Talk:Pleiades

More named star in the Pleiades?

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)

Image is mirrored

The Negev desert image of the star cluster is mirrored ! --Bautsch (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Quite common for astronomical images to be inverted, but I've removed the image anyway. There are better images available. Lithopsian (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Gatekeeping

This is why people don't try to "be bold" anymore. From the edit history:

・"18:30, 10 March 2023‎ TowardsTheLight talk contribs‎ m 40,248 bytes −40‎ Undid revision 1143899414 by 2604:2D80:DE09:D400:BCAF:5E86:D00F:D0AE (talk): the inserted link was to a discussion of traditional names for the stars of the Big Dipper (the Plough), not to the Pleiades, the subject of this article undo"

・"23:05, 10 March 2023‎ 2604:2d80:de09:d400:1c0:793:75e5:9481 talk‎ 40,288 bytes +40‎ Undid revision 1143921452 by TowardsTheLight (talk) Yes, the big dipper is a different constellation to the Pleiades. That doesn't makes it irrelevant. The article "Sun" has a See Also for "Timeline of the far future" because in the far future the sun will die. I think this comparison is more relevant. That's one example of thousands undo Tag: Undo"

・"15:02, 12 March 2023‎ Lithopsian talk contribs‎ 40,248 bytes −40‎ just spam as mentioned - take it to talk if you want to push your case undo"

If people are learning about a cluster of stars and cross-cultural myths related to that cluster, then why wouldn't they want to know that this isn't a singular phenomenon? Moreover, Wikipedia editors often have their pet projects and don't see how much they are biasing articles. As cited and popular as Wikipedia is, and with facts and truth being regularly questioned, this is so highly dangerous. There seems to be a natural assumption that f you don't sign up for an account you must be a bad actor. I deleted my account over a decade ago because I just don't have the time to read through all of the policy articles and was tired of being made to feel bad about that. It also takes a lot of time to argue for things I don't really care about to people who do care but haven't questioned their assumptions.

By the by, I am the same user who originally made the edit. I only noticed it had been removed again because I couldn't remember the word "saptarishi" and came to this article because I remembered it was linked from here. I don't expect this comment to have any effect and don't plan to return to fight this fight. I just needed to get off my chest how biased this looks to those outside the Wikipedia editor inner circle. It's doesn't even affect the content of the article. Just gives people something related they can look into if they are interested in cross cultural myth & storytelling. (It was quite difficult not sprinkling the above message with expletives; your actions affect others, emotionally, not just intellectually.) 2604:2D80:DE09:D400:74D1:EC87:449D:F516 (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Pointless rant, zero reasons to support your changes. Good luck with that. Lithopsian (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You're doing it right now. What causes such inability to self reflect? As was stated, "your actions affect others, emotionally, not just intellectually." Yet you're dismissive of an emotional response? Have you considered the causal chain that led to it? Regardless, surely you've noticed the qualitative differences on Wikipedia in the last decade. Clear bias in articles, users sitting on pet projects, the distain in the community that used to be fun & welcoming. Look at the disrespectful tone of the most recent history section alone, "Removed nonsense," "just spam as mentioned" (no one had called it spam; provided justification was ignored; guilt was presumed). It just wild to me that someone can bring up a system-wide problem and you just brush it off. There are other human beings on the other side of the screen.

It'll be interesting to see the analysis of LLMs on this phenomenon. By next year they should be able to input the entire history of Wikipedia edit patterns and all will be revealed. In the meantime...

The previous post specifically says, "If people are learning about a cluster of stars and cross-cultural myths related to that cluster, then why wouldn't they want to know that this isn't a singular phenomenon?" You've chosen to ignore the question. You also ignored the justification in the original restoration, "Yes, the big dipper is a different constellation to the Pleiades. That doesn't makes it irrelevant. The article "Sun" has a See Also for "Timeline of the far future" because in the far future the sun will die. I think this comparison is more relevant."

@User:TowardsTheLight @Lithopsian You're previous reply suggested you didn't read past the first part (or are unable to comprehend that a person might want to express more than one thing in a single post?), so I have made the direct point bold for your benefit. 2604:2D80:DE09:D400:E18B:231B:7EBB:9E8C (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Mesopotamia

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

Pleiades

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 • Watch article reassessment page • 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 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.

The Great Jay

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)