Talk:Jupiter/Archive 5

Misuse of sources
This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the cleanup page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed. Tobby72 (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.  Serendi pod ous  10:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

accuracy of orbital characteristics
If the some of the orbital characteristics here are slightly different from those on Nasa's website, for example the mean anomaly there is 19.65053 rather than 18.818, should I change it or are these differences just because of differences in sources? Mohehab (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The mean anamoly of the osculating elements was indeed 18818 at J2000, from SOLEX 11.0 The page, unlike SOLEX, uses the barycentric elements. I'll get those from Horizons web site. The mean anomaly isn't not a characteristic of the orbit. It only helps to locate the planet at the epoch, which is why I would not favor its inclusion. Saros136 (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Its barycentric MA at J2000 is indeed 18.818° from Horizons site, compared to 18.816 for body center. So the barycenter/body center distinction did not make the difference. Saros136 (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact sheet says All latitudes/longitudes are given in Jovian System III (1965.0). Is that the difference I wonder? Saros136 (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Using the solar system barycenter, nut the Sun's center for the reference point gives 19.82958° This is probably what your site gave. Saros136 (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Orbital elements will depend on the Epoch (astronomy) used due to Perturbation (astronomy). So the sources really should be the same. - Kheider (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the epoch at http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/jupiterfact.html is also J2000. And I think it is more accurate there because its Nasa's official website.


 * Longitude of ascending node (deg) 100.55615
 * Longitude of perihelion (deg)      14.75385
 * Mean Longitude (deg)               34.40438


 * That makes the argument of perihelion 274.1977 not 275.066, and the mean anomaly 19.65053.
 * So should I change anything?Mohehab (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The planetary ephemeris parameters are all time-varying. Vallado gives the J2000 longitude of ascending node as 100.464441 degrees, with an extended formula to calculate it more precisely; I don't think we should be too concerned about this discrepancy.  Also, I don't think that we should include mean longitude at all, as it's not only not part of the standard Keplerian element set, it doesn't also have any intuitive meaning to non-experts. siafu (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a very complicated subject. Even today, NASA is refining the orbit of Jupiter. So data from a NASA site last updated in 2007 is old itself.  Using JPL Horizons "Revised: Dec 17, 2009; PHYSICAL DATA (updated 2009-Jan-28)" (Ephemeris Type: Elements; Target Body: Jupiter center 599, Center: @sun) for 2000-Jan-01 12:00, I get:
 * Longitude of Ascending Node (OM): 100.491
 * Mean anomaly (MA): 18.815
 * Periapsis distance (QR): 4.95042 AU
 * On Wikipedia using more than 4 or 5 significant figures when listing the orbital elements of a planet is kind of pointless since some of the numbers will change on an almost daily basis. For example, the Mean anomaly can change quite quickly. -- Kheider (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * J2000 occurs at noon on Jan 1. Horizons gives me 18.816 for that. Saros136 (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Image of Galilean Moons
In image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jupiter.moons2.jpg why is Callisto bigger than Ganymede? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.135.10 (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

ya wy is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.39.109 (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Maximum brightness of Jupiter
Maximum brightness of Jupiter -2.95 2485-Oct-16 http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi#results —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hevron1998 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

New image in infobox
Is it really wise to use that image of Jupiter in the infobox? Given that the lost banding is expected to be a transitory event shouldn't this image go further down the page with a little explanation? Besides this issue was already discussed,

Talk:Jupiter/Archive_4

For a start the caption says,

Hubble/WFC3 revealing Jupiter's missing Southern Equatorial Belt (SEB) in 2010.

Given this implies one needs prior knowledge of what Jupiter looks like in the first place it isn't suitable for the infobox. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added a reference to the infobox image. Until the SEB re-appears, I don't see why we should not show a current and accurate image of what Jupiter looks like now-a-days vs back in 2000.  The image from 2000 has minor concerns as well since it is a "simulated view" composed from 4 different images. -- Kheider (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Jupiter's core
Jupiter's core now seems to be 14 to 18 Earth masses, with an outer layer of ammonia, methane, and water.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/11/25_core.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.176.84 (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

photo duplicated
The first photo of Jupiter is the same as the one in the Structure section. I don't see a need to duplicate it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That was a byproduct of inserting an updated 2010 HST Jupiter image into the infobox and moving the original image into the main article. Then the infobox image was reverted leaving 2 copies in the article.  I still am not sure which of the 2 infobox images I prefer: File:PIA02873.jpg or File:Jupiter on 2010-06-07 (captured by the Hubble Space Telescope).jpg. But the 2010 HST was taken when the GRS was not visible. -- Kheider (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Further information: Great Red Spot
Just out of curiosity, what's the cause of this edit? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Great Red Spot is a fork article consisting solely of information already in Atmosphere of Jupiter that nonetheless frequently gets very badly cut-and-pasted back into its own article for no reason other then people think it should have one. An anonymous user recreated the article yet again today, and I just put it back. Some day, if other users are willing to put the effort into actually expanding the Great Red Spot section of Atmosphere of Jupiter beyond its current confines, it may merit its own article. But not now.  Serendi pod ous  17:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Yet, why not link Jupiter to more detailed Atmosphere of Jupiter with "further reading" or "main article"? As a reader, I was looking today for more information on the Great Red Spot and was surprised by the absence of "further reading" link. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I linked the name in the section.  Serendi pod ous  17:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If anyone is interested, I am working on creating this article right now...-- Novus Orator 02:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see this discussion. Plus, Wikipedia articles never begin with "The" unless they are the titles of movies/books etc.  Serendi pod ous  16:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: Energy cost
Reaching Jupiter from Earth requires a delta-v of 9.2 km/s,[82] which is comparable to the 9.7 km/s delta-v needed to reach low Earth orbit.

