This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Jupiter trojan 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jupiter trojan 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 27, 2010, and on June 5, 2017. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Aren't there trojan asteroids of other planets? So that this article should be called "Jupiter trojans" and the article "trojan asteroids" refer to any trojans? It's misleading, because another article about Neptune trojans links here. Roger 08:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no L2 camp then? I assume the L1 camp is composed of objects actually inside the main belt and as such is not distinct...-- ChrisJMoor 23:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Can I take it by the lack of activity in this section that "everybody knows" that L1, L2 and L3 are not stable points for asteroids to be located? Peter Jedicke ( talk) 09:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Aren't there now estimated to be as many Trojans as there are Main Belt asteroids? The numbers in this article seem to be quite dated. kwami ( talk) 19:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
There's nowhere near as many Trojans as MBAs. Peter Jedicke ( talk) 09:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
What is meant with "...each Trojan orbits one or other of the two Lagrangian points of stability..." can this be reworded to "... each Trojan orbits one or other of the two Lagrangian points of stability..." or does this change the meaning?
ErikvDijk (
talk) 18:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 02:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
(83983) 2002 GE39 (L4; with a well determined orbit) has an inclination of 55 degrees. Jupiter_Trojan#Population and Morbidelli2005 seem to suggest inclinations only up to 40 degrees. -- Kheider ( talk) 08:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the greatest possibility for expanding this article comes from elaborating on the Trojans' orbital dynamics. Right now only one small paragraph deals with the Trojans' orbital dynamics, although their orbits are arguably the most important thing about them. Serendi pod ous 14:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
What is known about them? Nergaal ( talk) 05:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Brought over from the FA disussion:
My one issue is regarding the statement about, "this disparity is probably due to observational bias from their respective positions relative to the Milky Way." Intuitively I'd expect the Lagrange points to spend equal amounts of time along the line of sight to the galactic plane, so this leaves me a little perplexed. — RJH ( talk) 20:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This is what the source says:
Given that the best characterized (brightest) Trojans show the smallest deviations of N4/N5 from unity, it is reasonable to suppose that the larger values of this ratio are produced by observational bias in favor of one cloud over the other. Such a bias could result from unequal observational coverage of the L4 and L5 clouds, perhaps due to their placement with respect to the Milky Way, making the detection of faint Trojans more difficult in one cloud than in the other. A careful experiment to determine N4/N5 free of the effects of observational bias has yet to be reported and is urgently needed.
I can't go into any more detail than that. Serendi pod ous 20:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this article only uses metric values (e.g. 1km, 2.5 g·cm−3)? See MOS:CONVERSIONS — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 14:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Reference #4 ("Jupiter’s Outer Satellites and Trojans") is a broken link. I didn't want to tag it as such because the article is featured today. SnottyWong talk 19:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This page is largely duplicate with Trojan (astronomy). Which title would be the preferable one, where they should be merged? I'd incline slightly towards Trojan asteroid, but it seems that either would be acceptable. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I second Zocky. Trojan is a general term, while this article is about the trojans of Jupiter. It should maybe be moved though. Harald Khan 13:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
...Indeed, and as the term is now generic, the article should be moved to Jupiter trojan (lower case "t"). Rothorpe ( talk) 00:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Should Trojan asteroid by capitalized as it is? Or is trojan asteroid proper? Is it different if you're discussing Jupiter Trojans and trojan asteroids of other planets?
Whatever the answer, this article and all related articles should be consistent in capitalization, which they're not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltondaniel ( talk • contribs) 05:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Kortoso ( talk) 18:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The beginning is grossly in error : "In 1772, Italian-born mathematician Joseph-Louis Lagrange, in studying the restricted three-body problem, predicted that a small body sharing an orbit with a planet but lying 60° ahead or behind it will be trapped near these points.[2] The trapped body will librate slowly around the point of equilibrium in a tadpole or horseshoe orbit.[8]".
Lagrange was not studying the restricted case; his paths were not restricted to circles, and he did not require one body to be small. Those who write in encyclopediae should refer to the original material. He did not predict, and did not expect, actual occurences. He did not mention, within the relevant two chapters, any specific celestial body. Only if a sun has infinite mass does a body at L4/L5 accurately share a planet's orbit - but L4/5 + primary + secondary do form an exact equilateral triangle. Lagrange wrote nothing on stability; he simply identified two constant-pattern configurations.
A tadpole orbit is just a large Trojan orbit, and not otherwise special. A horseshoe orbit is another kettle of fish; it crosses the line L3 to L2.
