Talk:Pleiades

Move

I moved the page back to Pleiades (star cluster), because they're just called the Pleiades, not the Pleiades Open Cluster. Have cleaned the article up quite a bit but will leave it to other users to decide if the cleanup tag should stay or go. Worldtraveller 19:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looks good, fixed a few minor errors, deleted the cleanup tag :) --Ilikeverin 22:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

etymology

Uhm, doesn't "pleiades" mean "daughters of pleione", and "pleione" being the sea nymph who (presumably) protected those who sailed?

This seems to most obvious meaning to me too. All I can guess is that the name may have predated the myth, which would make this a folk etymology? I've added this speculation, but commented it out pending confirmation. Sure wish sources were cited! Lusanaherandraton 01:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The Greek poetess Sappho mentions the Pleiades, and the fragments that exist of the writing show it in ancient Greek characters.

An image appears at http://bp2.blogger.com/_Rs_uJzqkj0M/SJZLZRVh6kI/AAAAAAAAAIM/ZkijzHzxIzU/s400/Selanna.jpg . SyntheticET (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

pronunciation

Pronunciations based on the OED, the glossary of Robert Fagles' translation of the Odyssey, and The Zimmerman's Dictionary of Classical Mythology (Harper & Row, 1964).

--kwami

variant names (A)sterope

In the underlying text, there is also the name Sterope. (You'll need to edit to see it.) In mythology this is a variant of Asterope, but they are associated with different stars here. There are several traditions of which star is which Pleiad, and I've seen different star guides which disagree. I don't know whether the modern astronomical community recognizes both names, or uses them to disambiguate more stars than they could otherwise. Maybe someone who knows could add a comment?

--kwami

SIMBAD, the astronomical name database, does not contain an entry for Sterope, but has Asterope as the name for 21 Tauri. I found a web page which says Sterope is 22 Tauri, but SIMBAD doesn't agree. I'd say SIMBAD is authoritative on these things, and so the name Sterope does not appear to be an official name for any of the Pleiades. Worldtraveller 13:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Bright Star Catalogue (Hoffleit 1991) lists "Asterope" and "Sterope I" as alternate names for 21 Tau and "Sterope II" as an alternate name for 22 Tau. I'm not sure why those didn't make it into SIMBAD, but I would consider that authoritative. -- Ketil Trout 10:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Erroneous dust

Can someone with the information please cite a source for the last sentence of the introduction? I haven't read anything that suggests the reflection nebulae are unassociated with the cluster, though admittedly I don't/can't read everything. :) —ZorkFox 04:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Source is Gibson, listed in refs and cited in the main section on the reflection nebulosity. Worldtraveller 08:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I just really wanted to say that "Nebulosity" is now my new favorite word. flowbiscuit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.234.157.129 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Plural of kelvins

Stop deleting the referenced, verifiable standard plural kelvins. Not only have I cited reputable references from the standards-keepers at BIPM and NIST, but it is also covered in the internal article at kelvin. Try these examples as well:

• Google[1]] kelvins site:americanscientist.org
• http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~meierd/papers/dwarf32.pdf
• http://www.camk.edu.pl/~olech/papers/art/m55.pdf
• http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~lucian/papers/dwarf.co.pdf
• http://www.williams.edu/Astronomy/Cosmos/updates/chapter11_cosmos.html
• http://www.astro.uu.nl/~rutten/rrtex/bibfiles/ads/abs/linsky.txt

Need more? You've offered absolutely nothing to support any contrary standard, just bald unsupported nonsense in your edit summaries, Worldtraveller. Gene Nygaard 20:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What a very lame edit war to be getting into. I don't know what your background is, whether you're an astronomer or scientist or what, but I can tell you that, first of all, most people in astronomy and, I believe, science generally, just say kelvin rather than kelvins. Try your google search with kelvin as well as with kelvins. Try a search on ADS with both kelvin and kelvins. Try doing a google search for both 'kelvins temperature' and 'kelvin temperature'.

