![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The names of asteroid articles start with their number ( 49109 Agnesraab), with the side-effect that links like Agnesraab do not work. I'd like to create redirects per bot (except for cases where a page already exists, like Toutatis for 4179 Toutatis). Seeing that there is (or was) a discussion about deleting non-notable asteroid stubs, I want to ask whether this procedure would be welcome or counterproductive. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 15:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
(1) There appears to be some oddness with the starbox template series. I've been making some updates to the Spica article. However, now there are multiple blank lines between the "Otheruses" template and the infobox. It is not clear where this is coming from since the blank lines don't appear in the edit window. But perhaps one or more fields of the starbox templates are introducing extra blank lines into the table that then get pushed to the top?— RJH ( talk) 16:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Details | |
---|---|
Temperature | 0 K |
Other designations | |
Test | |
(2) What do you think about changing the Distance wikilink to point to Cosmic distance ladder? The latter seems much more astronomical in nature and discusses the distance to stars.— RJH ( talk)
There are currently five figures in the "Orbital characteristics" part of Earth's infobox that are uncited. This shouldn't be the case on a Featured Article. If anyone could provide citations, that would very helpful. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I nominated this article for Featured List status. The review page is here. Ruslik_ Zero 12:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I just wanted to tell that I uploaded one of the newest images of NASA's WISE project to WikiCommons. It shows NGC 6726, NGC 6727, NGC 6729, IC 4812 and NGC 6723. Unfortunately I forgot to give it a catchy name and to be honest I have no idea for a name either. Maybe one of you can rename it and has a great idea for use and name.
Hive001 Hive001 contact 18:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I just built flocculent spiral galaxy through the WP:AFC process. Unfortunately, when it was moved to articlespace, it was named with capital letters, contravening MOS:CAPS. So I've initiated a WP:RM on the issue, see talk:flocculent spiral galaxy. As well, I used {{ reflist}} when I built it, but when it was moved, it was switched with the bare <references/> Does anyone have an opinion on which should be used? I tried to switch it back to the "reflist" format, as most astronomy articles seem to use, but the AfC processor seems to object to using the template.
70.29.208.247 ( talk) 06:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Recently it has been announced that there is persistent evidence of a jovian mass solar Companion in the Oort cloud, and I find that worth mentioning here on Wikipedia. However, I do not wish to create an article for an object which has not been confirmed and just a speculation, and I have no real idea where mentioning this would be appropriate. I wanted to bring this to debate and form a potential consensus on how to mention Tyche. I wish to remain neutral on my ideas, because I have been known to overdo myself with issues such as these. -- NuclearVacuum ( talk) 23:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The SIMBAD entry for HD 30202 does not list a Bayer name. However, a query of the VizieR IV/27 catalogue shows HD 30202 as 'lam Cae'. I haven't found any independent confirmation of this, so I'm not sure which is correct.— RJH ( talk) 17:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like I have dug a hole for many pretty wiki NGC images. But wiki policy may require it. What is the current status on using DSS2 on Wikipedia? Can/should they be used under a fair use rule?
See: File:NGC 11 galaxy.jpg, File:NGC 12 galaxy.jpg, File:NGC 13 galaxy.jpg, File:NGC 14 galaxy.jpg File:NGC 15 galaxy.jpg, File:NGC 16 galaxy.jpg as examples.
I also notice that in Feb 2010, Betelguese uploaded the first 100 NGC objects with nice labels to commons under a "cc-by-3.0" license: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Betelguese -- Kheider ( talk) 22:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Attack of the DSS! Commons is being invaded! http://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=Marcosm21 -- Kheider ( talk) 08:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Unless someone comes up with a good reason I have started a MASS EXECUTION ORDER: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/05/07#Wikisky-DSS2 -- Kheider ( talk) 09:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Letter from Scott Kardel from California Institute of Technology regarding DSS2 (POSS-II) images and Wikipedia: "all commercial use of this work remain prohibited". -- Kheider ( talk) 17:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The past experience of M45_DSS2_WikiSky.jpg
Just in case anyone wants to know, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) also has a Non-commercial use rule.