This appears to assert that it takes less energy to reach Jupiter than to achieve a low earth orbit. Perhaps this is correct, I'm not a rocket scientist, however the link from citation 82 is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.128.83 (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems that someone may have just copied the 9.7km/s as Earth escape velocity is 11.2 km/s rather than 9.2 km/s. Thanks for pointing that out. --Xession (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Earth escape velocity is a different question. The 9.2 km/s appears to be a heliocentric, not a geocentric velocity.  But it is true that entering an Earth-Jupiter transfer orbit from LEO takes less delta-v (6.3 km/s) than entering LEO in the first place.   Spacepotato (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess I misunderstood the context in the paragraph; my apologies. Do you have any other references for this that aren't strictly in book form?  I'm genuinely interested. --Xession (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You should be able to use Google Books to read the reference I added. Also, see the article delta-v budget.  If you want to do anything except fly by, you will probably need to spend additional delta-v to go into orbit around Jupiter. Spacepotato (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Band disappears
I think the article could gain by noting that a cloud stripe has disappeared. This has drastically changed the appearance of Jupiter. A source is found here. Google search for more.--62.107.69.223 (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in Atmosphere of Jupiter.  Serendi pod ous  08:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be worth mentioning in this article that the belts may sometimes appear to vanish. At present we're saying the following: "The zones have been observed to vary in width, color and intensity from year to year, but they have remained sufficiently stable for astronomers to give them identifying designations."&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Moons section
Jupiter has 64 moons, not 63. See Moons of Jupiter. No more S/2000 J 11, S/2010 J 1 and S/2010 J 2 added. 220.255.1.89 (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky)

New Picture?
I updated a picture in Commons that I took, so maybe someone could replace it? I will be fine if you decline. The file is here:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLOU!7 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks much like a shot with an 8-inch-backyard telescope and a smartphone. "The outcome isn`t as glorious as Hubble`s, but the results are still remarkable." See Glenn Holland: Tricky imaging. In: Astronomy, July 2011, p. 10. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

dead vital link
web.gps.caltech.edu/faculty/stevenson/pdfs/guillot_etal'04.pdf someone please restore that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.140.240.108 (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

when
when was this page last updated???? Oscar45596524 (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)oscar45596524
 * This is listed under the 'View history' tab for the article. Is there a reason you're asking? Regards, RJH (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mass compared to the Sun
The article has the following line, "this [Jupiter] is so massive that its barycenter with the Sun lies above the Sun's surface at 1.068 solar radii from the Sun's center." I have never heard of this and it is unsourced. I would think this condition would really screw with the Sun's rotation, forcing it to orbit around a phantom mass slightly above its surface, like Pluto does with Charon. That kind of thing would be quite obvious. Does anyone have a source to back up the statement?--68.39.25.109 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I would characterize in quite that manner. Wide binary stars can orbit well outside their barycenter yet it does not upset their individual rotations. Yes there is probably some slight tidal acceleration on the Sun from Jupiter, but it's not going to be particularly significant at their current separation. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I used the word "rotation" incorrectly in the above entry, but your sources do seem adequate. I was just confused because I had previously believed that the barycenter was below the surface of the sun. --68.39.25.109 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would someone care to comment at Talk: Pluto regarding the statement at Pluto, "The Pluto–Charon system is noteworthy for being the largest of the Solar System's few binary systems, defined as those whose barycentre lies above the primary's surface." before I edit or remove the statement?--Racerx11 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * More info for calculating this. Yes, the Jupiter/Sun barycenter is 1.07 solar radii out. . See also . the barycenter for Pluto/Charon is indeed 1.83 Pluto radii, which is the largest in the solar system. S  B Harris 05:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that but...well, it never occurred to me the statement meant "largest" by relative size of the radii. It does not mention radii and it instead compares the Pluto-Charon system to a smaller example of an asteroid pair. Nor would it even make sense to rank such a thing like that. The assumption here is "largest" means by the mass of the objects. Anyway can we please place any future comments at Talk:Pluto? I only posted here because I was getting no feedback at Pluto and another editor came here for some information on the discussion. Thank you though.--Racerx11 (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Galileian Moons
The image of Jupiter and its Galileian moons is either mislabeled or misleading. It shows Europa being closer to the planet than Io. It is possible that in the image, Europa was in the foreground or background and so is just appearing that way. In that case, this point should be mentioned or the photo might be abandoned. This is the image in question: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Jupiter_and_Galilean_moons.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.175.138 (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Diameter
Citation 26 and 31 contradict (talking about the diameter of the planet). I took a screenshot of it as well: http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/420209_10150593917883749_513703748_9212805_1039102994_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.178.200 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hot gasses expand, so the hotter/younger Jupiter was larger in volume than the current Jupiter. -- Kheider (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 February 2012
Jupiter now has 66 moons.

