Talk:Geyser (Mars)/Archive 1

DDS dynamics? Huh?
Hello, could someone please explain DDS dynamics in the article, or find the appropriate article to link to? There isn't any article on DDS dynamics right now. Thank you. Loves Macs  (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops! DDS = Dark Dune Spots.  -BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Header

 * Must specify in the introduction that: "the dark dune spots and spiders are possibly related phenomena, and some hypothesis treating them being external manifestations of the same phenomenon or different phases of a same process, have been suggested".
 * Information available merits a significant section on Spiders alone. -- BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)}}

Merger proposal
Merger proposal with Martian spiders because it is thought that the "spider webs" and the Martian dark dune spots may be related features caused by the same phenomena. In other words, it is evident that different researchers give different names to the same features. See:

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientific sources to this: 1.-

2.-

3.-

4.- They are unusual dark spots, fans and blotches, with small radial channel networks often associated with the location of spots. Ref:

5.- The 'Martian Spider' web page has dozens of images of radial troughs or channels with identical morphology to Dark Dune Spots (DDS); some examples:, , , , , , , , ,  BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose, at least in the current wording:
 * Sources 1,2,3 do not provide any evidence that spiders and DDS are the same thing. They clearly talk of them as separate objects: in 1 there is this listing: "Various polar albedo features appear on Mars in springtime, like spiders ,dark spots, Dalmatian spots, and Dark Dune Spots (DDSs)" ; 2 provide some evidence of a theory about them being related but again not of being synonimous; 3 connects them in time (but doesn't say it's the same thing!only different phases of the same phenomenon) in Fig.5 which is described by authors as an highly hypothetical evolutionary scheme.
 * Merging on the basis of points 4 and 5 falls within WP:OR and as such does not look acceptable.
 * If there is good scientific consensus on a phenomenon that describes them both where they can be merged, all good, but the current sources do not seem to indicate that. -- Cyclopia (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly in favor based on all scientific reports cited above, including (ironically) Cyclopia's own edit and supporting sources:

"They are possibly related with Martian spiders, dark spots and Dalmatian spots, all of them being external manifestations of the same phenomenon or different phases of a same process."

Although their nature is not yet undestrood, it is unquestionable that scientists are presenting models that treat them as the same phenomena. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What is unquestionable is that some scientists are treating them as possibly a manifestation of the same underlying phenomenon. This means that 1. Apparently there is no scientific consensus on that, 2. They are hypothesis yet to be proven (and they are even wildly different between each other, if you go reading the papers) (which rationalizes point 1) and 3. They are not conjectured to be the same thing by at least one source, but to be different chronological phases of an underlying phenomenon. Eggs and chickens are different phases of the same phenomenon, yet they can be described separately. --Cyclopia (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, so we agree that scientists are studying them as "possible manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon." This is the reason for the merge proposal. Only one peer-reviewed paper would have been enough to warrant the merge, and there are several cited.
 * One aspect I want to remark is that different teams call these formations by different nicknames, for example, Ness' team enthusiastically describes all these formation types as "Plant-like", "Martian Boab-tree", "One-armed bandits", "Fans", "Platform", and "Terrace", and include in their research all low albedo (dark spots, dalmatian spots and spiders) formations but they [quote]: "use the word 'spider' as a generic name": . These names given to structures 'do not imply an etiology they are only used to describe or clarify an object's shape or appearance. Because of this features are new and their etiology is not yet well understood, there is no naming convetion yet, although more recent research articles have begun to coalesce the nomenclature by the use of "low albedo spots" or "low albedo formations" (likely chosen for their most evident reflectance property). Therefore I agree with Cyclopia's wording: "all of them being external manifestations of the same phenomenon or different phases of a same process." Cheers BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, as an author of peer-reviewed papers, I can guarantee you that one peer-reviewed paper is by all means not enough to warrant anything in most or all cases. You can find peer reviewed papers in support of practically everything: appearing in an academic journal does not mean it is the truth. There are peer reviewed papers denying that HIV causes AIDS, or proposing patent nonsense like butterflies being an hybrid of a beetle and a velvet worm In our case we have a couple of papers that put forward different hypothesis on these subjects, both suggesting a connection between the two things. Good, and surely worth a mention, and personally I am even convinced there is truth behind such hypothesis. But this does not make scientific consensus, which is an entirely different thing.
 * I try to explain myself with an example. Imagine we live in a world in which we don't know that caterpillars become butterflies (This is not so far-fetched: many larval and adult forms of invertebrates were thought to be different species for decades!). A couple of papers appear, based on sporadic and distant observations, suggesting caterpillars and butterflies are related: one proposing that caterpillars become butterflies, another proposing that butterflies become caterpillars. Is this worth a mention? Absolutely. Is this worth a merge? Absolutely not, until scientific consensus emerges, . If you have sources indicating such consensus exists (e.g. a review article stating clearly that it is commonly and widely accepted that they are the same thing) I will be happy to support your idea. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is true (no reason to doubt of your words, but claims have to be sourced), it could be an idea to merge the two articles under the most generic name, Low albedo formations, keeping them as (mostly) separate sections, and redirecting appropriately. Please provide these sources. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Battery asked me to comment here. After a look through some of the links, I agree that the terms are not synonymous but that the Spiders are generally taken to be a type of DDS. The Spiders have a more specific definition (low albedo, depressed formations with radial troughs) while DDS seems to be something of a catch-all. I think the Low albedo formations (Martian south pole) might work, but it's a bit of a mouthful. Alternatively, could Planum Australe handle all of it? Marskell (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I gave the impresion that I was proposing a new article name in order to merge both Dark spots and Spiders. I have been working late and I was quite tired to express myself correctly. The 'generic' name used in news releases and in the scientific literature seems to be mostly "dark dune spots" and "spiders". What I ment to say is that "low albedo" is not used so much as a name but as a "description" common to their optical and infrared properties (which is pretty much all the info there is now). Anyway, to close the circle, I gladly indulge you both and provide below some sources describing them as low albedo areas/spots/features/etc.):

