. NealCruco (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edit to the Lander section 

message: There are two sections in this article pertaining to this probe's demise, and they contradict each other. The first says it had "a crash 45°S 313°W", and the second states "The exact landing site is unknown". How can it be known and unknown at the same time ? Unless the second means it has never been detected on the surface? I don't have enough knowledge in this topic to know which one is wrong or how it has to be handled... but in any case, both sections should be merged, and the contradiction solved.--Gray Catbird (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I don't think that was a contradiction, though. The source given in the first section seemed to imply that 45°S 313°W was an estimated location, while the second section said the exact location was unknown. Nevertheless, it was confusing, and I've tried to fix that issue. NealCruco (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction regarding crash location 

message: The section entitled "Overview" lists the spacecraft launch mass, but it differs from the launch mass listed on the Infobox.  -BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions on launch mass for orbiter and lander 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mars 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071005010633/http://www.strykfoto.org/mars3.htm to http://www.strykfoto.org/mars3.htm
*Added  tag to ftp://ftp.seds.org/pub/info/newsletters/ejasa/1989/jasa8910.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The map provided by Oaktree b shows Mars 2 in a completely different location as stated in the article. Which one is correct? ShadowDragon343 (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map and location are different 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion