Talk:Venus/Archive 1

message: I think the two planet pictures should be switched, since the RADAR picture is not easy to understand and looks very different from the usual pictures of Venus. Awolf002 23:24, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, and was going to suggest the same thing myself~; the RADAR image is not a picture of what Venus would look like to the naked eye and is thus misleading. The Singing Badger 00:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Does anybody have a "real" (and GFDL) picture of the 2004 transit? The current picture is from a simulation! Awolf002 16:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the ones on Transit of Venus or Transit of Venus, 2004 appropriate? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transit picture 

message: I think "Venus in fiction" is too narrow. The section should include other cultural expressions, and references to other cultures than the Anglo-Saxon/Western. See discussion on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. — David Remahl 16:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that. It needs to be written though. When that's done, 'Venus in fiction' could simply be a subheading within a larger section on cultural references. The Singing Badger 18:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True. While I'm not really qualified to, I'll make an attempt at reducing the bias in the article. Someone more knowledgeable will no doubt clean it up in the future. — David Remahl 23:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural references vs. Venus in fiction 

message: Shouldn't there be a page about how the planet Venus is interpreted in different schools of astrology?
: You mean "page", right? Not "section in this page"? This article is geared toward the physical side of the planet, not it's mythological one. I think astrology would not fit in this page. Also, look at the dab page Venus. Awolf002 15:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrology 

message: The radically different connotations of the word "recent" in the third paragraph of the "Suface features" section are confusing. I assume, but cannot know from this article, that "recently-solidified basalt lava" implies "several hundred million years" ago, based on the later text in the paragraph. I'm fairly certain that the "recent results from... Magellan" are only a few years old at most, based on the lack of Pleistocene-era space probes. (The link helps, too. ☺) Unfortunately, my beleaguered brain is failing to come up with a concise way of reducing the time-scale whiplash. Could someone else give it a go? — Jeff Q (talk) 02:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "geologically recent" should be OK in the first case. Geo- here is confusing a bit, but searching with Google I found it used concerning Mars . Cmapm 18:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: This is alreday fixed by somebody, however. Cmapm 19:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Recent" confusion 

message: "Owing to Venus's thick atmosphere, which causes meteors to decelerate as they fall toward the surface, no impact crater smaller than about 3.2 km in diameter can form."
if meteors are slowed, shouldnt the craters be smaller ie "no impact crater greater than..."?
:I've tried to make that bit of the article a bit clearer on this point.  The situation is that the smaller meteors burn up completely, the intermediate ones might reach the ground but are slowed to such low speeds that they don't form craters.  Only the largest can reach the ground and still have enough energy to form a crater, and this results in a minimum size of crater that can be formed.  This page contains a good explanation of the general principle. Worldtraveller 22:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meteor craters 

message: Following precident of other planet articles shouldn't the visible light image be the one at the top of the page in the table?--Deglr6328 05:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. See for example the german Venus article :de:Venus (Planet). I think the best visible light picture of Venus was the one taken by Galileo probe, which is already in the "Observation by spacecraft" subsection --Bricktop 03:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I was wondering: How comes that the pressure of Venus's atmosphere is so much higher than Earth's although both planets have roughly the same mass and should hence be able to retain the same amount of gas in their gravity well? Anybody happens to know? TIA. Simon A. 16:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That last bit is not right. T is proportional to P only if the volume V is constant. But this is not realistic for an atmosphere. Apart rom really special circumstances, when you increase pressure, its volume that goes doen to suit, and temperature does nothing. It's hot under Venus's atmosphere purely because of the greenhouse. That is: the heat has a hard time getting out because there's more stuff to pass through before you get into space. Deuar 19:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athmospheric pressure 

message: This page was moved from Venus (planet) to Venus. Is this being done for all of the planets?  Did I miss the discussion? Is a reader more likely to be looking for the planet or the god?  -- ALoan (Talk) 09:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is surprising! I think this should be reverted and then discussed! Awolf002 13:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: This new table does not fit into this article at all. I will remove it, if no objections are made. Awolf002 12:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance 

message: There is a new Geology of Venus article translated from the Spanish, still in progress, containing much new information, especially about the volcanology of Venus. It looks as though there's a fair amount of information in Venus which could be added to that one and then the 'Surface features' section of this page rewritten as a summary of the combined information. When the new main page is finished I'd like to have a go at this, any thoughts? Keithlard 18:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface features 

message: Any real reason they can't be in their own article?? It's large enough, right?? 66.32.246.23 23:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observations and explorations article 

message: extremely slow rotation of less than one rotation per Venusian year
Doesn't this effectively mean that Venus rotates 'the other way around' (as compared to other planets, excluding Uranus and Pluto)? DirkvdM 10:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rotation 

message: Need at least one visible light image.--Nixer 19:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visible light image needed 

message: Dear NASA,
Why not send weather satellites to Venus?  Then we could put them on TV, for a Venus Weather Channel akin to the current (Earth) Weather Channel.  I'm sure lots of people would be interested to see up-to-the-minute pictures and video of Venus.  oneismany 11:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Something tells me it'd be hot. Here7ic 17:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem would be the cost of transmitting the images  and venuses cloud cover resulting in rather dull results.Geni 12:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The more we learn about weather systems on other planets, the more we will learn about how things work on Earth!  It is good to know about the ice caps and history of water on Mars, volcanoes and run away global warming on Venus, hurricane like systems on Saturn, the magnetosphere on Mercury, etc. etc.  All this has importance to learning about Earth. Kheider 14:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear NASA 

message: A reader Barton has sent an e-mail to the Wikipedia help desk claiming that the figure for the surface illumination is wrong
"The text gives the surface illumination as 1,017 Watts per square meter.  The correct figure is 17 Watts per square meter.  The figure given is off by a factor of 50.
 
The Solar constant at Venus is roughly 2614 Watts per square meter.  Because a planet receives sunlight on its cross-sectional area, but has spherical area, only 1/4 of this falls on an average meter -- 654 Watts per square meter.  But Venus has a bolometric Bond albedo of 0.76 (not 0.60 as in the article), which cuts the illumination which enters the atmosphere/surface system to 157 Watts per square meter.  The clouds absorb about half of that and the air absorbs most of the rest, so you wind up with only 17 W/m2 at the surface.
 
Check the U. of AZ compendia "Venus" and "Venus II" for further details."
Thanks for your consideration of this point. Capitalistroadster 01:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface Illumination 

message: Since 5 * 584 = 2920, which is equivalent to 8 * 365 Venus returns to the same point in the sky every 8 years (minus two leap days). This was known as the Sothis cycle in ancient Egypt, and was familiar to the Maya as well.  -- Unfortunately, I don't see anything in the Sothis entry to explain this; the entry says that Sothis is almost surely the star Sirius.  Could someone elaborate?  Also, this entry conflicts with a later sentence in the pentagram explanation that claims the cycle is 5x8=40 years.  Using the awesome authority of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code as a tiebreaker ;) I'll change that second sentence to agree with the first.  This article could still use a good graphic demonstrating how the apparent pentagram comes to be formed. Mike Serfas 15:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sothis cycle 

message: From the article:
:On December 16th, 1850, Venus reached the lowest distance to earth since 1800, with a value of 0.26413854 AU = 39,514,827 kilometres. This will be the closest approach of Venus to earth until December 16th, 2101 when Venus will reach a distance of 0.26431736 AU = 39,541,578 kilometres to earth.
Perhaps my thinking is muddled, but isn't this (because of the "until") saying that 39,541,578 km is a shorter distance than 39,514,827 km? If so, what should these values be?
One-dimensional Tangent (Talk) 16:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error 

message: Does anybody know how strong a magnetosphere Venus emits? I recall something about it being very weak, but I may be thinking about another planet... Here7ic 17:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Venus has no magnetosphere.--Jyril 17:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Since Venus does not have a Magnetosphere, it's atmosphere is being stripped be the solar winds and generates a tail that extends nearly out to the Earth's orbit. Kheider 18:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetosphere 

message: Why this list is on this article? There is a separate Venus in fiction for them. Only a brief, leading paragraph on the subject should be included here, not a long list.--Jyril 17:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venus in fiction 

message: I'm recording the Venus article into ogg format. It's my first one, so I'm still playing with the sound setup and getting over listening to my voice. I'll only upload the files after I read the entire article. In the meantime, I'm stashing the stuff at http://aero.ist.utl.pt/~rdrs (university area, no publicity).cool
--Rdrs 16:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording Venus 

message: Both " Venus' " and " Venus's " are used extensively in this article, although the latter seems to hold the edge.  Alas, I'm no English major, but maybe somebody could settle this and clean the article up.
I would say Venus's since it is a singular name. The only time you should just add an apostrophe to show possession is if you have a plural which ends in s.
--Syd Henderson 21:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the possessive form of "Venus"? 

