Talk:Jupiter

Template:WPSpace Template:WP1.0

Interior update

There is a ton of new information out there on Jupiter's interior based on recent simulations.[1] [anon.]

Is there a grammar problem

in:"It is a gas giant with mass slightly less than one thousandth that of the Sun and two and a half times more massive than all of the other planets in our Solar System combined." ?It sounds funny.75.45.106.99 (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter

i need info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.250.47 (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's kinda what the page is for. Serendi^podous 11:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In fiction

The category Jupiter in fiction includes 62 articles. All that stuff should merit some mentioning in this article. It seems an arbitrary choice to include a good section on religion and nothing about fiction. --Ettrig (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter's impact on culture goes so far beyond mere fiction that to merely mention fiction is to trivialise the issue. What about religion, history, poetry, philosophy, astrology? Serendi^podous 07:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That is one person's view, yours. Who are we to disregard all those who wrote those 62 articles. --Ettrig (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

They are no longer being disregarded, Ettrig. The cat has been added to the article for those readers who are interested in planet Jupiter's utilization in fiction. The article is getting a bit long, and this also must be considered when contemplating additions. Also, I have checked, and there are no existing cats nor articles yet for the other specific possibilities mentioned by Serendipodous. If interested, this may be an avenue to pursue?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  08:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The article Jupiter in fiction covers the topic, but is badly undercited. It could be mentioned here using WP:SS, but I would urge that the main article on the topic be brought up to wikipedia standards first. Unsourced material can be challenged and removed. In this case, the material is so poorly cited that it may be removed mercilessly from this FA article in order to keep it up to the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria standard.—RJH (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible impact

There may have just been an asteroid or comet impact similar to the Shoemaker-Levy impacts. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. But this article doesn't mention it yet, so it doesn't document a current event. Might need its own article over on Google News; will need more documentation before it comes here. Serendi^podous 06:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added mention of the impact to the Jupiter main page now, as there are pictures of the impact site and corroboration by JPL. Violentbob (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

JPL confirms: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-112 Add info to the article. 63.245.144.68 (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Jupiter impact

As this is a recent event, I suppose I can understand why it has received an inordinate amount of coverage on this page; greater even than the more significance comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact. However, because it now has a separate article, I think it should be trimmed way back to a single sentence per WP:SS, and the redundant descriptions merged.—RJH (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As to other impacts, I have added two sentences summarising a survey of historical records suggesting a possible 1690 impact. That could also be reduced to just one sentence.

That's an interesting addition. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile there is an interesting diagram of estimated comet impact rates at Jupiter and Saturn in a 2003 paper (Cratering rates in the outer Solar System, Icarus 2003, page 268, link). Their estimates have very wide error bars (for example 1 km comets impact Jupiter at a mean rate of once every 8 to 100 years). -84user (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

More impact observations at different latitudes may be interesting for comparison studies. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Broken Source Link #102

Source #102 is a broken link, but it's summarized in other locations with information pertinent to the current article.

I've never edited a Wiki source before, so I just thought I'd mention the broken link here instead. Here's a location that can probably be used as an alternate source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jambeeno (talk • contribs) 12:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying the broken link. In the course of checking the secondary source, I found that a primary source is available. Thus I substituted that journal article instead of the news story. Thanks again.—RJH (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Does it have a surface ??

I asked this in 'Neptune' as well. All of the entries for the Jovian Planets neglect to say whether they have a surface. Why isn't this question EVER addressed ?? Talk of Metallic Hydrogen and what not ? It still doesn't sound like something that has a surface that can be landed on. Why doesn't the article explain why Jovian Planets are classified as planets - and not a tiny core with a shit load funny coloured clouds ?