Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:47, 3 September 2009

DDS dynamics? Huh?

Hello, could someone please explain DDS dynamics in the article, or find the appropriate article to link to? There isn't any article on DDS dynamics right now. Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops! DDS = Dark Dune Spots. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal with Martian spiders.

Merger proposal with Martian spiders because it is thought that the "spider webs" and the Martian dark dune spots may be related features caused by the same phenomena. In other words, it is evident that different researchers give different names to the same features. See: "NASA Findings Suggest Jets Bursting From Martian Ice Cap". Jet Propulsion Laboratory. NASA. August 16, 2006. Retrieved 2009-08-11. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientific sources to this:
1.- Kereszturi, A., ed. (2009), "POSSIBLE LIQUID-LIKE WATER PRODUCED SEEPAGE FEATURES ON MARS." (PDF), 40th. Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2009), retrieved 2009-08-12 {{citation}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |coeditors= ignored (help)

2.- "NASA Findings Suggest Jets Bursting From Martian Ice Cap". Jet Propulsion Laboratory. NASA. August 16, 2006. Retrieved 2009-08-11. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

3.- Bérczi, Sz., ed. (2004), "STRATIGRAPHY OF SPECIAL LAYERS – TRANSIENT ONES ON PERMEABLE ONES: EXAMPLES" (PDF), Lunar and Planetary Science XXXV (2004), retrieved 2009-08-12 {{citation}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |coeditors= ignored (help)

4.- They are unusual dark spots, fans and blotches, with small radial channel networks often associated with the location of spots. Ref:Kieffer, Hugh H. (30 May 2006). "CO2 jets formed by sublimation beneath translucent slab ice in Mars' seasonal south polar ice cap". Nature. 442: 793–796. Error: Bad DOI specified!. Retrieved 2009-09-02. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

5.- The 'Martian Spider' web page has dozens of images of radial troughs or channels with identical morphology to Dark Dune Spots (DDS); some examples: , , , , , , , , , BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose, at least in the current wording:

• Sources 1,2,3 do not provide any evidence that spiders and DDS are the same thing. They clearly talk of them as separate objects: in 1 there is this listing: "Various polar albedo features appear on Mars in springtime, like spiders ,dark spots, Dalmatian spots, and Dark Dune Spots (DDSs)" ; 2 provide some evidence of a theory about them being related but again not of being synonimous; 3 connects them in time (but doesn't say it's the same thing!only different phases of the same phenomenon) in Fig.5 which is described by authors as an highly hypothetical evolutionary scheme.
• Merging on the basis of points 4 and 5 falls within WP:OR and as such does not look acceptable.

If there is good scientific consensus on a phenomenon that describes them both where they can be merged, all good, but the current sources do not seem to indicate that. -- Cyclopia (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly in favor based on all scientific reports cited above, including (ironically) Cyclopia's own edit and supporting sources:

"They are possibly related with Martian spiders, dark spots and Dalmatian spots, all of them being external manifestations of the same phenomenon or different phases of a same process."

• Kereszturi, A., ed. (2009), "POSSIBLE LIQUID-LIKE WATER PRODUCED SEEPAGE FEATURES ON MARS." (PDF), 40th. Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2009), retrieved 2009-08-12 {{citation}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |coeditors= ignored (help)
  
• "NASA Findings Suggest Jets Bursting From Martian Ice Cap". Jet Propulsion Laboratory. NASA. August 16, 2006. Retrieved 2009-08-11. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Bérczi, Sz., ed. (2004), "STRATIGRAPHY OF SPECIAL LAYERS – TRANSIENT ONES ON PERMEABLE ONES: EXAMPLES" (PDF), Lunar and Planetary Science XXXV (2004), retrieved 2009-08-12 {{citation}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |coeditors= ignored (help)
  

Although their nature is not yet undestrood, it is unquestionable that scientists are presenting models that treat them as the same phenomena. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What is unquestionable is that some scientists are treating them as possibly a manifestation of the same underlying phenomenon. This means that 1. Apparently there is no scientific consensus on that, 2. They are hypothesis yet to be proven (and they are even wildly different between each other, if you go reading the papers) (which rationalizes point 1) and 3. They are not conjectured to be the same thing by at least one source, but to be different chronological phases of an underlying phenomenon. Eggs and chickens are different phases of the same phenomenon, yet they can be described separately. --Cyclopia (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Good, so we agree that scientists are studying them as "possible manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon." This is the reason for the merge proposal. Only one peer-reviewed paper would have been enough to warrant the merge, and there are several cited.