message: I think this article falls well below the standards we expect of FAs these days.  The lead section is inadequate, there is nothing at all about the exploration of Venus, precious little about volcanism and the theory of global crust recycling, inadequate referencing, and an enormous and not particularly relevant list of books that mention the planet that should be replaced by germane prose.  To be honest I think the article needs a rewrite largely from scratch.  I intend to list it on FARC shortly and am noting its deficiencies here as now required.  Worldtraveller 14:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deficiencies 

message: This section bugs me. 
"The pentagram has long been associated with the planet Venus and the worship of the goddess. It is most likely to have originated from the observations of prehistoric astronomers."
Not the part about Venus being associated with a goddess, but that it says "the goddess" rather than specifying what goddesses the planet Venus may be associated with. As far as I'm aware, the term "the goddess" is generally used to refer to a modern religious movements. At any rate, I think this needs to be clarified and/or needs to have sources cited.
:FWIW, I read that as "associated with the planet Venus and the worship of the goddess [Venus]"; it seems the most obvious reading. Shimgray | talk | 16:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? "The Goddess" 

message: If anyone is interested in collaborating in a mini-project in getting this article back to FA status, drop me a message on my talk page. --BillC 22:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to FA? 

message: :Other recent findings suggest that Venus is still volcanically active in isolated geological hotspots
That'd be very interesting, of course, but I was under the strong impression that present-day volcanic activity is one of the long-outstanding questions that eg. the Venus Express probe was going to have a crack at. Such a tantalizing statement needs a source!
:Venus's rocks are much harder than Earth's, which leads to steeper mountains, cliffs and other features
Really? There's some pretty steep cliffs and other features here on Earth. I've seen them! ;-) I don't know how you can get steeper. Also - why then did most topographic reconstructions from Magellan data feature captions like "vertical exaggeration ×10", etc. Finally, are the rocks really harder at all? They're hotter, which would make them softer, I would think. Maybe lack of erosion is being confused with steepness and hardness. Erosion is actually what is responsible for the steepness of landforms on Earth. Deuar 18:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The southern continent is called Aphrodite Terra, after the Greek goddess of love, she was a slut and is the larger of the two highland regions at roughly the size of South America.
Is it really appropriate to use the word 'slut' in this article?  Is it apropos to the name of the highland, or Venusian geography in general? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.114.55.54 (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Vandalism, since reverted. Michaelbusch 16:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface features: dubious x 2 

message: Venus has been made Astronomy collaboration of the week for the week of June 13-June 19.  Please make suggestions for ways to improve this article here or by all means, Be Bold! --Volcanopele 21:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Venus is in fact right now a Featured Article candidate. The best place for making suggestions for improvement at least for the next few days might be its FAC candidacy page. BillC 21:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Duly noted, Collaboration of the week changed to Mars. (note to self: read talk page header boxes) --Volcanopele 21:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the Week: June 13-19 

message: Sorry for my boo boos. Tony 07:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, not at all.  Thanks for the copyedits.  I just altered a couple of things from the latest - 'solar wind' and 'ashen light' invariably have 'the' before them in the literature.  I also changed the sentence about phases - as worded, I thought it seemed to imply that Venus has phases because it orbits the Sun.  This is true, but not what I was trying to say.  I reworded to try and make it clearer that 'As' is used in the sense of 'while' rather than 'because'.  I could probably word it to avoid 'as' altogether.  Worldtraveller 09:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mea culpa 

message: Images made by the Soviet Union after 1973 were the copyright of the Soviet Government and on its dissolution passed to its successors. This includes all the Venera surface images. The Venera 13 images, for example, has been deleted from the Commons as a non-free image, see its deletion log there. It's not impossible that in the future such images will be released to the world, but for the time being at least, they're not suitable for the GFDL. BillC 08:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venera images 

message: I've removed, twice, the addition of as described by a dynamo theory for celestial bodies. to the end of The weakness of the magnetic field is thought to be due to Venus' very slow rotation (see below), which is not fast enough to generate a dynamo effect.  This is because it's completely unclear to me what is meant by this.  I can't see why extra text is needed here, and this added text is extremely confusing.  Worldtraveller 09:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynamo theory 

message: Can anyone possibly shed some light on the minor atmospheric constituents of venus (carbonyl sulphide, for instance), and possibly some data relating to the atmospheric chemistry of the planet? Unless I've missed it, there doesn't seem to be any reference to the puzzle of why hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide can co-exist there, when the two tend to react together. Ditto, I've found no mention of the unknown aerosol that causes the planet's strong absorbtion of the ultraviolet region (presumably a sulphur compound of some form, due to the absorbtion bands).
Finally, should it be noted that carbon dioxide, at the temperature and pressure of the venusian surface, is no longer strictly a 'gas', so much as a Supercritical Fluid? 
These are just a couple of observations. If they aren't pertinent to this article, feel free to disregard the suggestions. IMHO though they seem like points of interest which may be worth covering - albeit perhaps in an article about the Venus Atmosphere, akin to the Geology of Venus article?
--Xanthine 23:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I think this sort of thing would be too detailed for this article.  I think atmospheric chemistry might be a bit beyond the interest of most readers.  It could be worth starting a subarticle though.  Worldtraveller 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venusian Atmosphere 

message: Ok, so I've tried to get this change going a number of times with less than satisfactory results since I can't seem to find a good source.  The change is this: I'm pretty sure most historians agree that Mikhail Lomonosov was first to postulate that the ring observable around the trailing edge of Venus at the beginning of a transit is light bending through a dense atmosphere.  He saw this during the 1761 transit.   I have found an abstract of an article asserting this and you can find the reference in the most recent change I made to the article.  Can anybody with better resources check out this lead?  I think it's worth knowing who was first.LGDubs 14:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What we have at the moment is Henry Russell's 1899 paper, which credits Schroter with the discovery.  I'd of course be happy to credit Lomonosov, if a source more convincing than Russell can be found.  I'm not convinced, I have to say, by a conference abstract.  Worldtraveller 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Observations/Discovery of Atmosphere 

message: Just a suggestion - since Venus is referred to having had an atmosphere similar to Earth's, and could theoretically have a surface temperature similar to earth's today, but had a drastic increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, which more than quadrupled its surface temperateure... I think a link to topics on Global Warming may be informative and apt.  Readers of Wikipedia are all residents of the planet Earth after all.  A simple link could add value to the topic.  
That, or any more information on the details we have on the warming process that Venus may have gone through from what we know so far, and what experiments may be under way to verify these established theories here on earth.
Ryan Fenton 14:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we have a global warming link here. Hardee67 13:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming link... 

message: The other planets articles list the semi-major axis of the orbit, not the "average distance" (which would be strictly less, since the eccentricity is non-zero).  Also, "Avg. distance from Sun" is a link to "semi-major axis".  I have been unable to determine (consulting the references, and a little googling) if this number is indeed one or the other (they will be close but different to this accuracy), though I suspect that we do indeed have a mislabeling here (as well as an inconsistency from the other planet articles).  Can anyone verify? 67.180.168.73 06:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost certainly a mis-labeling. Great that you spotted it. The "average" distance depends on how you weight your average. An average over time would be greater than the semi-major axis, but this is almost never used. I would suppose that the value is correct for the semi-major axis because this is what is always given in orbit data. Deuar 11:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Avg. distance from Sun" 

message: Venus Express has now been orbiting Venus for a couple of months.  Anyone know why no true-color images of the planet (not the surface of course) have not been released?  You'd think they'd have taken quite a few.  But it seems like the only true-ish color images around are still from Mariner 10. FelineAvenger 04:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Venus images? 

message: The article says: When Galileo first observed the planet in the early 17th century, he found that it showed phases like the Moon's, varying from crescent to gibbous to full and vice versa. This would be impossible if both the Sun and Venus orbited the Earth, and these were the first observations to clearly contradict the centuries-old belief that the solar system was centered on the Earth. I believe the last part of the sentence, in italics, is false. Venus phases demonstrate that Venus is revolving around the Sun, but it does not demonstrate that the Sun is not revolving around the Earth. A system where Venus and Mercury would be rotating around the Sun, with the Sun and the rest of the planets revolving around Earth, was indeed proposed---it is the well known Tychonian system. I therefore believe that the last part of the sentence should be changed apropriately. That said, I am no astronomical nor historian expert, so I would like to see some opinions before editing. Marcus wilby73 06:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential error 

message: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060911_venus_images.html
Hills, you can see hills.  Thanks, CarpD 9/11/06
:Wow! who would have thought you could get so much more from those old images. I've taken the liberty of adding it to the external links section. Deuar 13:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enhanced Venus Surface Photos 

message: The geological information on this page claims the surface of Venus is 500 million years old, but the "Geology of Venus" page claims it's 100 million years old. What gives? Octopod 14:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction. 

