# Talk:Jupiter mass

## Comment

Jupiter weighs- 7.7.000.907.000.000.000

## 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)

## 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)

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)
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)

## 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)

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)

## 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)