Talk:Venus

Presence of Phosphine on Venus

The statement "By late October 2020, re-analysis of data with a proper subtraction of background did not result in the detection of phosphine" seems to have now itself been rendered outdated by the original team who has now found a smaller amount of phosphine but still seems to have found phosphine none the less. Maybe amending this section to say the status of phosphine is still uncertain considering the multiple contradictory analyses of the atmosphere are now available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmesco17 (talk • contribs)

References

Clarification on atmospheric influence on Venus' rotation

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2025

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)

Off centered Image

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)

2022 color tweaks?

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2025

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)