This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System 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.
With reference context of sociological consequences of reference the names of the Spheres ('Planets') of the Solar System & the Pagan Theological Deity references with additional contexts of evidences of the cultures of the "Sphere of Maia", or the "Sphere of Earth" ((of context favor for the Greek Language contexts ("Planet" really is linguistic suggestion that suggests "Fault")), really it's context that the Spheres of the Solar System be considered appropriately published with name contexts of reference Greek Pagan Theological Deity references with explicit context.
The diagram, now a "Featured Picture" does not agree with the text. Are there sources that support the diagram, but are different from the text? Is the article wrong? Is the diagram wrong? --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC))
Want to like point out where it disagrees with the text...—Love, Kelvinsongtalk 20:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
For starters, the text says, "The core is often described as rocky, but its detailed composition is unknown, as are the properties of materials at the temperatures and pressures of those depths (see below).... A core may now be entirely absent, because gravitational measurements are not yet precise enough to rule that possibility out entirely." But the diagram clearly shows a "rock and ice core." --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC))
Well the sources I found all said something about a rock-ice core (or in some cases, a rocky core surrounded by a shell of ice). See 1, or 2. So i don't really know what to say...—Love, Kelvinsongtalk 23:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In 5 Orbit and Rotation.. please change the text "the distance from Jupiter and the Sun varies by 75 million km between perihelion and aphelion, or the nearest and most distant points of the planet along the orbital path respectively." text may be changed to "the distance from Jupiter and the Sun varies by 75 million km between perihelion and aphelion, or the greatest and least distant points of the planet along the orbital path respectively." a grammatical error where using the word respectively indicates the order mentioned, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perihelion, the text may also be changed to "the distance from Jupiter and the Sun varies by 75 million km between perihelion and aphelion." ..omitting the conflicting text and simplifying reading flow. Finsaveloy (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done The current wording is correct.... Sailsbystars (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Beg to differ, perihelion and aphelion refer to the most distant and nearest points , in that order,... respectively...Finsaveloy (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done: You've got it backwards. A planet's perihelion is its closest approach to the Sun, and its aphelion is its farthest. The article is correct. LittleMountain5 07:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes of course, are both correct, not been well recently, and goes to show, I need a break,apologies. Finsaveloy (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
QUOTE: "About an hour after sunset on Saturday (May 2), approximately one-third of the way up from the horizon to the overhead point, you'll see an eye-catching sight: a thin crescent moon against the darkening sky. Hovering 8 to 9 degrees almost directly above this slender lunar sliver will be Jupiter, dazzling like a silvery white star." -- AstroU (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.
Problem with the Image at the top of the "Moons" section
In the "Moons" section, the image of Jupiter and the Galilean moons incorrectly shows Europa closer than Io to Jupiter. I have noted in the image caption that these two labels need to be switched. If the image is corrected, then of course the note should be removed.
The image comes from Wikimedia Commons, where it is described as a photo taken 2 August 2008 on a camera attached to a telescope. How fortunate to have captured all four Galilean moons lined up on one side of Jupiter! Can anyone confirm that such a nice conjunction did in fact occur near that date? The moons seem too large relative to Jupiter and they also seem too close to Jupiter. Does anyone have an informed opinion about whether this image is likely to be real? Ontyx (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The image and labels are correct. The moons are not in a nice neat line, it just appears like that. Jupiter's moons are a 3d system that we are viewing in 2d. Take a look at this gif,  , it's the system from a top down perspective. Now imagine looking at this side-on, like we (roughly) do from the perspective of Earth. You would see the moons appearing to constantly change their order.
In the image in question perhaps the moons are in these positions,  (excuse the 5-second Paint job).
The reason the moons look large is probably because you are not actually seeing them fully resolved. This is a result of the optics of the camera used, it is probably not fully resolving the moons so the light coming from them is spread out a little into a halo, making them appear a bit larger than they actually are. ChiZeroOne (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand the point about orbital appearances. What I should have mentioned is that the author's own description of the image states, "from left to right: Callisto, Ganymede, Europa and Io.". Of course, there is no reason for his description to be more reliable than his labels. All we can say is that his description contradicts his labeling and we can't tell which is correct (without additional information).
For what it's worth, here is a page from a known source that has a photo closer to my amateur expectations:. This is not evidence against the other image, just an attempt to explain visually why I thought it was worth a closer look. When I went to the image's source on Flickr, I read that it was in some unspecified way "Adjusted to make the moons more visible". This is clearly not just "camera optics". Such a vague admission of active alteration opens the possibility that the moons were enlarged and moved closer to fit the frame. I wondered how he knew exactly when the moons would be in this particularly nice composition, so I was surprised that he said, "I just went out in my back yard and started pointing it at things, lol!" If the creation of this image was so haphazard, how does he know which moon is which? Does he have any astronomical expertise? I really do not mean to attack the author in any way (apologies if it appears so), but I am asking whether this image rises to the level of Wikipedia's standards. At the very least, some independent reason must be found for choosing the author's labels over his contradictory description.
Might NASA or ESA have a better image?
If, in the end, the image is deemed to be labeled correctly and up to Wikipedia standards, then I recommend adding a brief note to the caption that explains the order in which the moons appear. The image's Wikimedia description should also be corrected (both in English and Italian). Subsequent readers would benefit! -- Ontyx (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Spacepotato has provided reason to conclude that the labels are correct and the description is wrong; see the discussion here: . Accordingly, I have done the edits I suggested above. -- Ontyx (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)