Talk:Jupiter

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jupiter article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Jupiter is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	Jupiter has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	Jupiter is part of the Solar System series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 6, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 15, 2006 Featured topic candidate Promoted January 17, 2007 Good article nominee Listed January 30, 2007 Peer review Reviewed January 31, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 24, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted August 27, 2008 Featured topic candidate Not promoted July 17, 2009 Featured topic candidate Promoted January 23, 2021 Featured article review Demoted June 13, 2021 Featured topic removal candidate Demoted June 19, 2021 Featured topic removal candidate Demoted April 29, 2022 Good article nominee Listed June 20, 2022 Featured topic candidate Promoted June 28, 2023 Peer review Reviewed October 10, 2023 Peer review Not reviewed October 29, 2023 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 13, 2024 Featured topic candidate Promoted April 20, 2026 Featured topic removal candidate Demoted Current status: Former featured article, current good article

This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Tdslk, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 25 January 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Jupiter / Solar System Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. This article is supported by Jupiter task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Section sizes Section size for Jupiter (34 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 14,602 14,602 482 482 Name and symbol 3,989 3,989 174 174 Formation and migration 11,589 11,589 627 627 Physical characteristics 2,126 65,639 72 2,546 Composition 8,416 8,416 250 250 Size and mass 10,711 10,711 327 327 Rotation 2,857 2,857 182 182 Internal structure 11,030 11,030 451 451 Atmosphere 390 25,978 39 951 Cloud layers 10,079 10,079 406 406 Great Red Spot and other vortices 15,509 15,509 506 506 Magnetosphere 4,521 4,521 313 313 Orbital motion and observation 6,543 6,543 365 365 Planetary rings 2,572 2,572 162 162 Moons 1,839 13,069 62 418 Galilean moons 5,444 5,444 239 239 Classification 5,786 5,786 117 117 Interaction with the Solar System 3,662 9,794 214 460 Impacts 6,132 6,132 246 246 Observation and exploration history 42 37,115 0 1,785 Pre-telescopic research 4,318 4,318 244 244 Ground-based telescope research 8,767 8,767 472 472 Radiotelescope research 2,625 2,625 90 90 Exploration 2,418 21,363 100 979 Flyby missions 5,779 5,779 296 296 Galileo mission 2,499 2,499 201 201 Juno mission 5,012 5,012 192 192 Cancelled missions and future plans 5,655 5,655 190 190 In culture 10,497 10,497 436 436 See also 347 347 0 0 Notes 43 43 0 0 References 3,794 3,794 0 0 Further reading 725 725 0 0 External links 1,742 1,742 0 0 Total 182,060 182,060 7,455 7,455

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: Important. Before starting the task, please check here.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Marcodatadev (talk · contribs)

Hello, I am affiliated with NOIRLab (user Marcodatadev), so I am proposing this here for review rather than editing the article directly. I am aware this is a Good Article, so I am keeping my suggestion minimal and non-disruptive. The existing content and images would all remain in place; this would simply add one freely licensed image as a modest supporting illustration.

Proposed change: Add a single freely licensed artist's illustration of a hot Jupiter (a giant exoplanet analogous to Jupiter) as a modest supporting image, without removing or altering any existing image. Because it is an illustration rather than a telescopic image, I am suggesting it as a minor, smaller-sized addition rather than a prominent one. Image: File:Artist’s illustration of hot Jupiter with magnetic field (noirlab2614a).tiff Suggested placement: At the end of the "Interaction with the Solar System" section, where the article discusses Jupiter's wider planetary context, complementing the lead's existing mention that Jupiter-like exoplanets have been found in other systems. The "Impacts" subsection already carries the Shoemaker–Levy 9 image, so placing this lower in the section keeps the layout balanced and the existing imagery untouched. Suggested caption: Artist's illustration of magnetic activity around a hot Jupiter, a giant exoplanet analogous to Jupiter. The exact wikitext I suggest is:

Justification: The article notes that Jupiter-like exoplanets have been found in other systems and links to Jupiter analogue, but it currently has no illustration of one. As an artist's impression rather than an observational image, it is best suited to a supporting role at a smaller size, which is why I have set |upright=0.85. The illustration accompanies recent research using the Gemini North telescope and the ESO Very Large Telescope reporting evidence of magnetic fields on ultra-hot Jupiters.^[1] The caption is kept descriptive and neutral, with detailed science left to the linked articles. License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0), with credit to International Gemini Observatory/NOIRLab/NSF/AURA/M. Garlick. I am happy to adjust the caption, size, or placement if editors prefer. If the community feels the article is better as it stands, I am happy to withdraw the request. Thank you. Marcodatadev (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Marcodatadev (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

N Declined "Artist's illustration" sounds like a painting of Jupiter when the article only really needs photographs of Jupiter.  Spintendo  14:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Praemonitus, it looks like you think we should use the word this instead of it to refer to Jupiter in a few of the sentences in the first paragraph of the lede. I disagree, and I think it is clearly the better choice.

Although your version is technically grammatically correct, it is awkward and distracting. The words this and it are not functionally interchangeable. We typically use the words this or that to change the antecedent or mark some kind of contrast or shift in focus, but we use it when we want the subject to stay the same. Switching between different pronouns makes it look like you're switching between antecedents and subjects, even though you're just referring to Jupiter the whole time.

Jupiter is the fifth planet from the Sun, and the largest in the Solar System. This is a [...]

For example, in the quote above, the first word of the second sentence is supposed to refer to Jupiter. But because we're using this instead of it, we're throwing the reader off, and now it looks like we could be talking about Jupiter's status as the fifth planet or as the largest planet, or maybe the Sun or the Solar System. Using it would fix this altogether.

For an example of this principle in action, take a look at the articles for Mercury and Earth. In Mercury's article, the first word of the second sentence is it, because the subject is Mercury itself. But in Earth's article, the first word of the second sentence is this, because the subject is Earth's status as a life-harboring planet, not Earth itself. The use of this clearly marks a change in subject.

If you agree with me, please un-revert my edit. If you disagree, please explain why.

–CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 00:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

My issue is not with the use of it. The problem is repeatedly starting multiple sentences with the same word. Unless you are doing that as a rhetorical device, it just looks amateurish because it stands out and distracts from the prose. We can do better. Praemonitus (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

My version may be a little amateurish due to repetition (though I disagree), but your version is substantially flawed, as I have explained above. So which version do you think is better, yours or mine? If you think yours is better, then you still have to address the concerns that I have raised about it. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 01:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree that "this" is bad writing here. Zero^talk 02:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your argument is we use the supposedly least flawed. Mine is to do a better job, period. Praemonitus (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure everyone here wants to do a better job. My opinion, and I believe CopperyMarrow15's opinion, is that replacing "it" by "this" was not doing a better job. Zero^talk 03:47, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

You're right. When discussing a controversial edit, especially when it's the latest edit to the page, I find it pretty weird to start talking about some theoretical "better job" instead of staying within the scope of the discussion. That said, I am fine with the new version. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 04:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The original reason for the change was to attempt an improvement, so it's entirely within scope. Sure, I could have done better at the time. In reviewing the leads for the other planetary articles, none of them repeatedly start sentences with the same word, so this is consistent. Praemonitus (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply