Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Jupiter
Jupiter[edit]
12 articles
- Major contributors: Ruslik0, Serendipodous, Nergaal, RJH, Volcanopele
This is intended as a featured topic, and as a subtopic to the Solar System FT. Also, it is intended to replace the Galilean moons subtopic. Serendipodous 08:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't Galilean moons still have to be part of the topic? Otherwise, support. ceranthor 15:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure why. Moons of Jupiter covers them and they are all already in the topic anyway. Serendipodous 17:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yet another beautiful FT from the Solar System WP! I just want to see that last one featured too! Reywas92Talk 18:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support.
Object.First of all, amazing work on these articles. However, I think the 4 moon articles (Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto) should be removed from the topic. As there is already the Galilean moons topic, the "overly overlap" provision in the topic criteria would seem to apply here. Also, there is the Moons of Jupiter article that is already in this topic. All the moons of Jupiter are already covered there, so separate articles for the 4 Galilean moons are not needed in this topic. Also, the Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 article seems out of place in the topic and is already covered by the Exploration of Jupiter article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- As I said above, this topic is meant to replace the Galilean moons topic, so there is no overlap. The "Moons of Jupiter" article lists all 63 of Jupiter's moons; however, most of Jupiter's moons are too small to be of any interest. All the fifty-nine smaller moons combined are less than one five-thousandth the mass of the smallest of the Galilean moons. The Galilean moons are massive, dynamic objects, as important to the Solar System as any planets. They are integral parts of the Jovian system, just as the planets are of the Solar System. Shoemaker Levy I can take or leave, but it is part of Jupiter now. Serendipodous 19:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm ok so I missed that part. So as part of this nomination you're also proposing to eliminate the Galilean moons topic. I guess that's acceptable. But I do think the Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 article should be out. This is a general topic on Jupiter, and an article on a comet that no longer exists and whose only association with Jupiter is a collision seems to be too specific, especially since it's covered in another article already in the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- As I said above, this topic is meant to replace the Galilean moons topic, so there is no overlap. The "Moons of Jupiter" article lists all 63 of Jupiter's moons; however, most of Jupiter's moons are too small to be of any interest. All the fifty-nine smaller moons combined are less than one five-thousandth the mass of the smallest of the Galilean moons. The Galilean moons are massive, dynamic objects, as important to the Solar System as any planets. They are integral parts of the Jovian system, just as the planets are of the Solar System. Shoemaker Levy I can take or leave, but it is part of Jupiter now. Serendipodous 19:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - really sorry, but I think you need to include Jupiter in fiction. From a scientific point of view, this topic is very comprehensive, and all the editors involved have done fantastic work, but from an artistic point of view, you are missing this sole key article - rst20xx (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is like asking United States Naval Gunfire Support debate to be a part of the Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Iowa class battleships topic. They are both fine articles to be included, but aren't truly a notable part of the topic which should prevent the topic from being comprehensive. Furthermore, Jupiter in fiction is an article that is never going to be truly complete/featurable as it is impractical to list all the occurences there. And one more thing: that article is almost a collection of trivia. Nergaal (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Does this mean we have to get Solar System in fiction into the Solar System FT? Or Asteroid belt in fiction into the asteroids FT? Serendipodous 11:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- In response to Nergaal, United States Naval Gunfire Support debate does not solely or directly relate to the Iowa class of battleship, and hence is not as relevant IMO as Jupiter in fiction is to a Jupiter FT. I realise that Jupiter in fiction can never list every occurrence of Jupiter in fiction, but it shouldn't - see Cultural depictions of dinosaurs for probably the closest comparison GA to what I think this article should be. And finally, yes, I realise the article is currently just a collection of trivia (prime example of a failure of this), but this just reflects how bad a state it currently is in, not what it could become. In response to Serendipodous, yes, I think those 2 articles should be in those 2 topics. Again, I'd point towards Cultural depictions of dinosaurs as the best example of an existing article along these lines which shows what is possible - rst20xx (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, correction, I don't think Asteroid belt in fiction should be in the Asteroid belt topic because this link actually redirects to a more general article on Asteroids in fiction! If you were to make an Asteroids FT, then that would need to include Asteroids in fiction, along with Asteroid belt maybe, and a number of other articles. If you look back at the Asteroid belt FT nom, you'll see that there was discussion along similar lines for a number of other articles - rst20xx (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is asking too much. This is a scientific topic with a scientific subject matter. And you even say above that from a scientific point of view this