No, as an author of peer-reviewed papers, I can guarantee you that one peer-reviewed paper is by all means not enough to warrant anything in most or all cases. You can find peer reviewed papers in support of practically everything: appearing in an academic journal does not mean it is the truth. There are peer reviewed papers denying that HIV causes AIDS, or proposing patent nonsense like butterflies being an hybrid of a beetle and a velvet worm In our case we have a couple of papers that put forward different hypothesis on these subjects, both suggesting a connection between the two things. Good, and surely worth a mention, and personally I am even convinced there is truth behind such hypothesis. But this does not make scientific consensus, which is an entirely different thing.

I try to explain myself with an example. Imagine we live in a world in which we don't know that caterpillars become butterflies (This is not so far-fetched: many larval and adult forms of invertebrates were thought to be different species for decades!). A couple of papers appear, based on sporadic and distant observations, suggesting caterpillars and butterflies are related: one proposing that caterpillars become butterflies, another proposing that butterflies become caterpillars. Is this worth a mention? Absolutely. Is this worth a merge? Absolutely not, until scientific consensus emerges, . If you have sources indicating such consensus exists (e.g. a review article stating clearly that it is commonly and widely accepted that they are the same thing) I will be happy to support your idea. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

One aspect I want to remark is that different teams call these formations by different nicknames, for example, Ness' team enthusiastically describes all these formation types as "Plant-like", "Martian Boab-tree", "One-armed bandits", "Fans", "Platform", and "Terrace", and include in their research all low albedo (dark spots, dalmatian spots and spiders) formations but they : "use the word 'spider' as a generic name": . These names given to structures 'do not imply an etiology they are only used to describe or clarify an object's shape or appearance. Because of this features are new and their etiology is not yet well understood, there is no naming convetion yet, although more recent research articles have begun to coalesce the nomenclature by the use of "low albedo spots" or "low albedo formations" (likely chosen for their most evident reflectance property). Therefore I agree with Cyclopia's wording: "all of them being external manifestations of the same phenomenon or different phases of a same process." Cheers BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is true (no reason to doubt of your words, but claims have to be sourced), it could be an idea to merge the two articles under the most generic name, Low albedo formations, keeping them as (mostly) separate sections, and redirecting appropriately. Please provide these sources. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A small wikiquette concern

• Comment Ehm, BatteryIncluded, you are the one who nominated the thing: it is obvious you are strongly in favour. It makes no sense for you to repeat your own arguments multiple times, it only gives a skewed apperance of the debate. For short, you should not vote on your own proposals: you of course should discuss it with voters. --Cyclopia (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not "my argument" or vote that counts, but the facts presented in the scientific literature and their rightful interpretation. Cheers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, but I (and fellow wikipedians who could join this discussion) would appreciate a less confusing formatting, so I took the freedom to reformat your edit cosmetically as a comment to my "vote", as it in fact is. We can continue the discussion about the article above. --Cyclopia (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't made myself clear. You are asking for a discussion about a merge. I added my opinion in a poll-like fashion. If you are the one who propose something (a merge, a delete, whatever) it is completely senseless that you also !vote (whatever we mean by that, remember WP:VOTE) on that something, reiterating the same arguments of the nomination. It only makes things incomprehensible for the casual reader. The change was purely cosmetic because it is plain obvious that you endorse the merge with those arguments: you nominated it with the same arguments! Please reformat your interventions in a non-confusing manner, and let's continue discussing about the article content. --Cyclopia (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I respectufully decline yor proposal to nulify my opinion and edits to my own posts. I have never been much of an edit warrior or take part on pissing contests, so can we please focus on the science now? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "pissing contests", nor by "proposal to nullify". No one nullified everything, nor wants to. I just moved the comment in the thread hierarchy, removed the bold and put it in the right context, to avoid to give readers the impression that you are casting a !vote on your own discussion, which would be an obvious breach of discussion transparency (and also redundant). WP:TPO explicitly allows editing of other people's comments for formatting purposes, provided no content is modified or deleted. That said, I would appreciate to focus on the science, and I would really hope for that, but if you reasonably want consensus to emerge, you should make the conversation as easy to follow as possible, which is not happening with its current formatting. I won't touch it anymore since you seem to be sensitive to it, but I ask you to consider that this would be a little effort but very helpful for the discussion, even if it's not raw content. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)