# Talk:Jupiter in fiction

Consider moving the items referencing only the moons of Jupiter to the article "Jupiter's moons in fiction" .. Muad 13:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I seem to remember that Arthur C. Clarke wrote a short story called Jupiter Five, but I don't remember the story itself. Shouldn't it be mentioned here, though? 130.232.120.127 09:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Presidents of the United States of America have a song about Jupiter which is called, appropriately, 'Jupiter'. I'm not sure where to insert a reference to this, though, as there's no obvious section it would fit into. Any thoughts? Wibbble 19:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_Me_Joe
Short story by Poul Anderson.
I wonder if the Avatar screenplay writers knew about this one. 98.30.29.58 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Should this article specify that this is not about Jupiter, but rather about Jupiter? Xx78900 (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence of the WP:LEAD is Jupiter, the largest planet in the Solar System, has appeared in works of fiction across several centuries. I added a WP:Short description which also clarifies that it's about the planet rather than the Roman deity. TompaDompa (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Modern section should be expanded a lot I think e.g. works by non-western writers such as The Wandering Earth  Chidgk1 (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources I've found on the topic of Jupiter in fiction do not go into all that much detail about modern depictions of Jupiter itself (as opposed to its moons), let alone by non-Western writers. I have added a mention of Sayonara Jupiter, at least. There are some other works by e.g. Yukinobu Hoshino and Yoshiki Tanaka that might be worth including, but we need proper secondary/tertiary sources to make sure we're not unduly overemphasizing WP:MINORASPECTS of the topic. TompaDompa (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah so you have maybe already mined the other language versions of this article for ideas. Article is still fairly short for a "good article" so I think you don't need to worry about expanding - I guess good article reviewer might be more likely to suggest trimming some of the redlinked sentences rather than any mention of books/films which already have their own articles. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Whether the works have Wikipedia articles or not is really orthogonal to the question of accurately reflecting what the sources on the overarching topic of Jupiter in fiction say. Per WP:PROPORTION: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. There is perhaps an argument that WP:PROPORTION needs to be balanced with WP:Systemic bias and that a lower standard of sourcing should therefore be accepted for non-Western works, but I don't think deliberately deviating from the text of WP:NPOV is the best idea while waiting for the WP:Good article nomination to be reviewed. TompaDompa (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Everything on Jupiter has undue weight - goodnight and good luck  Chidgk1 (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It is mentioned in Red Dwarf that Rimmer went to school at Io Polytechnic, but I can't find a proper reference. Grassynoel (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the Strugatsky brothers' story "The Way to Amalthea" is somewhat inaccurately described in the current phrasing of this article.  The story does not depict an expedition into Jupiter's atmosphere.  The ship Tahmasp is accidentally stranded in the atmosphere, and the scientists onboard make observations while the captain, navigator and engineer struggle to save them all from certain death.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:8380:80:8111:F691:BC0F:C616 (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC) 

