Talk:Jupiter mass

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles

Astronomy: Solar System C‑class Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

Jupiter weighs- 7.7.000.907.000.000.000

In the equation M_{J}=954.7919(15) x 10^{-6}\;M_{Sun}, what is the significance of the term "(15)"? It's confusing and seems unneeded/unwanted when comparing this equation to the previous equation and comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8A:400:82D0:9DF6:8163:7AA8:8824 (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the Formalhaut article

Many articles use Jupiter mass, but isn't there a better type of mass, called atom weights? Really, Jupiter mass is not a metric mass and so is really hard to calculate the difference. If it is done, can't it be made a metric mass for easier conversions? Albertgenii12 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject scope

With recent talk at Talk:Jupiter of merging this article into Jupiter. I'm wondering why this, a unit of measurement article, in the scope of any astronomy related Wikiproject.

Should other units be part of astronomy Wikiprojects? kg? km?

I don't want to start a Wikiproject war!! I'm just wondering at the logic. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to exclude it from the astronomy Wikiprojects because this article is most likely to be expanded by members of the Astronomy Wikiprojects. Expressions like kg and km are much less specific than "Jupiter masses". -- Kheider (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't it be part of WikiProject Astronomy? It's not like it's used by people other that astronomers, physicists and astrophysicists. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The table displays Teide 1 and Gliese 229B in the wrong positions, they should be reversed. Using their respective Wikipedia pages as the source; Teide 1 has a radius "..about that of Jupiter" and Gliese 229B has "..a mass of 20 to 50 times that of Jupiter." This error is in the image clearly and would likely be difficult to correct. Also, other than being inaccurate doesn't detract from the overall main point of the graphic. --Anotherparalyzer (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass does not equal volume. The image is referenced to NASA. All brown dwarfs have a radius not much different than Jupiter. -- Kheider (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How Jovian is your mass?

Is this name thoroughly standard or endorsed conventionally? I remember it used to be "jovian mass"; if people are using these words, then 'Jupiter–mass' looks better excepting that it implies the units were integrated mathematically.
— JamesEG (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other spellings?

Is the old form M_♃ still ever used? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, {{Jupitermass|greek=y}} produces M_♃, but is only used in 3 out of its 581 transclusions (0.5%). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]