Talk:Venus/Archive 3

The lede includes the following statement:

Venus is shrouded by an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds of sulfuric acid, preventing its surface from being seen from space in light.

Well that isn't quite true as demonstrated by the Parker probe's 2020-2021 visible light images of the surface.^[1] I.e. the surface can be viewed on the night side at long (red) wavelengths of visible light. How should this be re-written? Praemonitus (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's ok as written. "Seen" and "imaged" are different words with different connotations. VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The words "from space" though suggest it is being imaged. Praemonitus (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagree; those words mean that the surface is readily visible from the surface. VQuakr (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

You're relying on every reader to interpret the wording with great care, which I don't think is likely. Praemonitus (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It's the most straightforward reading of it to my mind. Anyways, sounds like we disagree; let's let others weigh in. If a few days go by an no one else replies, this might be a good choice for WP:3O. Also if you'd like to propose an alternate wording I would like to see what you had in mind. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

A possible rewording is "...preventing its surface from being seen from Earth in light." More technically correct at least. Praemonitus (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I've implemented this rewording. Praemonitus (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Makes no sense 2603:7080:7F00:A71D:6413:D2B4:D740:D1E5 (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I modified it for clarity. Praemonitus (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

In archive 3--- some mocked the description and asked for references. In literature of the 1960s/70s after it was found to be 800+ degrees F....it was indeed quite usual to call it hellish.

https://www.science.org/content/article/armed-tough-computer-chips-scientists-are-ready-return-hell-venus

https://www.cnet.com/science/venus-is-hell-but-science-is-seriously-looking-for-life-in-its-skies/

https://spacenews.com/is-venus-a-living-hell-conversation-with-astrobiologist-david-grinspoon/

Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the adjective "hellish" is frequently used to describe the surface conditions on Venus, even in serious scientific works. It could always be used in quotes. Praemonitus (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Maintaining this article is more difficult than necessary because of the extensive gunk in the form of inline citations and notes. It would be much simpler if the citations and notes were transferred to the reflist template containers. I'd like to propose making this migration happen so this FA can be more readily kept up to date. Does anybody object? Right now it's a mixture of inline references with references in the templates, so it would just be a matter of migrating the remainder. Praemonitus (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, there are no objections. Praemonitus (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The migration and cleanup of citations is complete. Praemonitus (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't the lead image show the whole planet, instead of part of it being cropped out? SevenSpheres (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That's the image provided from MESSENGER. The problem is that nearly all the suitable images of Venus are filtered and processed, rather than being in "natural" color. Praemonitus (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The image should be changed back to a version that shows the whole planet. This is awful cropping. Nrco0e (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The consensus has been that we use planet images in normal light. The one you introduced is a processed image. Praemonitus (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"The atmosphere obscures the surface of Venus, as it has the highest albedo in the Solar System, and sulfuric acid clouds cover the planet." The clause talking about Venus' albedo is in the middle of a sentence about its surface being obscured; this should be edited to read easier, or else be two sentences. 128.138.167.235 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that it reads quite oddly in its current state, however I don't know enough about the terms to know how to rephrase it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this: "The dense atmosphere obscures the surface of Venus, covering the planet with opaque clouds of sulfuric acid that give it the highest albedo in the Solar System." Praemonitus (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it makes more sense, sounds interesting, and informs the reader better. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The same source that we cite to say that Venus' sidereal day is 243.0226 Earth days on average also states that there is a 20 minute variation in the length of the day. This implies that significant changes in the atmosphere's angular momentum are being transferred to and from the planet. I didn't see this mentioned in the article, and this seems to be a significant abnormality that should at least be mentioned somewhere. 107.196.29.81 (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Nsae Comp (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

"While Mercury comes more frequently close to Earth as well as Venus." What is this trying to say? It doesn't sound like proper English to me. Dionyseus (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

"as well as" should read "than". It probably refers to this statistical anomaly: Venus is not Earth’s closest neighbor | Calculations and simulations confirm that on average, Mercury is the nearest planet to Earth—and to every other planet in the solar system. (Physics Today) Is that it? Even corrected, it is still too cryptic. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

When Mercury is on the opposite side of the Sun from the Earth, the two planets are separated by 222 million km. This is less than the maximum separation between Earth and Venus, 261 million km. Over the course of their full orbital paths then, Mercury is more often closer to the Earth than the Earth is to Venus. Praemonitus (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done (ChatGPT for my first time helped finding this text) Nsae Comp (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Venus has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change This Venusian sidereal day lasts therefore longer than a Venusian year (243 versus 224.7 Earth days) to Therefore a day on Venus is longer than a year on Venus. A sidereal day on Venus is 243 Earth days but a year is only 225 Earth days (243 versus 224.7 Earth days) SmartEagel (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Note: I'm not entirely sure on this one. The current wording is a bit weird, but "Therefore" gives some sort of implication. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

as many have seen I have been editing the lead. I tried to give it a structure and thread, to guid a common star gazing person to the more complex issues and details.

Now the lead has been heavily restructured and edited in almost completly one edit, without any notes. While I also could do better writing edit notes, writing none doesnt tell qhy it was done. Since the lead has first undergone by me and now in this one edit so much change I thought I would here go through why what has/had its place and structure, and why it might have been changed now again.

So lets start with the first paragraph. My previous para, and I think also before, focused on a description by size and I focused it then more nuanced on its appearence. This made sense to start with since star gazers will be the main people to look up Venus and Venus' importance in Earth's sky is more of a long standing issue than its atmosphere, as it focuses now. So I tried to take the starting description by size to make it into a comparison and relation to Earth paragraph. First giving an ideao of how ig roughly differs and that its similarities are and have been important. Furthermore the size gave also an opportunity to make the appearance in Earth's sly of Venus easily understandable, while not omiting that Venus has this strong atmosphere, but in the first para still focusing on what that means in relation to Earth.

I get why the new lead version focuses on the atmosphere, since its its very strong characteristical feature. This is also the strongest part for me of the new version, but I still dont think that it is the right content for the first para, instead of the second, sonce as I said most teaders will want to straight know for example if Venus is the morning star and why, and how it compares to Earth. And I say that as someone who thinks Venus' atmosphere is the most intersting place for any near future spaceflight projects.

Venus is the second planet from the Sun and the only terrestrial object in the Solar System other than Earth that has a substantial atmosphere and is almost as massive and large as Earth. Like Mercury, Venus orbits the Sun always closer than Earth, resulting in it appearing in Earth's sky always inferior (close to the Sun) and at night as either a "morning star" or "evening star". Venus appears in Earth's sky also as the brightest natural object, aside from the Sun and Moon, due to its proximity to Earth and the Sun, its large size and high albedo.[19][20] These prominent appearances of Venus in Earth's sky have made Venus a classical planet, a common and important object for humans, their cultures and astronomy.

Venus is the second planet from the Sun and has the thickest atmosphere of any of the Solar System's terrestrial planets. With an atmosphere mostly made of carbon dioxide and sulphuric acid, Venus experiences a strong greenhouse effect, resulting in a mean temperature of 737 K (464 °C; 867 °F) at the surface. With a surface atmospheric pressure 92 times higher than on Earth, carbon dioxide at these conditions is at a supercritical phase of matter. Venus has no natural satellite.

Now onto the next paragraphs. The second new para is about the surface, as a logical step after the atmosphere I agree, since that was also the logic of the previous version after the second para about the atmosphere.

Venus has a weak induced magnetosphere, but retains a thick atmosphere of mainly carbon dioxide, which creates a strong greenhouse effect. This results in an intense mean temperature of 737 K (464 °C; 867 °F) at the bottom of the atmosphere, where the thick atmosphere reaches a 92 times higher atmospheric pressure than Earth has at its surface, turning the air into a supercritical fluid. At the bottom of the atmosphere lies a terrestrial surface of volcanic origin. Water might have formed oceans on Venus before runaway greenhouse effects increased the atmospheric temperature, evaporating the water, which subsequently also disappeared from the atmosphere.[21][22][23] The dense atmosphere obscures the surface of Venus, covering the planet with opaque clouds of sulfuric acid that give it the highest albedo in the Solar System. The possibility of life on Venus has long been a topic of speculation, particularly in the clouds of Venus, featuring layers of more Earth-like conditions at roughly 50 km altitude, but despite recent indicative research, no convincing evidence has been found thus far.

At the bottom of Venus's atmosphere lies a terrestrial surface of volcanic origin. There are very strong evidence from changes in atmospheric composition and imagery that there is current activity on Venusian volcanoes. Despite so, most craters in Venus's surface are in pristine condition, indicating weak geological activity on the surface. Without data from reflection seismology, the internal structure of Venus is largely uncertain; inference from other planets hypothesize that Venus has a core, mantle, and crust. In the past, water oceans is hypothesized to have existed on Venus before runaway greenhouse effects increased the atmospheric temperature, evaporating the water, which subsequently also disappeared from the atmosphere.[19][20][21]

Both versions contain the volcanic origin, while the old version does so only in one sentance. I do like the love that has been put into describing its geology and its history. While some of it might be intersting, I do though think it is by far too much and in the end too vague for that length, since it basically says it is volcanic but not much has been found out yet.

The last bit about the ocean is mostly the same as it was used in the old version and depends more on how the wording fits the location of the sentence in the lead.

In the old version on the other hand the whole second para focuses on the characteristic atmosphere and goes into depth about what it might mean for xenobiology and how Venus has starkly different environments depending on elevation, an exciting dynamic object of research. Furthermore I tried to structure the lead to explain yet again why it differs and how to Earth, while only hinted to I start the para with the magnetosphere, which is critical to describe how the atmosphere lacks what Earth has (water).

To move on, the third para was allmost one with large parts of the fourth, since it focused on orbital and rotational descriptions.

Venus is a planet without a moon (like Mercury),[24] and rotates (like Uranus) in a retrograde direction, meaning against its orbital motion, making the Sun in the sky of Venus move from its west to its east. With Venus' rotation being slowed by its strong atmospheric currents, to a sidereal rotation period of 243 Earth days, the longest of all the planets of the Solar System, and combined with rotating in a retrograde direction, solar days on Venus have a length of 117 Earth days,[25] just about half as long as it takes Venus to go around the Sun, having a solar year of 224.7 Earth days.[26] While Mercury stays on average closer to Venus or Earth than does any other planet to either,[27] the orbits and inferior conjunctions of Venus and Earth are closer than those of any other pair of planets in the Solar System, approaching each other in synodic periods of 1.6 years. The gravitational potential difference and delta-v needed for orbital transfers to Venus from Earth, is the lowest than to any other planet from Earth. This and the proximity has allowed Venus to be the most accessible interplanetary destination and often an attractive gravity assist waypoint for interplanetary missions. In 1961, Venus became the target of the first interplanetary flight in human history, followed by many essential interplanetary firsts, confirming in 1970 Venus' inhospitable surface conditions with the first soft landing on another planet. Crewed missions to Venus have been proposed particularly as gravity assist flybys for crewed missions to Mars, but also to enter the atmosphere of Venus and stay at cloud levels with Earth-like pressure, temperature, radiation and gravitation. Currently robotic probes are studying and will be sent to study Venus, having been providing crucial knowledge particularly about greenhouse effects, informing predictions about global warming on Earth.[28][29]

The new version of the paras do focus on the same roughly, but mix in some random peculiar info like the orbital dust or reduces the possibility of life to material of fiction.

Venus rotates in a retrograde direction, meaning in reverse of most planets' rotation motion, making the Sun in the sky of Venus move from west to east. With Venus' rotation being slowed by its strong atmospheric currents, to a sidereal rotation period of 243 Earth days, the longest of all the planets of the Solar System, and combined with rotating in a retrograde direction, solar days on Venus have a length of 117 Earth days.[22] The time it takes for Venus to orbit the Sun is about twice as long, having a solar year of 224.7 Earth days.[23] Venus's orbit contains a dust ring-cloud and is the closest to circular among all planets. Venus only has a very weak induced magnetosphere from the solar wind. Because of its reflective atmosphere, Venus is third brightest natural object in the sky. Venus has been known to humans as the "morning star" or "evening star" since the prehistoric times. The possibility of life on Venus has long been a topic of speculation and is shown in many past fiction works. In 1962, United States's Mariner 2 spacecraft was the first to successfully flyby Venus. Concurrently, from 1961 to 1984, the Soviet Union had launched 16 Venera spacecraft; among them were the first to successfully orbited, floated on Venusian atmosphere and landed on the surface. Due to the close proximity, high gravity and low change in the spacecraft's velocity needed, Venus is an attractive gravity assist waypoint for interplanetary missions.

So alltogether I must say I do not see much gain, except that I get why you would want to put the special atmosphere in the first para, but that was also the case in the old version and it didnt reduce the atmosphere to its stereotypical hellish description, but instead gave it the space and own para it deserves.

I do though understand to give volcanism more space, but its difficult since not much is know as the new version points out mostly.

Last but not least its fair enough to mention Venus' use in fiction, but then again I think cultural importance as bright sky object should be given more attention. Its human exploration also shouldnt revolve around the space race who-came-first/most, but rather on what it ment to space flight and what it still means.

Speaking of, while I agree the old version could be worded more compact I did try to create a thread for the new reader to how and why humans explore Venus.

Thus I will be audacious and bring back the old version and I will then bring in some of the new content and look forward to discussing how and why what should come in or go.

Nsae Comp (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)/Nsae Comp (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Nsae Comp, thanks a lot for your debrief, I really do appreciate it, and especially about your comments on the lead's structure as it is exactly what I'm thinking about while rewriting: atmosphere, surface, orbit/rotation, human stuff. Personally, I think that my version of the lead is pretty chaotic, so maybe we should properly outline the new lead before writing it then? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's my proposal for rewriting the lead:

• The first paragraph would be about the broadest facts about Venus (distance from the Sun, its atmosphere and volcanism, the third brightest thing in the sky)
• The second paragraph would be a mix of facts about Venus's surface, atmosphere and magnetosphere
• The third paragraph should have some focus about Venus's orbit, but also about its history
• And finally, the fourth paragraph is about human's observation and exploration of the planet

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in collaborating to get this right.

Firstly I have difficulties to read out of your paragraph-vision what you dont like (other than maybe language/wording/length) about the current focus, set in the current paras?

Regarding your paras-vision I dont see much difference to the current version, except that you want more quick facts in the first para (particularly about volcanism) and that you want to introduce a statement about Venus' natural history (para 3), which I see no problem with, though I dont know what that would be, which could give a first catchy insight into Venus' natural history and still be lead material.

The problems that I have with the current version is mainly the language, I struggle to write easy sentences and still write them without being misleading/inprecise and at the same time not too long for the lead. Best examples are the sentences I edited yesterday, where I tried to compress that Venus is closer to the Sun and also the next inner planet while giving an idea what inner planet means, without outright explaining it, and using these details to explain why it is the third brightest object in the sky.

That said the current version is the optimum that I saw possible, but I will definately keep brooding over it and read and shuffle it in my head a hundred times more.

Another issue I have is that I realy like that in para four Venus' proximity leads to introducing its spaceflight history and ultimately accessibility. But at the same time it would be good to touch on its proximity in the first para, as you proposed, but then it is either duplocated or the fourth para is striped of this nice built up to spaceflight/accessibility to/of Venus. So I am not sure if and how this can be solved more elegantly, especially because accessibility should not be put first before Venus' spacial physical characteristics.

So to sum this up: content wise I am cought between valueing all that is currently said in the lead as needed and on the other hand wanting to make the lead more readable and concise, with the current version as the version that did/could accomodate all that.

Furthermore I would love to hear maybe a third opinion about what first time readers would need from the lead?

Last but not least here the current version:

Venus is the second planet from the Sun. It is a terrestrial planet and the only one of the Solar System with a substantial and thicker atmosphere other than Earth. Venus is the only Solar System object whith a size and mass close to Earth's. Orbiting the Sun, next closer than Earth, inside of Earth's orbit, makes Venus an inner planet of Earth, appearing in Earth's sky always close to the Sun in inferior position and subsequently (like Mercury) as either "morning star" or "evening star". Having a high atmospheric albedo, and together with its size and proximity to Earth and the Sun, makes Venus in Earth's sky the natural object with the highest maximum brightness after the Sun and Moon.^[1][2] These prominent appearances of Venus in Earth's sky has made Venus a classical planet, a common and important object for humans, their cultures and astronomy.

Venus has a weak induced magnetosphere, but retains a thick atmosphere of mainly carbon dioxide, which creates a strong greenhouse effect. This results in an intense mean temperature of 737 K (464 °C; 867 °F) at the bottom of the atmosphere, where the thick atmosphere reaches a 92 times higher atmospheric pressure than Earth has at its surface, turning the air into a supercritical fluid. At the bottom of the atmosphere lies a terrestrial surface of volcanic resurfacing origin, with active volcanism, but lacking more active geology like Earth's Ocean moderated plate tectonics. The internal structure of Venus is largely uncertain; inference from other planets hypothesize that Venus has a core, mantle, and crust. Water might have formed oceans on Venus before runaway greenhouse effects increased the atmospheric temperature, evaporating the water, which subsequently was blown into space by the solar wind.^[3][4][5] The dense atmosphere obscures the surface of Venus, covering the planet with opaque clouds of sulfuric acid that give it the highest albedo in the Solar System. The possibility of life on Venus has long been a topic of speculation, particularly in the clouds of Venus, featuring layers of more Earth-like conditions at roughly 50 km altitude, but despite recent indicative research, no convincing evidence has been found thus far.

Venus is a planet without a moon (like Mercury),^[6] and rotates (like Uranus) in a retrograde direction, meaning against its orbital motion, making the Sun in the sky of Venus move from its west to its east. With Venus' rotation being slowed by its strong atmospheric currents, to a sidereal rotation period of 243 Earth days, the longest of all the planets of the Solar System, and combined with rotating in a retrograde direction, solar days on Venus have a length of 117 Earth days,^[7] just about half as long as it takes Venus to go around the Sun, having a solar year of 224.7 Earth days.^[8]

While Mercury stays on average closer to Venus or Earth than does any other planet to either,^[9] the orbits and inferior conjunctions of Venus and Earth are closer than those of any other pair of planets in the Solar System, approaching each other in synodic periods of 1.6 years. The gravitational potential difference and delta-v needed for orbital transfers to Venus from Earth, is the lowest than to any other planet from Earth. This and the proximity has allowed Venus to be the most accessible interplanetary destination and often an attractive gravity assist waypoint for interplanetary missions. In 1961, Venus became the target of the first interplanetary flight in human history, followed by many essential interplanetary firsts, confirming in 1970 Venus' inhospitable surface conditions with the first soft landing on another planet. Crewed missions to Venus have been proposed particularly as gravity assist flybys for crewed missions to Mars, but also to enter the atmosphere of Venus and stay at cloud levels with Earth-like pressure, temperature, radiation and gravitation. Currently robotic probes are studying and will be sent to study Venus, having been providing crucial knowledge particularly about greenhouse effects, informing predictions about global warming on Earth.^[10][11]

Nsae Comp (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I have focused the first para now even more towards a para about the position, "rank" and relation of Venus among the planets particularly Earth, since that is what Venus has been about: the next closest in distance, size and brightness to Earth after the Moon and the Sun and before all other planets. Only then its characteristic atmospheric and surface conditions are discussed in more detail in the second para. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Added now a mention of fiction, as suggested by collegue. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Please fix "witht" and add a space to "carbondioxide". Thanks! 99.58.165.77 (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm requesting to rename the article «Venus» to «Venus (planet)» as it is more accurate. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your request. However, Wikipedia has a policy, Wikipedia:Common name Wikipedia:primary topic, that says that the article for the most common use of the name should not have a disambiguating suffix . That is why the first line of the article tells readers that they can find other uses of the name at Venus (disambiguation). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Corrected my erroneous recollection of the policy name. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea: it would be consistent with Mercury (planet). However, I would opposite it because I think the planet is the primary topic for the term Venus. (Mercury is different because we must consider Mercury (element), which shares the common name Mercury.) If you still feel strongly about it, please feel free to start a requested move. Certes (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Also oppose because the next more common article would be the goddess, and that one is today mostly a symbol of the planet and women, the planet though is most often the main associated use for both the goddess its use for women. So Venus as a planet is clearly dominant, unlike with Mercury and the element even if the planet has been associated with the element. Last but not least Juoiter does not have "(planet)" either. Nsae Comp (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The article has been locked for 10 years, apparently against vandalism. Have the vandals gone yet? 81.77.76.140 (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no citation for the (extremely implausible) claim about the cause of rotation. At minimum, there are several possible causes, and there is no consensus. See astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/26 81.77.76.140 (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Could the image used for venus be updated to this NASA reprocessed of Mariner 10 https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/2524/newly-processed-views-of-venus-from-mariner-10/?category=planets_venus as a visual spectrum image or the infrared view from Akatsuki. https://www.planetary.org/space-images/venus-in-infrared-from-akatsuki-2

It is subjective, but I find those more visually appealing than the current MESSENGER probe one. 184.162.10.80 (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Those are contrast-enhanced and IR images respectively. Fine to use in the gallery if licensed properly, but I think the infobox image should be as close to what it looks like to the naked eye as practical. VQuakr (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The "Temperature" item in the right-hand sidebar is very misleading, stating it as 232 K, with a parenthesized explanation describing it as a "blackbody temperature". Exactly what this item is saying should be much clearer, so someone does not glance at it and take it as some temperature of the planet, given it is merely a calculation of what the temperature could be, the calculation including the effect of the albedo (of clouds in the atmosphere) regarding how much energy the planet receives (but not including the effect of these clouds on outgoing radiation). Possibly the heading for this temperature could be "Equilibrium Temperature" and the parenthesized note could say it includes the effects of albedo. Also, the linked cited source is no longer online, but a copy in archive.org could be linked. 74.69.160.254 (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea why they give it as 232 K but I have provided the article an archive URL as suggested. The surface temperature listed directly below is more obvious. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Venus has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the third paragraph, second sentence I suggest removing “the longest in the solar system”. This appears to be a description of the Venusian solar day length of 117 Earth days. While Venus does have the longest rotational period at 224.7 Earth days the solar day on Mercury (176 Earth days) is longer than the solar day on Venus (117 Earth days). Pcw20th (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Venus. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Venus. until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Hottest planet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Hottest planet until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The editnotice is for British English, but it should be for Oxford English. IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 10:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Science.nasa.gov/venus/facts says on Venus "sunrise to sunset would take 117 Earth days"

How do I reconcile that with the Wikipedia statement that the length of a solar day on Venus is 116.75 days? 71.191.49.80 (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

NASA is rounding to the nearest whole number for a lay readership. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This section contains the following text: "Venus's small induced magnetosphere provides negligible protection to the atmosphere against solar and cosmic radiation, reaching at elevations of 54 to 48 km Earth-like levels." It's a bit unclear what this is referring to; is it saying that the radiation levels on Venus at an elevation of 48-54 km are similar to the radiation levels found at the surface of Earth? Or is it saying that the radiation levels at Venus's surface are comparable to those at 48-54 km above Earth's surface? I'm hoping someone can reword this to be a bit more clear. Lumberjane Lilly (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Since the original article is not editable. I have to voice my confusion about the material presented in this section. "Venus is the third brightest object in Earth's sky after the Moon and the Sun, therefore it has been important in human culture. Venus was the second planet to be visited by humans, with the first flyby by the Mariner 2 probe in 1962, the first atmospheric entry by the Venera 4 probe in 1967, the first successful landing by the Venera 8 probe in 1972 and the first orbiting probe by Venera 9 in 1975. As of 2024, there is no active probe on Venus, though it is a subject of three missions as a gravity assist waypoint." Specifically"Venus was the second planet visited by humans..." Humans have never set foot on another planet. Let alone one that is over 800° F. It may have been explored by humans but not visited, as per the definition from the Oxford Language Dictionary, which states "to go see and spend time with". No one went and saw or spent time with Venus. It was visited by probes not humans. I think it's an important clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:C900:17D0:54A4:C20B:FC96:8833 (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point but "explored" has the same problem. The significant distinguishing factor is the close encounter as opposed to long-range telescopy. So yes we need to improve the wording but "explore" doesn't do it. Any better ideas? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The lead now consists five paragraphs, which is too long per MOS:LEADLENGTH. As this is an FA article, it needs to be held to a higher standard so a reduction to four paragraphs is necessary. I attempted to tag it as such, but the tag was reverted without attempting to address the issue. The lead was of the correct length prior to [edit], so my recommendation is to restore the original lead and go from there. Praemonitus (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a possible solution, as that edit made major changes to the lead which greatly changed the lead of, as you mention, a feature article. The number of words doesn't seem excessive, and actually could be enlarged, but yes, that major relatively recent edit should have some analysis by editors who are familiar with the page and the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the tag had nothing to do with the actual word count. But yes, if nobody wants to consolidate the lead down to four paragraphs then a revert to the original seems like the appropriate bold action. This article has had enough edit reviews over time that the lead shouldn't need a complete rewrite like that. Praemonitus (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Venus has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "The phosphine was detected at heights of at least 30 miles above the surface," to "The phosphine was detected at heights of at least 50 kilometers above the surface," Gwilio (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Done VQuakr (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Venus has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the section "Orbit and Rotation," it says "Venus has no natural satellites. It has several trojan asteroids: the quasi-satellite 2002 VE68 and two other temporary trojans, 2001 CK32 and 2012 XE133." While none of this information is incorrect, 2002 VE68 was given the name "Zoozve" on February 5, 2024. I think that 2002 VE68 should be referred to as Zoozve, since that is now its name.

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Can someone check today's major changes in the lead of this feature article. The editor keeps reverting reverts I make to their large edits on planetary and other Solar System articles so can someone else take a look? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The redirect 2nd planet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21 §  until a consensus is reached. Cremastra (u — c) 12:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like the proposal and support it for the reasons given by RGLago. Dolphin (t) 21:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I second this. Using a space as a thousands separator is the internationally recommended version, especially when used in scientific works and I believe such an addition would benefit the article. _ZZ^Z'S 21:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see a good reason for this proposal to be here at Talk:Venus. The appropriate place is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Dolphin (t) 03:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the Manual of Style already states that the recommended style for "articles related to science, technology, engineering or mathematics" is using gaps instead of commas. I proposed it here at Talk:Venus because Venus is an semi-protected article, and, therefore, gaining consensus before applying any change to style is good practice. RGLago (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You have found consensus, especially considering interested Users have now had more than 48 hours to respond. I suggest you go ahead and implement your proposal throughout the article. Dolphin (t) 20:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This is overall a pretty minor change that I doubt many people would care about, and I currently cannot think of a reason why anyone would strongly object. You're welcome to BOLDly change it yourself, and if nobody reverts or objects it can be assumed that consensus lies in favor of such a change. ArkHyena (it/its) 00:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple theories for the reason behind Venus' retrograde rotation, but none of them have reached consensus, so I believe the stated reason is being given too much weight, as the other potential reasons are not even mentioned. Additionally, the associated reference doesn't mention the rotation, at least in the summary. So I'd like to request a Citation Needed or Failed verification tag. More info: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/57 172.56.82.224 (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Venus has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

4th sentence in the article - "It's atmosphere is composed of mostly carbon dioxide [...]" - contains an error. "It's" is a conjunction and should be the possessive pronoun "Its". MrFlark (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Already done jlwoodwa (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to Venus has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Reference link broken. Venus wiki, ref 289. Change from old:https://archive.org/details/companiontoscien00seed to new:https://archive.org/details/companiontoscien0000unse/mode/2up ZeticKnight (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Remsense ‥ 论 00:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I know all of you like the fact that the image has roughly true colours. I get that. But, we have to draw the line somewhere. Why do you all want an image showing practically no detail AND has cropped off a major piece of it. I know Venus does not have the most visible detail, but it has some. Informing And Uniting (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

True color shows practically no detail. This has the benefit that no information is lost by occluding some of the planetary disc. Articles don't have to be illustrated according to images of exactly the same character, what matters are principles (e.g. the planet looks as it would through a telescope). This isn't the first time this has been discussed, so hopefully those questions weren't fully rhetorical. Remsense ‥ 论 21:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

That is but one of my points. Could you not at the VERY LEAST find a true color image that is not cropped very poorley? Informing And Uniting (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not "cropped poorly", that's the frame picked up by MESSENGER's sensor. I find it charming and an "action shot" unlike the others. It's nice to have variety like that. Remsense ‥ 论 21:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Well I think that whether something is charming, is not as important as actual quality. Informing And Uniting (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

You don't get to unilaterally decide your subjective preferences matter more, or that you have the best solution over the outstanding objections of others. "Stop edit warring" meant "stop edit warring", so please self-revert, and be mindful of WP:3RR. Remsense ‥ 论 22:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

there, I reverted. Happy now? Informing And Uniting (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I genuinely appreciate it. Remsense ‥ 论 22:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I hate it. Informing And Uniting (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Answer, you biased jerk. Informing And Uniting (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes other people in your life need to use the restroom and such things. I hope in the future you don't treat others so fickle. Remsense ‥ 论 22:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Why do you think everyone automatically likes your opinion? Hmmm? Informing And Uniting (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Because it represents the current consensus of editors concerned with astronomy and astronomical photos, and unless you present some very good arguments as to why that consensus should be changed, it is very unlikely for you to change it—especially unilaterally. I strongly advise you read Wikipedia's policy on consensus and editing before continuing. ArkHyena (they/any) 03:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Informing And Uniting: please do not personally attack other users. And as Remsense said, please do not make drastic edits to important articles without starting a discussion with other users. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll exit the conversation by reiterating the main reasons others have stated for the MESSENGER photo over the Mariner 10 photo, hopefully so that other people don't have to continue dealing with this. These were in the archives and could've been searched for quite easily, but what do I know? There are two:

1. Mariner 10 didn't actually have instruments capable of capturing true color, and File:Venus-real color.jpg is a misnomer, and actually heavily processed by a third party based on the filters best able to approximate it. This is trivially visible in that the photo doesn't look like Venus to the naked eye, there are obvious yellow–brown details and structures that are ultimately features visible with UV, not visible light.
2. I was particularly confused by the insistence that too much of File:Venus 2 Approach Image.jpg was occluded to be acceptable, since one can actually see more of the Venusian disc than is visible in File:Venus-real color.jpg, where a noticeable fraction of the planet facing us is occluded in its own shadow.

Remsense ‥ 论 23:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

oh my god i am so sorry. I was not aware of the fact the title was not accurate Informing And Uniting (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Also who says anyone agreed to your Preference that charming is better? Hmmm? Informing And Uniting (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Also what are the odds that I changed Jin Dynasty, then when I actually tried to make a page better, you also stopped it. Informing And Uniting (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Informing And Uniting: If you're willing to listen, let me explain what's the deal with this off-centered Venus image. I understand why you don't like it—I didn't like it too when it was added to the article, but unfortunately this is the best we've got.