message: There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Planet_infobox_conventions_.28km_vs._AU_vs._miles.29 on standardizing the planet infoboxes, as well as the possibility of changing the planet diameter to radius. If you care about these things, let your opinion be heard there. Lunokhod 10:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox 

message: The next simultaneous occurance of a transit of Mercury and a transit of Venus will be in 69163, and the next simultaneous occurance of a solar eclipse and a transit of Mercury would be in 6757.  Would there be any way to calculate the next simultaneous occurance of a transit of Mercury, a transit of Venus, and a solar eclipse?  (I presume it would take thousands if not millions of years). Brownsc 02:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simultaneous occurance of transits/Solar eclipse 

message: Hi wikifolk; great article!  The introduction says: Venus is the only planet in the Solar System named after a female figure.  I changed the line to note that this statement is only true for the "full" planets, while a couple of dwarf planets (i.e., Eris (dwarf planet) and Ceres (dwarf planet)) are named after females, but was reverted on the grounds that Only one dwarf planet (Eris) and the sentence then becomes muddled.
While my correction may have been muddled, my feeling is that the sentence as reverted is just incorrect.  An argument could be made that a dwarf planet is not a kind of planet, but since "planet" itself is ill-defined, and the common reader (such as myself) understands "dwarf" to be a modifier on "planet", the sentence definitely rankles.
Thoughts? --TotoBaggins 01:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, planet  has been well defined by the International Astronomical Union since lat year, for the Solar System at least, and dwarf planets are not a kind of planet. Note the dwarf planet section in planet. Wikipedia uses the offical definition of planet, so the sentence is correct. I agree dwarf planet is unclear, and I don't like it. Dwarf stars are stars (but minor planets are not planets).  Saros136 07:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female-named planets 

message: Ther should be little bit more about the atmosphere!
*
*
* --Stone 15:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional refs 

message: I just noticed that the Semi-major axis distance given seems to be inconsistent with the Aphelion and Perihelion distances. It's currently Aphelion 109,941,849 km, Perihelion 108,476,002 km, but the Semi-major axis is stated as being 108,208,926 km. Now this doesn't seem to make sense to me, as it shouldn't be possible for the average to be lower than the Perihelion (should it?). So, I put the figures into my calculator and it seems the Semi-major axis should be 109,208,926 km, this is the same as what's given except for one number (an 8 instead of a 9). So I assume that it was just a typo, so I'll put in the 109 figure. I'm taking the precaution to ask here as I'm not totally sure about it, but if it is wrong then please undo it. --Hibernian 18:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The NASA fact sheet appears to agree with the 108.21e6 semi-major axis, as does this site, another NASA site, this, this, and the Celestia data files.  It looks like it's the aphelion/perihelion that are wrong, the orbital velocities, and eccentricity.  Oddly, the astronomical-unit and Imperial measurements appear to be accurate.  In the interests of being bold I have fixed the metric measurements (by converting from the Imperial and fact-checking with the two NASA sites).  Please fact-check and make sure I didn't miss something in the process.  71.209.35.57 23:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-major axis number seems to be wrong 

message: I'm a little confused. I'm no scientist, but there appears to be two conflicting statements in article about plate tectonics. In the opening paragraphs the article states: 
:Venus is thought to undergo periodic episodes of plate tectonics, in which the crust is subducted rapidly within a few million years...
But in the Internal structure section, it states:
:The principal difference between the two planets is the lack of plate tectonics on Venus, likely due to the dry surface and mantle.
So which is it? Does Venus have plate tectonics or not? Black-Velvet 09:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plate tectonics. 

message: Someone better check this edit, because I'm not sure if it is or isn't vandalism. · AndonicO Talk 19:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible vandalism 

message: After reading the article I was unclear why Venus lacks plate tectonics. There's a throwaway line about "dry crust", so maybe the theory is that Venus' solar proximity led to early water loss, the loss of water led to arrested plate tectonics (and to the CO2 accumulation and greenhouse gas effect?), then arrested plate tectonics and greenhouse gases led to a volcanism dominated globe with a hot ultra-dense atmosphere ...
It would be great if someone could make that sequence explicit.
Also, I was transiently confused by a 100 million vs. 500 million year cycle for crust recycling. I think the article is trying to say that recycling starts every 500 million years and takes 100 million years to run its course. (So are the interludes 400 or 500 million years? It depends on whether the 100 million year interval is a part of the 500 million year cycle or a separate cycle.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jfaughnan (talk • contribs) 02:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no plate tectonics, also clarify the 100 million vs. 500 million line 

message: Removed; it was copied verbatim from here. — BillC  talk 18:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Life on Venus' section 

message: It seems to me that this article is getting an inordinate amount of vandalism from anon editors lately. Does anyone else think that a period of semi protection would be a benefit? — BillC  talk 21:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protection required? 

message: I'm SURE it's sulphur, not sulfur. I've looked it up and the article on sulfur/sulphur is spelled sulfur. Whenever I've looked at the Periodic table, though, it reads Sulphur. Perhaps this an American-english variation issue, like color and colour? I myself live in England, can anyone hlp me out here? NIN 23:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sulfur is the American English spelling, sulphur British English. What matters most is that an article adopt a consistent spelling style throughout. See WP:ENGVAR — BillC  talk 23:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Per Sulfur#Spelling, the spelling sulfur was adopted by International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, an international body that sets standards for the naming of chemical elements and compounds.  Sulfur has also been adopted by the Royal Society of Chemistry, a British organization.  So, sulfur is no longer just the American English spelling, but the spelling adopted by chemistry researchers worldwide.  --Volcanopele 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sulfur spelling 

message: Good morning,
I have one question: in the introduction it is written: "Venus is covered with an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds of carbon dioxide, preventing its surface from being seen from space in visible light;"
But the clouds of Venus are not composed mainly of sulphur dioxide and sulfuric acid? Thanks, Alex2006 11:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clouds of Carbon Dioxide? 

message: I have removed two fair use images that were listed as copyrighted. These were public domain images, which someone Photoshopped and copyrighted the result as a derivative work. That in itself is questionable. When asked if he would release them, he said only for non-commercial use. When he was told that the pictures would have to be removed as a result, he answered: "I am not willing to declare the images "public domain". Not because I plan to profit, but because I am philosophically opposed to wikipedia demanding that." (See User_talk:DonPMitchell#Remastered_surface_images_of_Venus). The compromise was to release them under "fair use." Well, that is not a compromise. It is a cop-out. Furthermore, anyone can take the PD images and clean them, so there is certainly an alternative. These pictures do not belong on Wikipedia under those conditions. Danny 16:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am more interested in the availability and copyright status of the original raw data. Once you have a raw image, it's not hard to then gimp that into a reasonable complete image. It might not be the quality or accuracy of Don's images, but  (from the raw image on Don's page) is certainly better than . Unfortunately I doubt anyone will every establish the status of the originals. Bcsr4ever 00:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image removal 

message: The new section is certainly interesting, but it may be over long, particularly since there is a main article to link to, and the mission never took place. Any thoughts? — BillC  talk 22:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manned Venus Flyby 

message: Although this adjective is mostly applied to the goddess Venus, I'm pretty sure it has also been applied to the planet Venus, particularly by astrologers, though I haven't found any hard sources yet. Any thoughts on where I could locate one? Serendipodous 07:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what do you mean "listed"?  Venereal disease are those related to Venus.  Although it has a negative connotation, it is the correct use of the word.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.239.253.2 (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venereal 

message: The personification of the planet Venus as the Morning Star & Evening Star (on this page) only refers to Roman mythology, whereas there are personifications of both in many ancient culures (and a few modern ones)--The Lesser Merlin 12:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morning Star & Evening Star 

message: This article should mention the "snow" discovered on the mountains of Venus, and speculation as to what it might be. Serendipodous 21:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snow 

message: This article states that a complete resurfacing of Venus due to massive subduction occurs at intervals averaging 100 million years. Yet it also says that the last resurfacing event occured about 500 million years ago. What gives? 63.211.201.174 (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface Geology: Contradiction? 

message: I think author of this part flipped it around: "Alchemists constructed the symbol from a circle (representing matter) above a cross (representing spirit)." In alchemical symbolism, the circle represents spirit and the cross represents matter, as referenced in wikipedia's Classical Planets in Western Alchemy page. Also, it probably should reference "western alchemy" to be accurate, since alchemy was not limited to the west.  BSWright 21:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah. I'd like to know how anybody pretends to know how the symbol was constructed. It's a feminine symbol (obviously) for a feminine planet, and one that has to do with beauty. And to me it looks like a simple copper mirror (such highly polished copper mirrors have been found in Egyptian tombs). And this is   the alchemical symbol for copper also. SBHarris 04:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venus in Alchemy 

message: Can anyone check this edit? Thanks. · AndonicO Talk 16:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible vandalism. 

message: That the terms "Morning Star" and "Evening Star" both refer to Venus, but that it is not necessarily known that they do so, is a classic example in Philosophy. It shows there is more to names than that which they name. See Sense and Reference Wacky philosophy professors everywhere talk about Venus because of this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.147.139.249 (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venus in Human Culture - Philosophy 

message: Is there a reason I am not seeing a mass listed on this page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.9.214 (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted. There was a missing terminating / in an embedded reference. I think it's fixed now. — BillC  talk 18:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the mass? 

message: The first paragraph states 
"It is the brightest natural object in the night sky, except for the Moon, reaching an apparent magnitude of −4.6"
Alternative:
"It is the third brightest object in the sky, following the sun and moon, reaching an apparent magnitude of −4.6"
90% of the surface Venus appears to be recently solid basalt lava.-xXSlipKnoTfan182Xx  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.188.111 (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me, but in the planet articles Sun and Moon are capitalized.Saros136 (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venus Brightness 

message: It essentially tells us that Venus losses 2 H per 1 O, the solar wind interacts heavily with the atmosphere, and that in the beginning, oceans with beautiful singing sirens and boats with strong and bold heroes, ... approximately covered Venus, ... once upon a time. Maybe... Said: Rursus ☻ 08:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bit of a conundrum, because no one wants to be the one to take on the task of completely rewriting this article from the ground up. I think the best thing to do would be to gather together a group of people and assign each of them a single task; one dealing with the past, one dealing with the solar wind, one dealing with the lightning and so on. Then we will have to figure out which of the information goes here and which goes into the more specific articles. Serendipodous 11:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New research [http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Venus_Express/SEM8N373R8F_0.html here]!! 

message: The article says that the sun rises in the west on Venus.  This makes sense if you imagine that you're on the north side of the solar system, looking down on the north pole of the Earth rotating one way and Venus rotating the other.  But so far as I knew north is defined by planets, not solar systems - in that case the north pole of Earth points roughly the same direction as the south pole of Venus.  That would mean the sun rises in the east on Venus.  On the other hand, the articles for Venus and Mars list the right ascension and declination of the north poles of each planet in roughly the same place, so maybe there is a north side of the solar system?  Forum discussions seem to suggest there is real inconsistency between definitions with some people using either one, but I'm not enough of an astronomer to know whether one side of the disagreement might be seen as a "fringe" view.  Regardless of the answer there's enough potential for confusion that something should be said explicitly about how the directions are defined.  If I took the article for north at face value I could even believe that east could be counterclockwise of north! 70.15.116.59 (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  East or West? 

message: Would someone care to rewrite the tail end of this sentence from the introduction:
"but the venusian behavior corresponds well with Earth modeled then changed by removing the lubricant—the oceans."
I would do it myself, but I'm not sure what the original intent was. 271828182 (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a go; I understand what the guy was trying to say, since I've heard it numerous times on geology shows, yet I would prefer a citation to explain it. Serendipodous 20:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbled sentence 

message: Maybe I'm stupid, but what is this, pelicans on venus?! I don't see the planet venus as viewed from earth on that picture? Please help, thank you.
86.52.79.130 (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the bright white dot (actually a crescent) beneath the 6th bird from the left. — BillC  talk 23:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venus and pelicans at twilight picture 

message: *
*
*       
*
*
*--Stone (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: I believe, discovery of ongoing loss of water into space, which is carried out from the atmosphere by the solar wind (due to the absence of intrinsic magnetosphere) was much more important discovery by Venus Express than vortex at the South Pole. I think, it should be mentioned, and not just in a few words as it is in Atmosphere of Venus article for now.
As is mentioned at the mission website, if we condense all water vapor from the atmosphere of Venus and continuously distribute it on the sphere with a radius equal to mean radius of Venus, we should get a layer of water 3cm thick. But prior to the beginning of loss of water into space this layer might be at least 4.5 meters thick (according to the mission website)!  I believe, it's clear now, that it was a very important discovery. Av0id3r (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree we should find a place for it. The section discussing Venus and Earth as sister planets: but "What happened to Earth's CO2 and what happened to Venus' water?" or something.SBHarris 01:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of water from the atmosphere into space 

message: Saidsoisms:
"Venus is thought to undergo periodic episodes of plate tectonics, in which the crust is subducted rapidly within a few million years, separated by periods of a few hundred million years of relative stability. This contrasts strongly with Earth's more or less steady state of ongoing subduction and continental drift, but is consistent with how geological processes operate without oceans, since oceans are believed to act as a lubricant in subduction. It is believed the surface rocks of Venus are only about a half-a-billion years old as impact crater analysis suggests that its surface dynamics have exchanged its surface for a clean face (wiping out old craters) sometime in the last billion years."
Where is the citation for even one of these statements? Where even a "citation needed"? Why hypocrites you evolutionists and panspermians are. It is also false as there are many scientists who believe it is about 6000 years old. SINCE WHEN IS EVIDENCELESS SPECULATION, "just trust me" "cuz I said so" objective fact? Is this the same as what so many anti-christians on wikipedia call weasel wording? It should be. It is weaseling in anti-biblical propaganda in the guise of science.
So this is what the wikipedia "community" (anti-christian propagandists) considers one of the best examples of their Wickedpedia work? They are right, it is one of the best examples of their subtle sneaking in of lies without immediately looking like hypocrites to the masses of gullible and deluded. I think you all should watch Tainted Evidence - Forensics On Trial and Forensics on Fire to get another dose of reality. Mere pretension does not make something scientific.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleain (talk • contribs) 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: _______
And here are some references from actual peer-reviewed scientific articles:
, ,  ,  
And here is a ref explaining water's role in plate techtonics:
, 
As you can see, there is some debate about whether the volcanism was sudden or gradual, but no one doubts the 500-million year time frame. 
And really, since this is a scientific article, creationism, since it cannot be disproved, and is therefore not science, doesn't belong here anyway. 
Nonetheless, I agree; that paragraph should have been better and more accessibly referenced. So there you are. Serendipodous 01:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unscientific Hypocritical Propaganda 

message: I've spotted an error in the Exploration of Venus section. It is said that the Venus Express probe was launched by the Russian Federal Space Agency. Although it was indeed launched by a Soyouz rocket, the launch was carried by the private company Starsem. In fact the ESA purchased a launch from this company, so saying that it was launched by the russian governement agency is fairly inaccurate, I think. This can be corroborated in the ESA web page and in the Starsem launch log (wich states de launch as "commercial").
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Venus_Express/SEMZE3808BE_0.html
http://www.starsem.com/soyuz/log.htm
I'd have corrected this myself, but as the page is protected, can any of the moderators do it? Thanks.
--86.66.150.201 (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting this! I've made the corrections to the text and cited it. Incidentally, the article is not protected, but semi-protected, meaning it can be edited by anyone with an account. You might like to create one. Regards, — BillC  talk 23:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error about Venus Express 

message: What is the diameter of Venus? Density? Distance from the sun? Rotation Period
? Revolution Period? thats all i need to know so just help witht the answers thats all!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.234.49 (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the blue infobox along the side. Or just read the physical characteristics and orbit and rotation sections. Serendipodous 20:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Take a look at the infobox on the right hand side of the article. --Tango (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox and article give information about the composition of Venus's atmosphere. If the question is about the composition of Venus itself, then it is a fair question: the Internal structure section does not go into great detail, though it acknowledges that "there is little direct information". There may be some well-sourced, peer-reviewed papers speculating on Venus's bulk chemical composition, for example. I'll have a look around. — BillC  talk 00:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I misread the infobox. Sorry. I suspect the composition is pretty similar to that of Earth, the masses are pretty similar so they should have retained the same proportions of different weighted elements. --Tango (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead section has a phrase to that effect, however it is not brought out and sourced in the main text, and so ought to be. After a quick search, here is an article describing density constraints on the composition. (Haven't read it yet, but it is a start.) — BillC  talk 02:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please need answers!!HELP 

message: What is "best hypothesis" ? There is no such an expression in science. I suggest re-writing the first section. It is writen like a novel or newspaper article rather then an encyclopedic one.
~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.197.21 (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language Used 

message: I noticed that all of the other planets (that were named after male dieties) had mentioned in the intro that the planet was named after a god, but nothing mentioned with venus. So I am adding one. Kind of ironic that all of the male planets had a mentioning in the intro, but not the female though... JanderVK (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venus, the goddess 

message: This page seems to get vandalised a lot by 'deleters' who appear to think that the Venus wiki page is their personal website.
Wiki is not for that purpose. It is for collaboration by multiple users. So how about you vandals who want only your content and your opinions inside the article go and make your own personal website and stop trying to take possession of this website for your own purposes otherwise I will have to start reporting you.
:This addition has been removed several times because it does not cite any reliable references, and it basically sounds like speculation on an event that may or may not happen many years in the future. Please read the applicable Wikipedia policies on this at WP:Reliable Sources, WP:Crystal, and WP:OR. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added reliable scientific references from two scientists well versed in this field.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.214.179 (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you simply press 'undo' how about you give other users the opportunity to expand and improve upon this addition before taking the opportunity away from them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.214.179 (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consider that your attitude (as evidenced above) can be taken as being unnecessarily hostile and confrontational. There is no need to make spurious accusations of "vandalism"; in fact, the repeated addition of uncited material could itself be considered vandalism, justifying the removal. In future, please try asking "why" first. --Ckatzchatspy 05:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell you what lads. I went out of my way to find references as requested, then after that I even requested that the information added remain for a short time so others could improve upon it and you still pressed the 'zap' button without a moments thought. Wiki is meant to be a community however you lads obviously dont have a very high regard for beginners. Think I wont waste my time with this anymore. This is one person encouraged to take part in wiki who is very disappointed and wont be coming back. Perhaps you lads need to take a course in customer service one day.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.214.179 (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you might wish to elaborate; as of this post, the text is still present in the article. Furthermore, it has actually been edited (twice, by two different editors) and the references have been improved. --Ckatzchatspy 20:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

text: That's not correct.  All Wikipedia articles are supposed to be cited by reliable sources.  It's the burden of the editor who makes the change to make sure that they are properly cited.  That said, whenever I make a change to an article, I almost always put a post on the discussion page explaining why I made the change so others will know why I did what I did.  216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For people who think that this page is their personal property!! 

