Talk:Jupiter trojan

message: 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)
replies: text: Trojan asteroid by itself refers to Jupiter-related objects. I added some text about this.--agr 12:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trojan asteroid vs. Jupiter trojan 

message: 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)
thread_title:  number 

message: 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)
replies: text: This article's due for a root-and-branch rewrite soon, so I'll deal with it then. Serendipodous 18:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclarity in Lead 

message: *http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2003.12.004
*http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2008.04.010
*http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v385/n6611/abs/385042a0.html
*http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2003.12.004
*http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7041/abs/nature03540.html
*http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/518368
Nergaal (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, I don't plan on being in the nomination statement... but I'll be present here, doing cleanup. Please, please, please, don't use double cites. It's just messy, and its easier to keep it simple. Also, if really necessary, please order them correctly ... Ceran→→ 14:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: refs

message: (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)
thread_title: 55 degree inclination

message: 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. Serendipodous 14:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some information is in ref 5 (Marzari), but not very much. Ruslik (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: What is known about them? Nergaal (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They are unstable and do not contain any objects. Ruslik (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: L1, L2 & L3?

message: 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)
replies: text: Indeed, that is a perplexing statement, but if Jewitt claims as much, it is probably true.  The only guess I can make is that the limiting survey(s) were arranged in time such that this is the case (e. g. if the survey that determines the limit was January 23rd 1995 - February 17th, 1995, the backgrounds would definitely be different). WilyD 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  A Google search turned up Freistetter (2006) which (to me anyway) appears to indicate there may be more to the discrepancy than observational bias. But I don't have full access to this paper; just the abstract. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the statement about Milky Way and replaced with the statement that L4 swarm may be more stable than L5. Ruslik (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure this is really the right approach.  Jewitt may well be the authority on minor planets these days, ignoring his statement seems like a misstep. WilyD 14:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently this claim about the Milky Way background originates with Shoemaker '89 (so sayeth Freistetter),  Freistetter then claims that this should've been resolveable by now, and Freistetter definitely isn't claiming his answer is correct.  He lists 5 different possible causes, three of which he doesn't investigate at all.  It seems like  a mistake to change this in this way. WilyD 14:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: frankuitaalst over at Gravity Simulator has tried to force Saturn trojans and the leading trojans seem to be more stable.  Neptune only has leading trojans (L4) known.-- Kheider (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disparity re: L4/L5

message: 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)
replies: text: I have noticed that once conversions start getting used in a article there is a strong tendency for someone to come along and convert everything which actually results in the the article being more difficult to follow. Metric is the world standard. -- Kheider (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric/imperial conversions 

message: 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.  talk 19:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a source, but I don't know where it goes. TbhotchTalk C. 19:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Replaced. Ruslik_Zero 19:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference #4 

message: 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)
replies: text: But the source [2] says otherwise. Ruslik_Zero 15:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the source http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1961ASPL....8..239N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf is wrong, and should not be cited.  The authority on what Lagrange published is the "Œuvres de Lagrange", and his only relevant material is Chapters I & II of his Essai sur le Problème des Trois Corps (best seen at http://www.ltas-vis.ulg.ac.be/cmsms/uploads/File/Lagrange_essai_3corps.pdf pp.229-332, PDF pix, 4.79MB); read it. An English HTML translation is at http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/essai-3c.htm. Source [2] is wrong on page 1 para 2 sentence 1, also page 4 sentence 1.  Lagrange was smarter than is commonly realised.  By the way, Chapter II was rather an aside - Lagrange's target was a Prize for "Theory of the Moon", and does not quite predict the Lagrange Points. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, that first paragraph largely does not belong here; it deals with Lagrange and Trojans,  with no particular reference to Jupiter.  I know of no evidence for the Points being known as "Lagrange Points" before the discovery of asteroids there, though it is possible.  Lagrange did not hypothesise (except that his configurations would not be found in practice). In 1772, Italian-born mathematician Joseph-Louis Lagrange discovered the two constant-pattern solutions of the "General Three-Body Problem". However, no instances were observed until more than a century later; asteroids around Jupiter were the first to be discovered.[ref name=Nicholson1961]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observational history 

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.ciw.edu/users/sheppard/pub/Sheppard06NepTroj.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090731062642/http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~gabern/preprints/osterreich.pdf to http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~gabern/preprints/osterreich.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Probably best to start a discussion at WT:AST since this should affect all Trojan-related pages. The page was unilateraly moved by Kwamikagami in 2015 after clear consensus to not move it in 2014 for uniformity reason, but that's likely the wrong outcome.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response. I hope to get around to this sometime :) JS (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already had this discussion several times. At this point, all I want is for the issue to be settled, one way or the other. I prefer capitalisation. If that's the way this goes, it should stay. If it goes the other way, it should stay. Serendipodous 10:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Re. "The page was unilateraly moved by Kwamikagami ... after clear consensus to not move it" doesn't match my recollection, which was that we moved these articles after consensus that capital-T 'Trojan' should be used for Jovian trojans without disambiguation, lower-case 'trojan' otherwise. (I don't know if there was a different consensus the year before, but regardless it wasn't unilateral.) Either way, we should be consistent with the various uses: "Trojan moon", "Neptune Trojan", "Earth's Trojan regions", etc. A quick Google Books search suggests that "Trojan moon" and "Neptune Trojan" are usually capitalized, but I haven't checked if that's also true in astronomical RS's. — kwami (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Jupiter Trojan or Jupiter trojan

message: Based on the reference Yoshida and Nakamura (2005), the lead makes the following claim:
: "The total number of Jupiter trojans larger than 1 km in diameter is believed to be about 1 million, approximately equal to the number of asteroids larger than 1 km in the asteroid belt."
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)
replies: text: Never mind, I found a ref. to cover this. Praemonitus (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main belt asteroids larger than 1 km