topic is very comprehensive. Requiring a non-scientific article be included in this scientific topic seems inappropriate to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- But the topic's name is "Jupiter". You say "scientific" several times, but nowhere does the topic say "science". I will grant you that the authors of this topic likely have a scientific mindset, which makes it harder for them to write such a non-scientific article, but this is NOT an argument against the need to include such an article, as (if true) it is an observation on the authors and not on the content - rst20xx (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is asking too much. This is a scientific topic with a scientific subject matter. And you even say above that from a scientific point of view this topic is very comprehensive. Requiring a non-scientific article be included in this scientific topic seems inappropriate to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, correction, I don't think Asteroid belt in fiction should be in the Asteroid belt topic because this link actually redirects to a more general article on Asteroids in fiction! If you were to make an Asteroids FT, then that would need to include Asteroids in fiction, along with Asteroid belt maybe, and a number of other articles. If you look back at the Asteroid belt FT nom, you'll see that there was discussion along similar lines for a number of other articles - rst20xx (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- In response to Nergaal, United States Naval Gunfire Support debate does not solely or directly relate to the Iowa class of battleship, and hence is not as relevant IMO as Jupiter in fiction is to a Jupiter FT. I realise that Jupiter in fiction can never list every occurrence of Jupiter in fiction, but it shouldn't - see Cultural depictions of dinosaurs for probably the closest comparison GA to what I think this article should be. And finally, yes, I realise the article is currently just a collection of trivia (prime example of a failure of this), but this just reflects how bad a state it currently is in, not what it could become. In response to Serendipodous, yes, I think those 2 articles should be in those 2 topics. Again, I'd point towards Cultural depictions of dinosaurs as the best example of an existing article along these lines which shows what is possible - rst20xx (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Does this mean we have to get Solar System in fiction into the Solar System FT? Or Asteroid belt in fiction into the asteroids FT? Serendipodous 11:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is like asking United States Naval Gunfire Support debate to be a part of the Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Iowa class battleships topic. They are both fine articles to be included, but aren't truly a notable part of the topic which should prevent the topic from being comprehensive. Furthermore, Jupiter in fiction is an article that is never going to be truly complete/featurable as it is impractical to list all the occurences there. And one more thing: that article is almost a collection of trivia. Nergaal (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have to chime in that Jupiter in Fiction is not necessary for the FT. The
articletopic is not about fiction, but about Jupiter itself. In other words, the oppose, IMO, lacks merit.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)- Err so if the article is about Jupiter then surely it should be included...? Unless you meant that the topic is about Jupiter, in which case, I point out that the fiction is about Jupiter, by definition! rst20xx (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Could the fiction article be included? Sure, it could, but to be honest I think the topic is better without the article. The character and substance of the fiction article is tangibly different than the other "scientific" articles (yes there's that word again). I know you're focused on criterion 1.e, but I would say that including the fiction article in the topic would border on violating criterion 1.b. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well I disagree, all the articles are entirely on the subject of Jupiter, which is the name of the topic. Maybe the problem is that as it stands, Jupiter in fiction is a mess of low-brow trivia, but if it was reworked into an article along the lines of Cultural depictions of dinosaurs, starting from ancient mythology and working forwards, then it would fit in better - rst20xx (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Redacted, did mean topic. But as for fiction, I see it as more of a fluff piece, not a serious piece contributing to the over all topic of Jupiter. (Note fluff <> necessary mean bad or poorly written, but rather a different tenor that this topic.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- As above, if the article was reworked to be along the lines of Cultural depictions of dinosaurs, starting from ancient mythology and working forwards, then it would serve as a serious piece looking at the human significance of the planet, not the current low-brow trivia list it currently is - rst20xx (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Could the fiction article be included? Sure, it could, but to be honest I think the topic is better without the article. The character and substance of the fiction article is tangibly different than the other "scientific" articles (yes there's that word again). I know you're focused on criterion 1.e, but I would say that including the fiction article in the topic would border on violating criterion 1.b. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Err so if the article is about Jupiter then surely it should be included...? Unless you meant that the topic is about Jupiter, in which case, I point out that the fiction is about Jupiter, by definition! rst20xx (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The lead article itself says that Human culture is part of the subject. Who are we to argue with a FA. Jupiter in fiction is obviously part of Human culture. Criterion 1e says that all articles within the subject must be covered by an article in the topic that is not the lead article. I conclude that we lack a GA on the subject of Jupiter in human culture. This article to be written should include Jupiter in fiction. It seems also that the subject Jupiter in fiction is missing in the lead article itself. This category includes 62 articles. --Ettrig (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- RE:Jupiter in fiction. It seems to me that what those of you who are arguing for its inclusion want is not an article about Jupiter in fiction but one that encompasses the planet's impact on human culture, from the Babylonians on. Such an article would not only include fiction (which would be only a small part of it) but also religion, astrology, poetry and philosophy. That's fair enough. But that article does not exist, and it could never be fashioned out of Jupiter in fiction, which is just a random list of fictional citations. You are asking us to create a new article from scratch. That we can do, but I don't think it's fair to deny an FT just because an article you want in it doesn't exist. Serendipodous 07:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Criterion 1e is clear. If there are articles on a sub-subject, those articles are to be covered by an article that is part of the featured topic list and is not the lead article. There are 62 articles about Jupiter in fiction. Creating an overview article is explicitly mentioned as a proper solution for such a case. It has been argued several times above, that Jupiter in fiction is too bad to be included. This argument is an explicit attempt to violate criterion 1d. --Ettrig (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't get the logic. There are dozens of articles under the category, "Jupiter crossing asteroids", does that mean that Jupiter-crossing asteroids should be included as well? And what about Jupiter family comets? Or Jupiter in mythology? Serendipodous 18:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Serendipodous, you are right that "Jupiter in fiction" is not what we want to see included at all, and I think the references to it are misleading. This is entirely my fault and I appologise. We want a more general article on Jupiter in human culture or cultural impact of Jupiter. But Ettrig is right that just because an article doesn't exist, that doesn't effect in any way whether it should be included - the question is then also whether the article should exist, and no-one has argued here that it shouldn't. And indeed, if you read Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria/Overview topics, it states that it may in some circumstances be necessary to create articles for a topic. As for Jupiter-crossing asteroids, that would certainly be a good addition, though I didn't argue for its inclusion because in my opinion asteroids that happen to have an orbit that crosses Jupiter's are not very relevant to Jupiter the subject, and hence this is a less notable subject. Whereas the impact of Jupiter on human culture is very relevant to Jupiter for us, human beings - rst20xx (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Criterion 1e says that if an article is about a sub-subject it must be either included in the FT list or covered by an overview article that is included in the FT list. Jupiter in human culture is a significant sub-subject of Jupiter. This can be seen in article Jupiter. Many other articles in Wikipedia are about Jupiter in human culture, e.g. Jupiter in fiction and Jupiter (novel). Is anybody challenging the statement that these two articles are about Jupiter in human culture? Now criterion 1e gives us two options, bring all the articles about Jupiter in human culture up to FA or GA or create one overview article about Jupiter in human culture. If none of this is done, the list of articles on the Jupiter featured topic is incomplete. The formulation of criterion 1e is a bit complex, but still clear. --Ettrig (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- The pertinent section in Jupiter has changed from Human culture to Ancient mythology. Removes the basis for my argument that Jupiter in fiction needs to be included. A remaining article to discuss in this context is Jupiter (mythology). But the intro to this article does not mention the planet Jupiter at all. So if the change of section heading in Jupiter is to stay, I have no objections to this FT candidate. --Ettrig (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Criterion 1e says that if an article is about a sub-subject it must be either included in the FT list or covered by an overview article that is included in the FT list. Jupiter in human culture is a significant sub-subject of Jupiter. This can be seen in article Jupiter. Many other articles in Wikipedia are about Jupiter in human culture, e.g. Jupiter in fiction and Jupiter (novel). Is anybody challenging the statement that these two articles are about Jupiter in human culture? Now criterion 1e gives us two options, bring all the articles about Jupiter in human culture up to FA or GA or create one overview article about Jupiter in human culture. If none of this is done, the list of articles on the Jupiter featured topic is incomplete. The formulation of criterion 1e is a bit complex, but still clear. --Ettrig (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Serendipodous, you are right that "Jupiter in fiction" is not what we want to see included at all, and I think the references to it are misleading. This is entirely my fault and I appologise. We want a more general article on Jupiter in human culture or cultural impact of Jupiter. But Ettrig is right that just because an article doesn't exist, that doesn't effect in any way whether it should be included - the question is then also whether the article should exist, and no-one has argued here that it shouldn't. And indeed, if you read Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria/Overview topics, it states that it may in some circumstances be necessary to create articles for a topic. As for Jupiter-crossing asteroids, that would certainly be a good