94.30.84.71 ( talk) 13:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. → Call me Hahc 21 03:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Jupiter Trojan →
Jupiter trojan – As used throughout the article, and consistent with usage of the astronomical term "trojan" throughout Wikipedia.
Rothorpe (
talk) 20:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually it was mostly one Wikipedian. I don't think there was consensus at the time. Serendi pod ous 22:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Everyone who thinks it is sensible to blindly follow the sources, consider this: Going through the first ten pages on Google Scholar when searching for 'plutino -author:plutino' (the latter to avoid finding many page written by people named "Plutino") shows that some 68% of the relevant articles write "Plutino" (40 vs. 18 and 1 inconsistent) in the middle of a sentence. For "centaur" it is even far more extreme: when searching for 'centaur object' (the latter to ensure finding relevant pages) 93% of the relevant articles write "Centaur" (90 vs. 1 and 6 inconsistent) in the middle of a sentence. And "centaur" is not even etymologically related to a proper noun, but instead to mythological beings, whose term itself is not capitalized. -- JorisvS ( talk) 08:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jupiter trojan. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ciw.edu/users/sheppard/pub/Sheppard06NepTroj.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Headbomb earlier wrote on this page " originally thought I would support the move request to lowercase 'trojan', but it seems the astronomy community capitalizes Trojan everywhere. A search of 'trojan -horse' in the ADSABS database yields 3 trojan vs 197 Trojan [first 200 results]. The discrepancy is too big to be entirely accounted for by title case vs sentence case for article titles."
Also, Serendipodous "Every scientific paper on the subject capitalises "Trojan". The page was decapitalised for some reason, so I changed it back".
I find these to be strong arguments.
The counter argument "But we should be setting a precise example for all the students who consult here. Where the word is being used generically, a capital is inappropriate" sounds like "original research" to me. Let the scientists use names as they see fit, and while referring to their work we should respect their usage.
Honestly, "Jupiter trojan" is an eyesore.
JS ( talk) 21:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Based on the reference Yoshida and Nakamura (2005), the lead makes the following claim:
However, in looking through the reference, all I see is a comparison of the cumulative power-law distributions (CSD) for both populations, followed by a quantity estimate for the L4 Trojans. Please would somebody be so good as to point out the main belt quantity in the source? Otherwise, I'm not clear that the claim is correct. Thank you. Praemonitus ( talk) 19:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Jupiter trojan 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jupiter trojan 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 27, 2010, and on June 5, 2017. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Aren't there trojan asteroids of other planets? So that this article should be called "Jupiter trojans" and the article "trojan asteroids" refer to any trojans? It's misleading, because another article about Neptune trojans links here. Roger 08:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no L2 camp then? I assume the L1 camp is composed of objects actually inside the main belt and as such is not distinct...-- ChrisJMoor 23:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Can I take it by the lack of activity in this section that "everybody knows" that L1, L2 and L3 are not stable points for asteroids to be located? Peter Jedicke ( talk) 09:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Aren't there now estimated to be as many Trojans as there are Main Belt asteroids? The numbers in this article seem to be quite dated. kwami ( talk) 19:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
There's nowhere near as many Trojans as MBAs. Peter Jedicke ( talk) 09:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
What is meant with "...each Trojan orbits one or other of the two Lagrangian points of stability..." can this be reworded to "... each Trojan orbits one or other of the two Lagrangian points of stability..." or does this change the meaning?
ErikvDijk (
talk) 18:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 02:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
(83983) 2002 GE39 (L4; with a well determined orbit) has an inclination of 55 degrees. Jupiter_Trojan#Population and Morbidelli2005 seem to suggest inclinations only up to 40 degrees. -- Kheider ( talk) 08:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the greatest possibility for expanding this article comes from elaborating on the Trojans' orbital dynamics. Right now only one small paragraph deals with the Trojans' orbital dynamics, although their orbits are arguably the most important thing about them. Serendi pod ous 14:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
What is known about them? Nergaal ( talk) 05:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Brought over from the FA disussion:
My one issue is regarding the statement about, "this disparity is probably due to observational bias from their respective positions relative to the Milky Way." Intuitively I'd expect the Lagrange points to spend equal amounts of time along the line of sight to the galactic plane, so this leaves me a little perplexed. — RJH ( talk) 20:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This is what the source says:
Given that the best characterized (brightest) Trojans show the smallest deviations of N4/N5 from unity, it is reasonable to suppose that the larger values of this ratio are produced by observational bias in favor of one cloud over the other. Such a bias could result from unequal observational coverage of the L4 and L5 clouds, perhaps due to their placement with respect to the Milky Way, making the detection of faint Trojans more difficult in one cloud than in the other. A careful experiment to determine N4/N5 free of the effects of observational bias has yet to be reported and is urgently needed.
