Talk:Mars 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge proposal[edit]

In light of their substantially identical content Mars 2 and Mars 3 should be merged. A couple of paragraphs describing the different results of the two missions don't necessitate two complete articles. Eluchil404 10:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Maybe separate paragraphs about the problems with each orbiter/lander would suffice. Underlord 02:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i believe they should remain separate, they are separate space crafts and although they were identical they had some differences.

  • I support the merge. Further, I suggest someone create a new article, perhaps titled "Soviet Mars program" or "Mars program (Soviet Union)" or some such, which has all the information about both Mars 2 and Mars 3, and after that's done replace the entire Mars 2 and Mars 3 articles with redirects to the newly created article. (sdsds - talk) 00:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. There is a Mars probe program article with separate entries for all the missions. The information there is expanded in two separate articles for Mars 2 and Mars 3. Redundant information should be removed from the individual pages, yes, but separate pages should remain. Even with minimal content, they would still be very informative and easier to reference and expand than just one article dealing with the general Mars probe program. Ricnun 01:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it would. No point in doing it though, since someone will eventually merge the articles, given the probable result of this discussion. Ricnun 21:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first probe to orbit mars?[edit]

Other articles often cite Mars 2 as the first probe to ever orbit another planet and the first to ever orbit mars. However the Mariner 9 article claims that probe narrowly beat Mars 2 to the red planet. Could anybody verify for certain what the orbital insertion date for Mars 2 was? The article currently states 27 November 1971 but if it were that simple why would Mars 2 usualy be given credit for first probe to orbit another planet? The orbital insertion date for Mariner 9 is given as November 14 1971.Zebulin 05:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mariner 9 arrived at Mars about two weeks earlier, which is now fairly well supported by the sources provided in all the articles. That being said, remember that the Cold war Space race was on at the time, and the media in the east was not a media free of government control, so a lot of stuff got claimed at the time that was not so. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rover on skis[edit]

Why not wheels? How did this work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.139.6 (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Copy of Russian Source[edit]

Almost the same as the Mars 3 article, but different page:

http://ru.knowledgr.com/00068913/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%812 3er40 (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI -- the Mars 2 and Mars 3 articles are most definitely not copies. Another user said it best -- "The Russian article has the exact same Wikipedia internal links, as well as (wikisource) and is almost certainly a mirror." Unfortunately, there are a lot of poor copies of Wikipedia articles floating around on the web. The edit histories of the Wikipedia articles prove that they were constructed over time, instead of being copy-pasted from another source. Wingman4l7 (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Ohhhh... wow, thanks for clarifying that (I had misunderstood the edit summary earlier). Thanks for the FYI. 3er40 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen[edit]

The corresponding Russian Wikipedia article is "Марс-2", and what Soviet material I have on the programme also refers to "Марс-2" and "Марс-3". Shouldn't this article's name also be hyphenated? Kolbasz (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edit to the Lander section[edit]

The beginning of this section was a disgrace to Wikipedia. There was bad grammar and capitalization, and one sentence is pitifully inadequate for describing the lander's demise. Strangely, the sentence used the coordinate template correctly and even added a source for their claim. Such high-quality actions seem at odds with the quality of the sentence structure, which confuses me- why would someone take the time to put accurate coordinates and a source, but spend no time writing a good sentence? Anyway, I fixed the sentence to comply with grammar rules, split it off into a new section, and added an expand tag. I'm also thinking the account of the crash is at a bad place in the article. I think it should be near the end, but I'm not a very active editor, and so I don't know what the best thing to do would be. I'll leave that decision to more knowledgeable people. NealCruco (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction regarding crash location[edit]

There are two sections in this article pertaining to this probe's demise, and they contradict each other. The first says it had "a crash 45°S 313°W", and the second states "The exact landing site is unknown". How can it be known and unknown at the same time ? Unless the second means it has never been detected on the surface? I don't have enough knowledge in this topic to know which one is wrong or how it has to be handled... but in any case, both sections should be merged, and the contradiction solved.--Gray Catbird (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I don't think that was a contradiction, though. The source given in the first section seemed to imply that 45°S 313°W was an estimated location, while the second section said the exact location was unknown. Nevertheless, it was confusing, and I've tried to fix that issue. NealCruco (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions on launch mass for orbiter and lander[edit]

The section entitled "Overview" lists the spacecraft launch mass, but it differs from the launch mass listed on the Infobox. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mars 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map and location are different[edit]

The map provided by Oaktree b shows Mars 2 in a completely different location as stated in the article. Which one is correct? ShadowDragon343 (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mars_2&oldid=1208825568"