Direct quotes:
 * 1. "Introduction: Various polar albedo features appear on Mars in springtime, like spiders, dark spots, Dalmatian spots, and Dark Dune Spots (DDSs)" (2009)


 * 2. "Edgett et al. have made an analysis of the whole defrosting process from the winter until the summer of the southern hemisphere, using images taken in 1999-2000 of the low-albedo dune fields".


 * 3. "Introduction: Dark dune spots occur as ephemeral objects on the dark dune (DD) fields, which are fine-grained, dark blue, low-albedo, sand-sized eolian sediments, mainly of dense basaltic sand. "


 * 4. "Spiders are pale albedo, typically with a mud-like core. + "The large objects are 200 to 400 m in diameter. Some arms spiral. Some have a hollow and others a solid core (pale albedo)."  + "On right: larger Amoeba shapes with a dark core and more complex tubes radiating from the large central core/fissure. Dark albedo material is deposited over the branches. Note the small dark fans associated with the structures." +  "Figure 2k is black (dark albedo) 'blob' material creating fans and ravines in the bedding."  + "Old Tree - Above ground structures that look like tree stumps in old forests. They are normally pale albedo (white) and seem to be mostly composed of ice." + "Amoeba - Have a large dark albedo (black) central core, which may or may not be solid in appearance and legs that radiate out from the core. The shape is similar to a cockroach, with a large elongate central core and many small legs. These sometimes bifurcate. Amoebas tend to be related to and create linear elongate mounds (so may form dune-type patterns)."  + "Many "spider-ravine" structures have a solid mudlike (or ice) core or plug [...] This may be either a pale or a dark albedo - which implies more than one type of material may be involved."  + "Dark albedo layers in the top image are tuff-like bands that may have oozed material out of the bedding plane."  +  "This image (and the others) may represent the same TCB units etched or eroded by the process of retreat– caused by the growth of tubes and ravines related to specific (dark albedo) layers."  +  "The pale albedo (white) tubes are old spiders partly eroded by outflow channels where  fluids have burst the spider."  + "Old terrace of ravines/ spiders from the equator. They have pale albedo infill as with spiders."  +  "The dark albedo (black ‘blob’) material on the right forms bush-shapes with feeders being permafrost fractures."  +  "Black (dark albedo) 'blob' material and tubes that occur on the edge of layered cliffs (of ice and or sand) or edges of spider platforms in Southern Polar Regions is crustal destroying."


 * 5."Spiders were detected by MOC in the so-called cryptic region. It is defined as area that simultaneously has low temperature and low albedo."


 * 6. This paper is all about polar dark albedo features: "Introduction: [...] Knowledge of the physical nature of dark spots and streaks in western Arabia is important because they are among the surfaces that provide some of the best thermal infrared spectral signatures (i.e., strongest absorption features) for interpretation of the planet’s upper crust mineralogy,..."


 * 7. "The CO2 jets hypothesis by Piqueux et al. (2003) requires the formation of spiders to be associated with the cryptic region, low albedo areas with temperatures around that of CO2 sublimation during most of the year."


 * 8. "Such material may be confined to the observed low-albedo patches," +  "Even if the dark material in the south is confined only to observed low-albedo patches, its thermal properties are probably similar to those of dark material in the north and to those of non-polar dust mantles."


 * 9. "Abstract: The cryptic region is a fascinating part of the seasonal south polar cap (SSPC) defined by a low albedo, the presence of CO2 ice and the activity of the spiders.