The reason why this off-center image by the MESSENGER spacecraft is preferred over all other available Venus images is because this is the only true color image of Venus we have. When I say "true color", I mean that the images are taken with multiple (at least 3) filters for visible light wavelengths (400–700 nm) only, and then the relative brightness and contrast of the filtered frames are calibrated according to the planet's reflectance spectrum. A true color image should not use filters for wavelengths normally invisible to the human eye–this includes infrared, ultraviolet, etc

Other space probes that have previously imaged Venus, such as Akatsuki, Venera 11, and Gaileo, did not take true color images of Venus because these space probes either:
1. do not have visible-light cameras (e.g. Akatsuki)
2. did not use their visible light cameras to photograph Venus because the planet is uninteresting in visible light (e.g. Cassini)
3. did take few visible-light images, but did not use enough different filters to construct a true-color image (e.g. Galileo).

My 3rd point applies to this Mariner 10 image you tried adding to the article—although this image claims "real colors", the issue with this image is that the number of filters it uses is limited, using only clear (aka monochromatic) and blue filters only. Two filters is not enough to construct a true color image. This image is instead an "artificial" true color image, where an otherwise non-true color image (which may either use non-visible light filters, or may have missing filters in some parts of the visible spectrum) is tinted to approximately replicate a true color image. However, artificial true color images usually can't show visible-light color contrasts accurately because they do not properly cover the visible light spectrum (either by incorporating non-visible filters or missing visible filters).

Generally, imaging Venus in visible light doesn't have much scientific value due to its featureless appearance, so space probes and telescopes opt for imaging Venus in different wavelengths like infrared and ultraviolet, where you can actually see features in Venus's clouds and atmosphere. Because of this, it's sadly rare for space probes to use visible-light camera to photograph Venus in true color. That's why the best true color image of Venus we have is this (frankly compositionally crude) MESSENGER photo of Venus. For further reading on spacecraft imaging of Venus in visible light, see this article by Don P. Mitchell.

On Wikipedia, we want to have images of the planets be as scientifically accurate as possible (and if possible, up to date from high-quality sources—which is why we use recent spacecraft images of Jupiter and Mars). Along those lines, we want to use images that show what they look like to the human eye—that is, use true color images of the planets. Several Wikipedia editors had a discussion that led to this preference for true color several years ago. It's important to use true colors (and clearly state in the description/caption to the image is true color, as opposed to false/enhanced color images typically used for scientific analysis) so that the reader has an accurate idea of what the planet actually looks like. If we don't use true colors, you end up with long-standing myths like Neptune's deep blue color (see Talk:Neptune/Archive 5#True color image of Neptune), which we definitely don't want. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. T g7 (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nrco0e just so I understand—and yes, thank you for the well-written account—when you say the MESSENGER shot is compositionally crude, you just mean what I meant by action shot, right? Having put it that way, I feel distinctly less confident now in my middlebrow sensibilities... Remsense ‥ 论 08:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense: I guess calling it an "action shot" is one way of putting it (I'm not familiar with this term, haha). Though really, it's because MESSENGER was a bit too close to Venus when it started imaging the planet with its visible-light cameras. I've checked the MESSENGER raw images of Venus from this website and none of the high-resolution closeups had Venus fully in the frame. I presume the color images of Venus by MESSENGER weren't intended to be pretty in the first place (i.e. no full-frame images taken during approach), since the NASA Photojournal caption for this image says it was intended solely for color calibration. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 15:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

While we're here, pinging in case they would like to speak on it though they seem to have stopped editing around a year ago, @CactiStaccingCrane's 4th revision on File:Venus 2 Approach Image.jpg – states "from original colors"? At the moment it just seems that before the colors are identical to the files distributed by NASA, but after they are not. I don't understand what "original colors" are adjusted for here, or why NASA's given version isn't ideal. Remsense ‥ 论 23:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

(I've prepared a high-quality JPEG from the TIFF in the same specifications as CSC's previous revisions. If anyone thinks I should upload that, let me know.) Remsense ‥ 论 00:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Pinging some folks who know better than me from last year's Earth lead image RfC to maybe tell me what's up? @North8000 @Howardcorn33 @21.Andromedae @Mathglot @cyclopia @T g7 Remsense ‥ 论 00:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

(for the moment, I've uploaded my re-rendering of NASA's photo.) Remsense ‥ 论 00:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Interesting and helpful discussion by NrcoOe above! I have no insight about the color change. T g7 (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what the particular question is. But one note....In a vague sense "true colors" and "as it looks to the human eye" has meaning, but "vague sense" is the end of it. When you try to get precise, "color" (in this context) is a variable human subjective perception that is a combination of light sensing in the eyes and light processing in the brain. And imaging and creating a photo/image is it's own unique (different) process. North8000 (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you make anything of the file revision history of the Venus lead image? I'm just making sure there's nothing wrong with it, understanding perception is ultimately just that. Remsense ‥ 论 16:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the person who modified it three times, I see no reason or benefit for what they did and a bit of a minus as it became an image modified by an editor instead of an original image. North8000 (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to point out a possible innacuracy in the introduction, paragraph 2:

   “The rotation of Venus has been slowed and turned against its orbital direction (retrograde) by the currents and drag of its atmosphere.”

After reviewing the cited source [23] "Atmospheric dynamics of a near tidally locked Earth-sized planet" (Nature Astronomy, 2022), it appears that the paper discusses atmospheric torque influencing Venus' rotation rate, but does not state that the atmosphere reversed the planet’s spin direction.

To my knowledge, current scientific consensus attributes the retrograde rotation to a combination of early impacts, tidal interactions, and possibly atmospheric effects — but not atmospheric drag alone.

