Talk:Mars

Independence?
I have seen some articles suggest that Mars itself is a member of the UFP, but I don't recall any canon source that can confirm this, or to the contrary, that Mars is still governed from Earth. It is not certain from the article on the Fundamental Declaration either whether that document was merely a Martian Magna Carta or also served as a declaration of independence. Can anyone address this? Tfleming 22:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mars photo
I will reinsert File:Mars photo.jpg, because this one is just too big and has no additional value in my opinion. Please discuss at Memory Alpha:Images for deletion. -- Cid Highwind 12:33, 22 May 2004 (CEST)

Names
What's the relevance to Trek regarding Mars' names in various forms and languages? --Myko 18:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I can think of none. Perhaps it best be removed? Tyrant 22:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Tyrant

Breathable Atmosphere?
I don't recall a mention in Trek that says that Mars had a breathable atmosphere. It was mentioned about a change in atmosphere in Terra Prime, but the atmosphere wasn't breathable, unless I am mistaken. Comments? -- Enzo Aquarius 21:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph under "Terraforming" obviously has no canon-sources. I will therefore remove it. --BlueMars 10:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Martian Colonies
Just as a note of interest, the Star Trek: The Next Generation novel Section 31: Rogue mentions, in its epilogue, the colony 'Bradbury City' - the home town of Lieutenant Hawk (the officer assimilated in the EVA scene of First Contact). Didn't want to add it in, since I'm not sure if you count such novels as 'canon'...but if you do, the information is there. -- Jace 20:39, 9 November 2005 (GMT)
 * That info, as non-canon, would be best added to the article summarizing Rogue -- although it would be perfectly acceptable for Mars to link back to Rogue in the "Background information" or "Apocrypha" subsections. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

PNA References
This article is in severe need of references -- most of the individual paragraphs are full of false data and none of it is tied to an episode -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:10, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Class K
From the article, Mars was terraformed such that by 2155, conditions in the lowlands of the Martian surface were sufficiently altered to allow people to roam freely without environmental suits. So it might have been class K beforehand, or it might not have since we don't have the exact technical specs for class K beyond the simple summary. Mars was never called a Class K. And after 2155, it would seem to be some other class. Anything as regards its planetary classification is therefore just speculation. Aholland 11:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Moons
I think the edit saying that Mars has no moons because they haven't been mentioned in the show is a bit ridiculous. The show hasn't said that the Andromeda Galaxy is made of cheese, but that doesn't mean we know it's not. Star Trek has made an effort to remain true to human history and science and only make changes when necessary. I see no reason to think that they have decided the moons of Mars have suddenly dissappeared. Edit: I've noticed there's a stub for Uranus which is never mentioned in the show, so perhaps that should be deleted as Uranus does not exist in the ST universe? The canon policy page does not seem to cover this issue, I will bring it up on the talk page there.--Matt72986 14:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's true that claiming that "Mars has no moons" would be ridiculous. We try to limit ourselves to information from the various Trek episodes, but in this case, I think it should be possible to just mention the existing moons and be done with it. If that is impossible to accept for some, we should just remove the section about "Moons" completely instead of displaying information that is conjectural as well and also contradicts "real life". -- Cid Highwind 15:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought about doing that - removing the whole satellite section - but then the layout would not match that of the other planet articles. --Matt72986 15:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Memory Alpha:Template for Planet gives two different layout suggestions already, and also states that "if you think that a straight article would be a better choice for the article you intend to write, go ahead". This article is already a mix of both suggestions with some "individual content", so removing an otherwise unnecessary section shouldn't be a problem. Go ahead, if you like. -- Cid Highwind 15:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, nearly all the information currently included in the sidebar is not from any episode, either. If we remove the two moons, we should think about removing that information as well. -- Cid Highwind 15:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I think we needed more specific details on when or when not to include real world data, I started a subject about it on the talk page for Canon policy. --Matt72986 00:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I suggested on the Canon policy page, this database should never be looked to by anyone for real scientific information. I would relegate all the information from the article that is not based on Trek itself to background.  The moons, the rotational period, all of it.  It might make a wikipedia article on Mars more comprehensive, but our task here is much more narrow, I believe.  Aholland 02:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The more I think about it, the more I believe that the current "real life" sidebar information should probably be removed - and I was involved in adding some of that in the first place... Decisions on what "real" information to include probably needs to be done on a case-by-case, perhaps based on some or all of the following questions:


 * Yes=Pro, No=Contra:
 * Is the information relevant for someone reading a Trek encyclopedia (or would a Wikipedia link be enough)?
 * Is the article obviously incomplete if that information is not included?
 * Is the information likely still valid in the timeframe of this encyclopedia?
 * Yes=Contra, No=Pro:
 * Would placing this information in the article possibly distract the reader from other Trek-related content?
 * Is there other "real-life" information in the article already?


 * In any case, possible options should be "direct" inclusion, inclusion as a background note, or no inclusion at all - please, not another specialized "Restricted Validity Because..." note or even a template for that... :) -- Cid Highwind 07:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I'm getting a little off-topic for Mars itself, I think the analysis could be a little bit easier than suggested by Cid. I think the only question to be asked prior to including "real world" information not otherwise revealed in Trek is:  Is knowledge of that information necessary to understand what was revealed in Trek?  Knowledge of Mars' moons, for instance, is not required for that; the fact that Mars is part of the Sol system is (but I don't think ever explicitly stated as such).  The creators of the show presume a certain familiarity with the real world, and I think that the above question - on a case by case basis as Cid suggests - should give us the guidance necessary to figure out what to do to include only the minimally necessary information from sources outside of Trek to understand what is in Trek.  Aholland 13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fossils discovery
The fossils of the (silicate, we now know) insect life-forms were discovered in 2021. This does not in any way contradict that silicate life was merely hypothetical until the discovery of the Horta. You can't tell from a fossil what a lifeform's chemistry was like, you can only tell what its shape is like. They obviously found evidence of the silicate chemistry of Martian life later than they found the fossils. I'm un-doing Pseudohuman's edit, in which he disregarded the onscreen evidence of the discovery's date. --TribbleFurSuit 01:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did the actual computer screen have the date 2021 in it? If so where is a complete image of the screen? Or is this date information only from a non-canon resource. If so it does not belong on any article as a canonical date. Your statement is inconsistant with the Spaceflight Chronology article, fossil remains were determined to be silicon-based in 2021 and silicon isotope dating was used to date the specimens in the first place right then and there. Real-world logic would debunk a lot of Trek items if we use that as a basis for in-universe logic. Also as far as I know MA policy is to only take the name of an item from a resource and details only noted as background material. If the 2021 date is canonical then you are right of course, I assumed it isn't.--Pseudohuman 14:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what? I think you're completely right. I read Jörg's text as meaning that the "accompanying text" was indeed on the viewscreen with the beetles, but I realize now that it meant the "accompanying text" was in the FASA book with the beetles. I'm sorry, it definitely does look like 2021 is not canon and was not onscreen after all. My mistake. --TribbleFurSuit 05:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but it's good you voiced yourself. I wouldn't have bothered to check the okudagrams out otherwise. I just assumed it's one of those cases where bg stuff slipped into canon. And that is the case here, now that I have reviewed both episodes and confirmed the okudagrams to have only the pictures of the fossils in them, with no text from the Spaceflight Chronology reproduced at all, and no date of discovery given at all. --Pseudohuman 15:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)