Now I wonder who would have made the kelvin article agree with what you say? Why, it looks like it was a chap by the name of Gene Nygaard! [2]

Next, 'million kelvin' is much better than 'megakelvin' as it makes more sense to the huge majority of people. Just like you'd say 1,000km rather than 1Mm, and 1000kg rather than 1Mg.

Finally, it's a complete misuse of references to put two citations after a sentence about the burning temperature of lithium when they're about style guidelines. It makes it look like your intention is to be petty rather than to improve the article. Worldtraveller 22:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure there are people who say "300 Kelvin" or whatever; many of them, of course, do just that capitalization of the "K" as well as not adding the "s" in the plural. There are even far too many scientists as well as laymen saying "degrees Kelvin". Some are even silly enough to use "MegaKelvin"—but we in Wikipedia ought to have enough sense to follow the proper, modern rules of the English language in this regard.

Some old habits die hard. But the change in the rules is fairly clear, and the trend is in one direction—towards increased use of the modern standards.

This is nothing other than a bad hangover from the old days when the units were properly called "degrees Kelvin". Note that in that case, the "K" is capitalized because it is a proper adjective identifying the unit, rather than the unit itself—the noun is "degrees". Note further that under the old name, there was no "s" added to the adjective "Kelvin" (we never do that to English adjectives); it is added to the noun "degrees". Unfortunately, some people in the sciences (as are people in various other fields of activity) are a little deficient in their understanding of grammar and linguistics, and have a hard time grasping the real significance of the changes made by the CGPM.

_{It has been nearly forty years since the 13th General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) threw out "degrees Kelvin" and renamed them "kelvins". Some people are slower than others to pick up on the new standards. Most have picked up on the change of the symbols from "°K" to an unadorned "K"; it is the other rules which give some people trouble.}

Note also that the modern rules specify that there should be a space between a number and the symbol for a unit of measure, unlike your "1000km" and the like.(NPL, NIST) That is also the rule specified in our house rules at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). If you are a scofflaw in that regard, why should we give you any credibility whatsoever when it comes to the rules of grammar and style?

Yes, I can certainly also find quite reputable articles which do use "kelvin" in the plural, but that is entirely beside the point. I offered the counter examples to show the complete falseness of your unfounded claims of some overwhelming preference in the astronomical literature. Note, however, that even if that existed, I'm not conceding that it would be terribly relevant, as long as a significant number of people do follow the changed rules. Note also that because of the way the major search engines work, it can be difficult to separate those which use "kelvins" from those which use "kelvin" in the plural, or those which use some mixture of the two.

Furthermore, you have cited zero style guides of any kind in support of your claims.

I included the citations precisely since my usage was challenged, as should be done according to WP:CITE. Gene Nygaard 05:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

...the complete falseness of your unfounded claims... - now that's just rude, and shows that you have not bothered to do the slightest bit of research into what the situation really is regarding usage, although I gave you some links above to allow you to do so. Well, here's two more links, to search terms I picked for their likelihood to show the word used in the correct context, which show overwhelmingly that 'kelvin' is preferred as the plural: [3], [4]

As for the references, you must have known it would be completely inappropriate to include those two references every time, in every article, that you want to use kelvins instead of kelvin.

Style guides are generally just guides for particular publications with particular preferences. The MNRAS style guide is quite different from the ApJ style guide, for example, so I don't think that quoting any one or even any several style guides as 'the truth' is helpful. Worldtraveller 13:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So what happens if you add site:.edu (or site:.org) to your search? It drops from 50:1 to 4:1.

Google is good for showing the existence of usage. The Google searches themselves are of little use in determining proper usage or prevalence of usage. See some of the old discussions at places such as Talk:Aluminium.

