Talk:Europa (moon)/Archive 1

message: The continent 'Europe' was named after the word 'Ereb'. 'Ereb' means 'land of sun set' in ancient greek/latin.
:Where does that come from? I thought the name of the continent had a mythological origin. Also, "ereb" isn't what you'd expect for either a Latin or a Greek word. --kwami 00:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continent Europe naming 

message: I removed the paragraph below because it reiterates the article, or is trivially calculated from data in the table. None of the other Galilean moons have a similar paragraph.
:Data for Europa:
:*Surface Gravity (Earth = 1): 0.135
:*Orbit Speed: 13.74 km/s
:*Escape velocity: 2.02 km/s
:*Surface Composition: Water Ice
—Herbee 16:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you were curious why that was there, originally most of the planets and moons had a list of facts similar to this before the Wikiproject to give them all a uniform table started. I guess this just got missed during cleanup. :) Bryan 00:55, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data for Europa 

message: ===Galilean moon names===
  "Although the name "Europa" was suggested by Simon Marius soon
   after its discovery, this name and the names of the other Galilean
   satellites curiously fell into disfavor for a considerable time..."
I've heard speculations that Marius invented the names just to annoy Galileo. These names probably weren't considered appropriate as they were named after the lovers of Zeus -- especially with the case of Ganymede, who was male. --Jyril 23:07, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
:Ganymede was a godified servant of the olympian gods, not anything else! Basta!! Those rumors don't respect myth. Rursus 13:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, I hate to burst your Disneyland idealism of Greek myth, but male-male relationships between gods and mortals (and mortals and mortals) are a common theme.--Scorpion451 17:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: WHY??! did  the convention change from Jupiter II to Europa??
Said Rursus 13:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming (and Etymology) of the Galilean satellites 

message: "Although the name "Europa" was suggested by Simon Marius soon
   after its discovery, this name and the names of the other Galilean
   satellites curiously fell into disfavor for a considerable time..."
I've heard speculations that Marius invented the names just to annoy Galileo. These names probably weren't considered appropriate as they were named after the lovers of Zeus -- especially with the case of Ganymede, who was male. --Jyril 23:07, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
:Ganymede was a godified servant of the olympian gods, not anything else! Basta!! Those rumors don't respect myth. Rursus 13:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, I hate to burst your Disneyland idealism of Greek myth, but male-male relationships between gods and mortals (and mortals and mortals) are a common theme.--Scorpion451 17:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Galilean moon names

message: Before doing anything about the text: 
#I claim that Jupiter I, II, a.s.o. numbering refers not to the from-in-to-out order of the satellites, but to the discovery order, and in cases of simultaneous order, to an arbitrary but static order kept by the astronomer collective (a so called convention). This means that explaining the introduction of the modern person names, to be caused from confusion created by new discoveries, is an erroneous discourse (fact garble).
#I claim that the numbering is still used for some unexplicable reason (maybe redundancy as per linguistics??, or as a discovery order mark), such as for example in "Astronomy - structure of the Universe", Roy & Clarke, , page 112.
Now, my trouble is this: i wish to change, which necessitates deleting the above mentioned explanation, but i wish to replace it with a reasonable explanation of why the Io/Europa/Ganymedes/Callisto tetrad is used nowadays? So my question is:
:WHY??! did  the convention change from Jupiter II to Europa??
Said Rursus 13:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact garble in Etymology section

message: Instead of the pseudo-phonetic transcription, I replaced it with what seems to me as a reasonable phonemic transcription and a a sound file of my own Americanized English. I've intentionally avoided using any special IPA characters for stress and vowel length since they have a tendency to look very odd in some browsers. Change this if you want, but try to at least keep it phonemic, or we might get more disputes over which is to be conidered correct. Don't take the sound file as an excuse to start bickering over the merits of various varieties of English. It's not supposed to be canon, and anyone listening to the sound file will at once know how to pronounce it in their own dialect/accent.
Peter Isotalo 13:13, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
:We have the same cross-dialectical spelling pronunciation for all of the moons of the solar system and most of the first thousand asteroids. Add the IPA if you like, but don't delete the other. kwami 19:36, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
::Oh, for crying out loud... Did you even notice that it wasn't accepted too well by non-native speakers? I was trying to avoid that.
::Peter Isotalo 09:41, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
:::If you put in an IPA pronunciation, people start complaining about dialect chauvinism. (Maybe not a problem with Europa, but certainly a problem elsewhere.) Plus, half the English-speaking world doesn't have a clue what the IPA even is, let alone are able to use it. Rather than learn, they'll just ignore it. If it's useless for half the population, and contested by the other half, why should we try to make it the sole representation of English pronunciation? If you can figure out a way to transcribe into the IPA so that it represents all major English dialects, that would still only address half the problem. (I'm missing too many low vowels to attempt it.) Ideally we would have both. kwami 09:59, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
::::Pseudo-phonetic orthographic transcription seems like something people could fight about for ages as far as I can tell. At least IPA is as close to a neutral standard as one can get, and it is certainly not something exclusisve to English speakers. Now, if you actually take some time and read the transcription you'll notice that I deliberatly made it phonemic instead of phonetic. In other words, it's perfectly dialect-neutral.
::::Peter Isotalo 22:56, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
:::::Yes, but it's only dialect-neutral for Europa. Your approach won't work for all the moons, because English dialects differ in their phonemic inventories, unless you specify that there is not a one-to-one correspondance between sound and symbol. Then people will argue with you about that, claiming that the IPA is supposed to be one-to-one. 
:::::We've also had very few problems with the spelling pronuciations. (A couple people didn't like the digraphs ah and oh, so we changed them to aa and oe, but that's it.) I don't see any problem with having both. At least now you have something to work with, which wasn't the case when I started. Oh, by the way, the spelling pronunciation is also phonemic, not phonetic (pseudo or otherwise). kwami 23:37, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
::::::Couldn't keep my fingers away: let's spell [ju:rəʊpə] in Swedish: Joreupö, or German: Juröupö, or French: Yujeu-ou-peu? Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 16:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: A far as I know, the "recent observations" using the Hubble Space Telescope that revealed a tenuous oxygen atmosphere were made in 1994 and the results published in 1995 (just google 'hubble europa oxygen'), so this is old news. I'm modifying that part.
--201.236.39.22 01:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Atmosphere

message: I have expanded the beginning of this page and created two small sections on etymology and orbital characteristics. There is some redundancy between the table and the body now but I think this is acceptable, given that many will simply sit down to read a page and not pick through charts and tables and what not.
Also, while I assume there's some attempt to standardize the natural satellite pages, I'm thinking Venus offers a good template for what we might do here and I have arranged the sections to this end. It's our only planet or satellite Featured Article at the moment and I see no reason why Europa can't be our second. Marskell 09:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions + let's make an FA 

message: Eccentricity is a dimensionless number; surely expressing it in degrees is incorrect?
83.67.5.25 17:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely incorrect. Degrees make no sense here.--Jyril 18:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units of Eccentricity 

message: There doesn't seem to be too much in that article about the possibillty of life on Europa.  There should be secetion about the possibilty of there being life on Europa.--Scott3 01:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't the place for speculation. We have no idea if anything is swimming around beneath the ice, and probably won't know for a long time. All we know is that the ocean either isn't or is inhabited, which is like CNN saying that Osama bin Laden is dead or alive.--Planetary 08:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves." It is quite reasonable for us assert that other's have speculated on life, without presenting any given speculation as fact. Surely we can find the material for the suggested section or too add to the paragraph already present in exploration. Marskell 08:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  life on Europa 

message: To mention this person 4 times in a section were he is representing only one half of the comunity is a little to much! Others do also research and they are not listed four times.--Stone 09:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greenberg

message: This article nearly satisfies the qualifications. I have some suggestions for improvement before I approve it as a Good Article.
*Cut down a little on the back-story of Europa in the Etymology section.  Some of that seems to be unnecessary trivia.  What would be useful is info on why it was named Europa, and who first named it.
*"This heats the body, and allows for geology" (Orbital characteristics section).  This statement seems a little ambiguous, perhaps a little expansion on this thought would help clarify things for the casual reader.
*Add citation(s) to the Internal structure section.
*Instead of specifying which scientists believe what (Subsurface ocean section), simplify to something like "Some scientists believe(citation)...however, others argue(opposing citation)..." -- Its pretty much a universal consensus -- Nbound
*The image on the left in the Possible life section seems disruptive to the flow of the article:  consider moving it and/or replacing it.
*In general, more inline references to the sources you have used (i.e., use the <ref name="name"> notation.  This helps readers looking for more information find the specific source that might help them the most.-- The current format seems to work fine =S -- Nbound
*A minor copyedit for grammar and clarity. -- added tag =) -- Nbound
*Fix Etymology naming garble. (see above!) Rursus 13:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA|GA]] review 

message: I would advise against merely putting a  tag on the article.  This article does need a copyedit to remove fragment sentences, split run-ons, a few spelling errors.  I am only permitted to keep this nomination on hold for 7 days, and trust me, from working on my own articles, cleanup tags get nothing done.  I would suggest either doing it yourself, or contacting someone you know to do it.  Unfortunately it would create a conflict of interest if I made any major changes, otherwise I would offer.
A few more things: 
Galileo imaging team member Richard Greenberg has used his research group's analyses of Voyager and Galileo images of Europa to argue that Europa's geological features also demonstrate the existence of a subsurface oceanGreenberg, R. Europa: The Ocean Moon: Search for an Alien Biosphere.  Springer Praxis Books, 2005..
While the Galileo spacecraft is wikilinked, at least a brief mention of what it is should be included in the article.  This occurs a few more times in the article at various points.
(Its was called the "Galileo probe" earlier in the article" -- Nbound 01:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding a brief phrase like "the Galileo probe, which orbited Jupiter and studied Europa in (time)," would suffice. -Runningonbrains 03:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA re-review

message: i didn't mean to start an edit war by putting back the  tag.. but i don't think it's to much to ask to cite a source somewhere in the etymology section? i mean, that information has to come from somewhere.. the argument that it isn't cited on the other wikipedia articles isn't valid, i don't think, since they aren't very well referenced either. Mlm42 11:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and literature in there!--Stone 11:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: source for the etymology

message: This article is not quite a Good Article.  However I have created a "To do" list at the top of this page.  When these are done (aside from the references, which is not required, only a suggestion), re-nominate the article, and it should pass fairly easily. -Runningonbrains 19:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: I do not like it to put a big section into a enceclopedia article about something real like europa, which is so far from reality like the hypothesis about life on europa. Make a new article saying highly fictional hypothesis or science fiction or what ever.  Everybody arguing that scientists come up with this does not make it more real. The Scientist play with scientifical fantasy about things they have no date. Everybody who belives in these hypothesis should first read an Science article about the life on Mars publishe few jears bevor the Mariner probe destroyed all hopes. This article states life on Mars as a fact and only deals whit the exact way the martian oecosystem works. Be careful with all this and wait for the landing operation planed for this century!
*
If anybody wants to extand the life on europa section here is some literature! 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
--Stone 07:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible life on europa

message: The Subsurface ocean section equalled Magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) with Epsom salt (mineral), which is not correct, since chemical compound names (MgSO4) use to refer to many minerals, defined by approximate chemical composition, crystal structure, crystal water and similar crystal lattice extra molecules. I'm not quite sure, but i'll wager a great deal on the bet that the MgSO4 on Io, is not exactly Epsom Salt. Hehe (giggering evilly, does: Rursus 13:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Epsom

message: Have a look at these sentences from the article - "Europa is also being gravitationally pulled in different directions by Jupiter and by other satellites of the planet (tidal flexing). This gives the body a source of heat and energy, allowing the subsurface ocean to stay liquified, and driving subsurface geological processes.[7]" 
As far as I know tidal flexing has nothing to do with heat generation. Is there a sentence missing from the article?61.68.183.41 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tidal energy is dissapiated during the flexing (a classic example is to take a paper clip and bend it back and forth several times.  The center of the bend will be hot).  I will clarify this. Michaelbusch 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is something missing?

message: I reverted an edit that said Europa was a satellite of Mars. I assumed good faith and did not file a warning on the talk page of the user but just in case it happens again I'll document it here. JBEvans 23:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mars?

message: Most of the inline citations are cite journal ones, although vite web would fit much better for newscientist and spaceweb.--Stone 23:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: Sorry for accidentally marking my last edit shouldn't have been marked as minor, it shouldn't have been. Neitherday 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Minor

message: Yes, this is a good article. Succinctly, it fulfills all the good article criteria. I recommend nominating it for a featured article immediately. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please have the person who passed the GA add the correct template, which includes a date, oldid and topic.  I do not participate in GA, and I have tired of tracking down faulty GA passes to prep the article for GimmeBot closing of FACs.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeez, I think that all this "correct template" nonsense is really getting out-of-control. Anyway, I did it. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Success at GA

message: Either this article needs to be increased in size by about 150 percent, or some of the pictures need to be pruned, because right now this article is almost impossible to read. Serendipodous 02:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I reordered the images and removed two which I felt didn't really add any new information. I think the page is much more readable now. I've also edited the captions down to stop the images crashing into each other.Serendipodous 02:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your assertion that the 2 images you deleted didn't add any new information. You deleted the only close-up of the Europan surface, and the only detailed image showing the variety of geological processes that are superimposed on the surface. Europa's fascination is mainly derived from its active geology and the amazing, alien-appearing surface manifestations of this geology, which are only visible in reasonably high-resolution images. At this point we have 3 such images; from my perspective, they're the most valuable images in the article. Let's try to keep them (or substitute better images if such are available). A lot of the other images in the article are either of limited relevance (the images of Earth's ocean floor), of limited interest (the diagrams of the interior models and magnetic field don't convey much information), or are based on speculation (the cryobot is not going to happen any time soon). So if we still have too many pictures, let's not toss the few that show the details of surface geology. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: OK; there are now way too many pictures

message: very interesting. well done. kerfuffle (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Nice to know the article is helping people. Serendipodous 09:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: thanks

message: If Europa were somehow warm enough would the Oxygen be breathable by us?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.74 (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Too thin -- see the Atmosphere section.Fritter (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If Europa were closer to the Sun, it would be gradually boiled away. As its surface were reduced first to ice and then to steam, it might have a thick atmosphere for a relatively brief time, geologically speaking, and during that time, disassociation would probably create a small amount of free oxygen in the atmosphere, but it wouldn't last. Europa just doesn't have enough gravity to hold on to its air. Eventually it would be reduced to a barren airless core. Serendipodous 20:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question:

message: Europa is the sixth-nearest and fourth-largest moon of the planet Jupiter. Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo Galilei (and, some say, independently by Simon Marius), and named after a mythical Phoenician noblewoman, Europa, who was courted by Zeus and became the queen of Crete. It is the smallest of the four Galilean moons.Yyem (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, you're probably right. That sentence doesn't read well anyway. Serendipodous 12:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't this Repetition?  Opinion please

message: Hi, I'm mildly surprised there's no mention of 2010: Odyssey Two. 2010 is definitely notable IMHO. --Kjoonlee 00:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 2010 is mentioned more than once on Jupiter's moons in fiction, which is linked to at the bottom of the article. --Patteroast (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank you! :) --Kjoonlee 09:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Odyssey Two 

message: Isn't the correct term for a body orbiting any planet a 'satellite', not a 'moon'? Moon is the proper name of the satellite orbiting our planet, Earth. Thoughts on this? This correction would have to be made across many wikipedia entries.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.31.69 (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia uses "moon" as standard, presumably because "satellite" leaves open the question as to whether it is a natural or artificial satellite. Serendipodous 23:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: When you refer to a 'moon' (lower-case) it means any natural satellite, while the 'Moon' (upper-case) is Earth's only moon. That's a pretty pretty standard usage as far as I've seen, and what Wikipedia uses. --Patteroast (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't you mean 'Satellite'? 