I can't go into any more detail than that. Serendi pod ous 20:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this article only uses metric values (e.g. 1km, 2.5 g·cm−3)? See MOS:CONVERSIONS — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 14:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Reference #4 ("Jupiter’s Outer Satellites and Trojans") is a broken link. I didn't want to tag it as such because the article is featured today. SnottyWong talk 19:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This page is largely duplicate with Trojan (astronomy). Which title would be the preferable one, where they should be merged? I'd incline slightly towards Trojan asteroid, but it seems that either would be acceptable. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I second Zocky. Trojan is a general term, while this article is about the trojans of Jupiter. It should maybe be moved though. Harald Khan 13:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
...Indeed, and as the term is now generic, the article should be moved to Jupiter trojan (lower case "t"). Rothorpe ( talk) 00:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Should Trojan asteroid by capitalized as it is? Or is trojan asteroid proper? Is it different if you're discussing Jupiter Trojans and trojan asteroids of other planets?
Whatever the answer, this article and all related articles should be consistent in capitalization, which they're not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltondaniel ( talk • contribs) 05:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Kortoso ( talk) 18:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The beginning is grossly in error : "In 1772, Italian-born mathematician Joseph-Louis Lagrange, in studying the restricted three-body problem, predicted that a small body sharing an orbit with a planet but lying 60° ahead or behind it will be trapped near these points.[2] The trapped body will librate slowly around the point of equilibrium in a tadpole or horseshoe orbit.[8]".
Lagrange was not studying the restricted case; his paths were not restricted to circles, and he did not require one body to be small. Those who write in encyclopediae should refer to the original material. He did not predict, and did not expect, actual occurences. He did not mention, within the relevant two chapters, any specific celestial body. Only if a sun has infinite mass does a body at L4/L5 accurately share a planet's orbit - but L4/5 + primary + secondary do form an exact equilateral triangle. Lagrange wrote nothing on stability; he simply identified two constant-pattern configurations.
A tadpole orbit is just a large Trojan orbit, and not otherwise special. A horseshoe orbit is another kettle of fish; it crosses the line L3 to L2.
94.30.84.71 ( talk) 13:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. → Call me Hahc 21 03:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Jupiter Trojan →
Jupiter trojan – As used throughout the article, and consistent with usage of the astronomical term "trojan" throughout Wikipedia.
Rothorpe (
talk) 20:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually it was mostly one Wikipedian. I don't think there was consensus at the time. Serendi pod ous 22:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Everyone who thinks it is sensible to blindly follow the sources, consider this: Going through the first ten pages on Google Scholar when searching for 'plutino -author:plutino' (the latter to avoid finding many page written by people named "Plutino") shows that some 68% of the relevant articles write "Plutino" (40 vs. 18 and 1 inconsistent) in the middle of a sentence. For "centaur" it is even far more extreme: when searching for 'centaur object' (the latter to ensure finding relevant pages) 93% of the relevant articles write "Centaur" (90 vs. 1 and 6 inconsistent) in the middle of a sentence. And "centaur" is not even etymologically related to a proper noun, but instead to mythological beings, whose term itself is not capitalized. -- JorisvS ( talk) 08:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jupiter trojan. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ciw.edu/users/sheppard/pub/Sheppard06NepTroj.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Headbomb earlier wrote on this page " originally thought I would support the move request to lowercase 'trojan', but it seems the astronomy community capitalizes Trojan everywhere. A search of 'trojan -horse' in the ADSABS database yields 3 trojan vs 197 Trojan [first 200 results]. The discrepancy is too big to be entirely accounted for by title case vs sentence case for article titles."
Also, Serendipodous "Every scientific paper on the subject capitalises "Trojan". The page was decapitalised for some reason, so I changed it back".
I find these to be strong arguments.
The counter argument "But we should be setting a precise example for all the students who consult here. Where the word is being used generically, a capital is inappropriate" sounds like "original research" to me. Let the scientists use names as they see fit, and while referring to their work we should respect their usage.
Honestly, "Jupiter trojan" is an eyesore.
JS ( talk) 21:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Based on the reference Yoshida and Nakamura (2005), the lead makes the following claim:
However, in looking through the reference, all I see is a comparison of the cumulative power-law distributions (CSD) for both populations, followed by a quantity estimate for the L4 Trojans. Please would somebody be so good as to point out the main belt quantity in the source? Otherwise, I'm not clear that the claim is correct. Thank you. Praemonitus ( talk) 19:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)