Jupiter's newest moon is S/2011 J2. This object is faint and doesn't have much visual information, but the moon was discovered using the optical telescope Magellan on Sept. 27, 2011.

Mcsejung (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And please provide the exact wording you would like added. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Jupiter: Planet or radio-star?
A "planet" is a heavenly body in orbit around a star that emits the same amount of energy that it receives. Therefore Jupiter does not fit the pure definition of "planet".

Although almost all astronomers still consider Jupiter to be a planet, a few radio-astromomers consider Jupiter to be a "radio star"; as it emits more energy than it receives in the form of radio [|radio waves] and some heat. See Jupiter article on radio-telescope discoveries. However there is not sufficient mass to qualify as a [|Radio Star].

Edward27821 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Source: Common knowledge of basic definitions.


 * You'll have to do better than that for your source. I doubt highly that "many" astronomers consider Jupiter to be a "radio-star." S  B Harris 18:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Will try to find better information. In the meantime, I have edited my post. Edward27821 (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The above definition of a planet is not correct according to the IAU definition in 2006. [|Definition of Planet]. According to this definition, Jupiter is definitely a planet.  PhySusie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * PhySusie, for some reason your link didn't work for me. Is this the defintition you are refering to? And then there is the Wikipedia article IAU definition of planet. Btw I agree that Jupiter meets the definition of a planet.--Racerx11 (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes - thanks - that's what I was trying to link to. PhySusie (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a little more to this. As touched on in a section above, Jupiter orbits a point that is located slightly above the Sun's surface. The definition of binary system according to our article states: ...two objects in space (usually stars, but also planets, galaxies, or asteroids) which are so close that their gravitational interaction causes them to orbit about a common center of mass. Some definitions (e.g. that of double planet, but not that of binary star) require that this center of mass is not located within the interior of either object. Another definition mentioned in the Pluto article states: (Binary systems are) those whose barycentre lies above the primary's surface. So technically Sun-Jupiter meets these definitions of binary system. Added to which the fact that Jupiter emits more energy than it receives, and one could make an argument that Jupiter should be classisfied as something other than a planet.


 * A couple hypothetical situations: If a pair of objects similar in size to our Sun and Jupiter were found to exist elsewhere with the Jupiter like object emiting similar energies, astronomers may be tempted to classify the smaller companion object as a "radio star" and the system as binary rather than a star-planet system.


 * Another way of looking at it: If our own Sun had a true companion star, than this companion would likely meet our current definition of planet within our solar system. 1)It would orbit the Sun. 2)It would have assumed a hydrostatic equilibrium. 3)It would have cleared its orbit of all other objects. We wouldn't be too happy calling this companion star a planet and we would then certainly have a definition of "planet" with language that necessarily excludes this hypotheical object from it.


 * The point to remember is that the 2006 IAU defintion applies to objects within our solar system, which Jupiter certainly is, so it's by that definition that we classify Jupiter. However in an interstellar context, Jupiter's classification is a little fuzzier. The 2006 definition was developed to resolve the issue that there was no definition of planet that included Pluto that didn't also include a host of other objects being discovered. The definition is not rigorous enough (nor was it intended) to be used to classify every object in every extra-solar planetary configuration discovered in the future. This is covered under another guideline in 2003, but I've rambled on way too much.


 * Bottom line is Jupiter is classified as planet and only as a planet under our current definitions.--Racerx11 (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Couple comments: Planet Jupiter is a strong radio source. Since the term double planet has no official definition, there is no requirement that the barycenter be outside the primary. -- Kheider (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. I am not familiar with definition of planet that the original poster provided, but it sounds like one that is intended to be applied to extra-solar objects. My point above was to illustrate that just as it would be a mistake to apply the IAU 2006 definition to extra-solar objects, it is also troublesome to apply definitions intended for extra-solar object classification to our own solar system. These definitions are not intended to be applicable across the two realms.--Racerx11 (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that any planet in the Solar System fits that definition, given the energy generated by radionuclides and gravitational interactions. Thus it would seem to be a useless definition. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 April 2012
জুপিটার language link takes me to wrong Bengali page. It should take me to বৃহস্পতি গ্রহ.

ArifMahmud (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * , thanks! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 July 2012
Using Jupiter's gravitational force Voyager2 changed its direction. -Pranav Deo -India

14.96.178.201 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What change do you want to make? Ruslik_ Zero 19:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Jupiter loses a unique characteristic and it is nowhere near reported into the article
Well, as far as I'm concerned Jupiter's appearance had suddenly changed its own appearance as it lost one of its equatorial stripes back in 2010, this event caused a lot of scientific overhaul as to explain what exactly happened (as I'm also aware it was one huge ammonia tidal effect which suppressed the stripe), however this is nowhere informed into its article. Even Nasa reported it. Eduemoni↑talk↓ </b> 23:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should add it to the article? siafu (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The SEB fades from time to time . The 2010 event started in May 2010 and ended around the end of 2010/start of 2011. Spacepotato (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Surface gravity" = misleading!
The article gives a spec for "surface gravity", but this is very misleading as Jupiter has no surface (or at least, no apparent one). Checking the reference given for this spec, it seems that the given number is actually the gravitational acceleration at the depth where the pressure is 1 atm. That has nothing to do with any surface! Johncolton (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

inconsistent data of orbital characteristic
Between this article and NASA data for orbital characteristics at ... so who is correct? http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Jupiter&Display=Facts  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.22.239.98 (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends on the epoch (date) being used to define the parameters. Wikipedia uses a J2000 epoch as defined by JPL Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System. The generic NASA page does not specify what is being used. -- Kheider (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Semimajor axis
May I ask, which distance is meant by the semimajor axis? Is it the distance from the centre of the Sun or from the Sun-Jupiter barycenter? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Internal structure
"A comparison of this model with the planet's known mass, radius, surface temperature, gravity and equatorial bulge implies that Jupiter's core is an Earth-like rock 14 to 18 times the mass of Earth, or about one-twentieth of Jupiter's total mass, Militzer said. Previous models predicted a much smaller core of only 7 Earth masses, or no core at all."(2008)

Sanders, Robert (2008). Jupiter's rocky core bigger and icier, model predicts. http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/11/25_core.shtml UC Berkeley -- Sidelight12 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

inconsistent centripetal acceleration
Under the Orbit and Rotation section, the centripetal acceleration of Jupiter is stated to be 1.67 m/s^2. Is there a reference for this? When I use the quoted equatorial velocity of 12.6 km/s and the equatorial radius of 71492 km (both converted to SI), I get 2.22 m/s^2. Even if I use the mean radius, I can't see how one arrives at 1.67 m/s^2. (a_c=v^2/r) Jdlawlis (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked the data and I agree with your numbers. The line in the article does not appear to come from the  cited source, so I have removed it.  Sailsbystars (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Iuppiter?
named after the god Iuppiter? Can someone correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.67.191 (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Done but if anyone has a good reason why we should have the alternate spelling here, I would not oppose them reverting me. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  18:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not some alternate spelling. Iuppiter is the deity's name as well as the planet's as used by the Romans, which is the whole point of the text passage where the name occurs. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#ddddcc;border:1px solid #bbbb99;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798;  19:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, and I didn't mean anything by the words "alternate spelling". I will choose my words more carefully. Is there a good reason to use the "deity's name as well as the planet's as used by the Romans" instead of the common use name? If you think so, you can revert my change. I won't mind. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  19:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I always find it weird when a text presents what ancient people named a thing or person but using the modern English variant. It's almost as bad as using Greek names for Egyptian sites and deities. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#ddddcc;border:1px solid #bbbb99;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798; 21:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Shadow cast on earth
A kid at my school found proof of Jupiter casting a shadow on Earth. Could somebody add this to the article? Here's a few sources. It'd be a nice addition. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/11/18/young-astronomer-captures-a-shadow-cast-by-jupiter/#.UaDO1UAoNAU http://video.telequebec.tv//video/13139/episode-118 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.73.33 (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Information added to the lead, similar in style to the Venus page.  Reatlas  (talk)  06:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Observation
I Added some useful information on what you would typically see depending on what type of astronomical equipment you're using.-- Anderson   <em style="font-family:Courier">I'm Willing To Help  23:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's especially cited and sourced.-- Anderson   <em style="font-family:Courier">I'm Willing To Help  23:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It’s raining diamonds on Jupiter
This was on the news today http://gizmodo.com/its-literally-raining-diamonds-on-saturn-and-jupiter-1445016533 I would add it but the page is protected. Kn1467 (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Jovian atmospheric layers
The main Jupiter article links to the "tropopause" page while the "Atmosphere of Jupiter" article links to the "troposphere", "straosphere", "thermosphere", and "exosphere" articles. These articles are specific to earth. While we do still use these names on Jupiter, the layers are significantly different. Is it appropriate for an article on Jupiter to link to articles that are specific to Earth? Surfnscience (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2014
Please change "Orbital period 4332.59" to "Orbital period 4332.59 d" so that the units (days) are clear.