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you are trying to demonstrate with these quotes.
 * Quote 1 does not make a case for the merge: quite the contrary, it's clearly a list of separate things. It's like saying "Various animals appear on Earth in springtime..." is a reason to merge them all.
 * Quote 2 does not make clear anything else than that people talk of "low albedo dune fields"
 * Same for quote 3: kinda obvious that "dark"="low albedo"
 * Quote 4 says that spiders are pale albedo, then goes into a morphological description which does not talk of DDS.
 * Quote 5 emphasis is referred apparently to the cryptic region, not spiders
 * Quote 6 again talks of polar dark albedo features, so what?
 * Quote 7 says that if the CO2 jets hypothesis is real then they are connected, something which seems still very much to see.
 * Quote 8 doesn't tell anything meaningful about the merge; again talks of dark albedo features.
 * Quote 9 says that spiders occur often in low albedo regions but makes no further connection.
 * All of this makes a quite nice case for merging both articles (DDS and spiders) into a Southern emisphere albedo features (Mars) article, discussing them both or something like that, but absolutely not to merge DDS into spiders or viceversa.--Cyclopia (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You did not read the comment before replying. I REPEAT: "low albedo" is not used so much as a name but as a "description" common to their optical and infrared properties (which is pretty much all the info there is now). BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, sorry. I read the comment above but failed to see the point of that. Do you mean that "Low albedo feature" is not a feasible name for the merge? --Cyclopia (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have sources indicating such consensus exists (e.g. a review article stating clearly that it is commonly and widely accepted that they are the same thing) I will be happy to support your idea. -Cyclopia
 * I too am a published researcher myself, thank you. The scientific consensus is implicit in the multiple cited reports already embedded in the article and dished out in this page. Of course you can choose to ignore them, but that would not be intelectual honesty.  The question is: Did you belive yourself when you wrote and sourced: "all of them being external manifestations of the same phenomenon or different phases of a same process."   Regards, BatteryIncluded (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My edit was not clear, and I apologize for that. The key word was possibly, which you didn't quote. I now reworded the introduction to be more clear. As for scientific consensus, sorry but I fail to see anything implicit, and I'm not choosing to ignore everything: you brought no quote explicitly stating that it is known for a fact that DDS and spiders are the same thing. There is only a bunch of interesting (and mutually conflicting) hypothesis. --Cyclopia (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you actually ever published anything worth publishing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, you would know that nobody could claim such geology features to be "known for a fact to be xyz" while there is only indirect optical and IR data. However, planetary science builds up from theories based on observations and likely geophysical models, and it is this collective presentation of hypotheses, theories and models that bring forth the evident scientific concensus which relates their nature or dynamics in the same space and time. Scientific consensus needs not to be listed in a "single review article" in order to be a factual consensus.
 * This discussion and review of the material has served its purpose well, so I am glad I waited since August 11 for at least one person's opinion before proceding with the merger. We agree that the sources quoted and discussed grant the merger of Dark Dune Spots and Spiders not as synonyms but as possibly related features, and I agree with the 2 edits you have introduced in the WP article so far.
 * Having read the all the cited research with intelectual and scientific honesty and after discussion, now I take this to the next phase, our situational awareness here in Wikipedia: 'Truth' is not the criteria for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth —that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.(Truth)  Therefore, my motion to coalesce the articles' information and merge them is on. Cheers BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please avoid personal attacks. What I have published is of no concern here. And well, I understand completely that you cannot know with 100% certainity what these spots are. Nor it is important for the article, since what is important is the existence (I cannot repeat it too many times) of scientific consensus.
 * You very correctly state that the inclusion of material on WP depends on existence of verifiable sources. Now, the problem is that you fail to provide a single source indicating that there is general consensus for DDS and spiders to be facets of the same thing. You linked a lot of articles which seem all to converge on the possibility of a relationship, but still very vaguely, nor there is any indication that these articles do represent the majority viewpoint. If consensus is so obvious as you state, there should be no problem at all in getting a source clearly stating it is so. Don't get me wrong, I'm quite positive you're in complete good faith and you seem to show good knowledge of the subject -clearly more than mine. However if you want to merge within either DDS or Martian spiders, we need a verifiable source about such consensus, and such source still hasn't been provided.
 * That said, I think that a merge is a very good idea because there are indeed enough sources to justify treating the features in the same article. What I disagree with is merging within either of DDS or spiders. I would merge under an umbrella term: you look more entitled than me to suggest the right one. --Cyclopia (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am glad you support of the merger now. Thank you. As I said before, I have already moved to the next phase from discussing the science, and now it is about the mechanics of Wikipedia merging. Nowhere it says a merge relies on "at least one review article of consensus"; I have cited almost thirty high quality sources supporting the possible features' relationship including a statistic study, so anyone's POV on "the truth" is more than overriden by the references brought forth.


