Talk:Pleiades
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pleiades article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | Pleiades was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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 ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
More named star in the Pleiades?
[edit]I no longer have this series of books, but the famous "Burnham's Celestial Handbook" lists something like a dozen named stars. From memory, there is one that has a masculine name. Hector, I think ???? 2001:8003:E41C:1C01:D085:6CCD:5320:E595 (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- I have the book and it list only the names shown in the table in the article (plus 18 Tauri, which I have added). Are you thinking of Atlas? Lithopsian (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, Atlas, not Hector, you are quite correct. It was a long time ago LOL. 2001:8003:E40F:9601:DC93:764B:46B9:A8DE (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Mesopotamia
[edit]- It is also at this time that the first occurrence of the name M 45 dates back, i.e. kà-ma-tù = mul.MUL.
Would Roland E. Laffitte (talk · contribs) kindly explain this sentence, and how the "45" fits in? One might otherwise naïvely suppose that "M 45" originated in the Messier catalog of 1774, in which the Pleiades were the 45th entry. —Tamfang (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- M45 = Messier 45. Even then the sentence is a little hard to decipher. Lithopsian (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I know that. My question was: how do you get "45" out of kà-ma-tù = mul.MUL ? (granting that both at least contain m) —Tamfang (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that at least is foolish, so I've removed it. Lithopsian (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
[edit]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.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
This 2005 listing contains significant uncited material, violating GA criterion 2. Hopefully an easy fix, if someone has references to hand. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have added a few sources to some unsourced statements and fixed a bit, but I don't think I'll be able to completely fix the article; I think a more experienced editor would be up to the task. Blue Jay (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
The Great Jay
[edit]I have always been fascinated by J what with it being the first letter of my first name, not relevant I know. Later in life reading theoretical mathematics my own idea and learning that it was a symbol used to represent the square root of -1. Again nto relevant information. I guess I have no real point except for I will look out for this day and remember it. JonathanRogerAsh (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I've sent you a welcome message on your talk page. The talk page for articles (such as this one) are just for the improvement of the article. Tayste (edits) 19:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Visibility of reflection nebula
[edit]This is POV so obviously cant go into the main article, but the Merope nebula was easily seen in 20cm binoculars. That is, a pair of reflecting telescopes of 20cm diameter, so by any definition, "giant binoculars". Immeidately afterwards, the nebula was only barely visible in a single 45cm telescope, ie, with monocular vision. The conclusion is inescapable that binocular vision is essential to properly see this nebula. 2001:8003:E40F:9601:DC93:764B:46B9:A8DE (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Physical sciences
- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Physical sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
- C-Class Astronomy articles
- Top-importance Astronomy articles
- C-Class Astronomy articles of Top-importance
- C-Class Astronomical objects articles
- Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
- C-Class Constellations articles