Talk:Venus

Is there something we can do about the infobox photo?

Maybe something like this.

Or maybe this, which is closer to true-color. Maybe someone could remove that weird yellow spot.

I don't like how the current infobox image shows Venus cropped at the left. Can we find some image that shows all of Venus?

But, is there one that would actually work? — epicazowski (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

unlikely, as it seems like spacecraft imagery of venus in visible or near-visible light is sparse already. not much information is being lost here anyways considering venus looks like a blank beige cueball >>scourgezoned (it/its) 13:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I do think the Mariner 10 photo, even if it's not in true color, is a more aesthetically pleasing image for the article as it is. Visible light is important but I think just saying "Venus in true color, with ultraviolet data added for detail" is a good stopgap for the thing--we haven't even seen some celestial bodies in visible light as far as we know. TheWhistleGag (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah the Mariner 10 photo is way better, it isn't cropped weirdly like the MESSENGER photo also in the second photo I'm pretty sure the yellow spot is Venus Wrongperson58 (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the Mariner 10 photo should be the Mariner photo, it's just way better Wcamp9 (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Mariner 10 image data didn't include most of the red band, and this one didn't include green filters. I'd say we go to RFC to decide if full-disk or natural color is more important in this case. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I have the sense that majority of people are simply disappointed in a snow-white Venus, hence the resistance to it going so far as to cling to 50+ year old photographs of the object of dubious 'true-colorness'. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

This is seeming really WP:PA to me. NeppyDaEnbyALT (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I just prefer we stick to the 'true color' images as is the effective consensus on this site. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Even more, is the fact that c. 10% of Venus being cut off from the image really such a big deal. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Natural color vs. full disk

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus for Option A, to use the Mariner 10 photo in this article's infobox. Editors argued that this image was better because it is more polished and is not cut off. My next edit will be to replace the current image with the one that has consensus. Some editors suggested using the former image elsewhere and using captions to provide context. These were not opposed, but as no one had any suggestions for where exactly to put the image and what exactly to put in the captions, I will leave these actions for other editors to do. They can happen through regular discussion and are not mandated by this RFC. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

---

Which image should be used in the infobox? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• 
  A: Mariner 10, 7 February 1974; full disk, UV/orange bands
• 
  B: MESSENGER, 14 January 2008; partial disk, natural color

Poll

A for sure - while the MESSENGER photo may be closer to the true appearance of Venus as seen through our human eyes, a cut-off image in an infobox just seems sloppy as the lead image for such an important article. The MESSENGER image can be used in the body of the article, and the caption of both images should give context about why each images looks the way it does, but for a lead image of a planet none of us seem likely to actually see within our lifetimes, I think the less true-to-life image is fine. They both have great educational value, one is just a bit more polished. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 11:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

B more scientifically accurate, though if I could I would vote for putting both in the infbox JodyRider123 (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

A - a better image that's more polished even though it's less like what we see. Jishara (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• A It's not cut off and the colors look much better in my opinion. Slava570 (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

A - Its a more appropriate photo for an infobox, there is a precedent of using combination visible/non-visible light images for astronomical objects such as for Centaurus A, however the MESSENGER photo should be included in the page somewhere, but use the older version of the image from before 2023, as it is actually true colour, and not greyscale Wrongperson58 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• A Appears much higher quality, though of course it must be noted that it's not true color. Agree that the MESSENGER photo should be included somewhere though. —Leaf.Sheap ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 17:41, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
• Without a doubt, Image A. Between the two pictures, it gives a much better sense of what it looks like. Nonnatural colors are commonplace in space photography and the purpose should be more illustrative than strictly accurate. TheYearbookTeacher (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• No preference, but I'm happy with either. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 09:19, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I too vote for A, with a disclaimer about the colour. Note B is monochrome. A Provides detail, is less awkwardly cropped, and is straight from NASA. Until better is found, I think this is the preferable option. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 06:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

As I understand it, the MESSENGER image is greyscale, not natural colour. Serendi^podous 10:13, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The version of this file from 12:59, 11 November 2022 isn't greyscale. Maybe revert to that version? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem there is that we do not know where the colour came from. The oldest iteration of the image is also greyscale, and I would like to avoid accidental OR as much as possible. The original NASA source is monochrome, as the image was a single frame and thus a single wavelength exposure from a larger multi-wavelength colour series. There are several amateur processings which colourize it using various tools and methodologies (and I think one may be the colourized version in the file history), but so far none of them are exactly officially cited. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 06:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The colored version in the history was the one by Gordan Ugarković: https://www.planetary.org/space-images/venus_messenger_3447783055_7201387b94_o

It wasn't properly cited, but the colors match. Geobica (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New info on Venus's rift valleys

I'm not sure where to put it though

https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2026/07/venus-dead-far-from-it.html Serendi^podous 12:04, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

What about these images?

• 
  A true color composite produced from images across 3 channels taken by the Mariner 10 probe, calibrated to fit the spectrum collected by the MASCS.
• 
  Venus in true color based on three different spectra, first by Perez Hoyos, based on the MASCS spectra, second is Pellier's collect from the ground calibrated with a sunlike star, third is from Selsis et al., 2008, this data has been reprocessed accurately by Geobica.

These are new and were uploaded this year ^

• 
  This one also claimed to be true color but some of you did some sleuthing and concluded that it was BS.

Ee100duna (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the first Mariner 10 photo that you linked is the best candidate, imo. JodyRider123 (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton Ee100duna (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ee100duna 17 editors weighed in on #Is there something we can do about the infobox photo?. That discussion is only a month or so closed. You didn't get much feedback because we're tired of arguing about this image. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

From I could gather the two main problems were the false-color images presented (one of which got adopted as we speak), and the other problem was the weird and grating cropping of the much more natural color MESSENGER photo.

What harm is there to @Ee100duna's suggestion of combining the best of both worlds? Some of you might be tired but clearly some of us here are not. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Orbital period (synodic)

I'm a little bothered by the terminology "Orbital period (synodic)" in the info box. Why isn't this just listed as Synodic period? The synodic period is different from the orbital period, and I think it would confuse people to call it a type of orbital period. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Origin of name

The article says that the Romans named the planet Venus after their goddess of love. But in the article for Lucifer it states that the Romans' name for the planet (as the morning star) was Lucifer. At what point did the name change to Venus? ~2026-49865-77 (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

When they obtained a full planetary theory from the ancient Greeks, and realised that Lucifer and Vesper were the same thing. The Greeks called Venus Aphrodite, and borrowed their planetary theory from the Babylonians, who called it Ishtar, after the Goddess of love. Serendi^podous 09:57, 15 September 2026 (UTC)