I would like to propose the following revision for improved accuracy:

   “Venus' rotation has been influenced by the drag of its dense atmosphere, which slows its rotation and prevents tidal locking with the Sun. The planet's retrograde rotation is thought to result from a combination of atmospheric dynamics, tidal interactions, and early impacts.” 

Reference: The four final rotation states of Venus

--Crok29 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Good catch! I agree that the current content is not correct, but I would not agree to your change. The source Correia, A., Laskar, J. The four final rotation states of Venus. Nature 411, 767–770 (2001) does not say anything about impacts and rather it says that is "generally believed that in the past its rotational axis was itself rotated to 180° as a result of core–mantle friction inside the planet, together with atmospheric tides".

The atmospheric effects are thermal torques due to a combination of high atmospheric mass and proximity to the Sun:

• Leconte, J., Wu, H., Menou, K., & Murray, N. (2015). Asynchronous rotation of Earth-mass planets in the habitable zone of lower-mass stars. Science, 347(6222), 632-635.
• On Earth, this effect is negligible because we are too far away from the Sun, but the atmospheric torque due to thermal tides can be very powerful, as seen on Venus. Indeed, although tidal friction inside the planet is continuously trying to spin it down to a state of synchronous rotation, thermal tides are strong enough to drive the planet out of synchronicity and to force the slow retrograde rotation that we see today.

Here is a longer explanation:

• Margot, JL., Campbell, D.B., Giorgini, J.D. et al. Spin state and moment of inertia of Venus. Nat Astron 5, 676–683 (2021).
• The maintenance of a 243-day retrograde spin requires explanation because solid body tides raised by the Sun would synchronize the spin of Venus to its 225-day orbital period in the absence of other forces22,23. Gold and Soter24 and others25,26,27 proposed that solar torques on a thermally induced atmospheric tide might counteract the solid-body torques and stabilize the spin. In this process, atmospheric mass decreases on the hotter afternoon side of the planet and increases on the colder morning side. This imbalance creates an atmospheric bulge that leads the sub-solar point, whereas the bulge due to tides raised on the solid body lags the sub-solar point. The opposing solar torques may therefore stabilize the spin rate.

My summary for the intro would be

• Venus rotates very slowly, every 243 days, against its orbital direction (retrograde) due to a competition of gravity tidal locking to the Sun and thermal tides caused by the massive atmosphere and proximity to the Sun.

But first the body of the article should be improved on this point. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I have made changes to the article and the intro, but I still need to convert the ref from vanilla text into {{cite}}. My tool to convert the DOI 10.1038/s41550-021-01339-7, ProveIt, is under the weather however. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok I fixed the ref. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

NASA states that a Venusian day is 243 Earth days and a Venusian year is 224.7 Earth days. 2001:8003:B15F:5A00:D4B6:2572:F70:17A9 (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The title of your post is erroneous. The article has exactly the same values as the source, which from the NASA web site.

• Williams, David R. (25 November 2020). "Venus Fact Sheet". NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Archived from the original on 11 May 2018. Retrieved 15 April 2021.

Johnjbarton (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The “Human presence” subsection begins with redundant information that belongs in “Observation and exploration history”, and really the subtitle ought to be changed to “Potential for human habitability” or something to that effect given the theoretical nature of the content — “Human presence” falsely implies actual humans, on Venus, currently.

If there are no pressing objections I will be amending the section within the next day or so. 4thGalilean (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree and made some changes. The content was also slanted. I think more should be said about the probes and what they learned, and less about the poorly cited speculation on clouds. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I may give the full article a copyedit pass later today for the sake of ensuring consistency with the other planet pages. 4thGalilean (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. I learned from another editor that the subject section overlapped other parts of this article so I merged the duplicate content. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

^[1] 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

a Venusian day is 116.75 Earth days long, about half a Venusian solar year, which is 224.7 Earth days long.

Here the synodic day length is referenced alongside the sidereal year length. Most other sources reference the Venusian day as being longer than a Venusian year (243 earth days, the sidereal rotation period).

I suggest changing the '116.75' value to '243.02' to consistently reference the sidereal period for both day length and year length WB Jacobs (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have any content related to the belief that Venus once had one or two moons, one known as Neith? I don’t see anything but maybe I’m missing it. If not, there are reliable sources on this topic. (The belief, of course, not the moons, which probably never actually existed.) 24.75.208.94 (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi!

I suggest removing or rewriting the paragraph about Slipher's 1903 observations:

"Spectroscopic observations in the 1900s (...) than had previously been thought".

It says his spectroscopic work gave early clues about Venus's rotation, but that's misleading. He was observing sunlight reflected off Venus's cloud tops in visible wavelengths (paper), so unknowingly, he wasn't observing the planet itself, just the upper atmosphere. So it not relevant to the actual planetary rotation.

And today we know those clouds rotate quickly (in 4-5 days, paper), not 225 days as inferred by Lowell from Slipher's null result. His observations likely missed something. Maybe because of this, modern literature doesn't really cover Slipher's observations.

I recommend removing the paragraph entirely? We could also try rephrasing it. But it would need to clearly explain that he only observed the fast-rotating cloud tops, so then, why keep a paragraph saying he detected slow rotation? LazyAssed Contender (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that you can delete that paragraph all together. It has a primary ref but I did not find significant other coverage. I used the other ref for a sentence in the Atmosphere section. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Did that! thanks for your feedback LazyAssed Contender (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)