| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mars article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
| This It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Other talk page banners | |||||||
| |||||||
Error in Natural history section?
[edit]The 2nd paragraph of the Natural history section says that "There is evidence of an enormous impact basin in the Northern Hemisphere of Mars, spanning 10,600 by 8,500 kilometres (6,600 by 5,300 mi)".
How is this possible when the diameter of Mars is only 6779 km? This looks like an error to me. Nikpro (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The same way the Pacific Ocean can be nearly 20,000 km across—its diameter is "distended" across the spherical surface of Mars. ArkHyena (it/its) 20:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- i agree 205.149.151.18 (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Add mention of distance from Sun and amount of sunlight to first paragraph at top
[edit]Within in the article: Climate on Mars "The planet is 1.52 times as far from the Sun as Earth, resulting in just 43% of the amount of sunlight.[140][141]"
I think this is basic information that should be added to the end of the first intro paragraph at the top as well.
It could be restated in somewhat simpler form with a link to the Astronomical unit and Solar irradiance article:
Mars is about 1.5 times as far from the Sun as Earth is and receives 43% of the amount of sunlight. 24.143.105.91 (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- That's what the infobox is for. Remsense 🌈 论 02:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Typo under Renewed Exploration?
[edit]Seems like theres a typo in the first paragraph under Renewed Exploration. "Until 1997 and after Viking 1 shut down in 1982, Mars was only visited by three unsuccessful probes, two flying passt without contact (Phobos 1, 1988; Mars Observer, 1993) and one (Phobos 2, 1989) malfunctioning in orbit before reaching its destination Phobos." Past seems to be misspelled. 160.3.200.88 (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Fixed. Zefr (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Inner core conundrum
[edit]So, currently there seem to be two different conclusions in the literature as to the presence of an inner core on Mars. Recently, this paper was published which suggests the existence of a solid inner core from seismic data. The problem is, the previous conclusion (and the one used in the diagram on this very page) was drawn from this paper, which claims the exact opposite. Neither group has acknowledged the other or their respective conclusions as far as I can tell, so my question is how should we proceed with this matter? The recent paper also contradicts the tentative detection of a molten silicate layer. XiphosuraTalk∞Edits 07:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)