 * As for the name of the article, it is WP policy to use the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article; in this case I deem approrpiate to leave it as "Dark dune spots" with a large section on "spiders" as well -at least until new data is available.  Cheers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * BatteryIncluded, may I ask you by what criteria have you decided that discussion was closed and that the result was merge under that name? I never, ever endorsed the merge under DDS. You failed to provide any evidence of scientific consensus that DDS and spiders are the same thing. What I endorsed was merging the content into a third article with another name, that clearly specifies that DDS and spiders are not (yet) considered commonly to be the same thing, discussed as two separate entries. Declaring the discussion closed with a supposed result supporting your motion while you had only one editor (me) discussing about that with you, and this editor was clearly against the merge as you endorsed it (while supportive possibily of a merge in a larger article covering both types of features) is disruptive at the very least, since there is no easy way I know to undo it.
 * As for the name of the article, please take time to read WP:GAME. The policy is true, but does not apply here since the subject of the article is not dark dune sposts, but dark dune spots and spiders, two different things until consensus agrees on the contrary; in particular DDS is not a name for spiders (unless you find a reliable source of scientific consensus on this point). Being the damage now done, I will take time to propose a rename of the article at the very least, and possibly re-establishing the content of both articles in full, even if under a single entry. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (about the sources): Nowhere it says a merge relies on "at least one review article of consensus"; I have cited almost thirty high quality sources supporting the possible features' relationship including a statistic study, so anyone's POV on "the truth" is more than overriden by the references brought forth. I am sorry but policy declares almost exactly that: WP:SYNTHESIS says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. - What you did is exactly that: you brought multiple sources which present an hypothesis, and synthesized them together thinking that consensus is "implicit". It is not, unless you find a source which explicitly says that such consensus exists. --Cyclopia (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A small wikiquette concern

 * Comment Ehm, BatteryIncluded, you are the one who nominated the thing: it is obvious you are strongly in favour. It makes no sense for you to repeat your own arguments multiple times, it only gives a skewed apperance of the debate. For short, you should not vote on your own proposals: you of course should discuss it with voters. --Cyclopia (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not "my argument" or vote that counts, but the facts presented in the scientific literature and their rightful interpretation. Cheers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree, but I (and fellow wikipedians who could join this discussion) would appreciate a less confusing formatting, so I took the freedom to reformat your edit cosmetically as a comment to my "vote", as it in fact is. We can continue the discussion about the article above. --Cyclopia (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I didn't made myself clear. You are asking for a discussion about a merge. I added my opinion in a poll-like fashion. If you are the one who propose something (a merge, a delete, whatever) it is completely senseless that you also !vote (whatever we mean by that, remember WP:VOTE) on that something, reiterating the same arguments of the nomination. It only makes things incomprehensible for the casual reader. The change was purely cosmetic because it is plain obvious that you endorse the merge with those arguments: you nominated it with the same arguments! Please reformat your interventions in a non-confusing manner, and let's continue discussing about the article content. --Cyclopia (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I respectufully decline yor proposal to nulify my opinion and edits to my own posts. I have never been much of an edit warrior or take part on pissing contests, so can we please focus on the science now? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "pissing contests", nor by "proposal to nullify". No one nullified everything, nor wants to. I just moved the comment in the thread hierarchy, removed the bold and put it in the right context, to avoid to give readers the impression that you are casting a !vote on your own discussion, which would be an obvious breach of discussion transparency (and also redundant). WP:TPO explicitly allows editing of other people's comments for formatting purposes, provided no content is modified or deleted. That said, I would appreciate to focus on the science, and I would really hope for that, but if you reasonably want consensus to emerge, you should make the conversation as easy to follow as possible, which is not happening with its current formatting. I won't touch it anymore since you seem to be sensitive to it, but I ask you to consider that this would be a little effort but very helpful for the discussion, even if it's not raw content. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional research articles
Additional articles to read and to extract info:, , , ,. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: checkout claim of discovery of DDS in the north polar cap: -BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was no consensus. @harej 23:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dark dune spots → Planum Australe albedo features &mdash; Discussion above provided a (very limited; only two editors involved) consensus for a merge of the content of old Martian spider and Dark dune spots article. The articles have been merged into Dark dune spots however, even if discussion was still ongoing and no consensus was reached on a merge under that title. The previous discussion failed to provide evidence of scientific consensus for dark dune spots being an accepted synonim of spiders while conjectures about their relationships have been made. As such the merged article as such is misleading. I think that moving the article under an umbrella term covering all these types of geological features could be less controversial and less confusing and provide a natural framework to discuss the still unproven connection between these features. The name "Planum Australe albedo features" is just an early proposal; the essence of the proposal is using a neutral term for an article encompassing both types of features. Cyclopia (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) The original proposal was to merge, not rename.
 * 2) Nobody claims they are synonyms, but related features.
 * 3) The multiple scientific references above provide geophysical models that overide your POV to the contrary.
 * 4) The geophysical models fit with the visible and IR observations: most spiders being channels that eject pressurized CO2 and sand to produce the dark spots.
 * 5) Please provide quality citations in the literature of their most common name, per WP policy, to use the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article. BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to previous points:
 * Yes, but your original proposal did not achieve consensus. I agreed to a merge, but not under that name, and the details of the merge were never discussed. Since you merged despite lack of consensus on how do to the merge, I now propose the rename.
 * If you claim they are not synonims but related features, the name "Dark dune spots" is clearly misleading. Dogs and foxes and wolves are related but not synonims: so they are discussed together under Canidae, not under dog.
 * I have no particular POV on the subject; if I have one is that it is true that they are related, so we basically agree on that. What we disagree on is the existence of scientific consensus on the subject justifying their treatment under one and the same name.
 * This is WP:SYNTHESIS. Please, please, please read that policy accurately. If you want to treat them under the same name, find explicit and reliably sourced statements that indicate scientific consensus on this matter.
 * The most common name of the set of dogs and wolves is not "dog": for the same reason, the most common name of "dark dune spots" and "spiders" cannot be "dark dune spot" unless you find evidence of the contrary. That's the basic and very simple reason of the move.
 * --Cyclopia (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Third Opinion:
 * Upon Reviewing the previous discussion of the merge, I believe the explanation, "I disagree with is merging within either of DDS or spiders. I would merge under an umbrella term: you look more entitled than me to suggest the right one," seems to adequately provide a resolution to the situation. Cyclopia has explained the justifiable need for a more general name if the two were to be merged, and has thus ceded the ability to choose the name better lies with BatteryIncluded. As an un-biased third opinion, I agree that the article should be renamed with a more general unbrella term until the point that they are proven to be one in the same.
 * -Halfs (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC) 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments to excerpts on AN/I
Read your comments on AN/I. I think that moving under Dark dune spots and spider features on Mars would be much better than the current title (I am not "pushing" any name: as you can read above I wrote that the proposed name was just a proposal, the essence being that of having a term encompassing correctly both terms. If we can agree at least on this despite our discussions, I would proceed with the move. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, found another interesting quote of yours: ...which of course, nobody would write as they are two separate components of the same geological system. -A reference saying that this is established consensus would be very useful. Do you have one? --Cyclopia (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally, third interesting quote of yours to discuss: sources indicate that Dark dune spots are small CO2 geiser-like systems which are fed gas by the spiders' sub-surface channel network. -Do you have any one indicating it is scientific consensus? If there is (could have escaped me) it would be very useful. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I copy this comment from the AN/I incident page, and I wish to discuss it here since it has to do with the article content and not the reported incidents.