Furthermore, your results are skewed by the fact that "6000 kelvin" is indeed the proper, modern usage if it appears in a phrase such as "a 6000 kelvin rise in temperature" or "6000 kelvin threshhold" or "6000 kelvin temperature", where the "6000 kelvin" is an adjective next to the noun it modifies. This is standard English, just as we say a "ten-foot pole" even though we say "the length of the pole is ten feet", or a "five kilogram bag" that weighs "five kilograms".

Since you know that those style guides are quite different, you apparently have access to them and could show us if either of them or any other you can find says the plural of kelvin is kelvin, not kelvins.

The BIPM guide isn't a set of house rules; it is of general applicability around the world and across all disciplines. It, however, doesn't deal much with the rules for the spelled out words and their spelling and grammar. It is the symbols which are uniform and international, for the spelled out words all we have is the example of their usage of the "kelvins" form, following the general rules of English.

The NIST SP811 guide is on its face addressed to NIST publications, just as the [[Chicago Manual of Style" is on its face the house rules of the University of Chicago Press, IIRC. But like the latter, the NIST guide also has a much broader influence. For example, the National Physical Laboratory, the UK standards-keepers, after listing some of the more common SI conventions, refers users to the NIST guide for more details.[5]:

• NIST have produced a complete 80+ page document covering all aspects of this which can be downloaded at: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/rules.html

There are also many other standards organizations whose style guides have much broader applicability than a specific publication, and broadly applicable standards such as ISO 31. I don't have access to the latter, but from discussions I've seen, I'm reasonably sure that it does at least use the "kelvins" plural—I don't know whether it specifically prescribes that usage as one of its rules or not. Gene Nygaard 03:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

One reason Worldtraveller wants to avoid using "megakelvins" is that, without the historical usage of degrees Kelvin to mislead people, the use of "2.5 megakelvin" in a non-adjective context would be more obviously wrong to most everyone. We aren't misled then, because nobody ever talked about "2.5 degrees megakelvin" (and few ever used 2.5 "megadegrees Kelvin"). Gene Nygaard 22:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Good heavens, just grow up will you? All this because you're 'reasonably sure' that kelvin should be pluralised. unit kelvin (K) is never used in the plural and not capitalized. A temperature difference (? T) is expressed as, “difference of X kelvin.” A specific thermodynamic temperature (T) is expressed as “X kelvin.” Reference: Le Systeme International d'Unites (SI), The International System of Units (SI), 7th Edition (Bur. Intl. Poids et Mesures, Sevre, France, 1998), Appendix 1, Decisions of the CGPM and CIPM, Clause 2.5, Thermodynamic Temperature, confirms the above under 13th CGPM, Resolution 3. [6]. Worldtraveller 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[Back to the margin] That document you link us to is by some obscure little working group for the narrow little standard known as IEEE P1451.4 standard for mixed-mode analog sensors with compact transducer electronic data sheet. It certainly isn't anything of any general applicability, and much less reliable than the house style guides of any journal.

It includes a manufactured and totally false claim that (italics in original, something that should never be done to the symbol K according to Taylor's guides, if they paid any attention to them at all):

• According to Taylor’s Guide, unit kelvin (K) is never used in the plural and not capitalized. A temperature difference (? T) is expressed as, “difference of X kelvin.” A specific thermodynamic temperature (T) is expressed as “X kelvin.”

There is absolutely no such statement in either NIST SP330 or NIST SP811, the two "Taylor guides" cited by this working group. I absolutely guarantee that. Get the documents. Search them--it's easy to do in the pdf files. There are no such statements whatsoever. Neither contains the phrase "specific thermodynamic temperature", for example. Nor is that contained in the 1998 BIPM guide, which is also available in pdf format from the BIPM, the other reference they cite, just in case I misread who they were claiming to quote.

It follows the statement above with a reference to that 1998 BIPM guide:

• Reference: Le Systeme International d'Unites (SI), The International System of Units (SI), 7th Edition (Bur. Intl. Poids et Mesures, Sevre, France, 1998), Appendix 1, Decisions of the CGPM and CIPM, Clause 2.5, Thermodynamic Temperature, confirms the above under 13th CGPM, Resolution 3.

Again, a totally false statement. The cited reference says nothing of the sort. Here is the entire English text of that resolution of the 13th CGPM (1967-1968), plus a footnote about a related 1980 CIPM--not CGPM--decision, taken from NIST SP 330 (available in a pdf file from [7], and you can also order a free printed copy from the same page, which I have), p. 26 of the printed version (p. 39 in pdf file). The wording is exactly the same after the header starting with "The 13th CGPM", except without the footnote, in the cited BIPM 1998 document, at pages 43 and 44 of the pdf file, pages 123 and 124 on the printed page.

SI unit of thermodynamic temperature (kelvin) (CR, p. 104)

RESOLUTION 3

The 13th CGPM,

considering

the names ‘‘degree Kelvin’’ and ‘‘degree,’’ the symbols ‘‘8K’’ and ‘‘deg,’’ and the rules for their use given in Resolution 7 of the 9th CGPM (1948), in Resolution 12 of the 11th CGPM (1960), and the decision taken by the CIPM in 1962 (PV, 30, p. 27),

that the unit of thermodynamic temperature and the unit of temperature interval are one and the same unit, which ought to be denoted by a single name and single symbol, decides

1. the unit of thermodynamic temperature is denoted by the name ‘‘kelvin’’ and its symbol is ‘‘K’’;

2. the same name and the same symbol are used to express a temperature interval;

3. a temperature interval may also be expressed in degrees Celsius;

4. the decisions mentioned in the opening paragraph concerning the name of the unit of thermodynamic temperature, its symbol, and the designation of the unit to express an interval or a difference of temperatures are abrogated, but the usages which derive from these decisions remain permissible for the time being.*

*At its 1980 meeting the CIPM approved the report of the 7th meeting of the CCU which requested that the use of the symbols ‘‘°K’’ and ‘‘deg’’ no longer be permitted.

[end of quotation]

Nowhere in there does it say that the plural is not kelvins. It says absolutely nothing about the plural form.

Furthermore,

• Dr. Taylor's guide, NIST SP811 uses kelvins once.
• NIST SP 330 uses kelvins twice and uses millikelvins once.
• BIPM SI brochure uses kelvins once and uses millikelvins once.
• NIST SP811, in the section 9.2 which I cited on the article page says that all plurals "are normally formed regularly, for example, "henries" is the plural of henry. According to Ref. [8], the following plurals are irregular; Singular — lux, hertz, siemens; Plural — lux, hertz, siemens.
• The "Ref [8] mentioned there is American National Standard for Metric Practice, ANSI/IEEE Std 268-1992 (which has since been replaced by the joint standard of those agencies plus ASTM, Std SI 10).
• Note that there are only 7 SI base units and even after the addition of the katal only 22 SI derived units with special names. The kelvin is not listed among those with an irregular plural. With so few different units, there is no possibility it was overlooked. It forms the regular plural by adding an "s". Gene Nygaard 04:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Try this, too. Google[8] kelvins site:ieee.org 265 hits. Obviously, not everybody at IEEE is confused. Gene Nygaard 05:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you a scientist? It seems to me from your contributions that you're just some kind of petty zealot on a mission to change things to your personal preference style regardless of the frequent objections raised on your talk page. Astronomers overwhelmingly prefer the singular. The top journals, like Science, Nature, ApJ, MNRAS etc etc do not enforce the plural. Yet somehow you see yourself as the font of truth on this, and everyone else is just confused or misguided. Now stop changing what you evidently don't understand, OK? And don't leave ridiculously misleading edit summaries like 'proper plural is kelvins, as shown on talk page' - nothing of the sort is shown. Worldtraveller 19:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Nygaard, I have a couple of questions for you:

1) In your opinion, would it be correct to state that "the normal body temperature is about 98.6° Fahrenheits"?

2) What does all this discussion have to to with The Pleiades?