addition, though I didn't argue for its inclusion because in my opinion asteroids that happen to have an orbit that crosses Jupiter's are not very relevant to Jupiter the subject, and hence this is a less notable subject. Whereas the impact of Jupiter on human culture is very relevant to Jupiter for us, human beings - rst20xx (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't get the logic. There are dozens of articles under the category, "Jupiter crossing asteroids", does that mean that Jupiter-crossing asteroids should be included as well? And what about Jupiter family comets? Or Jupiter in mythology? Serendipodous 18:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Criterion 1e is clear. If there are articles on a sub-subject, those articles are to be covered by an article that is part of the featured topic list and is not the lead article. There are 62 articles about Jupiter in fiction. Creating an overview article is explicitly mentioned as a proper solution for such a case. It has been argued several times above, that Jupiter in fiction is too bad to be included. This argument is an explicit attempt to violate criterion 1d. --Ettrig (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Even though i think Rst20xx is correct about Jupiter in fiction is needed, i really feel that this topic deserves promoting anyway. Is there any way to find a more specific title that would only cover scientific articles for this? Or should the guidelines be changes? As i read them, the guidelines say that if an "in Fiction" article exists, it should be included (probably better as an "in popular culture", then can have a section on its importance in religion/astronomy.) Based on the precedent of the Solar system topic, i give my weak support here (if we are going to be constant and delist the solar system topic, this would be a weak oppose). I would also think Galilean moons should be included: the use of summary style and sub-articles does not mean the topic should not include parent-sub-article combinations if articles for them exist.YobMod 11:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Are you saying that you think that the Galilean moons article should be listed here, and the Galileans kept in their subtopic? Serendipodous 11:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually i meant this topic should completely subsume the moons one, including its main article. I don't see why merging the topic means that the Galilean moons article should not get included anywhere - it clearly serves a purpose (or was it only created to head the moon topic?) and is within the scope of the topic. Articles with different levels of detail can be very useful, and would make this topic more flexible for readers (even if tall the info is included already).YobMod 14:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with that. With the 4 individual moons articles and the Moons of Jupiter article in the topic, the Galilean moons article would be very redundant. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually i meant this topic should completely subsume the moons one, including its main article. I don't see why merging the topic means that the Galilean moons article should not get included anywhere - it clearly serves a purpose (or was it only created to head the moon topic?) and is within the scope of the topic. Articles with different levels of detail can be very useful, and would make this topic more flexible for readers (even if tall the info is included already).YobMod 14:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Are you saying that you think that the Galilean moons article should be listed here, and the Galileans kept in their subtopic? Serendipodous 11:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I support the topic as it stands, without J in Fiction. I do not feel that it is required, though it is a possible addition. I would prefer if you included the Galilean moons article in this topic and left the G moons subtopic as it is, but I am willing to support either way. --PresN 14:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I think the articles fit well and I don't really see a problem with the list. 12 articles is definitely more than enough so we don't need every little thing that could possibly be thrown in. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Fiction is not needed, it would change the nature of the topic. I do, however, like the idea of adding the Gallean Moons, I say that as a person unfamiliar with the concept prior to reading this (although I remember learning about it years ago---when it was breaking news?) While there would be some overlap in content with other articles, I think Gallean Moons is a solid enough concept for inclusion on its own.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- A consensus seems to be emerging to add Galilean moons, so I placed it in the template. Serendipodous 14:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support - the topic as it stands is comprehensive - Jupiter in fiction could be a nice addition, but it is not needed at this point—Chris! ct 20:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support –Juliancolton | Talk 23:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support - "....in fiction" definitely isn't needed IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- NOTE: one of the articles on this list is currently at GAR.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'll leave the FTC open until the GAR is resolved - rst20xx (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- The GAR was closed as a keep.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'll leave the FTC open until the GAR is resolved - rst20xx (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- So. Is this close as promote? Or is Jupiter in culture a deal-breaker? Because if it is, then this should be closed, as such an article would take weeks, if not months, to create. Serendipodous 08:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - and I will merge the Galilean moons topic into this one - rst20xx (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)