How can I calculate north pole right ascensions and declinations for planets, such as Mars? I think it can be calculated using axial tilt, inclinations, argument of periastron, and longitude of ascending node, but I don't know what's the equation and I'm trying to figure out. I'm trying to find that equation on google, but I can't. BlueEarth ( talk | contribs) 21:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I just created Book:Caldwell catalogue and {{ Caldwell catalogue}}. Any feedback?
Also, I made a bot request so that Calwell objects are tagged with the navbox and the relevant categories. I doubt there will be any objections, but I'm mentioning it here just to be sure (and on WP:AST). Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Mars has been nominated for a featured portal review. Portals are typically reviewed for one week. During this review, editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the portal from featured status. Please leave your comments and help us to return the portal to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, portals may lose its status as featured portals. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. GamerPro64 ( talk) 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Should we create a Portal:Galaxy? Template:Galaxy has a link to Portal:Star since we don't have one for galaxies; that looks just a bit odd. 70.29.208.247 ( talk) 11:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
(grunt, ungh) trying to expand for DYK - got from 105 to 358 words but heavy going. I am a novice on star material. Can anyone add to it? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Template:ConstellationsByBartsch has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Please have your say! Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 09:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Contributions to List of adjectivals and demonyms of astronomical bodies are welcome. -- Wavelength ( talk) 17:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm having a concern about a star's luminosity class being assumed without a suitable citation, regardless of whether it may be correct or not. I added fact tags, but they were taken down. Please see: Talk:HIP_56948#Disputed. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 21:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Eccentric Jupiter has been nominated for deletion at AfD. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 10:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI hot europa has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 06:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, hot europa has been nominated for merger into Goldilocks planet. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 10:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Article was deleted. Icalanise ( talk) 18:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Several articles, e.g. Io (moon) have displayed in the infobox the quantity "mean orbit radius", which is used to represent the semimajor axis. However this isn't a particularly good term to use, especially since it is not clear what is being averaged over, e.g. the time-averaged orbital distance is , as described at Semimajor axis#Average distance. I think it would be best to replace "mean orbit radius" with the more correct term "semimajor axis" in these articles. Icalanise ( talk) 21:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The Picture of the day for June 18th will be the phases of the moon: Template:POTD/2010-06-18 -- Kheider ( talk) 20:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Well I just went through a process of assessing 1,600 unassessed astronomy articles, which took many weeks to finish. Now it looks like another 1,300+ minor planet articles have just been tagged as unassessed virtually overnight by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I can almost guarantee that these will be low priority stubs of no particular significance. Can they be auto-tagged that way?— RJH ( talk) 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
A new editor, Sadalsuud ( talk · contribs) has been buffing up Pleione (star). I have suggested he list it at WP:GAN, and I am sure input from folks here would be very helpful. He is interested in how editors collaborate here. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Chermundy has been adding a template called {{ Nearest systems}} to various star articles. This lists stars out to 30 ly.— RJH ( talk) 20:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed all the "comets" and "spaceprobes" stuff, since the template doesn't seem to appear on any, and it makes the template an indiscriminate list of information otherwise. 76.66.195.196 ( talk) 04:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Is this article about the CMB cold spot any good? It says weird stuff like that the universe isn’t expanding. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 19:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
i have 2 notes about the exoplanets articles:
-- Abbad Dira ( talk) 11:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC).
The article GRB 970228 has been nominated for an FAC.— RJH ( talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The article was promoted to FA.— RJH ( talk) 14:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an RfD here about changing the redirect list of astronomical objects to point to Astronomical objects instead of Lists of astronomical objects.— RJH ( talk)
FYI, hot companion has been sent for deletion at AfD. 70.29.212.131 ( talk) 05:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the term "hot companion" could be characterized in terms of the ultraviolet emission? I.e. they are hot enough to radiate a detectable UV emission, and they have been discovered and studied by that means even when the separate components can not be resolved.— RJH ( talk) 14:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not think there is much to be done at this point without moving in to the territory of original research. That said, I think the term does have useful meaning for classification purposes, and hope that at some point it will be clearly defined to basically mean:
Certainly, imposing some temperature difference rule is not a good idea. James McBride ( talk) 08:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks like most of the "keep" entries in the AfD were based upon the frequency of usage of the combination, which seems somewhat superficial. Perhaps it might be possible to do a merge with "binary star" and just add a couple of lines to the Evolution section of the latter article?— RJH ( talk) 16:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently User:Thumperward has taken askance to having the pronunciations moved from the lede paragraph to the starbox template and begun unilateral reversions (because of some sort of unwritten convention). My preference is to just have the pronunciation in the infobox because the IPA notation in parentheses tends to significantly disrupt the flow of the first sentence. It seems to me this WikiProject has some say in the non-MoS conventions for astronomy articles. Do you have any particular preference? Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 18:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
As more and more exo-planets are found, more and more stub articles will be written, and the amount of exo-planets stubs will increase greatly. Should we treat this any diffrently then we've treated the asteroid-minor planet stubs? Battleaxe9872 Talk 02:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI {{ Trans-Neptunian objects}} has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.193.119 ( talk) 05:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
This is related somewhat to Global Warming, so I present you the "wikipolitics" disclaimer.
Recently on the biography of Robert Watson (scientist), a minor edit war broke out over Watson's use of Mars to illustrate what the lack of global warming might look like. He said "We only need to look at 3 planets: Mars, Venus and Earth and you can explain why there is such a difference, a frigid Mars planet, no greenhouse gases, Venus is absolutely boiling lots of greenhouse gases and earth is by luck somewhere in the middle." The editors seeking to include this quote also noted that Mars' atmoshpere is 95% CO2, and that Watson's statement is "in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars."
Other editors responded that Mars' CO2 might be high in %age, but the relevence to global warming was not in %, but in Mars' near vaccum atmosphere, and that Watson's statement is not in conflict with our basic understanding of mars. It appears that there is a dispute over this.
It would be useful if editors educated on Astronomical objects could comment on a straw poll at Talk:Robert_Watson_(scientist). Thanks so much for your time. Hipocrite ( talk) 16:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The names of asteroid articles start with their number ( 49109 Agnesraab), with the side-effect that links like Agnesraab do not work. I'd like to create redirects per bot (except for cases where a page already exists, like Toutatis for 4179 Toutatis). Seeing that there is (or was) a discussion about deleting non-notable asteroid stubs, I want to ask whether this procedure would be welcome or counterproductive. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 15:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
(1) There appears to be some oddness with the starbox template series. I've been making some updates to the Spica article. However, now there are multiple blank lines between the "Otheruses" template and the infobox. It is not clear where this is coming from since the blank lines don't appear in the edit window. But perhaps one or more fields of the starbox templates are introducing extra blank lines into the table that then get pushed to the top?— RJH ( talk) 16:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Details | |
---|---|
Temperature | 0 K |
Other designations | |
Test | |
(2) What do you think about changing the Distance wikilink to point to Cosmic distance ladder? The latter seems much more astronomical in nature and discusses the distance to stars.— RJH ( talk)
There are currently five figures in the "Orbital characteristics" part of Earth's infobox that are uncited. This shouldn't be the case on a Featured Article. If anyone could provide citations, that would very helpful. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I nominated this article for Featured List status. The review page is here. Ruslik_ Zero 12:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I just wanted to tell that I uploaded one of the newest images of NASA's WISE project to WikiCommons. It shows NGC 6726, NGC 6727, NGC 6729, IC 4812 and NGC 6723. Unfortunately I forgot to give it a catchy name and to be honest I have no idea for a name either. Maybe one of you can rename it and has a great idea for use and name.
Hive001 Hive001 contact 18:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I just built flocculent spiral galaxy through the WP:AFC process. Unfortunately, when it was moved to articlespace, it was named with capital letters, contravening MOS:CAPS. So I've initiated a WP:RM on the issue, see talk:flocculent spiral galaxy. As well, I used {{ reflist}} when I built it, but when it was moved, it was switched with the bare <references/> Does anyone have an opinion on which should be used? I tried to switch it back to the "reflist" format, as most astronomy articles seem to use, but the AfC processor seems to object to using the template.