message: the following text "do u know i love to go to Europa" in the section "extraterrestrial life on Europa" is a vandalism that I could not fix. It does not appear in the wikipedia editor neither it was found under emacs search (emacs search only found one know as a part of the word knows in the entire article ) please fix this and also please leave a message in my talk on how to find and fix these. I am totally at loss. Jeroje (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably removed between your loading of the page and you clicking 'edit', but still in your browsers cache when going back to the page. --Gerrit CUTEDH 23:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose Serendipodous 00:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, give me a break. The nominator hasn't supplied much than "I think this is the primary topic"--do the oppose voters the courtesy of assuming that their reason is "I think it's not the primary topic". Also, see Talk:Ganymede (moon). --Akhilleus (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted my comment in the discussion section. Serendipodous 12:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

text: That is probably because many or most of the moons in our solar system are named for mythological characters and therefore need disambiguation. •Life of Riley (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
"Europa" is the name of Europe in every European language except English. I think Europe probably has a higher recognition level than a moon of Jupiter. Plus all moons on Wikipedia have "(moon)" as a disambig. Serendipodous 00:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If this were an encyclopedia written in any language but English, I'd care about your first point, but frankly it seems silly to me to argue English naming conventions based on foreign languages.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: People who speak English are fairly likely to encounter the alternate name of Europe, particularly if, like myself, they happen to live there. Serendipodous 00:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Easily handled by a note at the top of the article (if people agree it is necessary, which I'd still need convincing).  But the current Europa is no more about Europe than this one is, so I still don't see the point of that line of argument.  Either way someone entering "Europa" while looking for Europe would be in the wrong place and still needs to be directed elsewhere, so I can't see how it makes any difference to this naming discussion.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

text: On the other point, I think Ganymede and possible others should qualify for primary topic status too.  (And there is no question about people being confused looking for Europe when typing Ganymede ;-).  Dragons flight (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

text: By actually following WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to decide which ones are in fact the primary topic.  There is no naming convention that requires using the tag (moon), and that would be counterproductive if most people are in fact looking for the moon.  The comparison to "people" vs. "language" is not a comparable situation, since "X people" and "X language" are generally both of comparable significance, so PRIMARYTOPIC wouldn't apply.  Dragons flight (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you any evidence to suggest that there is a clear primary topic here? I agree with the general points you're making about disambiguation, but not with the assertion that we've got an obvious primary topic here which would warrant moving the dab page off to (disambiguation). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Having an obligatory "(moon)" makes no sense if the moon is clearly the primary meaning of the term. And no, we don't use obligatory "people" (see Poles, Croats, Italians) or "language" (Latin, Esperanto, Scottish Gaelic) either. Jafeluv (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: You'll find that in several languages - French springs to mind - the word for 'Europe' is not 'Europa'. (In French, it is 'Europe'.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Does anyone know of how they compare I would be very interested to know. And I think the comparison shouts life. If think this is junk just erase it don't mark my profile just erase.---- Nate Riley 14:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On Snowball Earth, photosynthesis was still possible even under the ice, because deep ice becomes almost transparent. However, Europa is much farther from the Sun, so photosynthesis is probably impossible (assuming, of course, that there is life). Also, Earth's snowball period was ended by increased volcanic activity dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Since Europa's ocean, if it has one, is far deeper than Earth's (perhaps 60 miles), any volcanic activity would be submarine. Serendipodous 18:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is untrue.  "deep ice" does not become transparent, and in the most extreme versions of snowball earth, in which the planet is glaciated to the equator, photosynthesis would likely be limited only to those few mountainous/volcanic regions which penetrate the ice.  Photosynthesis is possible, but not particularly productive, at the light levels Europa sees, but the surface is bathed in ionizing radiation, and at even moderate depths within the ice would become impossible.  However, if there is life on Europa, it is potentially surviving on the same energy source as the majority of the life on Earth which would have survived any serious snowball event: chemical gradients driven by hydrothermal systems, so there is a very reasonable parallel to draw.  Zaneselvans (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Snowball Earth

message: I removed the note about the Copernican system because it is not included in this article's sister articles Io, Ganymede or Callisto. It is included hower in Gallilean moons. The ref information I moved there. Str1977 (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fair enough. Serendipodous 16:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for understanding and sorry that I didn't provide my reasons to begin with. Str1977 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copernicus

message: If Europa is less massive than the Earth's moon, is it possible for an artificial satellite to be placed in a very long-lived orbit around Europa?   Aren't there too many satellites around Jupiter for artificial satellites to remain in orbit around Europa for long?  I have been told that the best that can be done, is a couple weeks at best.  I get a little confused by the idea of long-lived orbits, and have been told that all orbits are ultimately unstable.   But is it possible for a satellite to be placed in an orbit that lasts for more than 10 years?   216.99.201.35 (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In orbit around Europa? 

