Talk:Timeline of Mars 2020

Help Welcome - "Timeline of Mars 2020"

The newly created "Timeline of Mars 2020", related to the "Mars 2020" page, and which would include events related to the "Perseverance rover" and "Ingenuity helicopter" pages, may need help in updating and related - the newly created page structure is based on the earlier "Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory" page which includes events related to the "Curiosity rover" - Thanks - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Perseverance weather reporting

Had the rover already began its reporting the weather? What happened to the link? Is it public? UserTwoSix (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Timeline problem

There is a photo of the launch in the "prelaunch" section. --82.37.67.151 (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Updated the gallery section - should now be better - thanks - Stay Safe and Helthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Google celebrates Ingenuity's First Flight.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Perseverance (Mars 2020) Analyst’s Notebook

• "Perseverance (Mars 2020) Analyst's Notebook". Washington University in St.Louis. NASA Planetary Data System. December 9, 2021.

I recommend to sign in with this source to get the detailed description of activities for every day of the mission. The database is updated once in a half-year; next revision is expected by this November. Cherurbino (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Pet rock

There are some sources That say Perseverance had a “pet rock”

https://science.nasa.gov/blogs/perseverance-has-a-pet-rock/ https://www.livescience.com/space/mars/nasas-perseverance-rover-loses-its-hitchhiking-pet-rock-after-more-than-a-year-together-on-mars https://www.forbes.com/sites/amandakooser/2024/06/01/nasa-mars-rover-picks-up-pet-rock-named-dwayne/ https://www.space.com/mars-perseverance-rover-pet-rock Fredeee335 (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Rewrite, adding more content

This is both a general statement and a specific thing for @AlliterativeAnchovies, but the article probably shouldn't be expanded more following the formatting already used here. This article is a huge mess, with most of the edits and formatting done by a now banned user with a propensity for adding all possible minutiae and images. I think it's important to keep the article up to date, but not necessarily in a way that mirrors the formatting that was already present. I raised this on the wikiprojects but certainly should have done so here, and that's a mistake on my part. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I understand the edits to which you refer. I have been updating this article for a while (if you look at page statistics, you will see that a plurality of currently-existing content was made by me), which means I surely bare some responsibility for the poor state of the article. My edits to this article are only to the "Overview of Mission" section, in which I add Ingenuity flights (defunct), rock sampling events, and changes in science campaigns. I inherited the bullet point format from those who came before, and am happy to depart from it - although I do not think it is responsible for the TNT designation, which in my opinion lies primarily with the gallery and random images that have crept in elsewhere.

I don't agree with your removing of the bullet point addition I made earlier, since it corresponds to a major event, but will not undo it.

I am willing to devote time to the clean up of this article; I will add some suggestions to your WikiProject post (here) in the near future to get the ball rolling. AlliterativeAnchovies (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I also notice that you removed an image of mine - while I disagree with most images added there, I do think each sub-section should have an image associated with it describing the plan for the science campaign! I can understand why you would remove it given the context of the other user spamming images, but again do not agree with this choice. Unlike those images, I feel as if mine adds to the article. AlliterativeAnchovies (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is in need of a fundamental rewrite rather than an expansion, but that doesn't mean it should stay static content-wise while it needs a re-write. That said

I inherited the bullet point format from those who came before, and am happy to depart from it

The bullet point style has lead to a lot of useless minutiae being added to the article, and it deeply reduces the readability of the article. It also encourages more day-by-day updates, which we definitely don't need.

although I do not think it is responsible for the TNT designation, which in my opinion lies primarily with the gallery and random images that have crept in elsewhere.

As the person who added the template I assure you it is quite responsible for this, in addition to the images.

I also notice that you removed an image of mine - while I disagree with most images added there, I do think each sub-section should have an image associated with it describing the plan for the science campaign!

You added a huge image above the paragraph that wasn't wrapped in text. It didn't fit in the article well or follow MOS:IMAGELOC and this article is already a complete mess re: images, we need far less, not more. It's possible you're right that each campaign section could use its own image, but it can't just be slapped in like it was and while a re-write is being done it pretty directly makes the article worse, to me, at least.

Unlike those images, I feel as if mine adds to the article.

But it's mirroring the low quality style of inclusion that the other images in the article have. I'm going to try to take a complete hatchet to the article and see if I can pare down a lot of the worse content, but I think it's important that any new images added follow the appropriate MOS, rather than what was added before. I think if we can clear the article down and use your campaigns idea as section breaks (which is a good idea) then we can include the images you're adding in an MOS-respecting way and it'd probably look pretty good. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so, I've removed all of the day-by-day entires. There's a degree to which there was some useful information in them which should be added back into the campaign sections of the articles, but I think it's important to rapidly get this article into a readable and useful state. I've removed the entire gallery, without exception, because a huge number of the images are messy collages and starting from blank is going to be a lot easier than removing the sheer volume of garbage that was there before surgically. I've also rewritten a couple of sections to turn bulleted items into prose and undo some fairly arbitrary formatting decisions which were made which don't align with the rest of wikipedia's style.

I think the idea of images for the campaigns sections that you suggested, @AlliterativeAnchovies, is a good one, but we need to not use "planned route" for mission segments which are firmly in the past, since those we can show the actual finished route for. I'm going to dig through Commons and find a few representative/important gallery images, but I'm going to suggest we not to add in massive collages again like were here before unless it adds quite a lot to the article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Your edits look great! Will try to add back (in prose form) some of the information that has been lost - but will not have time until Monday so you have free reign until then. I definitely understand the desire for updating the "planned route" images to "completed route", but I don't think NASA often publishes such things (I may be wrong), and hence will be difficult to find. With your changes, each section is much smaller, and will stay that way even after any edits I may make, so it is not as pressing, and am happy to leave sections imageless ;)

We will have to agree to disagree about the degree to which different parts of the article were problematic. It isn't reasonable to claim "while a rewrite is being done" when there was clearly no re-write in progress until recently. The fact that you are the person who put the TNT tag on is not a point in strength of your argument, but rather is circular.

