Talk:Moons of Jupiter

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Moons of 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

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 3 months

Moons of Jupiter was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 26, 2014.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 31, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
September 14, 2008	Featured list candidate	Promoted
July 17, 2009	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
June 19, 2021	Featured topic removal candidate	Demoted
January 13, 2024	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
December 9, 2025	Featured list removal candidate	Demoted
March 28, 2026	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 20, 2026	Featured topic removal candidate	Demoted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 7, 2006, and January 7, 2007.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by if there are more than 4.

Comment: The latest edit claiming Jupiter had almost 1 billion moons is clearly nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-12381-36 (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

50 new moons - Kinda

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/PSJ/abad95/pdf mentions an object called j22r94a24 and a lot more objects w/ such names [reminds me of c02n4]. This also gives additional names [in the same style] to a handful of moons w/ normal names Higgs In Space (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Higgs In Space: This paper was already discussed a bit in this article. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But like on the moons of Saturn page, should we also add a list for those objects? Fred1000000000 (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ashton et al. had a list of 120 unconfirmed Saturnian moons from 2021, but since then many of these were confirmed. However, there's no way of telling which ones remain unconfirmed. The same goes for this list of Jovian moons. There's a good chance one of the 46 Jovian moons from Ashton et al.'s 2020 paper has been confirmed (or will be in the near future), but there's no reliable source that tells us which remains unconfirmed or confirmed. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 19:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aoede diameter

Should we be listing Aoede as 10 km in diameter per (J41 in Table 4) or be using Sheppard's 4 km? -- Kheider (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kheider: The MPC says Aoede has an absolute magnitude of H=15.48, based on 74 observations (uncalibrated, with varying accuracy I presume). On the other hand, the table you're using uses only 6 (calibrated) observations (I do not know how accurate this can be, but I'd be cautious of making estimates from such low datapoints). Assuming an albedo of 0.04 translates the MPC's H to a diameter of 5.3 km. Sheppard and NASA's estimates of 4 km diameter are the closest to the MPC-derived diameter.

For consistency with the other moons displayed in this list, I'd say stick to Sheppard's diameter estimates here. The list also uses MPC H values, which should roughly line up with Sheppard's diameter estimates. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 17:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I made a quick edit to the main Aoede article, to show the two different values. -- Kheider (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, best to show both than to favor one. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Nominating editor is not even in the top 20 in terms of contributing to this article, rendering this a drive-by nomination. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Moons of Jupiter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Igordebraga (talk · contribs) 15:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Векочел (talk · contribs) 02:32, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Review to come over the next days. Векочел (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ideas for improvement

This article is missing a summary of the Galilean moons with a "Main article:" header, has too much focus on irregular moons (IMO they should be split into a separate article titled Irregular moons of Jupiter), and the exploration section needs reorganizing and updating (missing discussion of Juice's upcoming flyby of Kallichore and goals for observing other Jovian moons). Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 01:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ten new moons?

This page only says that four were discovered today. Did the editor who added these get mixed up with the new moons around Saturn, because those were also announced today? LobedHomunculus (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I didn't see the ones further down on the list. LobedHomunculus (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]