message: The Voyager probes discovered three more inner satellites in 1979, so Europa is now considered Jupiter's sixth satellite, though it is still sometimes referred to as Jupiter II.; I do not think this is correctly put. If Europa was named initially "Jupiter II" because they thought it to be the second closest satellite to Jupiter, then why was this name retained after the discovery of the other more inner satellites? Does "II" not simply refer to the fact that Europa was the second moon to be discovered? The Wiki ghost (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Europa's designation as "II" does refer to being the second closest satellite, and it was retained because repeatedly changing the designation of a moon doesn't achieve much besides confusion. This is explained at Titan (moon); Titan did in fact have its designation changed a couple times because inner satellites were discovered, though it was soon frozen at VI.It's not entirely clear whether or not Europa was the second moon to be discovered, as you say (but most probably not); the order of discovery is something of a mess. See the relevant discussion at Talk:Ganymede (moon). Sideways713 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Was Europa named "Jupiter II" because of its position?

message: In the summary, second paragraph, it mentions that Europa is:
"...one of the smoothest in the Solar System."
Can anyone find a source on this?  Thanks.  --65.44.114.33 (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Try source 29 Serendipodous 22:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Source on Smoothness

message: If there is life on Europa it will not be more advanced then the human race. If they were advanced, they'd have radio satellites. No radio satellites = no advanced life.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.157.57 (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to have radio satellites, you have to have knowledge that there is something to put radio satellites into. There's no reason to assume any advanced life lurking on the ocean floor of Europa would even have a concept of space, let alone spacefaring. Serendipodous 10:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life on Europa 

message: In this chunk of info, there is/was a bunch of crap about chemosynthesis and discovering tube worms off the Galapagos.  This really needs to be truncated down to barely more than a referral to another page.  This page is about Europa chiefly, and it jumps a little too far off topic despite how interesting it may be.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.166.33 (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is very important, because it shows how life could exist on Europa, despite the inhospitable environment. Serendipodous 10:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: However, much of this info doesn't apply distinctly to Europa. In particular, the three middle paragraphs and pictures. It is largely about how life could exist in any extraterrestrial ocean (not even necessarily subsurface, but that's all we're concerned about in the solar system), and could/should be on the pages for several other objects, notably Ganymede. I.e., it is a digression. A reference to a section in a separate exo-life page (the astrobiology page seems the likely candidate), with this section just describing why Europa may be particularly suitable to that type of life: tidal heating, rocky core, O2 from radiation on ice, etc. Tbayboy (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This historical information is vital context; you can't just say that Europa's subsurface ocean could support life without sunlight and yet not explain why. Serendipodous 20:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not suggesting that. See "referral to another page" above, and my astrobiology suggestion. For example, the page on tigers doesn't have to explain the details of what it means to be a mammal, it just links to it. Similarly, the Europa page doesn't have to explain the details of hydrothermal vent life, just link to it; this page need only explain why Europa might have such life. Tbayboy (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential for Extraterrestrial Life

message: How did Europa form? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Try it now. :) Serendipodous 07:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Goddidit!  :-)  BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  We're missing something... 

message: Did anyone else scroll down this page slowly and then freaked out by the rotating orbit GIF? I thought it was a bug or something at the bottom of my screen!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.199.46 (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page scared me 

message: The surface temperature is listed as -50 K.
Since 0 K corresponds to absolute zero, this cannot be correct.
The Johnston Archive suggests ~85 K ( http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/europa.html ).
If anyone can confirm or improve this with a more vetted source, that would be helpful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.104.134 (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not -50 K that's ~50 K. — Reatlas (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd suggest replacing the "~"  with the word "about".Kortoso (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface Temperature is Incorrect 

message: i know something wrong
Hnndcfgn (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, well what is it? Serendipodous 19:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Not done: You have made no edit request in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ", so it is unclear what you want added or altered.Furthermore, you have not cited any reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2014 

message: Of possible interest --
*Finding => NASA Workshop on the Potential for Finding Life in a Europa Plume (02/18/2015)
*Spreading => NASA Workshop on Planetary Protection Knowledge Gaps for Human Extraterrestrial Missions (03/24/2015)
In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Astrobiology|Life in Space]] 

message: There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Life on Europa about whether to merge Life on Europa into Europa (moon). Any reasoned comments would be helpful. A2soup (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion at [[Talk:Life on Europa]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Europa (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://people.msoe.edu/~tritt/sf/europa.life.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/messier/xtra/Bios/marius.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://documents.wolfram.com/applications/astronomer/AdditionalInformation/PlanetographicCoordinates.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/ReprintsYLY/N164Liang_Callisto%2005/Liang_callisto_05.pdf
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/explore_europa/update_12142005.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following paper, Empirical constraints on the salinity of the europan ocean and implications for a thin ice shell, by Kevin Hand and Christopher Chyba, uses magnetic field data from Galileo to put a constraint on subsurface ocean salinity. They conclude that a) only a relatively thin shell of ice (< 15 km, with a best fit at 4 km) can fit the data and b) only very high (magnesium sulfate) salinity can readily explain the very high amplitude response (0.97 +/ 0.02) observed by Galileo. In particular, adding a solid conducting core and mantle to the model has no appreciable effect compared to that of the ocean itself.
This should probably be worked into the article, which currently presents the thin ice/thick ice debate largely in terms of surface feature analysis. Eniagrom (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A 2017 paper - http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/mop/files/2018/07/571-586-with-Images.pdf  50.111.27.136 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thin ice/thick ice debate 

message: This article from BBC was posted today in regards to the new discovery of "water plumes" on Europa. Would it be worth adding this information to the page, or does it fall under WP:RECENT? Let me know what you think. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is worth a mention.  But that article is not so definite! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been added today, as an "additional evidence". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New Information on "spewing water jets

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Europa (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5jwBSgPuV?url=http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~fringwal/w08a.jup.txt with http://www.webcitation.org/5jwBSgPuV?url=http%3A%2F%2Fzimmer.csufresno.edu%2F%7Efringwal%2Fw08a.jup.txt on http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~fringwal/w08a.jup.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Europa (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060329000051/http://geology.asu.edu/~glg_intro/planetary/p8.htm to http://geology.asu.edu/~glg_intro/planetary/p8.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/europa/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~fringwal/w08a.jup.txt
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5jwBSgPuV?url=http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~fringwal/w08a.jup.txt to http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~fringwal/w08a.jup.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008230224/http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/37545/1/05-0403.pdf to http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/37545/1/05-0403.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008230224/http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/37545/1/05-0403.pdf to http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/37545/1/05-0403.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/3463/dual-drill-designed-for-europa%E2%80%99s-ice
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130408082530/http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/europa20130404.html to http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/europa20130404.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: astrobio link is dead, it looks like that site no longer hosts the content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Europa (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308061644/http://www-paoc.mit.edu/paoc/papers/europa_plume.pdf to http://www-paoc.mit.edu/paoc/papers/europa_plume.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601171115/http://sos.noaa.gov/videos/Europa.mov to http://sos.noaa.gov/videos/Europa.mov
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Europa (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326221921/http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Jup_Europa to http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Jup_Europa
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326221921/http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Jup_Europa to http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Jup_Europa
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Europa (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116103022/http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/profile.cfm?MCode=EAL to http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/profile.cfm?MCode=EAL
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The type of radiation and the various strengths of it (alpha particles, beta, neutron, EM) should be added to the article.  I think I've read some fairly reasonable predictions of this based on the observed data. Does anyone have an RS? 50.111.3.150 (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the four mentioned radiation types only electron (beta) component is significant on Europa. Ruslik_Zero 12:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: so, a Reliable Source showing the average strengths of the various types of radiation at the surface should be readily available and stated in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.16.163 (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  surface radiation 

message: would creating a new article called Life on Europa be a good idea? idk :VAzpineapple (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No. There would be almost zero RS information on something that is pure, unadulterated wishful thinking/speculation.50.111.24.158 (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  habitability thing