174.16.61.222 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

✅ --  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 22:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Diagram
The diagram, now a "Featured Picture" does not agree with the text. Are there sources that support the diagram, but are different from the text? Is the article wrong? Is the diagram wrong? --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC))
 * The author,, might be able to answer your question.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 06:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Want to like point out where it disagrees with the text...— Love,  Kelvinsong  talk  20:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For starters, the text says, "The core is often described as rocky, but its detailed composition is unknown, as are the properties of materials at the temperatures and pressures of those depths (see below).... A core may now be entirely absent, because gravitational measurements are not yet precise enough to rule that possibility out entirely.[31][34]" But the diagram clearly shows a "rock and ice core." --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC))
 * Well the sources I found all said something about a rock-ice core (or in some cases, a rocky core surrounded by a shell of ice). See 1, or 2. So i don't really know what to say...— Love,  Kelvinsong  talk  23:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Current new News
This is an amazing Wikipedia article. I love the orbit animation.

Headline-1: Jupiter Will Dazzle Above Moon This Weekend: How to See It QUOTE: "About an hour after sunset on Saturday (May 2), approximately one-third of the way up from the horizon to the overhead point, you'll see an eye-catching sight: a thin crescent moon against the darkening sky. Hovering 8 to 9 degrees almost directly above this slender lunar sliver will be Jupiter, dazzling like a silvery white star." -- AstroU (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.
 * http://www.space.com/25744-jupiter-near-moon-weekend-stargazing.html

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2014
In 5 Orbit and Rotation.. please change the text "the distance from Jupiter and the Sun varies by 75 million km between perihelion and aphelion, or the nearest and most distant points of the planet along the orbital path respectively." text may be changed to "the distance from Jupiter and the Sun varies by 75 million km between perihelion and aphelion, or the greatest and least distant points of the planet along the orbital path respectively." a grammatical error where using the word respectively indicates the order mentioned, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perihelion, the text may also be changed to "the distance from Jupiter and the Sun varies by 75 million km between perihelion and aphelion." ..omitting the conflicting text and simplifying reading flow.

Finsaveloy (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ The current wording is correct.... Sailsbystars (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beg to differ, perihelion and aphelion refer to the most distant and nearest points, in that order,... respectively...Finsaveloy (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You've got it backwards. A planet's perihelion is its closest approach to the Sun, and its aphelion is its farthest. The article is correct. <b style="font-variant:small-caps;"> Little Mountain  5 </b> 07:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, are both correct, not been well recently, and goes to show, I need a break,apologies. Finsaveloy (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hurry back! The 'Etymology' of the words gives hints. -- AstroU (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem with the Image at the top of the "Moons" section
In the "Moons" section, the image of Jupiter and the Galilean moons incorrectly shows Europa closer than Io to Jupiter. I have noted in the image caption that these two labels need to be switched. If the image is corrected, then of course the note should be removed.

The image comes from Wikimedia Commons, where it is described as a photo taken 2 August 2008 on a camera attached to a telescope. How fortunate to have captured all four Galilean moons lined up on one side of Jupiter! Can anyone confirm that such a nice conjunction did in fact occur near that date? The moons seem too large relative to Jupiter and they also seem too close to Jupiter. Does anyone have an informed opinion about whether this image is likely to be real? Ontyx (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The image and labels are correct. The moons are not in a nice neat line, it just appears like that.  Jupiter's moons are a 3d system that we are viewing in 2d.  Take a look at this gif, , it's the system from a top down perspective.  Now imagine looking at this side-on, like we (roughly) do from the perspective of Earth.  You would see the moons appearing to constantly change their order.


 * In the image in question perhaps the moons are in these positions, (excuse the 5-second Paint job).


 * The reason the moons look large is probably because you are not actually seeing them fully resolved. This is a result of the optics of the camera used, it is probably not fully resolving the moons so the light coming from them is spread out a little into a halo, making them appear a bit larger than they actually are. ChiZeroOne (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand the point about orbital appearances. What I should have mentioned is that the author's own description of the image states, "from left to right: Callisto, Ganymede, Europa and Io.". Of course, there is no reason for his description to be more reliable than his labels. All we can say is that his description contradicts his labeling and we can't tell which is correct (without additional information).


 * For what it's worth, here is a page from a known source that has a photo closer to my amateur expectations:. This is not evidence against the other image, just an attempt to explain visually why I thought it was worth a closer look. When I went to the image's source on Flickr, I read that it was in some unspecified way "Adjusted to make the moons more visible". This is clearly not just "camera optics". Such a vague admission of active alteration opens the possibility that the moons were enlarged and moved closer to fit the frame. I wondered how he knew exactly when the moons would be in this particularly nice composition, so I was surprised that he said, "I just went out in my back yard and started pointing it at things, lol!" If the creation of this image was so haphazard, how does he know which moon is which? Does he have any astronomical expertise? I really do not mean to attack the author in any way (apologies if it appears so), but I am asking whether this image rises to the level of Wikipedia's standards. At the very least, some independent reason must be found for choosing the author's labels over his contradictory description.


 * Might NASA or ESA have a better image?


