Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a26f5928fc0d284b

Jump to content

Talk:Pleiades

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Skeptic2 in topic Relevance
Former good articlePleiades 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 16, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 16, 2005Good article nomineeListed
March 2, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
November 27, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply

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) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
The discussion above 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.

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)Reply

Relevance

[edit]

Hi all. Do we consider the mention of the Pleiades in international mega-hits such as Can't Stop (Red Hot Chili Peppers) as worthy of inclusion?

for example under a heading "In media"

Regards, Ridiculopathy (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No. Once you start this sort of thing where does it stop? Skeptic2 (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply