Talk:Atmosphere of Jupiter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Atmosphere of Jupiter is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Atmosphere of Jupiter is part of the Jupiter series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 25, 2009.
WikiProject Solar System / Jupiter (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Taskforce Jupiter.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Meteorology (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Split proposal[edit]

I'd like to formally propose splitting Great Red Spot from this page.

Do you agree that Great Red Spot should be split into a separate article?

  • Agree This article is wonderful, very in-depth, and an extremely well-written article. However, in order to obtain more specific information on the GRS, a split is necessary. This page is at 87kb, which is above "Probably should be split" and below "almost certainly should be split" according to WP:SIZE. But perhaps even more importantly, GRS is not given an opportunity to expand and grow like every other article in Wikipedia because this article cannot get any bigger. Iksnyrk (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree GRS can easily stand on its on as a seperate article and will give it the opportunity to be expanded. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 13:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This issue was discussed before, and the problem is that most of the ideas about expanding the GRS article ultimately led to the creation of this one, since they involved Jupiter's entire atmosphere rather than the GRS in particular. It's one thing to split the article; it's another to come up with ways to expand it. Serendipodous 14:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree The observational history of the GRS should be expanded upon, and a separate article can easily be made and become quite large. We have an article on the atmosphere of Earth, and separate articles for types of storms and windbelts (like the jetstream), so there is no reason for only having a single article. If the Great Dark Spot can support an article, then the GRS, which has much greater study, should easily do so. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree it clearly warrants its own article. I certainly came here looking for an article, not a couple of paragraphs in an article on Jupiter's atmosphere. Very weird that it was subsumed to this in the first place. jackbrown (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
If you feel that the GRS article could be expanded upon with reliable sources, then I would not object to its recreation; however, I would object to simply recreating the article (which actually contains less information on the GRS than the Atmosphere article) and leaving it be for others to finish. If you want to recreate it, expand it. Serendipodous 11:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree The Great Red Spot is significant enough for its own article. --216.96.152.222 (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
What does that mean? How, exactly, is it more "notable" to be listed under a level 3 heading instead of a level 1? It doesn't make the information any less accessible. Serendipodous 07:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem photograph[edit]

Hello, I think there is a problem with the scale in the photograph labelled "Approximate size comparison of Earth and the GRS". It shows the Earth approximately equal in diameter to the minor axis of the Spot. But the text says the spot could contain 2-3 Earths.174.91.141.19 (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The spot is not circular. Ruslik_Zero 19:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
No, it has always been observed as ellipsoidal. But now that its shrinking is accelerating, it is indeed approaching circularity, as reported recently by astronomers. David Spector (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Age of the Great Red Spot[edit]

In the section for the Great Red Spot (GRS) under "Discrete Features", it states: "Earth observations establish a minimum storm lifetime of, variously, 182 years and possibly 347 years.[67][68]". These citations link to fact sheets that state either "at least 300 years" [67] or "at least the 400 years that humans have observed it through telescopes" [68]. Does anyone know the correct citations for these very precise GRS ages? If they don't exist then this may be it should be changed accordingly 14.200.3.249 (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Great red spot[edit]

So. Great red spot redirects here. And yet there is no subsection of this article called great red spot. I propose that either (a) this article be deleted (not so helpful) or that (b) an article named great red spot be created (okay with me) or that (c) there be some clearly named subsection of this article that clearly attracts the attention of those looking for information about the great red spot. 04:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Of course there is a subsection of this article called "Great Red Spot". And once again, just like the dozen or so other people who have proposed this break, if you can provide enough reliable sources to expand the section beyond the scope of this article, then a separate article would be AOK. So far, no one has volunteered such sources. Serendipodous 04:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Great red spot ---> Atmosphere_of_Jupiter#Great_Red_Spot - Sidelight12 Talk 04:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Poor wording[edit]

The page currently says "The atmosphere of Jupiter lacks a clear lower boundary and gradually transitions into the fluid interior of the planet." This is actually nonsensical. The gaseous atmosphere IS a fluid. Liquids, gases, and plasmas are all fluids, and certain deformable "solids" are also. Fnj2 (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

revised. Serendipodous 04:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I think 'fluid' was correct. Ruslik_Zero 14:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
"Both gases and liquids are fluids". David Spector (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)