New sections go on the bottom of the page, so I moved this. I changed the phrasing from "expeditions" to "descents", the phrasing the sources use. TompaDompa (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Scifiandotherthings: In order for something to be included on this page, it is not sufficient that it is WP:Verifiably an example of Jupiter in fiction, it also needs to meet the requirements set out by our policy on WP:Balancing aspects, which says An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. "On the subject" is key here, and this means that the relative weight given to different aspects is determined by what sources on the overarching topic of the article—Jupiter in fiction—deem important. That is to say, we assess due weight by surveying sources specifically about Jupiter in fiction. A review of Against Infinity is of course not this kind of source. TompaDompa (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @TompaDompa. As you can see I am pretty new to this and whilst this seems surprisingly narrow to me, I am sure that you are right and grateful for your guidance.
How about this, the moons of Jupiter section in UC Berkeley's guide to teaching science fiction:
https://static.lawrencehallofscience.org/gems/MoonsJupConx.html Scifiandotherthings (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Difficult to say; I get an error message when attempting to access that web page and it does not seem to be archived at the Wayback Machine. A teacher's guide is however likely a fairly low-quality source in terms of assessing WP:Due weight. These articles are not meant to be (and can never be) exhaustive; rather, we are supposed to summarize the sources on the topic in a proportional manner, and being mentioned in a higher-quality source counts for more than being mentioned in a lower-quality source when assessing due weight. This is especially true if we are only going to mention the name of a work without any further analysis—that quickly runs into diminishing returns.In short: probably not sufficient on its own, no. TompaDompa (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough - especially as, whilst that link worked on my phone, it doesn't work for me on my desktop either.
Last attempt I promise. How about this - page 11, The Artifact as Icon in Science Fiction
Gary K. Wolfe
Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts
Vol. 1, No. 1 (1) (1988)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43307980 Scifiandotherthings (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
It's a good source—Gary K. Wolfe is a reputable author and the Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts is a reputable publication in the field—but it's not a source on Jupiter in fiction, as such. I expect that the source could very well be useful for Wikipedia, just not for this precise purpose.Generally speaking, it's better to find sources on the overarching topic (in this case Jupiter in fiction) and see what aspects they cover than to go looking for sources that cover the aspects we expect to be included in the article, or else we run the overwhelming risk of reflecting our own views on what's important rather than the sources'. TompaDompa (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm just posting a notification that Jupiter's moons in fiction was redirected to this article without discussion or an attempt at a merge. The original content is available here. Praemonitus (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I redirected that TV Tropes-style list which did not have any proper sourcing and instead wrote a proper section here about how Jupiter's moons have been depicted in fiction as a subtopic of how the planet has—which is the approach taken by high-quality sources on the subject including The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, and Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia—rather than either (A) cleaning it up (in other words rewriting it from scratch, as that would have been necessary) and then merging or (B) merging and then cleaning it up. It's not like there was any content there that could have been merged with the sourcing it had. There is a reason the version you linked to had orange banners at the top and this article is rated as a WP:Good article. TompaDompa (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that various Jovian moons have been terraformed and are frequent settings throughout the anime, it's kind of a strange omission here. Is there a reason for it, or are the previous editors just less familiar with anime / non-Western sci-fi? I wanted to ask before adding it. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The examples included have been chosen to reflect the coverage in sources on the overarching topic, i.e. Jupiter in fiction. Such sources include the "Jupiter" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, the "Jupiter" entry in Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, the "Jupiter" entry in Science Fiction Literature Through History: An Encyclopedia, and the "Jupiter and the Outer Planets" entry in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy. When the sources don't cover specific examples, neither does the article. This is mandated by Wikipedia's policy WP:PROPORTION, which says that articles should treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject ("on the subject" is key here, and refers to the topic of the article: Jupiter in fiction), and explained further in this specific context (i.e. topics in fiction) at the guideline WP:TRENDSBEFOREEXAMPLES: If examples are included, they should be drawn from sources that discuss the primary topic rather than being selected arbitrarily. Their inclusion should reflect their prominence in relevant literature. TompaDompa (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there a mechanism for tagging pages that are de-facto non-editable due to having been unofficially "claimed" as the personal domain of a particular user? It seems like a significant number of users are wasting their time attempting good-faith edits; even a brief look at the history is (I feel) pretty dispositive. Some kind of "PRIVATE PROPERTY; NOT PART OF WIKI SYSTEM" tag could improve flow, by redirecting people to pages that are actually editable.
Senix (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

If you think there are WP:OWNERSHIP issues, the venue to bring that up is WP:ANI. Otherwise, it is generally a good idea when you get reverted and disagree with the reason to take it to the talk page to discuss the substance of your edits and explain why you think they were an improvement. That's one of the ways consensus is built on Wikipedia. See also WP:STEWARDSHIP. TompaDompa (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
The substance of my edits (which were innocuous) should be less notable than the substance of the edits of every single other person who has tried to contribute to this article (and to other articles claimed by one particular user.) Again, I encourage everyone to look at this page's edit history and tell me with a straight face that it is editable by anyone but one particular user.
Senix (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)