 * The history of Cyclopia's excuses (unreasonable interferences) is archived for anybody's review. The only reason this landed on ANI is because Cyclopia is unable/unwilling to understand the references cited; in a nutshell: Spiders are under-ice channels that conduct dust and gas to the surface, upon eruption, the expelled dust and gravel accumulates on the surface creating a dark dune spot. I don't care if he won'r read the references or if he is not a believer of the science models, as almost 40 high-quality scientific research papers (all with inline citations) disagree with his POV.  The article has very relevant references for everybody to read, so that is that.  As I write this, he is again in the DDS talk page challenging the verifiability of the statements (e.g. spiders are gas channels that feed the geiser-like vent), when they have inline citations right next to them! BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to be clear that it is painfully obvious that there are a lot of sources that make hypothesis on the what DDS and spiders are and on what is their relationship. In fact the article correctly reports and sources 10 very different models on their formation! You also continue to accuse me of a peculiar POV on the subject, while my POV I repeatedly stated: I personally agree completely with you that concomitant formation of these structures by mean of some CO2 or water including mechanism makes sense. In this sense, I sympathize a lot with your views. But that's not the point of the discussion, because our POV has nothing to do with encyclopedia building. The inline citations do not say that spiders are gas channels: they bring theoretical models hypothesizing that they could be. There is no verifiable source of consensus on these being gas channels: there are verifiable sources debating this possibility. I hereby quote some of the sources you provided:

"This is an exotic model that agrees with observations thus far."
 * 

"The proposed model involves the microphysical interaction of CO2 and dust with the solar and thermal radiation fields on Mars. " (proposed model, not consensual)
 * 

"We suggest this flow can take part in the volatile transport and produce surface markings only at locations of weakened or brocken off top frost. These location can be in connection with the formation of DDS’s and the arms of spiders as gas travel paths. A highly hypothetic evolutionary scheme is visible in Fig. 5."
 * 

"We propose that the seasonal ice cap forms an impermeable, translucent slab of CO2 ice that sublimates from the base, building up high-pressure gas beneath the slab."
 * 

"Still, a mechanism able to embrace and explain all the characteristics observed in these different features is currently lacking."
 * 

