![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
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)
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 -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)
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#Lost_Cloud_Belt
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)
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)
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)
Just out of curiosity, what's the cause of this edit? -- ElComandanteChe ( talk) 16:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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 was this page last updated???? Oscar45596524 ( talk) 18:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)oscar45596524
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 [ 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.
Will try to find better information. In the meantime, I have edited my post.
Edward27821 (
talk)
19:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
bn:জুপিটার language link takes me to wrong Bengali page. It should take me to bn:বৃহস্পতি গ্রহ.
ArifMahmud ( talk) 15:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Using Jupiter's gravitational force Voyager2 changed its direction.
-Pranav Deo -India
14.96.178.201 ( talk) 14:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
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. [6] Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 23:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
I Added some useful information on what you would typically see depending on what type of astronomical equipment you're using.-- Anderson I'm Willing To Help 23:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Done --
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained)
22:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
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))
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.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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 /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
> 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jupiter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ChristopherS.Tran1 ( talk) 20:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
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. — Supuhstar * — 21:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
"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. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
"...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)
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)
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)
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)
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). Rfassbind – talk 09:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
original | was changed to | my change |
---|---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jupiter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
204.100.156.126 ( talk) 21:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)0klio.kloi.8776-323-9823.khga1.jgh1050-8987545vbcdadsj556hub.com
![]() | This
edit request to
Jupiter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Galileo discovered Jupiter's first 4 moons. Herobrines23444 ( talk) 15:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
What about the International Space Station? 78.60.72.184 ( talk) 22:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jupiter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
The current image shows the polar view of Jupiter being very blue, and apparently that is a real phenomenon. [2] [3] 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)
References
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)
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 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)
Sidebar
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:
[13]. Cheers,
BatteryIncluded (
talk)
01:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes things just "creep in" so could someone look at the "External links" section for possible article integration or trimming. There are currently 12 links that certainly can be considered link farming. Otr500 ( talk) 14:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jupiter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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#Internal structure 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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jupiter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
[1] Thesudhakar ( talk) 05:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Jupiter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jupiter may have tholins. [1]
I would like this to be mentioned as it is an important thing. Thesudhakar ( talk) 05:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
References
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 America 1000 19:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jupiter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change, "Astronomers have discovered nearly 500 planetary systems with multiple planets."
To, "Astronomers have discovered 995 planetary systems with multiple planets.
[1]"
Edit request- Astronomers have discovered {{Extrasolar planet counts/numbers|4}} planetary systems with multiple planets.{{Extrasolar planet counts/numbers|5}}
217.44.211.141 (
talk)
23:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
References
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
History of Jupiter. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 11#History of Jupiter 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)
What is the percent column in the Galilean moon table? LaurentianShield ( talk) 21:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
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)
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 -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)
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#Lost_Cloud_Belt
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)
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)
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)
Just out of curiosity, what's the cause of this edit? -- ElComandanteChe ( talk) 16:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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 was this page last updated???? Oscar45596524 ( talk) 18:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)oscar45596524
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 [ 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.
Will try to find better information. In the meantime, I have edited my post.
Edward27821 (
talk)
19:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
bn:জুপিটার language link takes me to wrong Bengali page. It should take me to bn:বৃহস্পতি গ্রহ.
ArifMahmud ( talk) 15:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Using Jupiter's gravitational force Voyager2 changed its direction.
-Pranav Deo -India
14.96.178.201 ( talk) 14:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
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. [6] Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 23:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
I Added some useful information on what you would typically see depending on what type of astronomical equipment you're using.-- Anderson I'm Willing To Help 23:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Done --
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained)
22:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
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))
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.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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 /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
> 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jupiter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ChristopherS.Tran1 ( talk) 20:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
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. — Supuhstar * — 21:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
"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. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
"...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)
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)
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)
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)
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). Rfassbind – talk 09:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
original | was changed to | my change |
---|---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jupiter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
204.100.156.126 ( talk) 21:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)0klio.kloi.8776-323-9823.khga1.jgh1050-8987545vbcdadsj556hub.com
![]() | This
edit request to
Jupiter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Galileo discovered Jupiter's first 4 moons. Herobrines23444 ( talk) 15:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
What about the International Space Station? 78.60.72.184 ( talk) 22:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jupiter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
The current image shows the polar view of Jupiter being very blue, and apparently that is a real phenomenon. [2] [3] 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)
References
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)
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 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)
Sidebar
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:
[13]. Cheers,
BatteryIncluded (
talk)
01:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes things just "creep in" so could someone look at the "External links" section for possible article integration or trimming. There are currently 12 links that certainly can be considered link farming. Otr500 ( talk) 14:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jupiter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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#Internal structure 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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jupiter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
[1] Thesudhakar ( talk) 05:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Jupiter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jupiter may have tholins. [1]
I would like this to be mentioned as it is an important thing. Thesudhakar ( talk) 05:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
References
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 America 1000 19:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jupiter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change, "Astronomers have discovered nearly 500 planetary systems with multiple planets."
To, "Astronomers have discovered 995 planetary systems with multiple planets.
[1]"
Edit request- Astronomers have discovered {{Extrasolar planet counts/numbers|4}} planetary systems with multiple planets.{{Extrasolar planet counts/numbers|5}}
217.44.211.141 (
talk)
23:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
References
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
History of Jupiter. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 11#History of Jupiter 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)
What is the percent column in the Galilean moon table? LaurentianShield ( talk) 21:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)