Thanks. --SciCorrector (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Layout issues

Worldtraveller, whatever you are doing, you are messing up the format of the page. Every time you jump into this revert war, you push the last table into the Folklore section, where it certainly isn't supposed to be. Quite apart from that, it jumbles up everything in that section and looks perfectly dreadful. This is not good for this page. NaySay 06:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if it was me, but I'm not sure if it might not be some display issue with your screen resolution, NaySay, because on my screen here the table appears in its proper place in all recent revisions of the article. Worldtraveller 13:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I edited the page so that it looks good on my screen. Would you take a look at it to be certain I haven't messed it up on yours? I've got my 17" monitor on 1024 x 768, in Windows ME, and I use Netscape. I would hate to think that I made things worse. I hope we can resolve he problem. Thanks. NaySay 16:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it's probably a bit subjective, but I've edited the image position to try and make it look as good as possible on the two screens I have easily available at the moment, one 17" monitor at 1280x1024 and one 15" at 800x600, with firefox on both. It looks good to me right now - how about you? Worldtraveller 01:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Worldtraveller. It looks fine on mine as well. I think the problem's licked. NaySay 15:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Distance

The second paragraph of the introduction is very confusing. What's the big deal about the Pleiades in particular that makes our whole scale of distance depend on them? This should be explained. A simple "because they are so close" or "because they are the closest open cluster" whould help to clarify, but I don't want to change it because I'm not an expert and don't really know. The paragraph on the subject of distance further down the page explains it a little bit, but could do more. Thanks.--345Kai 12:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clear it up and I took most of the paragraph in the lead out since it was more or less repeated further down anyways.--Kalsermar 16:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead sections are a summary of the article content, so the information in them is always repeated further down. I've restored a lengthier second para of the intro and tried to clarify as requested. Worldtraveller 17:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Time to update this section?

There's been some recent news on this front, as reported in Sky & Telescope here: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/community/skyblog/newsblog/10188476.html Basically, the Hipparcos data was exhaustively reanalyzed (it took ten years of work), and while the recomputed Hipparcos positions are now believed to be much more accurate, they still conflict with the distances obtained by other methods. The reanalyzed distance from the Hipparcos data is 399+/-6 light-years, vs. 440+/-7 and 439 ± 10 by two other methods. This is all summarized in the S&T link above, with references to the 3 detailed studies. However, since I'm not really an astronomy type, and very inexperienced with the Wiki, I'm hoping someone else will boil this info down into the Wikipedia article. Macchess (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans header

I'd quote all the erroneous statements, but it's far too much to even bother... But what the f*** does all but the first paragraph have to do with native Americans? I'm a member of the Cherokee tribe myself and was slightly curious if some of the nonsense I sometimes hear from other Cherokees about the tribe regarding Pleiades is mentioned. Instead, I get treated to a treatise about Asian bulls*** within the Native Americans section... not that I have anything against Asia, it's just it has about as much place in this particular section as talks about oranges have to do in an article about Mars. - Lucy Aniwaya 5:33, September 24, 2006 (UTC)

I add that it's written in the "Book of the Hopi" (Penguin Books, 1963) (See Wiki Hopi Mythology [[9]] by respected anthropological historian Frank Waters) that although children and non-initiates are commonly told that the spirits of their Katchinas return annually to the San Francisco Peaks in Arizona, those of higher religious rank are taught that the Katchina dolls actually represent long-departed extraterrestrial beings who came to the Hopis' ancestors from (or from the direction of) the Pleiades in the far distant past and taught them much about farming and living in general. I can't cite the page, but I distinctly recall reading this. Frank Waters based his book on hours and hours of interviews with mainly three Hopi elders who broke a time-trusted tradition of secrecy in order to preserve Hopi ethnic history in grave danger of becoming completely forgotten. I for one, would be fascinated to hear if passed-down Cherokee Pleiades stories are similar to this only brief sentence or two which has stuck with me for many years since reading "Book of the Hopi." –Michael A. Storer May 5, 2010.

"Not the sign!" confusion

Can anyone explain why it is important to provide the distinction in the "Astrological predictions" section about the constellation v. the astrological sign? It seems odd to me that in an article about astronomy anyone would have difficulty understanding we were talking about a constellation, not the new-age predictive mystical force. Since it says "Not the sign!" pretty much every Saggitarius or Gemini is mentioned, it is kind of confusing and distracting, and unless it really is providing a useful distinction should maybe be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.172.32.236 (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Deleted Astrological Cr*p

Deleted Astrological Cr*p —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.176.105.40 (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Six or Seven Sisters

I recently read an piece on the Pleiades (in a book called "Beyond the Blue Sky" or something like it) that hypothesizes why many cultures attach the number 7 to the cluster, although only 6 stars are readily visible -- and likewise find ways to explain why one is not visible. I do not think it is worthy enough for the article, but I shall summarize it here: The Pleides looks like a minature version of the Big Dipper which has seven bright stars, and therefore ideally should be a dipper in minature -- hence it should have seven stars. Some legends make overt references to the Dipper, many do not. A Babylonian(?) legend states they are the divorced wives of six of the stars of the Dipper -- except for the star Alcor, who was not divorced, and therefore still with her husband (represented by Mizar). — Eoghanacht ^talk 20:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ptolemy mapped 38 stars and Tycho Brahe 42 stars of the Pleiades cluster, by eye, according to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --Diamonddavej (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

disambig

Why is the page, Pleiades, a disambig page? I'm willing to bet that 90% of people who type that in are looking for the open cluster, not the random BS that's also listed on the disambig page. -69.47.186.226 21:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved. Pleiades now redirects here. Feezo (Talk) 18:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This appears to have been undone, with no consensus that I can see. If no one objects, I will move it back. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Restored. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

removed trivia section

The note about the pleiades being Randall's favorite astronomical entity might have been marginally relevant in an article about Randall_Munroe, but it doesn't add anything to this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Stand-alone_trivia

Time of visibility

I just bumped into this, while reading this article: it states "The Pleiades are a prominent sight in winter in the Northern Hemisphere and in summer in the Southern Hemisphere". Now, the winter in Northern Hemisphere is at the same time as summer in Southern Hemisphere, so this would mean the star cluster is visible concurrently on both hemispheres. I'm assuming these mean Northern Hemisphere winter and summer, but I don't wish go and write my assumptions in the article. [unsigned comment: 15:20, 2007 August 9 80.221.4.16]

The Pleiades are visible in the northern and southern hemispheres on the same dates generally (although not necessarily "concurrently" because of day/night east/west issues). The Pleiades are closest to the sun in late May, so they are visible nowhere on Earth. Therefore, in late November they are at the zenith at midnight -- this is optimal visibility because there is less atmosphere. However, they are probably most prominent in northern mid-latitudes in mid-to-late December, because they are high enough in the early evening (when people are awake and out-and-about) to be bright, but not too high that people might miss them (most people do not walk around looking straight up, and the Pleiades get pretty high up north). In southern mid-latitudes late December/early January is also a good time because the Pleiades are lower in the sky, and by dark-o-clock (9:30 - 10pm, remember the late sunsets and daylight savings) they are near zenith. In the U.S., I have been enjoying them for the past 2+ months in the pre-dawn sky. — Eoghanacht ^talk 15:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (Happy Columbus Day!)

Image at beginning of the wiki page not from Hubble.

Hello ... I'm new to this wikipedia stuff, and haven't figured out how to make corrections, so perhaps someone with more experience could do it? There's a photo at the beginning of the page attributed to the Hubble Space Telescope. Actually, it was taken by the 48" Schmidt at Palomar. It appeared in a Hubble press release for illustrative purposes, the actual science was done with the Fine Guidance Sensors to obtain parallax measurements. The press release section about photo attribution is at http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/20/image/a/ . Complete image description, according to the release: " The color-composite image of the Pleiades star cluster was taken by the Palomar 48-inch Schmidt telescope. The image is from the second Palomar Observatory Sky Survey, and is part of the Digitized Sky Survey. The Pleiades photo was made from three separate images taken in red, green, and blue filters. The separate images were taken between Nov. 5, 1986 and Sept. 11, 1996." cheers, shireen. Nov 7, 2007

I've corrected the figure caption -- Scog (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Open Cluster vs Asterism

In the opening paragraph the Pleiades are referred to as an asterism. I thought asterisms were apparent groupings of otherwise unrelated stars that are not constellations (i.e. The Big Dipper). As an open cluster, the stars in the Pleiades are very much related. Should they be called an asterism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.61.0.50 (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

An asterism is a grouping of stars based on their visual proximity and patterning. This does not exclude a star cluster. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness Trivia

Citation SOOOO needed here.71.5.165.250 (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)The Discordian

Use in calendaring

In addition to Polynesians using the rising of the Pleiades for the beginning of the new year, are there other cultures that do so? I thought I remembered that Ramadan is calculated the same way. Are there others? Makana Chai (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mass transfer in binary systems not well understood?

I find this statement, "...the details of this supposed transfer from a deeper gravity well to a lesser are unexplained", dubious. Mass transfer from an evolved giant to a compact companion, due to gas overflowing the Roche lobe, seems like a fairly well-understood mechanism for transfer of mass regardless of which star is more massive. Perhaps I have not understood what the editor was trying to say here? 128.165.87.144 (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Terminal sigma

i think it should be

Δέδυκε μεν ἀ σελάννα
καὶ Πληΐαδες, μέσαι δὲ
νύκτες πάρα δ᾽ ἔρχετ᾽ ὤρα,
ἔγω δὲ μόνα κατεύδω. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.91.197 (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

nfgigjiriikksa;lasdfasj;kljgsdfkl;jgirjkf;gdfghfghsdf;glsdfj';asdfj;sdjfsdl;fasdjfldf'jadfjl;sdfl;jsfj;df;jdlf;dfjlfj;sdfdjsl;fsjfjdfjsd;lfjalsdjfjasd;lfjsssssssssssssssssssss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.207.197 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Planets and Moons" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. I moved the section tagged as dubious since November 2008 here: "Also present in the cluster have several white dwarfs. Given the young age of the cluster normal stars are not expected to have had time to evolve into white dwarfs, a process which normally takes several billion years. It is believed that, rather than being individual low- to intermediate-mass stars, the progenitors of the white dwarfs must have been high-mass stars in binary systems. Transfer of mass from the higher-mass star to its companion during its rapid evolution would result in a much quicker route to the formation of a white dwarf, although the details of this supposed transfer from a deeper gravity well to a lesser are unexplained." Once a source can be found, it should be readded to the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I would recommend going through all of the citations and updating the access dates and fixing any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Names and pronunciation

I'd like to find out why the 'Names and pronunciation' section is not a violation of WP:NOTDIC. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a comparable list at the wiktionary Pleiades article.—RJH (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Cultural Significance"

Shouldn't this section be struck? It seems like the most reasonable way to approach this article is to keep this main page a strictly scientific discussion of the actual cluster and the history of its observation, and let everything else "connected" to it be covered under the folklore and literature page. Besides, there is only a single thing listed (a corporate brand), and even that redirects after one sentence. --Apjohns54 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The brand information is trivia. The other items added since barely even qualify as that. I will remove the section after the customary waiting period. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

star pattern

There needs to be an addition to this article about the asterism. It seems currently missing, but it is a common night sky visual grouping of six stars. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the meaning of the "tidal radius" of 43 ly ?

The article states: "The cluster core radius is about 8 light years and tidal radius is about 43 light years" and "tidal radius" redirects to Roche limit. That redirect in this context must surely be a mistake, but what then is the tidal radius ? Is it the Hill sphere radius ? --FvdP (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)