Talk:Mars/Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2019
Removal of reference to sciencescape.org website - this website is now either closed or redirected to a new destination making the reference irrelevant. KarlTippins (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The only sciencescape.org reference in the article is reference no 98, which provides a link to the archived version. No action needed. NiciVampireHeart 11:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * While the link to the archived version is correct, the live link - via the text "the original" - is not, this goes to the sciencescape.org homepage which is now a site for health/bodybuilding supplements and irrelevant to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlTippins (talk • contribs) 12:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done with this edit. Thank you. Begoon 12:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Huo Xing listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Huo Xing. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 02:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Mars for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Mars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mars (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 19:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Atmosphere
Please take it easy on me I’m new here.

I didn’t see much historical information about any previously existing Martian atmosphere. I can only assume if there was flowing water as recent as ~3Mya there would have been more of an atmosphere at the same time or maybe it’s more accurate to say this would be the approximate time frame Mars lost the majority of its atmosphere? But nothing about it’s expected composition. If anyone knows of any more comprehensive sources or papers on this subject I would appreciate a point in the right direction. If this is the wrong place to ask this question I do apologize. BogartTheGatus (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Adjectives under "Names"
The bit about the adjective "martial" is BS -- as is obvious from the fact that the article itself uses only "Martian" analogously to "terrestrial". 2003:F0:F14:5A00:BD70:AE1F:4E65:511B (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mars - god of war - aka a god of 'martial' properties ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.8.173 (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Surface temperature range
The article cites a minimum surface temperature of about -143 deg C and a maximum surface temperature of about 35 deg C and qualifies this range of around 178 K as "wide".

On Earth minimum surface temperatures of around -98 deg C on Antarctica and maximum surface temperatures of around 55 deg C In Death Valley and a couple of North-African and Asian countries have been reported. That implies a range of about 153 K.

The range reported for Mars is certainly wider than that for Earth, but I am not sure the relative difference of around 16% with respect to Earth's surface temperature range justifies calling Mars' surface temperature range as "wide".Redav (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review needed
This is a 2007 Featured article that has not been maintained to FA standards. This article should be submitted to Featured article review. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * With an automatic archival set to age=60, many unaddressed items have been swept into archives without being addressed.
 * There is considerable uncited text.
 * There are stubby paragraphs and sections.
 * Images have been jammed in without consideration for layout, and there is considerable MOS:SANDWICHing.
 * A review for outdated text and MOS:CURRENT is needed, eg, The current understanding ...
 * A WP:MOS review is needed, eg unspaced WP:EMDASHes at ... six in orbit — 2001 Mars Odyssey, ...
 * There are citation cleanup needs and questionable sources, eg ... JPL Horizons for Mars (mb=499) and Observer Location: @Sun and ... "Online Atlas of Mars". Ralphaeschliman.com. Retrieved 16 December 2012.
 * External links need to be trimmed.
 * The article has 9,900 words of prose; the featured version has 6,000, so the article has grown by almost 50%, with text unvetted in any content review process.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2021
change: The United Arab Emirates' Mars Hope orbiter was launched on 19 July 2020, and is scheduled to reach Mars in 2021. The probe will conduct a global study of the Martian atmosphere. to: The United Arab Emirates' Mars Hope orbiter was launched on 19 July 2020, and successfully entered Mars orbit on 9 February 2021. The probe will conduct a global study of the Martian atmosphere. Andru90s (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Volteer1 (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021
Change occured to occurred, typo fixing. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 03:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

best resolution possible from earth's surface
Just before the contents section this claim is made:

"Optical ground-based telescopes are typically limited to resolving features about 300 kilometres (190 mi) across when Earth and Mars are closest because of Earth's atmosphere"

The reference cited gives a very similar opinion. I don't see a date on the opinion, but it is attached to a 1988 image. The state of the art has improved quite a bit since then (especially stacking methods, but also thermal issues, and maybe a few other tricks). In the late 2020 close approach, even amateurs with apertures of 500mm or less were probably doing somewhere in the range 60 to 150 km in the best conditions (my guess based on a quick look). A quick google search found a claim of 16km for Hubble (in earth orbit), but no actual number from the earth's surface.

