The most detailed map of Jupiter in existence, according to Nasa.
This picture well illustrates the rings of Jupiter, as well as the south pole (which I didn't know existed). It says on the Nasa page that it is the most detailed map of Jupiter ever made. It was constructed with images taken by Cassini, and appears in the article Jupiter. The captions are also very good, as it was "Image of the day" on the Nasa page.
Nominate and Support | AndonicO 23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are no rings on Jupiter (Saturn has the rings). The pic is of the globe of Jupiter, viewed looking down onto the planet's south pole. Not striking for me, the side views are more interesting and show the clouds even better - Adrian Pingstone 07:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are rings on all four of the gas giants in our solar system, but Saturn's are obviously the most prominent. See Rings of JupiterImaninjapirate 00:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support I don't mind the polar view - it is certainly more unusual, and provides information beyond what is seen in the standard perspective. My hesitation comes from wondering about how much distortion there is near the equator, and how far up the map goes lattitude-wise. btw - Jupiter does have rings, just not charismatic ones. Debivort 08:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd prefer another projection. Yes, Jupiter has rings, but they are practically invisible. What you see in this image are the cloud belts. --Janke | Talk 08:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, that is what I meant, belts (I think they call them bands sometimes too). Sorry for the mistake. | AndonicO 09:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what is that weird blurry circle at the very center of the image?--Andrew c 15:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure; it seems like it is some kind of supermassive crater or something of that kind (which is of course impossible). It is probably there to cover up something, maybe a gap which none of the Cassini pictures could fill in. | AndonicOTalk 18:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to guess, it's just a color fill put in by NASA. Remember, the satellite isn't straight below the South Pole looking up at the planet, it's at an angle, so the viewing angle grows more and more extreme the closer the shot gets to the pole (You can see the stitching where they merged the composite images around the pole ). I'm guessing the angle was far too shallow to get any real image data from the pole itself. Severnjc 18:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Clearly encyclopedic- and if it made NASA's pic of the day it can certainly make Wikipedia's Borisblue 00:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I thought when I nominated it; I didn't understand why I hadn't a support yet. | AndonicOTalk 09:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When we see a planet, we want a perspective that shows it as a 3-D object. This one forces the vision to accept it as a 2-D one. This can be confusing to the viewer. I am not sure many people would relate Jupiter to this image. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand, but then again, should the captions not explain? Are the captions not explaining? Besides, 3-D images are common, a map of a planet is a rarity, at least I've never seen one before. Should a good quality picture that is not too common, and presents an often seen planet in a differant way not be featured? I should think so. | AndonicOTalk 22:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support There is nothing wrong in utilizing a polar ortographic projection to represent Jupiter. We use it often with Earth and it is the way it really looks when seen from very far away. The problem for me is the colouring of the image which seems dull. Both for aesthetical and reading purposes contrast between the various layers should be enhanced. - Alvesgaspar 22:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at it closely, you will find a new appreciation for Jupiter's colors. It almost looks like liquified marble; It is far from dull or bland. Look closer, you'll see what I mean. | AndonicOTalk 22:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't illustrate subject clearly. Poor proyection selection to illustrate a planet ( for the same reasons it makes no sense to take a pic of the earth from the pole to illustrate it's features).Nnfolz 22:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But having Jupiter on a map in the same oval way they portray earth wouldn't be good. Imagine consentric rings on an oval map: it would seem more distorted than earth's, because the streching and bending of the rings would be very obvious, as opposed to continents, which break the curvature. In this manner, these terrible defects are avoided, and unless you would actually like to see a much distorted map of Jupiter, with wavy rings, on the main page, this is the best option. | AndonicOTalk 23:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To portray a planet I think a view from its ecuator its always best. check this image out to see what I mean: Although not not qualifiying to be a FP due to size i think this image illustrates the subject more clearly. Nnfolz 11:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand and accept the fact that that picture is more striking and beautiful, but nowhere near as encyclopedic. I've seen tons of pictures like that one, and I'd like to see more, but this, I've never seen. Since the nominated picture is of good quality, and, as NASA says (see captions), it is "the most detailed map of Jupiter", It surely deserves nomination. By the way, the edje of the map is Jupiter's equater, if that is what it is called, just like polar maps of earth. | AndonicOTalk 12:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion is meaningless! We use different map projections for different purposes, knowing that geometric distortion is unavoidable. Obviously, the polar regions are much better represented in an azimuthal projection (ortographic or not) than in a cylindrical one. - Alvesgaspar 12:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know we use different proyections for different things. I just posted that to illustrate a different point from that one.Nnfolz 12:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But don't you think that the best map of Jupiter (or it's southern hemisphere), should be included as the best of Wikipedia? I think the FP criteria fits this picture like a glove. | AndonicOTalk 13:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There a few things that need to be taken care of first. The first thing is that the image description page lacks source description. It just says the image is from NASA, but the specific page information is missing. Also, I see that the image was edited using Adobe Photoshop CS Windows, which is very unlikely to be NASA's pet software. Also, the image is very clearly enhanced to a great deal. One doesn't expect to find the pole of a planet so brightly illuminated, and without shadow on any side. The whole disc seems to have nearly equal illumination intensity. The image description page should clarify the way image was reconstructed (by NASA) and further edits by the Photoshop editor. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to contact NASA? | AndonicOTalk 09:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can at least see what the source page on NASA's website has to say about the image. Please mention it on the Image description page. I have struck out invalid concerns raised by me. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked, and there are already 2 pictures of Jupiter from a "3-d" perspective. Aside from this one, there are no maps of Jupiter (2-d). This one would be better anyways, unless Nasa lied ;-) | AndonicOTalk 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perspective provide unussual view of planet. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