70.29.208.247 ( talk) 06:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Recently it has been announced that there is persistent evidence of a jovian mass solar Companion in the Oort cloud, and I find that worth mentioning here on Wikipedia. However, I do not wish to create an article for an object which has not been confirmed and just a speculation, and I have no real idea where mentioning this would be appropriate. I wanted to bring this to debate and form a potential consensus on how to mention Tyche. I wish to remain neutral on my ideas, because I have been known to overdo myself with issues such as these. -- NuclearVacuum ( talk) 23:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The SIMBAD entry for HD 30202 does not list a Bayer name. However, a query of the VizieR IV/27 catalogue shows HD 30202 as 'lam Cae'. I haven't found any independent confirmation of this, so I'm not sure which is correct.— RJH ( talk) 17:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like I have dug a hole for many pretty wiki NGC images. But wiki policy may require it. What is the current status on using DSS2 on Wikipedia? Can/should they be used under a fair use rule?
See: File:NGC 11 galaxy.jpg, File:NGC 12 galaxy.jpg, File:NGC 13 galaxy.jpg, File:NGC 14 galaxy.jpg File:NGC 15 galaxy.jpg, File:NGC 16 galaxy.jpg as examples.
I also notice that in Feb 2010, Betelguese uploaded the first 100 NGC objects with nice labels to commons under a "cc-by-3.0" license: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Betelguese -- Kheider ( talk) 22:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Attack of the DSS! Commons is being invaded! http://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=Marcosm21 -- Kheider ( talk) 08:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Unless someone comes up with a good reason I have started a MASS EXECUTION ORDER: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/05/07#Wikisky-DSS2 -- Kheider ( talk) 09:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Letter from Scott Kardel from California Institute of Technology regarding DSS2 (POSS-II) images and Wikipedia: "all commercial use of this work remain prohibited". -- Kheider ( talk) 17:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The past experience of M45_DSS2_WikiSky.jpg
Just in case anyone wants to know, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) also has a Non-commercial use rule.
How can I calculate north pole right ascensions and declinations for planets, such as Mars? I think it can be calculated using axial tilt, inclinations, argument of periastron, and longitude of ascending node, but I don't know what's the equation and I'm trying to figure out. I'm trying to find that equation on google, but I can't. BlueEarth ( talk | contribs) 21:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I just created Book:Caldwell catalogue and {{ Caldwell catalogue}}. Any feedback?
Also, I made a bot request so that Calwell objects are tagged with the navbox and the relevant categories. I doubt there will be any objections, but I'm mentioning it here just to be sure (and on WP:AST). Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Mars has been nominated for a featured portal review. Portals are typically reviewed for one week. During this review, editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the portal from featured status. Please leave your comments and help us to return the portal to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, portals may lose its status as featured portals. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. GamerPro64 ( talk) 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Should we create a Portal:Galaxy? Template:Galaxy has a link to Portal:Star since we don't have one for galaxies; that looks just a bit odd. 70.29.208.247 ( talk) 11:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
(grunt, ungh) trying to expand for DYK - got from 105 to 358 words but heavy going. I am a novice on star material. Can anyone add to it? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Template:ConstellationsByBartsch has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Please have your say! Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 09:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Contributions to List of adjectivals and demonyms of astronomical bodies are welcome. -- Wavelength ( talk) 17:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm having a concern about a star's luminosity class being assumed without a suitable citation, regardless of whether it may be correct or not. I added fact tags, but they were taken down. Please see: Talk:HIP_56948#Disputed. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 21:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Eccentric Jupiter has been nominated for deletion at AfD. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 10:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI hot europa has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 06:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, hot europa has been nominated for merger into Goldilocks planet. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 10:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Article was deleted. Icalanise ( talk) 18:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Several articles, e.g. Io (moon) have displayed in the infobox the quantity "mean orbit radius", which is used to represent the semimajor axis. However this isn't a particularly good term to use, especially since it is not clear what is being averaged over, e.g. the time-averaged orbital distance is , as described at Semimajor axis#Average distance. I think it would be best to replace "mean orbit radius" with the more correct term "semimajor axis" in these articles. Icalanise ( talk) 21:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The Picture of the day for June 18th will be the phases of the moon: Template:POTD/2010-06-18 -- Kheider ( talk) 20:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Well I just went through a process of assessing 1,600 unassessed astronomy articles, which took many weeks to finish. Now it looks like another 1,300+ minor planet articles have just been tagged as unassessed virtually overnight by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I can almost guarantee that these will be low priority stubs of no particular significance. Can they be auto-tagged that way?— RJH ( talk) 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