I'm not really knowlegable enough to fix this, but suggest someone hunts down a more recent reference on this issue (not with any great urgency). 110.145.170.78 (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Does Mars have a temperature?
Does Mars have a temperature? Silly question… Why isn’t the temperature range specified. Equatorial versus polar… Wikipedia is such a handy reference. The temperature of the planet seems like a relevant data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.159.160 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC) "Surface temp.	min	mean	max Kelvin	130 K	210 K[10]	308 K Celsius	−143 °C[13]	−63 °C	35 °C[14] Fahrenheit	−226 °F[13]	−82 °F	95 °F[14]"


 * It's at the top infobox. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 17:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021
Suggest adding Tianwen-1 orbiting and Zhurong landing to the lede. Currently, it is the only exploration mission omitted. 97.108.14.164 (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Mel ma nn   10:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Image caption overlaps with the 'See also' tab text
I have noticed that an image caption within the article overlaps with the text on the 'See also' tab. This makes the article look strange and unprofessional in my opinion. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Mars interior structure
The recent amendments concerning the interior structure were quick, but simplify too much (making it incorrect):
 * The new results published in "Science" on 23. July 2021 do not imply that the core of Mars is "made" of lighter elements than thought before. The core is still thought to consist mainly of iron. The large size however requires that sulfur can't be the only light element. Carbon, Oxygen and Hydrogen are likely candidates.
 * The crustal thickness given in the Wikipedia article is not supported by the publications. The crustal thickness at the InSight landing site is either 20 +/-5 km or 39 +/- 8 km - it is currently not possible to distinguish between these two possibilities. It is however incorrect to take these two values and take a mean from them. The average crustal thickness, averaged over entire Mars, is between 24 and 72 kilometers, but it is also wrong to take the middle of these two values as "the" mean. Crustal thickness varies over the planet, as determined from gravity anomalies, and the mean of this variation is somewhere between 24 and 72 km, depending on additional assumptions.
 * The reference given for the crustal thickness is not correct: The cited paper by Stähler et al. deals with the core radius only, crustal thickness is investigated in another paper.--129.247.247.239 (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried to make necessary corrections. Ruslik_ Zero 19:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Mars dimensions.
The surface area and volume figures needed correction. The equatorial figure and flattening lead to an accurate polar radius and mean radius that agree with the infobox and other sources. The volume and surface area numbers were wrong. The volume mistake may have just been an entry mistake, 1.618 should be 1.6118. The surface area was more in error. It should be 144.37. And I'll add some more (and better) sources.DianaCLnomad (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

It has 2 moons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexc90 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It has two moons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexc90 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2021
Maybe include a definition of astronomical bodies or a link to a wiki page explaining what they are. LightningCow (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. melecie   t  - 07:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Eccentricity cycle of Mars
I've noticed that in the orbit and rotation section about Mars, It says that Mars's eccentricity cycle is around 96,000 Earth Years. However, the sentence after that says Mars's eccentricity cycle is around 2.2 million years, which "overshadows the 96,000-year cycle in the eccentricity graphs". So which one is the correct one? Blue Jay (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2022
The surface area should be 10^8, not 10^6 Kate.fishman1 (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌. That looks right to me. Note that it says 144.37, not 1.4437. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

