Talk:Areography

message: EchidnaLives I appreciate your changing of the page title and agree that areography should be fine. However, be warned there is a fair amount of controversy around the term areography. This is largely due to another definition, which is "Areography: Geographical Strategies of Species discusses the hypotheses and results of areography, which is the study of geographical range of species." This is why when I changed the name earlier this year, I opted to include the Parenthetical disambiguation. It is also a compromise with contributors from a few decades ago. I think a page for areography based on the other definition might be helpful GeogSage (talk)
 
We as a species need a term to refer to the study of planets, such as planetary science or planetology. Until then, Areography is the correct word for the study of Mars, and geography is specific to Earth. Changed the page title to Areography (Geography of Mars) to compromise with the people from 2006 in this talk section. -GeogSage 09:20, 22 July 2022‎ 
I'm not saying that it should necessarily redirect this aeticle, but just that areography should contain the same information. As you know Geo- comes from "Gaia" i.e. Earth so if you are going to use geo it should be put ion inverted commas. There are lot of accurate scientific words that are not widely used. Also look at Areology or Selenology. As for removing other poeples comments, Ok I shouldn't have, but areography IS a word in the English language and is also a correct scientific term. Most "editors" probably don't have a clue about the though either.
Hi 144.82.106.62,
Thanks for your interest in this article.  However, as you can see below there is a detailed discussion about the usage of areography which you seemed to ignore in your redirect edit.  You write that "areography is the correct scientific term."  Our discussion below indicates that most editors believe that areography is not a widely used term in scientific publications.  I would appreciate it if you would revert the article to "Martian Geography" and discuss here in detail your justification for the redirect to "Areography".  Also, it appears that you removed comments by other editors from the discussion which I believe is generally considered not helpful.
In any case, again a sincere thank you for your interest in this article. Jespley 20:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the reversion of the main page title 

message: Simply stating I created redirects makes it less offensive, but still there was a discussion and nobody could give a proof for Aerography meaning something different than the distribution of animals over a certain area. So WE, the people who have already discussed the thing, will redo the changes, because it pushes a term into use which means something different!--Stone 08:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: Is the interactive image accessible to those who may be using a braile or audio display? Perhaps an alternative access method is required. Variant 09:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I doubt it is, how would we find out? and any ideas on setting up an alternative access method? sbandrews (t) 07:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Accessibility gives some ideas sbandrews (t) 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  accessibility  

message: I don't know where the values for the max and min Mars elevations came from, but they don't agree with my sources. Carr (2006) has -8.200 km at the bottom of Hellas to +21.229 km at the peak of Olympus. Google Mars agrees. The description of the datum definition is also very confusing: it reads like the temperature is actually at 0degC at the datum, which is clearly nonsense. Is the 26km figure actually the relief of Olympus Mons? I'm guessing, but this whole article is strongly under-referenced (adding template), and this kind of sloppy error makes me think a detailed check might be in order...
DanHobley (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't the relief either, that's 22km. Changes made. Sloppy/and or out of date data here. DanHobley (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topography and Elevation 

message: The Topography section states: "Given that it is a planet, the geography of Mars varies considerably". This is rather unclear. 
:* A planet, as opposed to what? A comet, an asteroid, a dwarf planet,... can also have a geography that varies considerably.
:* Does every planet have a geography that varies considerably? Even Jupiter? That would need a reference.
:* "varies considerably" is an empty phrase: what is the baseline for considerable variation? How much variation is needed for it to be considered "considerable"?
Perhaps we should change the sentence to be less pompous, e.g. "Mars has a varied geography.", or remove it completely?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moutmoutosaure (talk • contribs) 08:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good! DanHobley (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Given that it is a planet 

message: :
This could be clearer.  I think all it needs is to replace the word "value" (of what, the potential?) with something like "height", but I may well be mistaken. —Tamfang (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  the areoid