 * If, in the end, the image is deemed to be labeled correctly and up to Wikipedia standards, then I recommend adding a brief note to the caption that explains the order in which the moons appear. The image's Wikimedia description should also be corrected (both in English and Italian). Subsequent readers would benefit! -- Ontyx (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Spacepotato has provided reason to conclude that the labels are correct and the description is wrong; see the discussion here: . Accordingly, I have done the edits I suggested above. -- Ontyx (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Angular momentum
From Nebular hypothesis: “The main problem was angular momentum distribution between the Sun and planets. The planets have 99% of the angular momentum, and this fact could not be explained by the nebular model.”

So presumably Jupiter has a chunky proportion of the angular momentum of the solar system. It would interest some readers to include a sentence saying something like “Although Jupiter contains only 0.1% of the mass of the solar system, it has x% of the angular momentum.” But I don't know x (though guess it to be ≈ 60). JDAWiseman (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sun tides
> Jupiter's mass is 2.5 times that of all the other planets in the Solar System combined—this is so massive that its barycenter with the Sun lies above the Sun's surface at 1.068 solar radii from the Sun's center.

Is Jupiter sufficiently massive that it induces tides on the Sun? Is the sun slightly stretched towards/away from Jupiter, relative to the perpendicular equatorial direction? If this has been observed, it would fit well with the ¶ about Jupiter being big. If it exists in theory, albeit unconfirmed by observation, it would still be worth a mention (“In theory Jupiter’s gravity causes a tide on the sun of about … size, the sun’s diameter being that much larger in a line going through Jupiter than an equatorial line perpendicular to that.” JDAWiseman (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tides are different from having a center of mass outside the other body. The Moon induces tides on Earth, but the Earth–Moon center of mass lies inside Earth. --JorisvS (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed and known. But centre of mass outside implies that the secondary is a large secondary. If our little old moon can make water go up and down, can big old Jupiter make hydrogen plasma move? And would that be worth quantifying and saying? JDAWiseman (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tides are due to the gradient in the gravitational force, not the force itself. --JorisvS (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. True, and something I had insufficiently appreciated. New suggestion: “Because of Jupiter’s great distance from the sun, the tides it causes on the sun are estimated to be only x µm.” JDAWiseman (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This can be added if you find a reliable source that reports the phenomenon. But we can't put our own calculations or speculation in per WP:NOR. A2soup (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can’t find a good source. But because tides are inverse-cube Jupiter’s vertical tides on the sun are reportedly of the order of millimetres. JDAWiseman (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Jupiter clears early Solar System
Is this information worth including in the article? News article describing Jupiter clearing the early inner Solar System of planets. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150324-jupiter-super-earth-collisions-planets-astronomy-sky-watching --Jcardazzi (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly, but an appropriate section ("Formation and migration") is currently missing. --JorisvS (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Error Measurements
Many stated parameters are missing error measurements, such as the Mass. Would be helpful to students etc. to provide these (http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par)
 * The significant figures given indicate the error roughly. Any explicit error figures are bound to be vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.197.211 (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2015
ChristopherS.Tran1 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @ChristopherS.Tran1: You need to specify what should be changed in your request. —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hooke's Spot
Our article says "The Great Red Spot, a prominent oval-shaped feature in the southern hemisphere of Jupiter, may have been observed as early as 1664 by Robert Hooke and in 1665 by Giovanni Cassini, although this is disputed." Not only do I think we should mention what the dispute is, but after seeing the illustration Cassini made of the spot, it looks more like the shadow of a moon than the Great Red one. <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#27B;font-family:'Segoe UI','Source Sans Pro','Open Sans',sans-serif;font-size:1.2em;font-variant:small-caps;">&mdash; Supuhstar * &mdash; 21:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree we should mention what the dispute is, although I doubt that it warrants another sentence. Make sure to have a source that explains or at least identifies the dispute though-- the reasoning you give about how it looks more like a moon's shadow is very much WP:OR. A2soup (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Helium
"A quarter of its mass being helium, although helium only comprises about a tenth of the number of molecules" How so? If Helium (mass ≈4) makes up a quarter of the mass and the rest is Hydrogen (mass ≈1), then for every He atom twelve H atoms = six H2 molecules exist. So Helium makes up one seventh of the molecules. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#ddddcc;border:1px solid #bbbb99;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798; 13:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You may be right. Atmosphere of Jupiter contains better information. Ruslik_ Zero 20:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's because of the small portion of heavier molecules. Jupiter is not just H and He. Anyway, that error doesn't make a huge difference. Huritisho 01:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hydrogen in H2 in molecular form, so mass ≈2. Helium-4 was produced ~25% by mass in Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), which means some 8% of the nuclei. The body of the article has "Jupiter's upper atmosphere is composed of about 88–92% hydrogen and 8–12% helium by percent volume of gas molecules.", which would consistent with BBN if a) the hydrogen would be atomic, not molecular and b) under the ideal-gas law. The latter is likely a good approximation in Jupiter's upper atmosphere, but not in the deeper layers, yet the lead sentence talks about Jupiter overall. --JorisvS (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Atomic hydrogen is present in substantial numbers only in the exosphere, not generally in the upper atmosphere. So, no this can not explain this discrepency. Ruslik_ Zero 14:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to offer an explanation. AFAICS, there is none (i.e. the statement is just wrong). --JorisvS (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

number grammar
"...so the density of the two bodies is similar...."

Shouldn't that be, "...so the densities of the two bodies are similar..."?

--23.119.204.117 (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ I think you are correct. Thanks for pointing it out! A2soup (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Jupiter diagram.svg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Jupiter diagram.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 4, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-03-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I am confused since the scheme says the core is somewhat "icy" but in the sentences above the core boundary temperature is considered to be over 30k degrees Celsius. Somehow this doesn't make sense to me as its not clear that the core materials are still "frozen" at this temperatures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [Special:Contributions/130.75.182.115|130.75.182.115]] (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Icy" has nothing to do with the temperature (which is indeed very very high), but with the composition. It means composed molecules such as H2O, CH4, NH3, N2. --JorisvS (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Urgent edit request

 * "Future probes


 * NASA's Juno mission arrived at Jupiter on July 4, 2016[15] and will study the planet in detail from a polar orbit.[107]"

Change the title. Juno no longer is a future probe! While you're at it, I recommend you create a specific section for the juno mission and expand the section by like 3 paragraphs (this should have been done by now i guess). I would do that but, you know, the page is protected >:C EeeveeeFrost (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've created a new section for the Juno mission, but haven't expanded the text. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Retrogadation1.png should be replaced by the fixed svg version
The file File:Retrogadation1.png has been superseded by File:Retrogradation1.svg ; please replace the png by the svg.

Important note : A1 present twice on that png, svg is a fixed version!

Thanks for changing it (I can't do it by myself given the page is protected).

149.154.192.22 (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a bit sad that 30 days after posting this change request, nobody replaced the faulty image with the corrected SVG version. 149.154.192.22 (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Assuming there are no objections, I've made the change. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 149.154.192.22 (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Partial revert of animated images
I originally reverted the changes made for two images (see table) and amended the changes made on a third one (File:PIA02863 - Jupiter surface motion animation.gif). R fassbind – talk   09:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * However, I undid my revert, as I realized that first image was a featured one (while the original version came from facebook and is now un-sourced), and that the second ogv-version has issues with some frames (while the new, GIF-version doesn't). My bad.  R fassbind  – talk   12:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hairy Ball Theorem fundamental to explanation of persistent cyclones on Jupiter
Please change Mathematical models suggest the storm is stable to Mathematical models which incorporate the Hairy Ball Theorem suggest the storm is stable 68.40.122.133 (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017
204.100.156.126 (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)0klio.kloi.8776-323-9823.khga1.jgh1050-8987545vbcdadsj556hub.com
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2017
Galileo discovered Jupiter's first 4 moons. Herobrines23444 (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article currently says: "Jupiter has at least 67 moons, including the four large Galilean moons discovered by Galileo Galilei in 1610." What exactly do you want changed?  ~ GB fan 15:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"and making it on average the third-brightest object in the night sky after the Moon and Venus."
What about the International Space Station? 78.60.72.184 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * When you talk about the brightness (or color, or whatever) of "objects in the nights sky", it is usually assumed you are referring to long-term, constant objects. If the ISS counts, then Iridium flares should also. And why not meteors? I feel like it's best to rest on that common assumption and not overcomplicate things by adding all the applicable qualifiers. But I'm definitely open to the idea of rephrasing it if you feel it's necessary to avoid misleading readers. A2soup (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jupiter. 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 archive http://www.webcitation.org/5glwILykY?url=http://home.comcast.net/~kpheider/MeanPlane.gif to http://home.surewest.net/kheider/astro/MeanPlane.gif
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5gOzK38bc?url=http://chemistry.unina.it/~alvitagl/solex/ to http://chemistry.unina.it/~alvitagl/solex/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/jupiter_worldbook.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081019024917/http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/02mar_redjr.htm to http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/02mar_redjr.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081019024917/http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/02mar_redjr.htm to http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/02mar_redjr.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060101001205/http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space_Projects/pioneer/PNhome.html to http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space_Projects/pioneer/PNhome.html

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) 17:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jupiter. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151106205010/http://quest.nasa.gov/sso/cool/pioneer10/mission/ to http://quest.nasa.gov/sso/cool/pioneer10/mission/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070102143553/http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space_Projects/galileo_probe/htmls/probe_events.html to http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space_Projects/galileo_probe/htmls/probe_events.html

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) 09:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jupiter. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213220639/http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/20feb_radiostorms.htm to http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/20feb_radiostorms.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016161443/http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/interplanetaryseasons.html to http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/interplanetaryseasons.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111020171302/http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/01may_fantasticflyby/ to http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/01may_fantasticflyby/

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) 21:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2017
change "deduced that sight is not instantaneous" to "deduced that light is not instantaneous" in section "Ground-based telescope research" 160.5.141.116 (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

