Talk:Geological history of Mars

Not ideal
This page is pretty misleading. I came here expecting to see a discussion of the Geological History of Mars, not techniques for interpreting it. I would suggest this page is redundant as-is (especially as this exact same material is getting duplicated widely around, e.g., Noachian, Hesperian, Amazonian (Mars), etc.).

I'm already considering a delete request for this page, as it's so off topic. Anyone want to come to it's defense before I actually start the process?DanHobley (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: I guess a rename to something like "Geological dating on Mars" would be more appropriate than an outright delete. DanHobley (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW - and at the moment - your rename suggestion (and related updating of article content to the new name) may be worth considering I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be good to fix this page. It's classified between Mid-importance to Vital depending on the discipline, so it would be good to improve it. Pointing to the various Martian epochs is good, but there could also be an update on the general view of the history, including mention of magnetic field, some of the latest age determination, results from MSL. Also, I wouldn't mind a narrative of the Hartmann vs Neukum back-and-forth. New illustrations illustrating the difference in crater density between Noachian, Hesperian, and Amazonian? I will try to work on this over the next few week--WorldsWanderer (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

New version of the "Geological History of Mars" image
This image is used here and also in the separate pages for the various epochs. It's obviously an old file with fixed width font, low resolution, and no author information, just linked to directly. I don't know if you can even do that any more here??

Anyway so I did a higher res version of it.



I'm not sure what the protocol is for introducing such an image to the article. Have explained how it was obtained but was not sure if it was right to just substitute the new for the old, because of the attribution issue. I think we can assume that the original author intended it to be available for reuse, but maybe it dates from before authors had to provide an explicit license?? I've just done it as myself as the author for now on wikimedia commons and explained how it was obtained. Robert Walker (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)