message: Problem with the value of the axial tilt of Venus.It is 2.6° and not 177.36°.
86.205.58.28 (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same thing: 180-2.6° is (approximately) 177.36°. Venus' axial tilt has been expressed relative to prograde rotation. 2.6° is the axial tilt if the rotation is considered retrograde. — BillC  talk 20:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  venus ( the planet ) 

message: Is Venus tilt of 177 degs. or 2.7 degs? this source say it's 177 degs. What source said 2.7 degs?--Freewayguy Ask? +000s 00:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 2.7\approx 180-177. Venus rotates clockwise, while other planets conterclockwise. So the tilt depends on the definition of the north pole. Ruslik (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

text: So is it tilt 2.7 degs similar to Jupiter's. or it's tilt chaos like Pluto .--Freewayguy Ask? +000s 18:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

text: There is difference from retrograde rotation. A retrograde rotation is when a planet orbits left to right, most planets rotates right to left. Venus I know rotates left to right same as Uranus, so their sun rises at west and sets at east, everyone else sun rises at east and sets at west, except gas giants do not have solid surface period, so their skies is always colorful, and multilayer, and they don't even have day/night.--Freewayguy What's up? 17:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any other answers. You still didn't answer my question. Be clear that retrograde rotations has nothing to do with axial tilt. In older planet books they said Venus is tilt 2.7 degs. Just Venus' rotations rtro meaning it orbits left to right so the sun rises at west and sets at east, i beleive Uranus is the same thing.--Freewayguy What's up? 02:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axial tilt 

message: Can someone explain this statement?
 It is also noteworthy that there are a surprisingly low number of impact craters. 
With the extraordinarily dense atmosphere, what would be a surprise would be any significant impact craters at all.  The meteors would have to be really big to last long enough to hit the surface.  Right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Craters 

message: Shouldn't the infobox either give an axial tilt of 3 degrees and the rotation as prograde, or an axial tilt of 177 degrees and the rotation as retrograde? At the moment it gives a combination of the two, which doesn't seem right to me. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you are right - I changed it. Icek (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistant infobox 

message: venus is the second planet from the sun ☼ƒτxá`☼☼c╝+▐1 ♂▐♣▐MM♣  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.202.96 (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  venus 

message: every 224.7 Earth days. The planet is named after Venus, the Roman goddess of love. It is the brightest natural object in the night sky, except for the Moon, reaching an apparent magnitude of −4.6. Because Venus is an inferior planet from Earth, it never appears to venture far from the Sun: its elongation reaches a maximum of 47.8°. Venus reaches its maximum brightness shortly before sunrise or shortly after sunset, for which reason it is often called the Morning Star or the Evening Star.
Classified as a terrestrial planet, it is sometimes called Earth's "sister planet," because the two are similar in size, gravity, and bulk composition. Venus is covered with an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds of sulfuric acid, preventing its surface from being seen from space in visible light; this was a subject of great speculation until some of its secrets were revealed by planetary science in the twentieth century. Venus has the densest atmosphere of all the terrestrial planets, consisting mostly of carbon dioxide, as it has no carbon cycle to lock carbon back into rocks and surface features, nor organic life to absorb it in biomass. It has become so hot that the earth-like oceans that the young Venus is believed to have possessed have totally evaporated, leaving a dusty dry desertscape with many slab-like rocks. The best hypothesis is that the evaporated water vapor has dissociated, and with the lack of a planetary magnetic field, the hydrogen has been swept into interplanetary space by the solar wind.[6] The atmospheric pressure at the planet's surface is 92 times that of the Earth.
Venus's surface has been mapped in detail only in the last 22 years, by Project Magellan. It shows evidence of extensive volcanism, and the sulfur in the atmosphere is taken by some experts to show that there has been some recent volcanism, but it is an enigma as to why no evidence of lava flow accompanies any of the visible caldera. There is a surprisingly low number of impact craters, demonstrating that the surface is relatively young, approximately half a billion years old. There is no evidence for plate tectonics, possibly because its crust is too strong to subduct without water to make it less viscous, and some suggest that instead Venus loses its internal heat in periodic massive resurfacing events.
The adjective Venusian is commonly used for items related to Venus, though the Latin adjective is the rarely used Venerean; the archaic Cytherean is still occasionally encountered. Venus is the only planet in the Solar System named after a female figure,[a] although two dwarf planets — Ceres and Eris — also have feminine names.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.202.96 (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  venus the planet 

message: How was the Sidereal rotation measured/calculated for Venus?  Was the rotation period computed using moment of inertia?  If so, does the moment of inertia deviate at the Aphelion and Perihelion?  Are the measurements taken from Earth, and if so, are deviations in sidereal rotation attributed to our relative position?  Note:  I'm a little new to astronomy, but very curious and eager to learn.  Can someone help out?  Note that the calculated Sidereal rotation period is very similar to the orbital period.  Is it possible that Venus does not have this sidereal rotation relative to the Sun, and instead only appears to have a clockwise sidereal rotation as perceived from Earth during its orbital period?  Sorry if the questions are naive - but I have no idea how these measurements and calculations are taken/computed/recorded. Benzan (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sidereal rotation is rotation relative to the distant stars. I think they measured Venus' rotation using radar on orbiting probes, before probes were sent it was very difficult to measure because they couldn't see the ground through the clouds. --Tango (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidereal Rotation Question 

message: There are too many images of Venus in the article. Many of them are undoubtedly pretty, but there is no additional encyclopaedic value conferred by adding one after the other. There quite simply isn't enough room for them without the formatting becoming completely lousy. — BillC  talk 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many pictures 

message: When was Venus first seen through a telescope? It says somewhere that Galilei was the first who studied the planet's phases, but it says nothing about the actual planet. And when was it first discovered that it was a planet, and not a star? 80.202.40.85 (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question, though I don't know the answer. Venus' status as a planet was known a long time before anyone studied it with a telescope, though the true nature of a planet would not be established for some time. —BillC talk 19:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You also have to remember that the word "planet" has changed its meaning a lot over the millennia, and was originally a subclass of "star". The word "asteres planetai" meant "wandering stars", just as comets were "asteres cometes", "bearded stars." Basically everything in the night sky was a star. Serendipodous 19:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Galileo was the first to study Venus as Planet (See: Venus#Early_studies) because he was the first to see the phases of Venus that proved Venus orbited the Sun and that Earth was not the center of the universe.  Venus as a wandering star has been known since man first looked up into the night sky.  It was not until 1962 that Mariner 2 showed that Venus would not support a tropical rain forest with lizards and skantly dressed nymphs. (See: Venus#Early_efforts) -- Kheider (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of questions 

message: whats venus's distance from the sun.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.151.197 (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried reading the article? The information you want is in the box on the right hand side of the top. --Tango (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a question 

message: The fact that Pythagoras is first credited with realizing Venus is both the morning and evening star needs a citation, because he was associated mythologically with a lot of discoveries probably made by his followers. Pythagoras also thought the earth orbited a "central fire" but no one credits him with the Copernican Revolution, and rightly so. The first Greek (or Arabic, Sumerian, etc.) to prove it should be noted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.123.155 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The Venus tablet alone predates Pythagoras by centuries. Serendipodous 13:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pythagoras Needs Citation 

message: This is a concern regarding all the planet and planetoid pages, but I don't know where to post such.  If anyone knows where this comment is better suited, I'll copy it there.
Regarding the planet (and minor planet) pages, should we add a reference regarding the formulas used in calculating the following?
"Mean Density" -- do the pages use Wikipedia Page definition for "Mean Density" (R1 = (2a+b)/3 -- a being Equatorial [or longest] radius; b being the Polar [or shortest] radius)?  Or are the pages using another formula (e.g., an average between axes (a+b)/2?  Regarding Radius, and its affect on Volume, are the Volume values calculated using the Volumetric Radius (yet another radius calc), or Mean Radius, or Average Radius?
"Volume" -- The Volumetric Radius (R3 = the CubeRoot of a2b), is used to determine Volume for "spherical" ellipsoids (i.e, those with a relatively circular equatorial zone -- hence, a relatively constant a axis value, and a different b axis value.  For irregular shapes (planetoids [most asteroids, many minor planets], and satellites [moons]) require more-complex formulas to determine Volume.  The radii around their "equatorial" or "polar" region are not constant -- lumps, bumps, cookie-dough shaped irregular "spheres", etc.
Bottom line to my rambling ... I think we need to be consistent in our labeling.  If the pages show "Mean Radius" or "Volume" (or anything else, for that matter), one standard approach should be used. Since many technical astronomical sources are inconsistent, I understand that this is a challenge.  Still, I think the page(s) should note what formulas are used for such (or, at the very least, reference if a certain page is using a different [non-Wikipedia-defined] formula.  My assumption is if a planet page uses the term "Mean Radius" or "Volume", it will agree with the Wikipedia page defining "Mean Radius" and "Volume" calcs for planets, planetoids.  Tesseract501 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radius and Volume Values on the Planet Pages 

message: May I ask for a reference that "Pythagoras is usually credited with recognizing in the sixth century BC that the morning and evening stars were a single body". Although this information is present on many web pages, I cannot find any really reliable source. About a month ago I put "Citation needed" into the article, but nobody has noticed yet. Thank you very much. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference provided. Best Wishes.Gallador (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Gallador beat me to it. I also had:  Gallador's looks the better of the two, though. —BillC talk 23:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pythagoras 

message: due to the greenhouse effect on venus it has a temperature of 475C not 460C and has 90 atmospheres  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.184.43 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  greenhouse effect 

message: In the short 'Colonization' part, it stated that the amounts of Acid in the atmosphere preclude any short term colonization. I followed the citations, but it didn't mention anything about that. Can someone remove that part, please?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.149.98 (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonization 

message: It has come to my attention that someone has mistaken Venus as the Greek goddess of love. I am sorry to say that the Greek goddess of love was Aphrodite and Venus in fact is the Roman goddess of love. I simply wanted to clear that up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugmedearly (talk • contribs) 00:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  it has come to my attention... 