Thanks for pointing me in the direction of MOS:IMAGELOC! I will ensure I add images in that style in the future ;) AlliterativeAnchovies (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I realize I should probably articulate my frustration, rather than dancing around it! I do not think that it was the right decision for you to undo my edits in such a manner. You claim that my additions made it harder for you to re-write the page, which I think is fairly clearly untrue. This is not what irked me, but rather it was that you also left in place much more blatantly problematic elements of the article when doing so. Now, I know that you did not do this with any directed malice in mind! You were doing what you thought best in the moment to improve the article; but there were better ways of handling it.

It's not like I am blameless - I was unaware of just how contrary to MOS the bullet-point and image format was, and I should have intervened much sooner with regards to the image spam that was occurring.

But I think the way you handled it was sub-optimal; if you were already planning a full re-write, there was no reason to specifically delete my edits, and I hope in the future you will act slightly differently if similar instances occur. While I know you didn't target me in any way, it's hard not to feel targeted when it happens, and such events have the potential to turn people away from the community. AlliterativeAnchovies (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have quite a few misunderstandings and misreads here? For example

I realize I should probably articulate my frustration, rather than dancing around it! I do not think that it was the right decision for you to undo my edits in such a manner.

Here is the total of the content I reverted from your recent edit; just the bullet point and the image. Nothing else. I actually think, and said here, that your "campagins" approach is probably a good idea for how to salvage the article.

You claim that my additions made it harder for you to re-write the page, which I think is fairly clearly untrue

Er... mind quoting that? I was never claiming to be the sole person re-wrtiting it, nor did I claim to be mid-re-write, and my specific objection with your edits was that you mirrored the poor quality edits in a couple of places already here. I also made sure to point out that needing a re-write isn't a reason not to keep the page up to date.

With your changes, each section is much smaller, and will stay that way even after any edits I may make, so it is not as pressing, and am happy to leave sections imageless ;)

Actually, I think your idea for images showing the traverse is probably a good one. It gives the article a good flow and makes it easier to follow, though if each section lacks enough information we start running into some formatting issues with the size those traverse images need to be to be legible. I can take a look around for completed traverse paths, that's definitely available.

This is not what irked me, but rather it was that you also left in place much more blatantly problematic elements of the article when doing so.

Don't be irked, be bold. I was removing the worst offender, content wise, and minimally policing the rest outside some work in specific places. If you see blatantly more problematic content still left in, please, by all means, remove it!

I was unaware of just how contrary to MOS the bullet-point and image format was

Very, which is what has lead this, and a whole host of other space articles heavily edited by a specific and former user, in need of complete overhauls. I never claimed to be doing the rewite here, I just tagged it, did a little bit, and then brought it over to the spaceflight wikiproject. I have no interest in coming across like I'm trying to exert ownership on the article. I started taking action on editing it since your edits expanded upon the offending portions of the article, rather than improving them, creating more work for any future editors in a rewrite. It's not a slight at you, unreasonable, or jumping the gun to surgically remove the specific offending points. I didn't revert your whole edit, for example, to preserve the state of the article for some future hypothetical rewrite.

if you were already planning a full re-write, there was no reason to specifically delete my edits

I didn't delete your edits (unless you mean the historical bullet point ones). I edited them to remove MOS violations, and left an overwhelming majority of the content up while commending you for finding a useful way to address the general quality articles of the article. I'm sorry you're even feeling personally targeted by that: you made a generally good edit with a couple of quality issues, another editor came in and addressed the specific quality issues while bringing it up on the talk page. If you're feeling attacked by a very normal WP:BRD cycle I think you may need to rethink things a bit. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Your actions by and large have helped wikipedia. I am merely pointing out that you could have handled things differently. It is your choice whether to take the criticism, as I have yours, or ignore it. AlliterativeAnchovies (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I should clarify that this is a very minor 'irk' - I realize that things always sound more serious in writing! My point is just that, instead of reverting my edits, and then deleting most of the work on the page, it would have been more ideal to just delete most of the work on the page. Either way you have improved the page, but one does not risk discouraging editors. If you choose not to follow this advice, so be it - you will still have a positive impact on Wikipedia. AlliterativeAnchovies (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

What is your opinion on the "Samples cached for the Mars sample-return mission" section? I am inclined to remove it as well, but happy to leave it if you feel it belongs here. In theory, all sample information should be contained in the rest of the article, and if we have a section for this then why not have a section for Ingenuity flights, and any other sub-mission specific thing? (I am not in favor of that). AlliterativeAnchovies (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd probably leave it as its own section. There's multiple ways that Mars 2020 collects samples for a few instruments, and the sample return samples are a unique feature of this lander that'll directly tie in to future landers.

if we have a section for this then why not have a section for Ingenuity flights

When I was looking over this article yesterday I was actually thinking we're missing an ingenuity section. I don't necessarily think each instrument needs its own section, but Ingenuity is pretty massive as far as Mars 2020 goes and a lot of the time of the mission was spent on Ingenuity. We should avoid a timeline or play-by-play of Ingenuity, but a prose wikivoice section and a "See also:" at the top of that section are probably good ideas. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough! That approach would go nicely with the List of Ingenuity flights page as the 'see-also' :) AlliterativeAnchovies (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)