"Various polar albedo features appear on Mars in springtime, like spiders [1, 2, 3, 4], dark spots [5, 6], Dalmatian spots [7], and Dark Dune Spots (DDSs) [8]. Some of them formed probably by CO2 jets [9] others possibly by flow-like process [8, 10, 11]." (Note: This is interesting in being a most recent reference, 2009.)
 * 

A list of "currently lacking mechanism", "exotic models", "proposed models", "suggestions", "highly hypothetic schemes" and at best "probability" is not scientific consensus. So I reiterate my concerns, which I would like to discuss with also some other editor, if possible:
 * 1) There is no scientific consensus on the formation of dark dune spots and spiders, and what is their causal connection. Most sources agree that they are probably correlated phenomena, but for us to state this correlation for a fact on the page would violate WP:SYNTHESIS (stating that many sources correlate them is however not a violation). Pushing one model above the others is not warranted until there is proof of consensus for a model.
 * 2) A dark dune spot is not a spider, nor viceversa: this is something that we all seem to agree on. Spiders and dark dune spots are often associated, but that's a different thing. Moving all under the single name of "dark dune spots" appears therefore misleading. That's why I propose the move. The title proposed as "Dark dune spots and spider features on Mars" seems satisfactory.

I hope to have made myself clear this time. My objection in a nutshell has always been the same: no consensus says that a Martian spider is a dark dune spot. So using one name to cover both is misleading. That's it, very simply, and that's always been it. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment to new excerpt from the AN/I
I would like to comment on this statement of yours on the AN/I page. Since it is relevant to the content dispute and not to the AN/I subject, I'd discuss it here. Georgewilliamherbert, as our mediator I want to tell you that I thought of a solution -actually a significant improvement- to the naming. Cyclopia and I agree that the Dark dune spots and spiders are thought by scientists to be related formations. Therefore I am proposing not to name the article after either structure but after the system  they are thought to constitute:  they are reported to (possibly) be components of a system similar to a geyser, so I am proposing Geysers on Mars or Jets on Mars (i like best the first one as it denotes at first view its geological nature). I have been studying the related literature for one year and after reading additional references today, I realized that this is indeed THE central theory of these two formations' dynamics; I could produce at least one dozen cientific citations refering to the system as geyser, jets, eruption event, outflow, etc. If you check the WP article (and even check the references), all of the models are based on a geyser-like system, and each one proposes a different mechanism powering the system. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I would like to agree with BatteryIncluded interpretation, since my personal POV is that the CO2 geyser model is pretty convincing. But my POV cannot be of use for the article. My concerns are:
 * Geysers on Mars or Jets on Mars are at risk of being biased towards some of the interpretations. While most models involve a geyser-like mechanism, some of the models cited in the article involving, for example, water erosion or CO2 sublimation do not -at least not always.
 * In this respect, surely dozens of citations are produced in support of the geysers' mechanism, but the WP article itself cites substantially also models which do not seem to support a geyser mechanism.
 * Finally, my old and one concern: while I appreciate greatly the fact you've been studying a lot the literature about that, to reach a conclusion of scientific consensus not explicitly stated by a source is, to my judgement, a direct violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. While it is clear that they are thought as related formations, the nature of such relation has still not reached consensus (or unambiguous sources of such consensus are yet to be found).

In short, my opinion is that "Dark dune spots and spiders" looks still as the best compromise presented so far. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That said, I feel is that our content disputes are better not discussed on the AN/I page but (at least also) on the talk page. The AN/I has to deal with editor's behaviours, not the content dispute. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That is completely wrong, one more example that you have not bothered to even look at the references and one more example of your liberal use of POV to to disrupt this article. It is extremely well referenced that that ALL models involve a geyser-like mechanism, whether referred to as 'geiser', 'eruption', 'plume', 'outflow', 'jet', 'expulsion', 'expelled', 'ejection', etc. All of them. Your unsupported POV again does not apply. You are certain that the geyser model does not allways apply and, as usual, you provide absolutely nothing to support your POV.
 * 1) While most models involve a geyser-like mechanism,  some of the models cited in the article involving, for example, water erosion or CO2 sublimation do not -at least not always. -C."
 * 1) Do not seem to support the model? Again that is a POV and denial of the enclosed references. Violation of WP:Truth SuThe use of the words 'geiser',  'eruption', 'plume', 'outflow', 'jet', 'expulsion', 'expelled', 'ejection', etc. indicates in no uncertain terms the geyser-like model. You are perpetual in denial in the face of the cited scientific sources!
 * 2) That is another indulgence of your unsupported POV: There are 39 sources that faithfully, directly and explicittly  support all sections of the article in inline citation format.  If you are in denial and/or incapable of reading the sources, is not of my concern.