message: The third paragraph uses weasel words and reads like original research.  I've added 'Who?' tags to the weasel words.  If someone can provide proper citation, that would be great.  Thanks! -Sarfa (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would put the burden on the person challenging the work. The burden really should lie with those posting the statement. If a challenged statement hasn't been cited after some period of time, I think it is reasonable to remove that statement per WP policy.—RJH (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Paragraph 

message: Given that the continents average about 2 billion years in age, the following statement seems curious:
:Earth's crust is continually recycled by subduction at the boundaries of tectonic plates, and has an average age of about 100 million years, while Venus's surface is estimated to be about 500 million years old.[17]
Is it actually referring to the oceanic crust, which is much younger?—RJH (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was "bold" and changed it to "oceanic crust". It is somewhat unsatisfactory since it doesn't cover weathering of continental craters, but that's a little off topic anyway.—RJH (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of the Earth's crust 

message: As soon as the protection is lifted in come the IP vandals. I suggest that the article be protected again. Previously it was for 1 month, then for 3 months, how about it be protected for longer this time, indefinitely would be good. HumphreyW (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article seems complete and comprehensive enough at this point that I can't see where being under permanent semi-protected status would be a detriment to the entry or inhibit legitimate, sourced additions. The only thing being added by anon IP addresses at this time appear to be random character stings and genital references.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that this page gets an inordinate amount of purile vandalism. Perhaps it would be appropriate to present a warning message about topic vandalism on the edit page, much as is done with the Earth article. Kids may be less inclined to attempt the same vandalism when they see it has been done many times before.—RJH (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's the semi-protected status HumphreyW and I were referring to.  Basically, I think the question is, are there any anon IPs which are contributing notable and verifiable information to this article at this point?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk • contribs) 15:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I count 46 edits by anon IPs in that time. Exactly one was not vandalism, and that was the edit made on  27 April 2009 by anonymous IP editor 173.65.114.5, reverting vandalism in the previous edit by anonymous IP editor 216.48.130.15. I would say in light of this data that restoration of semi-protected status is fully justified.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism starts again 

message: No offense intended of course, but I would like to get rid of the (what I consider a nuisance) hatnote about the "second planet" redirect to this article, for the simple reason that almost nobody is going to look up Venus using the term "second planet"; it essentially adds two lines that are both distracting and of little value. I think it would be much better if the redirect were directed to the disambiguation page, or else have the "second planet" page serve as the disambiguation page. What say you?—RJH (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to be honest I wasn't too keen on all the "planet" disambig thing, but I felt that since "ninth planet", "tenth planet" and "fifth planet" all had disambigs then the rest should too. Short of deleting them, I think making the disambigs the main articles is the best idea. Serendipodous 20:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Second planet" hatnote 

message: Given that the article has reached 81 Kb in size, I'd like to propose that the "Venus in human culture" section be spun out into a daughter article, per Earth in culture, and the content be significantly reduced in length according to the WP:SS guidelines (particularly using just the currently cited information). Any thoughts?—RJH (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be split out, but that wouldn't shorten the article much on its own. Perhaps the exploration section should be summarised more (there is already a separate article to move an extra info to), as well. --Tango (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makes sense. There is probably some merging needed as the split article is a little thin in places compared to this article's content.—RJH (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venus in Culture 

message: I attempted to find a confirmational citation for the following, but found no match so I moved it here.
:To the Hebrews it was known as  ("shining"),  ("bright"),  ("deer of the dawn") and  ("star of the evening").
It is also unclear what this adds to the topic, since it just appears to be names and definitions. Please clarify before restoring. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation requested 

message: Venus is known as the Earth's "twin" because the two planets are so similar in size. Venus is commonly referred to as the Earth’s “sister” planet. Named for the Roman goddess of love by the same name, the planet Venus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.149.126 (talk • contribs) 
: I added a mention of "Earth's twin". The others are already covered.—RJH (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the venus 

message: The article uses the wording "named after" and the assumption "Goddesses such as Gaia and Terra were named after the Earth, and not vice versa" to go around the fact that the planet Earth is culturally associated to female goddesses. The only difference is that initially the ancients didn't know the Earth was a planet, and the personification under Gaia, Terra and such occurred later than with other gods associated to astronomical bodies. Other planets, in any case, weren't necessarily named after gods, as astral bodies often play key roles in defining and sustaining gods by identification, being a sort of physical manifestation of the god in question. To put it one way; did someone name the planet Venus in the sky after the goddess Venus, or did the myth of Venus come up with the observation of the celestial body? You can't just use rhetoric to deny "planet Earth" is personified as female in our cultural imagination. You can make a note, if necessary, that the association to the astronomical body as such is relatively recent because previously we were sitting on Earth and didn't notice it was a planet like the ones in the sky. What is the article implying anyway? Evidently, the "Earth" goddesses weren't named after the planet as such, but named with what we are standing on (the "land"). The planetary association came later; "oh, wait, so what we're standing on, Terra Mater, is a planet like all those in the sky?" I just made an edit to reflect my critique; check it out! Who is like God? (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would dispute that. Planet Earth is only identified as female in certain non-scientific, envrionmentalist contexts. The planet Venus was certainly named for the goddess, not the other way around. The Greeks had their own names for the planets for centuries- Venus (Aphrodite) was called Phospheros, or light, Mars (Ares) was called Pyreis or fiery, Mercury (Hermes) was called Stilbon, gleaming, etc. They borrowed the habit of naming planets after gods from the Babylonians. Serendipodous 15:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although Who is like God?'s edits were well intended, I think we should leave issue of the the personification of the Earth out of the article because it is somewhat off topic and would require more extensive citation to meet wikipedia standards. I would instead suggest directing that type of description on the Earth in culture page, and supplying suitable references.—RJH (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it would be easier to leave mention of 'the only female planet' out of the article altogether. It's not as if it adds greatly to knowledge of the subject, and it keeps engendering this debate which comes round from time to time. —BillC talk 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I kind of agree with you, even though it is a somewhat interesting tidbit.—RJH (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listed as only planet named after female figure 

message: No offense intended, but for verification purposes I'd like to ask what makes Don P. Mitchell's web site a reliable source? The name is connected with multiple papers in computer science, but is he a recognized expert in Soviet space history as well? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don Mitchell web site as a reference 

message: With regard to the number of probes this mission comprised, there were indeed four dedicated probes released into the atmosphere. The spacecraft bus, however, was the fifth probe, and was sent into the upper atmosphere, instrumented to return data before it was destroyed. —BillC talk 20:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The NASA citation states only that there were four, so listing the spacecraft as a fifth "multiprobe" may be problematic... perhaps even bordering on OR. Is there a citation to show that NASA considered the Pioneer spacecraft their fifth microprobe? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The National Space Science data Center describes how the Bus was designed to "transmit data to Earth until [it] was destroyed by the heat of atmospheric friction during its descent." Is that not a space probe – "an unmanned spacecraft designed to explore the solar system and transmit data back to earth"? If you would still prefer not to describe it as a probe, then I won't complain, but I think it would improve the article to have some mention of this ingenious and mass-economical aspect of the mission. —BillC talk 23:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  For me the issue is the use of the word "microprobe", which (as I understand it) is meant to convey a detachable probe that is carried on the main spacecraft. I certainly have no objection to a description of how the main spacecraft was destroyed, although it would be good to keep it compact per WP:SS. :-) Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pioneer Venus Multiprobe 

message: I removed the following unsourced statement from the article because it appears to be wrong:
: The best radar images obtainable from Earth revealed features no smaller than about 5 km across. More detailed exploration of the planet could only be carried out from space.
Per:
:
"Arecibo high-resolution (1.5 to 2 km) radar data of Venus..." —RJH (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radar resolution 

message: According to:
:
"When Mercury is closest to the Sun, its surface reaches about ", which is . The book does agree that the surface temperature of Venus is hotter, but the value listed in this article is .—RJH (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the mercury article and cite: (Mercury) Surface temperatures range from about 90 to 700 K (−183 °C to 427 °C, −297 °F to 801 °F),[11] - kindly replace your cite tage after the disputed portion of the statement not the whole line, took me forever to locate where your tag was added and what it was REALLY addressing. Zotel - the Stub Maker (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry about that. Well then I'm going to challenge the Mercury article entry because the journal article being cited does not list a temperature range (at least in the online PDF file I checked) and the above book contradicts it. The source for the Mercury article only gives an approximate temperature range (rounded to the nearest hundreds), so I think the contradiction still exists.—RJH (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperature higher than Mercury? 

message: The article claims
 U.S. President Jimmy Carter reported having seen a UFO in 1969, which later analysis suggested was probably the planet. 
Is there evidence for the "UFO" being Venus? The article Jimmy Carter UFO Incident claims that Carter reported the UFO to change colour (green->blue->red) which would not fit to Venus, and that Carter was certain it was not Venus, him being an amateur astronomer. So one of the two articles is wrong, apparently. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If Venus were subject to significant levels of atmospheric distortion then it could potentially, if not likely, shift in color. I've seen that happen with bright stars close to the horizon; not so much with green as with red and blue. It's less likely with a planet, because they have a wider angular size.—RJH (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carter incident 

message: I'm not understanding how the phases of Venus show that it necessarily must not orbit the earth in the last section of the article.  Noting that the phases are "like the moon's" does nothing to further convince me that they are/were significant.  I'm not saying it's wrong, but that it isn't complete enough to explain its significance.72.150.132.9 (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is based on euclidean geometry and the concept of the phase angle. When a planet appears fully illuminated by the Sun, it's phase angle is 0°. Likewise, during a transit when only the dark side can be viewed, the phase angle is 180°. For a superior planet, there is a maximum phase angle it can possibly reach, which for any value can be exceeded by an interior planet. (The most extreme example would be a superior planet orbiting just beyond the Earth, which reaches a maximum phase angle slightly less than 90° as it is passed by.) This is only true for orbits that wouldn't overlap if they lay along the same plane, of course.—RJH (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phases? 

message: In the section on atmosphere it's stated Venus is further from the sun. Yet on the solar system diagram the order from the sun goes Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars. Am I missing something? I'm no astronomer so feel free to fill me in.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosey Burns (talk • contribs) 16:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the statement that, "even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun"?—RJH (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance from the Sun 

message: I did a brief comparison between Unsöld The New Cosmos (2001) and this page:
* Terrain distribution is 65% rolling plains (0 to 2 km), 27% deep lowlands (3 km), and 10% highlands (above 2 km). 85% is volcanic plains, rather than 80% listed here (based on a 1994 cite).
* There is no mention here of the 1932 discovery of a thick CO2 atmosphere by W. S. Adams and Th. Dunham based on infrared spectra.
* HCl, HF and sulfuric acid in atmosphere may result from chemical reactions of the atmosphere with surface minerals.
** 
* Doesn't mention dense cloud layers as being located in the troposphere, or the layers of haze. This is covered in the Atmosphere of Venus article but not summarized here. Perhaps the section needs to be updated to summarize the current version of the main article?
* Concentration of H2SO2 droplets is 108 per m3. Also Unsöld mentions solid or liquid sulfur particles.
* The planet has no stratosphere. (This is not mentioned in the Atmosphere of Venus article either.)
* Unsöld mentions diurnal and annual variations in the upper atmosphere, and distinct thermal structures.
—RJH (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison 

message: I'm looking for a rectangular image of Venus' surface, like the lower one on :File:Venus 1 to 10m quadrangle layout.png, but without the lettering, for use on the mapping template. Can anyone tell me where I can find one, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface image 

message: Greetings, there is an error on the article indicating As a result of Venus's relatively long solar day, one Venus year is about 1.92 Venus days long.[7] the reference is the number 7. the right value is 0.92 (simply divide 224.7 / 243 = 0.9246). Sure is an typing error on the source where you are taking the value (0.92 -> 1.92). Sorry i'cant change the value directly on the article, the page is protected (i'm editor on wiki spanish), Hprmedina (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing, don't forget to change the value on the infobox, Hprmedina (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, i already change the value, greetings, Hprmedina (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't change it, the original figure is correct. Sunrise to sunrise is 116.75 days. Orbital period is 224.7 days. 224.7/116.75 = 1.92 days.HumphreyW (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typing error 

message: Does this bit need rewording - "The planet's minute axial tilt (less than three degrees, compared with 23 degrees for Earth)..."? On first reading this, I thought, "Hang on, Venus has an axial tilt of about 177 degrees, way higher than Earth's 23." Then I realised what the sentence was trying to convey, i.e. 180 minus 177 = 3, and that's a small amount of tilt. I don't know enough about astronomy to be able to reword this so that it is both technically accurate, and clear to the reader.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.70.51.129 (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axial tilt 

message: We can't see the surface through the thick atmosphere.  What would the sun look like from the ground up?  A hazy glare?  What is the nature of the surface illumination?  What spectrum and exposure were the ground probes using to take their pictures?  — MaxEnt (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Like in a dull day on Earth (except that the sky is yellow). Ruslik_Zero 20:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I seem to recall reading somewhere that refraction from the dense Venusian atmosphere would make the distant surface appear to curve upward slightly, assuming you could see that far.—RJH (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface illumination, visibility of sun 

message: well i just started learning about Venus in school and i have to do a project on it. this is becoming a little hard for me.... but since i came to this website i have learned a little more about Venus. Thank you!!!!!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.176.141 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Learning about venus 

message: In "Magnetic field and core" it is implied by "and smaller (i.e. closer to the planet) than Earth's" that EM fields have a physical size.  This is inaccurate and misleading, so it should be removed. Smcmanus4188 (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor was probably talking about the magnetosphere, but didn't make it clear. It looks like M. Ruslik0 has already corrected the text. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetic Field 

message: The Venera program ended with VeGa, which is the Russian abbreviation for Venera-Gallai (Venus-Halley).  The section on radar mapping should not just be about Megellan, it should include a discussion of the Pioneer map and the Venera-15/16 mission.  Venera-15/16 was far more important than the single sentence in this article implies. 24.16.88.14 (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is the Observations and explorations of Venus article that needs work. This article should just be using a WP:Summary style version of the forked article.—RJH (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venera program 

message: Presently article says: "Without the greenhouse effect caused by the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the temperature at the surface of Venus would be quite similar to that on Earth." This is rather strange statement. Considering that Venus is significantly closer to Sun than Earth, I think this can't be true. What does it mean exactly, anyway? "If Earth would be put in Venus orbit, the temperature on Earth would not change"? (Not true). "If one would replace 92 atm CO2 atmosphere with 1 atm pure N2 one (i.e. one w/o greenhouse effect), Venus will have Earth-like temps"? (Still likely not true, and feels arbitrary).
I propose removing that phrase altogether.88.100.47.221 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The energy of light that is absorbed by Venus is slightly less than that absorbed by Earth. This due to the much higher reflectivity of the Venusian clouds. So, if the carbon dioxide atmosphere were replaced with one consisting of nitrogen, the temperature on the Venus' surface would be lower than that on Earth's surface now. As to the green house effect, you seem not to understand that the amount of light reaching the surface does not matter much if the atmosphere is almost completely opaque to the infrared radiation. The surface in this case can not be cooled radiatively, which means that the only remaining cooling mechanism is convection. However convection can only proceed if the temperature profile in the (dry) atmosphere is adiabatic. Taking into account the pressure on the surface, this means that the surface temperature is going to very high (high lapse rate). Ruslik_Zero 19:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Not accounting for the atmospheres, the surface temperature of Venus, Earth, and Mars would be much more a like since all 3 are located near the habitable zone of the Sun.  The black body temperature of both Venus and Earth are similar (below 0 F). Perhaps it should be simply restated as, "the temperature at the surface of Venus would be much more similar to that on Earth." -- Kheider (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The runaway greenhouse effect on Venus was known long before the eco-extremists learned about it.  Venus is after all, much closer to the Sun than the Earth is.  Claiming a runaway greenhouse effect over a billion years is much different than claiming one over 100 years... -- Kheider (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think a runaway greenhouse effect is much more extreme than the garden variety  effect we're generating. The two shouldn't be confused.—RJH (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I's explained well in the article :The permanent cloud cover means that although Venus is closer than Earth to the Sun, the Venusian surface is not as well lit. Without the greenhouse effect caused by the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the temperature at the surface of Venus would be quite similar to that on Earth. Please ignore these lame attempts to confuse people.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temp w/o greenhouse effect? 