White Mars - Nick Hoffman (Melbourne)
Some 20 years ago, there was quite some discussion about the "White Mars" theory, developed (at least among others) by Nick Hoffman, La Trobe University Melbourne and later University of Melbourne, Australia. Does anybody know what happened to this theory or even to Nick Hoffman? I understand that NASA may not like the theory. Here are some starting points: Space Daily 2000, Swinburne University 2001, Space Daily 2003. Hoffman used to run his own website on unimelb.com.au, here is the archived version. Other WP articles mention him on Oudemans (crater), Géologie de Mars, Valles Marineris, Valles Marineris. --Kuhni74 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * do you have an answer to my question? --Kuhni74 (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have found a bunch much about this theory, and from what I've researched, it hasn't really been well received by the Scientific Community, and hasn't been discussed a lot ever since. As for Hoffman himself, we don't know what happened to him, I couldn't find much information on him other than that he is a professor at the university of Melbourne. Blue Jay (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Do you have a personal opinion on the theory? I'm not aware of any facts that stand against it. But I'm aware that we should not do original research here. --Kuhni74 (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2022
Please change $5.65 °$ the Sun's equator; to $5.65 °$ to Sun's equator; 109.241.162.167 (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ The required changes have been carried out. Thank you. Kpddg  (talk)  07:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The change is not quite as I requested. "The" should be replaced by "to", not only "to" added, so that the 'inclination' in the template be in line with those of other planets. Looking into the article today, I also noticed that the semicolons after inclinations need to be removed, as in the templates of Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, etc. Let the planet articles be uniform. 109.241.162.167 (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you write the exact sentence and wording? This way it would be easier to understand with minimal confusion. Kpddg  (talk)  14:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Change | inclination           = $1.85 °$ to ecliptic;

$5.65 °$ to the Sun's equator;

$1.63 °$ to invariable plane to | inclination          = $1.85 °$ to ecliptic

$5.65 °$ to Sun's equator

$1.63 °$ to invariable plane109.241.162.167 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

✅ I hope the changes are fine now Kpddg  (talk)  05:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The changes are completed. Thank you. Ending, I would like to delete the irritating reference at the bottom of this page, otherwise it will stay there for ever. The reference has nothing to do with our edits.109.241.162.167 (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Kpddg  (talk)  09:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2022
Change the link title from the Exomars rover to the Rosalind Franklin rover in the future section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin_(rover) Hampurilaiskauppias (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ (CC) Tb hotch ™ 18:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox
Could anyone lend an additional pair of eyes to double-check the figures in the infobox? This is the sort of thing where different sources can quote values that vary in the later decimal places, the values in the box might have been derived from a source in a way that's not covered by WP:CALC, etc. The infobox needs to be completely sourced if the article is to stay Featured. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Water
Liquid water did exist on mars in 2015. It was a pool of brine water. 2A01:598:A977:47F4:F47E:901E:D35A:55EF (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Mars topography (MOLA dataset) with poles HiRes.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for May 22, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-05-22. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Mars image
Yes, I changed the infobox picture, and for a good reason: that image is probably the only global image of Mars taken by a regular CCD. Rosetta's OSIRIS image is actually only compose of 2 channels source, and we all know that at least 3 color channels is needed to make a realistic-looking picture. Mars Orbiter Mission's uses a regular 3-channel CCD with a Bayer filter, i.e. similar to your normal smartphone camera. Yes, half of Mars in this picture is not illuminated, but we trade that for a realistic image of Mars, and I think it's worthwhile. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2022
{{subst:trim|1=


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is a "woggy dog"?
The "Ancient and medieval observations" section says that "Ares, the Greek god of war [was] commonly mistaken as Apollo, the woggy dog" in Ancient Greece. I can find no source to corroborate the term "woggy dog" anywhere, nor who made the edit on the history page. Just...what? I'm not taking it down in case it's true but thought it bore pointing out. Editor510 drop us a line, mate  12:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The edit was on the 10th October from a reputable editor. It isn't in any source and it has now gone. Still begs the question, why?  Velella  Velella Talk 13:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not so reputable - only 68 edits since 2018!  Velella  Velella Talk 13:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Pohl crater impact and tsunami study from December 2022
Mars experts :

New report today about an impact at the Pohl crater site that led to a large tsunami. Wanted to add the information myself but ohhing and ahhing at astronomy pictures does not a Mars expert make me. It's early so I would imagine someone will get on this but the journal cite if needed :

Rodriguez, J.A.P., Robertson, D.K., Kargel, J.S. et al. Evidence of an oceanic impact and megatsunami sedimentation in Chryse Planitia, Mars. Sci Rep 12, 19589 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18082-2

TheGREYHORSE (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC) TheGREYHORSE (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Polar caps - highlighted gap in article
On printing out the article, I noticed a gap in the section on polar caps. An expansion rate is mentioned but the number of meters per year is blank. Could somebody fill this in please? Many thanks - please don't hesitate to contact me if there's any problems. Berek (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Core findings.
Due to recent findings that the planet has a liquid core, I changed the lede to read from solid to liquid. It is now consistent with the added information that appears in the "Internal Structure" section. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image
hey,, File:Mars_-_August_30_2021_-_Flickr_-_Kevin_M._Gill.png has the following caption: "Mars in true color, taken by the Emirates Mars Mission on August 30, 2021, when Mars was in northern solstice." On Commons this photo has different caption: "Filters: f635, f546, f437 CU/LASP EMM/EXI ITF/Kevin M. Gill Kevin Gill from Los Angeles, CA, United States - Mars - August 30 2021". How is it from Hope, and where is the original publication? I tried to find that photo on https://emiratesmarsmission.ae/gallery, but their site is extremely slow. There is also no indication on the official website that photos from the mission are in PD or CC. Artem.G (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

and also why not this photo? no shade, more features seen, not that red. File:Mars_-_Orbit_47_-_Hope_Mission_(51584045741).png Artem.G (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm, interesting. I use flickr2commons and somehow the description has changed. But anyways, I just found the image on Flickr and compared to the last image it shows more features and feels more natural to me. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not criticism from my side, I'm just trying to find source of this new Deimos photo by Hope, and thought that you might know it. Artem.G (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the news first broke at https://www.emirates247.com/uae/emirates-mars-mission-unveils-new-deimos-observations-at-egu23-announces-mission-extension-2023-04-24-1.709094. Not sure where the image is coming from though. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @CactiStaccingCrane - Thank you. That link is to a stunning photograph. There's no caption beyond the publication date and the "WAM" attribute, but it doesn't appear to be manipulated. Wow! Thank you for your effort, Wordreader (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Landers - written in Italics or not?
The names of landing craft appear scattered thoughout this article - in some places, the names of the craft are written in plain font while in others, the same craft, are named in Italics. This inconsistency is glaring to me. Does anyone know which it should be? Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Italic. This is a convention carried over from battleships and aircrafts on Wikipedia. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Photo caption: is there ambiguity?
"Mars in true color, taken by the Emirates Mars Mission on August 30, 2021, when Mars was in northern solstice."

Summer or winter? Grassynoel (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * "northern solstice" means "when the sun is most north"; at least I have not found the term used in any other sense. In that shot we can see the north icecap in daylight. —Tamfang (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Fix needed - 1 ATM
This is nonsensical: "The resulting mean surface pressure is only 0.6% of that of Earth 101.3 kPa (14.69 psi)."

Bad grammar. To the ignorant reader, it could be misread as saying that mean surface pressure is 101.3 kPa (14.69 psi) on Mars.

Something unambiguous that could replace it:

"The resulting mean surface pressure is only 0.6% of that found at sea level on Earth. (One standard Earth atmosphere, or 1 ATM is 101.3 kPa, or 14.69 psi)." DrSFCA (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * More concisely, one could write "0.6% of Earth's 101 kPa." (More precision is not needed or helpful here!) —Tamfang (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

man idk man 167.102.157.147 (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

the giving of rise

 * Terrain on the Martian northern hemisphere is on average flatter and smoother than the southern hemisphere, giving rise to the Martian dichotomy.

This contrast is the Martian dichotomy, I thought. Can a contrast give rise to itself? Or is the dichotomy something else, that results from this contrast? —Tamfang (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * "This contrast is the Martian dichotomy" is correct. I've reworded it to make the sentence less awkward. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2023
Hi, first orbiter of Mars was Mariner 9 on November 14 1971. Mars 2 and 3 arrived weeks later on November 27 and December 2. Dnsh1 (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  15:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrong English
This article is supposed to use American English. This is confirmed by the talk page header, the use of MDY dates before the introduction of British English, and the fact that the first manned mission to Mars will likely be American; in addition, the user who inserted British English was banned for disruptive editing, primarily the boosting of the British DMY format on space-related articles. I'll let you judge for yourself: User talk:CRS-20; Special:Contributions/CRS-20 IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 19:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article used to be in British English with DMY dates; I checked a random version from 2021 and it had both of these tagged. Normally, an article's ENGVAR is not changed without good reason.  So this needs further investigation before being resolved.  Tayste (edits) 21:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * See Tayse's reply? Go to June 2020 and you'll see . IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 18:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is tagged with however the Talk page is tagged with  .  This makes no sense.  Tayste (edits) 21:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That talk page header was American English since before British Engish was added BY A BANNED USER to the main article. Check a revision of this talk page from 2019. IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 18:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, this campaign backfired serverely. IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 07:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the talk header change and changed the article tag to reflect that. The article uses American English (e.g. color, visualization, civilization) and has for at least the last 10 years (even the earliest available diff from 2001 and the FA version from 2007 are both in American English). If it's going to be changed to British English I think there needs to be a consensus for that, per MOS:RETAIN. - Aoidh (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

How about using the word for the names of any months? That will remove confusion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

White Mars - Nick Hoffman (Melbourne)
Some 20 years ago, there was quite some discussion about the "White Mars" theory, developed (at least among others) by Nick Hoffman, La Trobe University Melbourne and later University of Melbourne, Australia. Does anybody know what happened to this theory or even to Nick Hoffman? I understand that NASA may not like the theory. Here are some starting points: Space Daily 2000, Swinburne University 2001, Space Daily 2003. Hoffman used to run his own website on unimelb.com.au, here is the archived version. Other WP articles mention him on Oudemans (crater), Géologie de Mars, Valles Marineris, Valles Marineris. --Kuhni74 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * do you have an answer to my question? --Kuhni74 (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have found a bunch much about this theory, and from what I've researched, it hasn't really been well received by the Scientific Community, and hasn't been discussed a lot ever since. As for Hoffman himself, we don't know what happened to him, I couldn't find much information on him other than that he is a professor at the university of Melbourne. Blue Jay (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Do you have a personal opinion on the theory? I'm not aware of any facts that stand against it. But I'm aware that we should not do original research here. --Kuhni74 (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Mars." listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mars.&redirect=no Mars.] 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  until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2023
Change the surface area listed from 144.37 x 10^6 km^2 to 1.4437 x 10^8 km^2 Zulu Echo Delta (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ MOS:SCIENGNOTATION says that we should avoid mixing scientific and engineering notation. Since all the other values are in scientific notation, I have converted this value to scientific notation too. Thanks for pointing it out. Liu1126 (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

human missions

 * Mars is an attractive target for human missions, however no such mission is planned to launch in the current decade of the 2020s.

Does any such mission have a clear launch date? Would anything be lost or distorted if this were shortened to but as of 2023 no such mission is planned ? —Tamfang (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Readers and lurkers, what do you think about this article
I'd reckon that at least one people see this talk page every day. If that person is you, please tell me: I want to get some ideas for improvement, because the Mars article as it is right now is great, but not amazing. I want to turn this into an amazing article. Readers, anonymous editors and registered editors, feel free to make a comment! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you like about this article?
 * What do you don't like about this article?
 * What is something that you wish this article would talk more about?


