Talk:Jupiter

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)