The merge was 100% based on scientific publications. Get over it. Regarding the proposed name Geysers in Mars (there is a lot to be said about accuracy), I can easily support this whole WP article and source it faithfully -and its new name- by using only this paper:
 * SIMULATIONS OF GEYSER-TYPE ERUPTIONS IN CRYPTIC REGION OF MARTIAN SOUTH" (PDF), Fourth Mars Polar Science Conference, 2006.
 * or using only this paper: "ANNUAL PUNCTUATED CO2 SLAB-ICE AND JETS ON MARS"
 * or using only this paper: ""CO2 JETS formed by sublimation beneath translucent slab ice in Mars' seasonal south polar ice cap."

So if I use one, three or the facto 39 published sources, is not 'synthesis', is being thorough and, it is the expected procedure in Wikipedia.(WP:Verifiability]]) The article is extremely well sourced and the best you can muster against it was not even one source to the contrary. What you did very well (the only time you used a source) was to prove that the models are indeed models. (!?) I simply don't care if you do not understand the subject or keep ignoring the references. Need I to quote you for the fifth time: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth  —that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether you think it is true. (WP:Truth)

Next, I will ridicule your "synthesis" acusation, once again, with this published source, which I already showed to you and to the administrator, and you keep ignoring and denying in violation of WP:Truth: Wake up and smell the coffee: I have dozens more published quotes like this one already placed as inline citations, PROVING that I am not doing 'synthesis'. The geological system is repeatedly described in the references as geyser-like, the article it is fully referenced with multiple published papers whether you like/believe them or not is of no interest to me or to Wikipedia. In addition, the list of geyser mechanism models are all heavily referenced to exhaustion, yet you have completely failed to produce a single reference to contest the geyser model. How can we take your denial and POV seriously in the face of the sources? I have spoon-fed you too many references and quotes to assume your interference is in good faith. Again, your blind denial, lack of reading/comprehension of the scientific papers, your POV and your demonstrated ignorance in the subject, are simply invalid interference tricks meant to disrupt the merger and renaming to Geisers on Mars. Your completely unsupported arguments and demonstrated false acusations always go back to your baseless POV: that the published sources quoted are are untruthfull, that sysnthesis must have happened, that you do not believe it, that it is only a reported "model" not a fact. You keep going in circles violating WP:Truth with the sole purpose to disrupt an extremely well sourced article, and this has to stop. All I needed was ONE supporting reference for the merge. And next, all I need is ONE supporting reference for the comming rename. You know this perfectly well, and I have 39 sources. Your arrogance to not realize that you are tragically outgunned by the sources, and the Wikipedia rules is hilarious. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * These observations are consistent with a geyser-like model for spider formation.[...] Also consistent with such venting is the observation of dark fan-shaped deposits apparently emanating from spider centers."


 * Quotes numbered between parenthesis are from BatteryIncluded:
 * (1) It is extremely well referenced that that ALL models involve a geyser-like mechanism, whether referred to as 'geiser', 'eruption', 'plume', 'outflow', 'jet', 'expulsion', 'expelled', 'ejection', etc. All of them..
 * This reference (found in the current WP article), as far as I can read (full text is unaccessible to me) makes no reference to geysers but to subsurface flows, which do not fit with a jet- or geyser-like mechanism:

"We suggest, with better knowledge of sub-ice temperatures that result from extended polar solar insolation and the heat insulator capacity of water vapor and water ice, future models and measurements may show that ephemeral water could appear and flow under the surface ice layer on the dunes today. (emphasis mine)."
 * The same for this abstract, which states "'we show that a number of erosive features identified in Inca City, among them spiders, may result from the seasonal melting of aqueous salty solutions.'", making again no reference to jets or geysers.
 * This older reference presents models which rely mostly on some material coming out of the formations, but either at low or high pressure, and as such not all models here represented can be accurately described as requiring "geysers" or "jets".
 * This other one presents frosting, defrosting and CO2 sublimation mechanisms which are described as evaporation, but as nothing resembling jets or geysers.
 * Also this talks admittedly of gas flows, but does not cite directly jets or geyser-like structures.
 * Finally, biological models (which I agree are very unlikely, yet they seem to be still discussed) like this or this invoke at most fluid seepage below the crust, and not geyser-like mechanisms.


 * (2)You are certain that the geyser model does not allways apply
 * Actually I am personally quite convinced that it is a good model. Problem is, that it is still just a non-consensual model which is still regarded as speculative, as shown by the wording of the references you provided.


 * (3)So if I use one, three or the facto 39 published sources, is not 'synthesis', is being thorough and, it is the expected procedure in Wikipedia.(WP:Verifiability]]) The article is extremely well sourced and the best you can muster against it was not even one source to the contrary. 
 * You have been in fact very thorough in your bibliographic research, and I personally admire your work. In fact you have been so thorough that I don't have to look for sources "for the contrary". You provided all the sources I need. The problem is that your thorough sources do not declare unambiguously and explicitly the existence of a scientific consensus on this subject, and that when I asked for such a declaration, you provided none. The key word is explicitly, as WP:SYNTHESIS requires. To tell that "consensus on X exists because a lot of sources provide models which support X" is a textbook example of violating WP:SYNTHESIS.