A new editor, Sadalsuud ( talk · contribs) has been buffing up Pleione (star). I have suggested he list it at WP:GAN, and I am sure input from folks here would be very helpful. He is interested in how editors collaborate here. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Chermundy has been adding a template called {{ Nearest systems}} to various star articles. This lists stars out to 30 ly.— RJH ( talk) 20:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed all the "comets" and "spaceprobes" stuff, since the template doesn't seem to appear on any, and it makes the template an indiscriminate list of information otherwise. 76.66.195.196 ( talk) 04:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Is this article about the CMB cold spot any good? It says weird stuff like that the universe isn’t expanding. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 19:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
i have 2 notes about the exoplanets articles:
-- Abbad Dira ( talk) 11:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC).
The article GRB 970228 has been nominated for an FAC.— RJH ( talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The article was promoted to FA.— RJH ( talk) 14:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an RfD here about changing the redirect list of astronomical objects to point to Astronomical objects instead of Lists of astronomical objects.— RJH ( talk)
FYI, hot companion has been sent for deletion at AfD. 70.29.212.131 ( talk) 05:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the term "hot companion" could be characterized in terms of the ultraviolet emission? I.e. they are hot enough to radiate a detectable UV emission, and they have been discovered and studied by that means even when the separate components can not be resolved.— RJH ( talk) 14:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not think there is much to be done at this point without moving in to the territory of original research. That said, I think the term does have useful meaning for classification purposes, and hope that at some point it will be clearly defined to basically mean:
Certainly, imposing some temperature difference rule is not a good idea. James McBride ( talk) 08:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks like most of the "keep" entries in the AfD were based upon the frequency of usage of the combination, which seems somewhat superficial. Perhaps it might be possible to do a merge with "binary star" and just add a couple of lines to the Evolution section of the latter article?— RJH ( talk) 16:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently User:Thumperward has taken askance to having the pronunciations moved from the lede paragraph to the starbox template and begun unilateral reversions (because of some sort of unwritten convention). My preference is to just have the pronunciation in the infobox because the IPA notation in parentheses tends to significantly disrupt the flow of the first sentence. It seems to me this WikiProject has some say in the non-MoS conventions for astronomy articles. Do you have any particular preference? Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 18:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
As more and more exo-planets are found, more and more stub articles will be written, and the amount of exo-planets stubs will increase greatly. Should we treat this any diffrently then we've treated the asteroid-minor planet stubs? Battleaxe9872 Talk 02:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI {{ Trans-Neptunian objects}} has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.193.119 ( talk) 05:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
This is related somewhat to Global Warming, so I present you the "wikipolitics" disclaimer.
Recently on the biography of Robert Watson (scientist), a minor edit war broke out over Watson's use of Mars to illustrate what the lack of global warming might look like. He said "We only need to look at 3 planets: Mars, Venus and Earth and you can explain why there is such a difference, a frigid Mars planet, no greenhouse gases, Venus is absolutely boiling lots of greenhouse gases and earth is by luck somewhere in the middle." The editors seeking to include this quote also noted that Mars' atmoshpere is 95% CO2, and that Watson's statement is "in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars."
Other editors responded that Mars' CO2 might be high in %age, but the relevence to global warming was not in %, but in Mars' near vaccum atmosphere, and that Watson's statement is not in conflict with our basic understanding of mars. It appears that there is a dispute over this.
It would be useful if editors educated on Astronomical objects could comment on a straw poll at Talk:Robert_Watson_(scientist). Thanks so much for your time. Hipocrite ( talk) 16:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)