Talk:Beehive Cluster
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Beehive Cluster 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 |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Comments edit
The main text says that the diameter of the Beehive is 16 ly, but the table says that its radius is 16 ly. Which is it? Vegasprof 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- 16 is the diameter, 8 is the radius--I fixed it.--Todd 02:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Name: Praesepe edit
I think the primary name (i.e. the article name) should be "Praesepe" rather than the amateur astronomers alternative "Beehive", but I'm not quite sure. Some ways to examine this is by googling very carefully (just imagine the number of non-stellar beehives!), and by searching ADSABS. If the number of hits of "Praesepe" is vastly major compared to "Beehive", then the matter should be uncontroversial. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- ADSABS:
- Google ([1]):
- "Beehive" "star cluster" 6980 hits (couldn't put link here)
- "Praesepe" "star cluster" 17700 hits (couldn't put link here)
- Which is not a clear case ... Anyone having an opinion? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would prefer Praesepe. BSVulturis (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Me too, but that's because I'm from germany ;-) Otherwise, I would prefer 'Messier 44' as the article's main name.
By the way: Does anyone of you know where or when this name 'beehive' came up first? Andywi17 (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Photograph edit
The photograph accompanying this article does not represent well the appearance of M44. I believe that the photograph depicts a small portion of the cluster - the dense region around Epsilon Cancri and 42 Cancri. A wider-scale photograph would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.209.109 (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Assessment comment edit
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Beehive Cluster/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| I'm wondering why this article is called Beehive Cluster rather than Praesepe. I'm doing a pretty thorough search of the astronomical literature on this object, and every journal I consult, going back to 1927 and forward to the present day, refers to it as Praesepe. There may well be some demographic that prefers to call this cluster the Beehive, but as far as mentions in print, it's Praesepe. Is it possible to revise this one and make the object's primary name Praesepe? Thuvan Dihn (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC) This article has now been substantially revised and expanded, and I think it merits reclassification as a B class article.Thuvan Dihn (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 23:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Why a beehive edit
Can someone explain why it was called a beehive, and when? My guess it was in U.S? Thanks! 116.250.237.211 (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)