message: I have been unable to find a suitable source for this full statement:
*** Not that it's a big deal or anything but it says the mean temp of Venus is 460 degrees Celcius, 735 K. That would imply that 0 degrees Celcius was approximately 275 K. But is is not approximately 273.15 degrees Celcius? I know I'm nitpicking but wouldn't it be more logical to say 733 K?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.44.143 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statements 

message: There is some evidence of active convergent and divergent plate boundaries on Venus, meaning that active plate tectonics may be operating on the planet. It is likely that the mode of plate tectonics is markedly different to that on Earth due to the distinct lack of water - presumably making the rheology of the Venutian lithosphere more brittle.  Prof Whaler, University of Edniburgh
Wilkinsondarren (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting. It must be a pretty recent result because (unless I'm not understanding properly) papers from 2006-7 still seem to claim a lack of Earth-like plate tectonics in the present era on Venus. Would you happen to know of an online reference we might use? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Marking  for now. WP:RS should help you. --Mikemoral♪♫ 22:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Wilkinsondarren, 14 April 2010 

message: In the side panel it states "Axial tilt 177.3". In the main body it states, "The planet's minute axial tilt (less than three degrees...". For the sake of avoiding confusion, should the tilt be expressed in a consistent fashion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myomancer (talk • contribs) 07:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axial tilt 

message: This article is one of a  number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes"  would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pending changes 

message: Why is this value negative? What is the implication? SharkD  Talk  20:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is negative because Venus rotates the opposite direction from Earth. The '-' is not just there for fun, it is there to show the direction of rotation. HumphreyW (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's probably handy for wikipedia-using time travelers visiting Venus in the past... grins. Anyway, the Venus Fact Sheet lists a value of "Sidereal rotation period (hrs)  -5832.5".—RJH (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidereal rotation period? 

message: In the surface geology subtopic it says that Venus surface undergoes a complete recycle every 100 million years, while surface age is estimated to be about 500 million years. How is that possible?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoldpadda (talk • contribs) 06:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The 100 myr figure is for how long it takes for a complete resurfacing. So every 500 myr, Venus spends 100 myr resurfacing. (There's another 100 myr figure listed, but that's for the age of the Earth's oceanic crust.)—RJH (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resurfacing timing question 

message: Why are the craters on Venus in prestine condition?  
The article stays that more than 85% of craters on Venus are in good condition and they are not degrading as those on Earth and Moon. I understand that wind erosion is one of the most harmful factors for  Earth structures. But on Venus there is wind that it slow but so heavy that it lifts small stones and carries huge amount of dust. Why doesn't this wind impact the craters?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoldpadda (talk • contribs) 05:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Earth's water cycle is a far more powerful erosion factor. -- Kheider (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venus craters question 

message: JPL Planetary Fact sheet minimum distance values are never correct. The statement on Mars gets falsified (after rounding) in 3013, Jupiter in 3588.  The statement on Venus does hold up much better, and in fact the nearest violation to present comes in -213504. A case could be made for including it, but not for the statement that it is a matter of having greater eccentricities of both planets. 
Not much different eccentricities are necessary to lower the distance to 38.1 Gm. In fact, given the mean elements from Meeus's Astronomical Algorithms, the (mean) planets could have approached to with 38 Gm about 13.9 centuries ago, and 37.5 Gm 61.6 centuries ago. This assumes the planets are lined up for a transit with Earth at perihelion and Venus at aphelion. That hasn't been possible for a long time; the alignment is unfavorable for close approaches and is getting worse.
That ideal lineup would only be possible if the mean longitudes of perihelion were 180 degrees apart; in fact they were 33 degrees apart 13.9 centuries ago, and the gap was and is decreasing. The longitudes would be predicted to coincide in 52 centuries. Since the variation in the Earth's heliocentric distance is much greater than Venus's, the closest approaches of any century for a  very long time will occur when the Earth is near perihelion. Because of the small gap between perihelion longitudes, Venus will then be closer to the Sun than average. The declining eccentricity of Venus offsets this to some extent, because perihelion distances increase as eccentricities decrease. (In fact, in the -213504 approach I mentioned above, Venus had a below average heliocentric distance and the minimum distance would have been less with a circular orbit. Its eccentricity was actually much higher than today's).The current decline of the eccentricity of Venus ends about 130 centuries from now, but the Earth's will continue to shrink. Eventually the heliocentric distance of Venus varies more than Earth's, the closer approaches will occur nearer its aphelion,  and .lower eccentricities for it will tend to maximize the distances of the closest approaches approach  But this will change back again, and whether lower or greater eccentricities will favor greater distances will too. Saros136 (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any reliable reference for these statements? I undid your revisions because you provided no references to back your figures. If you have reliable references then the page can be updated, but not right now with nothing to back your figures. HumphreyW (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The distance calculations are made by Solex, a high-accuracy program used extensively on Wikipedia by both Kheider and myself (and on this article in fact) I'm not planning to put in a different minimum distance. In fact, as I said the figure could be considered a minimum since it holds for such a long time. The explanation of the fallacy of the explanations-why a declining eccentricity can either increase of decrease minimum distances-is simple and common knowledge of the properties of an ellipse that is already possessed by the other editors on the subject. The other details are not going on the article page, so there are no OR issues there, but they use the mean orbital elements of Astronomical Algorithms, by Jean Meeus. Saros136 (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not a big fan of including unqualified minimum distances in an article. Clearly, no one can make calculations accurate enough for millions of years to establish that, so each statement is only valid in a limited time frame. With no qualification, it is vague, and can sometimes be proven false but never true over the very long term. Saros136 (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I'll leave in JPL's distance for now. But here's proof that they cannot be trusted-note the 3013 approach, which is barely over 55.6 Gm, whereas the fact sheet gives 55.7 Gm. I posted that on my Google documents page long ago. Saros136 (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that I should post more support. Later, I will. Saros136 (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

text: But the Earth and Venus infoboxes have all the information showing that the longitudes of perigee of the planets is about 30 degrees apart, hence at the closest approaches Venus is farther from the Sun than average. The longitude of perihelion is longitudes of ascending node plus argument of perihelion. Saros136 (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I haven't posted the results yet, but I did find that from now until 20,000, none of the 671 closest approaches happened with Venus at a greater-than-average distance from the Sun. Saros136 (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venus's minimum distances 

message: So, from the last paragraph of "geography" section follows, that coordinate system on 1981 map in that section is different from the modern one, because the location of prime meridian changed since then. As far as I know, it was changed by IAU in 1985 as was the direction to the North pole, which is by the way not less important for the coordinate system definition, than a point prime meridian passes through. A natural question then is how significant was that shift of coordinates, how close coordinates of surface features on that map are to their modern coordinates? 
In general, I think, we need a good article on Venus cartography, where in particular the difference and transformations between historical Venus coordinate systems should be described in detail. I suspect that we don't have such articles for Mars and the Moon as well so far.
As a side note, the lead should also say about Venera-15, Venera-16, because I believe polar region (latitudes 30-90 degrees north) radar mapping by these orbiters with 1-2 km resolution to be quite detailed as well. And an earlier Pioneer Venus mission was also quite a big breakthrough in mapping.Cmapm (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cartography 

message: Shouldn't this phrase...
"its crust is too strong to subduct without water to make it less viscous."
...actually read "without water to make it MORE viscous?" SpacemanSpiff27 (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it. Water makes it less viscous, and without water it becomes "too strong". Perhaps there could a change in word order: "without water to make it less viscous, its crust is too strong to subduct." HumphreyW (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahh, I see.  Your re-phrasing has made me re-think the sentence and it now makes sense.  I'm not sure how I reached a different interpretation on the day I made my comment.  Thanks.  SpacemanSpiff27 (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less viscous or more viscous? 

message: The revision of 26 November 2010 changes both the maximum and minimum magnitudes of Venus, based on a magazine. The reference can't be checked by the Internet, for the magazine site only shows the name of the article, not the data. 
The former data are compatible with the Wikipedia article about Apparent Magnitude, which in turn is based on NASA Data Center. 
I won't revert the revision, for I'm not an expert on the subject, but I think this issue should be adequatedly treated, in order to keep the quality of this excellent article.
Claudio M Souza (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point Claudio.  I have left a message on the editor's Talk page, alerting him to your message, and asking him to clarify the situation.  See User talk:Planet photometry#Venus. Dolphin (t) 01:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Planet photometry's edit seems fairly accurate. I have often read that Venus gets to -4.7 or -4.8, and the NASA Venus Fact Sheet maximum of -4.6 has always seemed a little on the low side to me. Planet photometry did create the article Phase curve (astronomy) and I can find no obvious fault with it. -- Kheider (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Claudio M Souza's point is that the article Apparent magnitude specifies a maximum of -4.67 but cites a web-based NASA source that specifies -4.6.  Since the most recent edit, Venus nominates Venus's greatest luminosity as apparent magnitude -4.9, which contradicts what is stated in Apparent magnitude, and cites a source that is not web-based and so is not readily compared with the NASA source.  We need to cite the highest-quality source in both articles, and to ensure both articles nominate the same figure. Dolphin (t) 04:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that verifiability is the key here. It might very well be true that the magnitude goes to -4.9, but it is difficult to verify. I'm sure everyone already know this but just to refresh: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". HumphreyW (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnitudes 

message: Disambiguation shows (planet) but the article title does not. Other planets do.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishback (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the article title needs to be compliant with WP:PRECISION.—RJH (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Mercury seems to be the only planet with a disambiguated title. Even were consistency the goal to aim for, adding (planet) wouldn't be the way to do it. Shimgray | talk | 20:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title Should Be Venus (planet) to match other planets. 

message: In the second paragraph, volcanism is spelled "vulcanism" as in start trek. lol
: Vulcanism is just a valid spelling variant of volcanism. The word existed long before Star Trek came along.—RJH (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling mistake