 * (4) What you did very well (the only time you used a source) was to prove that the models are indeed models. (!?)
 * So we agree that the published models are, indeed, models and not yet a consensual theory. That's exactly the root of my concerns. We're discussing of models which are, according to sources you provided, not (yet) subject of scientific consensus. That's why a rename to "Geysers on Mars" is not cautious and violates WP:SYNTHESIS


 * (5)Next, I will ridicule your "synthesis" acusation, once again, with this published source, which I already showed to you and to the administrator, and you keep ignoring and denying in violation of WP:Truth
 * First of all, WP:Truth is not a policy but an essay; I wonder what is the normative problem in "violating an essay", which is the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints., as you can check by looking at the WP:Truth page itself. That said, I must say that I really happily agree with the essay you declare I "ignore" and "violate". In fact the problem is that, while the truth may well be that we're talking of geysers (and I'm personally convinced of that, how much times do I have to declare it?), no reliable sources declare that there is scientific consensus on such a subject. Your quote from the source is just a further confirm of that: it says that a model proposed is consistent with data. The problem is not the consistency of the mode, neither is whether the model is true; the problem is whether the great majority of the scientific community agrees firmly with such a model.


 * (6)Wake up and smell the coffee: I have dozens more published quotes like this one already placed as inline citations, PROVING that I am not doing 'synthesis'. The geological system is repeatedly described in the references as geyser-like, the article it is fully referenced with multiple published papers whether you like/believe them or not is of no interest to me or to Wikipedia.  In addition, the list of geyser mechanism models are all heavily referenced to exhaustion, yet you have completely failed to produce a single reference to contest the geyser model. How can we take your denial and POV seriously in the face of the sources? 
 * The number of quotes does not make WP:SYNTHESIS vanish. If I have 1000 sources saying "We propose a model saying that X is Y" it does not mean that consensus is that "X is considered generally to be Y until proof of the contrary". We can and should surely write something like "the majority of model invokes a mechanism involving gas or fluid ejections even in the form of geysers". To call them "geysers" right from the title, we're not entitled to.
 * I agree that my belief (or lack of) in the papers has nothing to do with WP. But this is not a problem, in fact, because I am just discussing what sources say, not what I think of them. As for sources which, at least as far as I can read, do not explicitly invoke a geyser-like mechanism, see (1).


 * (7)your baseless POV: that the published sources quoted are are untruthfull, that sysnthesis must have happened, that you do not believe it, that it is only a reported "model" not a fact
 * You agreed above (see answer (4)) that they are all models, not facts, so I am unsure of what to think about this sentence. As for me believing it, I ask you to provide evidence of whenever I contested your edits/proposals on the grounds of "I do not believe it". I think I never did something like that, which I agree would be regrettable.


 * (8) You keep going in circles violating WP:Truth with the sole purpose to disrupt an extremely well sourced article, and this has to stop.
 * Again, what you think I am "violating" is an essay, not a policy, and I yet have to see how am I violating that even if it was a policy, since I basically never challenged your edits on the page, practically only discussing on this talk page.


 * (9)All I needed was ONE supporting reference for the merge. And next, all I need is ONE supporting reference for the comming rename. 
 * This I can agree only in part. That is: all you need is one supporting reference of scientific consensus. You have 39 sources (or even more) which propose a lot of models, but no one (yet, I wait for one) explicitly stating that such models are consensually and unambiguously endorsed by the scientific community. Rather, all the sources seem to propose very cautiously their interpretations as provisional models which await for further investigation.


 * Finally, I would take care in using terminology like "ridicule", "blind denial" or accusing me of POV or of ignorance. I personally do not care so much but they are violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I am sorry if you are somehow taking this personally because of the AN/I, but I brought the thing to AN/I not because of the content dispute but because what I perceived as a serious mismanagment of that, with in particular a violation of WP:TPO which I felt was warranting an opinion from admins. That said, I invite you to attempt to stay cool and I would really appreciate if we could discuss the content in a more relaxed manner. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies about edits during work in progress -mistake in interpreting WP's clock
I hope my editing did not cause technical problems. I edited despite the "work in progress" tag due to a simple misunderstanding: my clock measures 23:41 and I didn't realize WP's clock is at GMT time or something like that (21:41) so when I've seen edit history it looked like there were no edits for two hours. I realized that only after. Sorry if this caused any problems, I just realized it now. I apologize for any technical incident it may have caused. --Cyclopia (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Page renaming to "Geysers on Mars"
I am fully aware that there is one user with insubstancial objections to the move (naming), but since the article is about Geysers on Mars, the WP naming conventions dictate it ought to be titled "Geysers on Mars." I expect certain user's continued disruption to this project to go beyond the merging and development, and I look forward to yet another reasonable administrator's intervention in order to not drag this issue any further. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)