 * I think the main issue is the sources: some are just old (see 1 (1994), 3 (2000), 6 (2007), 8 (1998), ... 85 (2000), 86 (1999), 222 (1998), etc.). Some of them are certainly fine, but they are all from before the Curiosity and Perseverance missions, and who knows how well these sources have aged. The second issue is with press releases, which should be avoided for a scientific article, and now we have the Guardian (67, 121, 192), BBC (63, 109, 146, 156, 181, 256, 264), The New York Times (6 sources), etc.; and some pop-science books (like 218). Scholarly textbooks like 'Mars: An Introduction to its Interior, Surface and Atmosphere' (used only three times) are more appropriate, but of course, harder to use.
 * One example is refs 28, 29, 30 - all three are press-releases about the same article, though neither WP nor these sources have a link to the real paper (though 28 is paywalled, so maybe it has the link).
 * Please note that I did not check all the refs I've mentioned; I just think that for an FA the sources are not great and can be improved. Artem.G (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it seems that improving the references will be necessary to make this article meet modern FA standard. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s a great article with tons of information. My take - it won’t hurt to add additional multimedia to make the article more robust. For example, the Perseverance rover recorded the first sounds from Mars a few weeks ago. These were the first sounds ever from another planet. Fairly significant. Things like that would definitely help the youth who connect with this article who probably cannot immediately relate to all the scientific figures in the Infobox Thistheyear2023 (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Few years ago* Thistheyear2023 (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thistheyear2023 I just recently reformatted media in Solar System article based on another suggestion and will work through each planets' articles. Thank you for your suggestion! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks - know that the article has to adhere to the guidelines but I think it'll only help, especially given Mars unique status from a possible human exploration standpoint in the coming years Thistheyear2023 (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2024
In April of 2024 a New Species of Spider has been Discovered as Well as an Ancient Incan City Cmills68stang (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * In April of 2024 a New Species of Spider has been Discovered on Mars as Well as an Ancient Incan City Cmills68stang (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the sensationalist language above, what really happened was some spider-like features were discovered near Angustus Labyrinthus, also known as "Inca City". A few sources: ESA, CBS News. I'll leave it to the resident editors of this page to decide how it should be integrated, though I think it would probably better to put this information on the Angustus Labyrinthus article to avoid going into unnecessary detail. Liu1126 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Mars Formation Date
", however, according to the Christian beliefs, it was created on the fourth Day of Creation.." was added today after the statement on how long ago Mars formed, with the edit being for 'other worldviews'.

While I have no intention here of debating whether or not other worldviews should be part of an article, it's inclusion here is out of place especially as other references to events over time are also listed. Also, this particular 'worldview' is very specific and thus is obviously not there to express 'other worldviews', only that particular one. 141.246.2.80 (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed - I would vote to remove. Not to discredit Christianity or its beliefs, but this is a scientific article which discusses the most widely-held beliefs, like the backed belief that Mars formed along with the other planets in the Sun's protoplanetary disc. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Until further notice, I'm going to remove that; I think I'm justified in doing so. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Mars is about 4.5 billion years old. There's no rational basis to doubt this. "Christian beliefs" or any other religious ideas have no place in a non-fictional article about a real planet. The provacateur who made that shameful edit knows better, but pretends otherwise. Beliefs are not facts. One can have one's own belief system, one's own opinion, but not one's own facts. One may as well claim that Mars is actually the Roman god of war. The tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, the flat earth, the pre-Coperican geocentric cosmology, and Genesis are all stories for children. There's no room for them in an adult world. Bcgirton (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While I do agree that it was out of place in that particular section, I think it could be better suited to the "Mars in Culture" section of the article. It could maybe be a paragraph talking about the Judeo-Christian perspective, or just a sentence added to the end of the first paragraph StandMixer (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Does not belong in the in culture section either. David notMD (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Mars description
The sentence: Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun can be confusing. In my opinion, a clarification should be added which is about the distance from the sun. Like: Mars is the fourth planet in the solar system in order of distance from the Sun. See other enciclopedic definitions of: Britannica or National Geographic Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I oppose this. the current one is more concise. What do you think people will think when they see "Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun"? Unless they're dumb the only thing you can possibly think about is distance. Nothing wrong with the current version. 750h+ 09:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Perfectly good first sentence in the Lead as it is. David notMD (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)