Talk:MAVEN

Article Outline

Based on the WikiProject Mars guidelines, this articles needs to include the following:

1. History of the spacecraft
2. Description of scientific instruments
3. Description of the spacecraft
4. See Also section
5. Footnote section
6. Other external references

Grant (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The outline for this article is now in place. All that's needed now is NASA to release more details on the mission so they can be filled in here. Grant (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Page move to MAVEN

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was do not move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Nom Also note that MESSENGER and CONTOUR are similarly, unambiguously, named. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, and CONTOUR doesn't even have a hatnote at present. Perhaps this should be fixed. Andrewa (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed, but given that those templates are often added when by editors who enter the alternative spelling accidentally, wouldn't the lack of the template indicate few people have confused all caps with lowercase. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)#Minor spelling variations only states disambiguation should be provided; hatnote links are explicitly suggested as an appropriate alternative. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not true at all, the page you linked to goes on to state, "Adding a parenthetical (bracketed) disambiguator to the page name: for instance when both spellings are often or easily confused. Use Streets of London (song) and Streets Of London (computer game) instead of Streets Of London and Streets of London." Added the (spacecraft) to the page title fits with current practice and the stated conventions for naming. Grant (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you find another example of an all caps name with parentheses? After all someone here was claiming it's the common practice for spacecraft. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
      • PICARD (spacecraft) and LEO (spacecraft) both use (spacecraft). I know that LEO has other meanings, and it is currently a disambig page, as it should be. PICARD, however, does not exist and is a perfect example of a spacecraft article that is both an acronym and uses (spacecraft). Grant (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
        • On the other hand, in addition to MESSENGER and CONTOUR, STEREO, TRACE, WIND, SHARAD, SELENE are all spacecraft that share their spelling with other mainspace pages, and have no parenthetical disambiguator. CALIPSO is the spacecraft but Calipso redirects to Calypso where a robot named Calipso is mentioned. I also found PARASOL which is a redirect to PARASOL (satellite), and the following whose capitalised forms needed disambiguation; DART is DART (spacecraft), SOHO is Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, although presumably SOHO is a more common way to refer to it. In summary, it looks to me like the precedent is mixed, mildly weighted towards not using a parenthetical disambiguator unless required to disambiguate from other capitalised terms. --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    • My comment certainly was true; hatnote links are suggested as an alternative. Adding a parenthetical disambiguator is also mentioned as one other alternative; I certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise, and I don't believe my statement supports any such meaning. My opinion is that adding hatnotes is the best alternative in this instance. --Rogerb67 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Rogerb67, when I went back and reread your comment just now I saw that I initially misunderstood it. I thought it had said that a hatnote was the proper way to deal with this case, instead of it being one of the alternatives. On that point I agree with you, and this article already has a hatnote. However, there is nothing to say that we can't do both a hatnote and a parenthetical disambiguator, which I think is the best course of action for reasons stated elsewhere. Grant (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. I had no idea there were so many meanings for maven, see maven (disambiguation). Many will be unaware of the "correct" capitalisation, and this is common, that's why Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)#Minor spelling variations reads as it does. IMO the variously capitalised versions of the undisambiguated name should all point to the DAB page, not just this one. But perhaps that's another issue. Andrewa (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The most relevant example from that page is WASP vs wasp. I would advocate expanding the acronym as an alternative. This would also be backed by MOS:ABBR and other spacecraft articles. Can you clarify what you mean by "unaware of the correct capitalization"? You mean people looking for the common word would type it in all caps? Because this discussion does not relate to the other way around. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I think both ways around are both credible and relevant. Andrewa (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think the WASP/Wasp example is a good one here. WASP redirects to White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, which is exactly what they would be looking for. Nobody would expect MAVEN to redirect to Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN, and nobody would ever intentionally look up Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN. Most people will simply know MAVEN as MAVEN, unlike WASP, which most people know is an acronym. Grant (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Bwuh? Um, some people like spacecraft so they'll be looking up the mission. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, I think I get your meaning. You are confused. You expect people to enter lowercase maven because they don't know it's an acronym. That will go to a disambig page. Nobody's arguing that. This poll relates to people who enter MAVEN uppercase, which indicates they already know it's an acronym. Which is the "other way around" and the way MESSENGER, STEREO, THEMIS, CONTOUR, etc are named. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Please comment on content, not on the contributor. People may enter the word maven in all upper or all lower case for many reasons, not just because they think it is or isn't an acronym. The purpose of page naming conventions is to see that they all get to the information they want with a minimum of fuss. Andrewa (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
          • What words besides acronyms are written all caps? State one reason, don't suppose "many." Silly arguments merit rude replies. I actually did misunderstand you the first time around anyway. Potatoswatter (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Silly arguments merit rude replies... Not according to the policy here. Strongly suggest you read it. Andrewa (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Stating that you are confused does not amount to an attack per ATTACK. You are still trying to win a debate without making an argument. Explain how MAVEN and WASP are different to someone entering all caps to the search box. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
                • I would just like to point out that you've been talking to two different people. Your attack was on my comment, not Andrewa's. Andrewa just pointed out the ATTACK policy. To answer your question about how MAVEN and WASP are different... People know that WASP is an acronym, the same likely won't be true for MAVEN. I don't even expect people to even know that it should be MAVEN and not Maven. While I understand that MediaWiki treats capital and lowercase letters differently, I don't expect people to behave the same way. I think that "(spacecraft)" helps any reader know what they are reading about at a quick glance. Grant (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
                • Suggest you also read Wikipedia:consensus. Your cross-examination of other contributors isn't likely to help achieve this, even if it wasn't conducted in a rude (your term for it) way. Your opinion that you haven't violated the policy on personal attacks is noted, and I don't intend to invoke dispute resolution, but if in the future another user does I think this discussion would count as evidence against you. Take care. Andrewa (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
                  • Consensus is reached by debate and debate involves back-and-forth "cross-examination" and presenting evidence. If you read ATTACK you'd know "Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all." This is also a principle for everyday life—when you hear something that may or may not be intended to cause offense, you shrug it off. If you don't have a counterargument, nothing is accomplished by emotional escalation. Your assertion that nobody looks up MAVEN was a bit rude, if we are using my standards of rudeness. Nobody's perfect. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
                    • Partly agree regarding consensus, but it's reached by discussion rather than by debate. Evidence is certainly important. I'm sorry if you think I've indulged in emotional escalation, and at a loss to understand where I asserted that nobody looks up MAVEN. As to whether I was wise to answer you as I have, hmmm... I endeavour to answer arguments, correct misunderstandings, and ignore what can't be helpfully answered. Andrewa (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Thank you, Andrewa. Grant (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
        • The way it is right now, MAVEN redirects to this page anyways, so it won't take any more time or be any harder to find this article. I would say that the large majority of spacecraft related articles are appended with (spacecraft). Yes, there are examples where this isn't the case, but I would argue that those should be moved also have (spacecraft) added to the article title. Grant (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree with the page move to MAVEN. I think it will be confused with Maven and make it harder for people to find the information they are looking for. Most other spacecraft have '(spacecraft)' appended after their name, and I think this article should conform to the example set by other articles. Grant (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this is why WP minds caps and has {{otheruses}}, and nobody is likely to type "(spacecraft)" with the parens in their query. So lets have a move discussion. Potatoswatter (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Mission is still a go

I was concerned about the viability of the MAVEN project in the lights of the new colaboration agreement with NASA Mars Joint Exploration Initiative, however, I received e-mail confirmation from the highest possible source that it is still a go: "MAVEN is still a go, and it's on track for a 2013 launch. The joint initiative between NASA and ESA is looking at future missions beginning in 2016, that is, beyond MAVEN. I've received assurances from the highest levels at NASA that we are not being reconsidered as part of the joint effort and that we are not at risk due to the budget problems of other missions." --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Other proposals

More information about the other proposals is needed in the article. Why was MAVEN chosen and what were the characteristics of the other proposals? Cogiati (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is about MAVEN, not the selection process. Besides I doubt there was an official discussion on the reason for their choice, there isn't usually. ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You would need to follow the Mars Scout Program link at the begining of the MAVEN article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (2013)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 discussion was that the article should be named MAVEN (non-admin closure, unanimous result) --W. D. Graham 09:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

MAVEN (spacecraft) → ? – Should the title be either MAVEN, Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN, or Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution? George Ho (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment at any rate, Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution and Maven (spacecraft) should redirect here. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. This should not have been moved from MAVEN without discussion and have requested the move be reverted. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(but for the record, support MAVEN per WP:NATURAL disambiguation by capitalisation rules at WP:AT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Support MAVEN as it looks like the most common use of that capitalisation. Neutral on Maven (spacecraft) vs Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evoltion, oppose Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN - it looks ridiculous and I'm sure there's a guideline against that kind of formatting somewhere in the MOS. --W. D. Graham 13:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please note that an improper technical request resulted in reverting to MAVEN after this RM had opened. So far we're good on this, but please make sure you explicitly state which name you favor, rather than just support or oppose. Apologies for the confusion. --BDD (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Size of space craft

The article says "The orbiter has a cubical shape of about 0.20 m3 (7.1 cu ft), with two solar arrays holding the magnetometers on both ends.". This can't be correct? Berulfsen (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for the heads up. It is 2.3 m x 2.3 m x 2 m high. [1]. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Launch Window?

The side box says the planned launch date/time is 1:28, but the text says the launch window starts at 1:47... One of these is wrong, no? Tim-mnm (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The 1:47 pm quote is an outdated time from September. I deleted it. Thank you, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Apsis name for Mars

Periaeron or Periareion? Apoaeron or Apoareion? Wentu (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)