"Real" color of the pole
The current image shows the polar view of Jupiter being very blue, and apparently that is a real phenomenon. Yet the photo we up on the left, right across from it in the article, that was pieced together from side views by Cassini shows it being the same color as the Jupiter we are used to. Question: did the pole change color, or does it appear different colors from different angles, or what? I can add a comment about the blue and about astronomers being surprised with the sources above, but it would help if there is a good explanation. Wnt (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW - Thank you for your comments - yes - agreed - seems the color of the south polar region of Jupiter in the 2000 image and the 2017 image are different - adding a sourced explanation would be welcome I would think - iac - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It isn't clear that the pole was bluer in 2016 than 2000. The references you cite say the pole is bluer than the equator (in the Juno 2016 images), but that image is very heavily processed and stretched. That's all consistent with a very slight, subtle blue coloration. If the 2000 Cassini image had been processed in the same way, it might look similar. The Cassini image was processed to be reasonably close to true color. Fcrary (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Potential core *size*?
Daft question, maybe, but as regards the (potential) rocky core, there's only an estimate for the mass - is there no corresponding estimate for what size this would equate to, either under the expected conditions and/or if it were a free-floating body without any atmosphere? 209.93.141.17 (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is unknown. It is not easy to probe the interior of this thick giant gas planet. UV, Doppler, radar, etc only go so deep, and probes crush under ~10 bars pressure; even if they penetrate deeper, they would be unable to transmit its data through the atmosphere. The best technique available so far is gravitational measurements. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not often said, but the gas giants may be structured just like the Sun, except that their nuclear fusion is not 'ignited'. And it is also possible that there is no core at all. It may be turtles all the way down. I mean gas. David Spector (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been well known for centuries that there are turtles all the way down, supporting the planets so they don't fall into the ether. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Questions
Sidebar


 * Jupiter's equatorial radius: There's Jupiter's radius, and then on the next line is 11.209 Earths. I stumbled on this, and then realized that what is meant is 11.209 Earth equatorial radii. Without specifying a unit, it seems the natural thing is to think that 11.209 'Earths' (the planet) would fit in this distance, which would imply the diameter. Other options might be 11.209 times that of Earth, or 11.209 Earth's, or simply delete the statistic and let the reader do the calculation. Or is this a convention of some sort?
 * Similarly for the polar radius.
 * I don't have the same problem for the surface area, volume, or mass, because in each case the entirety is described.Mvsmith (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Update needed on cloud layer depth
This article currently states: "'The cloud layer is only about 50 km (31 mi) deep" But new data from Juno reveals that the cloud layer is 3,000 kilometers deep:. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2018
Scientists can't rule out life on the planet after the discovery of water clouds in Jupiter's Great Red Spot https://thespacereporter.com/article.php?n=scientists-say-they-cant-rule-out-alien-life-on-jupiter-after-new-discovery&id=165037 Ainger13 (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing new or really important. Ruslik_ Zero 13:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Updated magnitude range
The new values of brightest and faintest apparent magnitude in the 'infobox' were reported in a peer-reviewed journal article that includes updated equations for computing planetary magnitudes. Those formulas will be used to predict magnitudes for future issues of The Astronomical Almanac published by the U.S. Naval Observatory and Her Majesty’s Nautical Almanac Office. The equations were solved at daily intervals over long periods of time in order to determine the magnitude extremes. The paper in Astronomy and Computing can be located at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2018.08.002.Planet photometry (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

do I need to update File:Jupiter diagram.svg?
I recently read some news articles that said scientific models for Jupiter’s interior have been revised a lot recently, and given that I drew the image five years ago before the Juno probe ever got to Jupiter, I was wondering if it needs to be updated to reflect new knowledge about the planet. I’m also aware quite a few people raised objections about the accuracy of the image in the years since I uploaded it. However the article text Jupiter does not seem to have been updated much since 2016 and it’s pretty vague about exactly what the inside of the planet looks like anyway so I could really use some direction on what would need to go into a 2019-updated Jupiter image. —  kelvin13  talk  21:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2019
I would like to mention the latest finding solid/rocky core of Jupiter. Request to add it in the references. Also the wording "lacks a well-defined solid surface" is not precise. What do we mean by well-defined in space? Request to review the sentence.

Thesudhakar (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2019
Jupiter may have tholins.

I would like this to be mentioned as it is an important thing. Thesudhakar (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Jupiter for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Jupiter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jupiter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 19:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2020 - discovery count - done
Change, "Astronomers have discovered nearly 500 planetary systems with multiple planets." To, "Astronomers have discovered planetary systems with multiple planets." Edit request- 217.44.211.141 (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done! Also updated Extrasolar planet counts/numbers.  GoingBatty (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

"History of Jupiter" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect History of Jupiter. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained "per cent" column in Galilean moon table
What is the percent column in the Galilean moon table? LaurentianShield (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind -- it is in the title "Compared to Earth's moon". LaurentianShield (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)