Talk:Pleione (star)

message: Okay, one of my pet peeves on wikipedia is overview sections. The idea of sections is dividing text into 'chapters' of related context. However 'overview' is a summary...and the lead is a summary, so hence a second summary is repetitious and redundant. I also like conformity so suggest looking at other Star Featured Articles (eg. Sirius, Tau Ceti, Barnard's Star (ack! It has an overview section!! so RJHall might disagree with me on this...) and rearranging the headings thusly.
*I would convert Overview into Visibility - I'd take out the two sentences starting Pleione nonetheless.. and place at the top of the next section which I'd call Properties which would include the section called Be Star and System  - make the last a subsection (level 3 heading).
Anyways, my thoughts. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the insights.  I'm preparing a more substantive reply pursuant to the research you've proposed above.  I hope to have something posted here within 24 hours. Sadalsuud (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback from Casliber 

message: I have no problems with overview sections, since some articles have extremely long intro sections, and that should not be the case. The intro should be a short precis, with a longer overview section following, so that you can get the gist of the article in the lead section, and see if you want to read it, or if it's the wrong article, and not what you're looking for. The overview summarizes the article, and if you want details, you can read the rest of it. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short precis 

message: ==== Long intros ==== 
*Remarks: Contributor 76.66.195.196 makes an interesting point regarding "Long Intros".  My own view is that Intro sections should not be more than 20 lines or so, introducing the most notable features of the star that will be discussed in detail later in the article under the appropriate headings.  Otherwise they become unwieldy, convey too much information, meander, and as such fail to make the appropriate connections.  I don't know what other people's thoughts are on this, but my sense is that articles work better if the intro is an intro — that is to say it introduces the main topics and doesn't try to provide an exhaustive summary or overview.
==== Organization ====
*Remarks: I don't know if we want to standardize the sequence of main headings as well.  It might be "too much structure" for some people's liking.  But I'm very much on the same wavelength as Contributor 76.66.195.196 regarding their "short precis" comments.  Most users, before they come to a page, already have an idea of what they are looking for.  So in addition to a "short precis", clear nomenclature and sequence get users to where they want to go quickly, making Wikipedia that much more usable.
*Sequence: If we do decide on some kind of sequence structure, I tend to like the sequence that is hinted at in the sub-section Main themes and sub-themes and echoed in the Sirius and Vega featured articles.  The reasons would be as follows:
#Observational history: It provides a historical context, which is always useful before you dig into the specifics. 
#Visibility: This is typically our most immediate experience... viewing the star.
#Properties: With most stars, "Properties" will be the main and most important section, so I think it comes third.
#Star system: In order of importance, Star system comes next, unless, as already noted above, there is so much information on a system that it makes more sense to scrap the "Properties" section altogether. 
#Other main themes: All other main themes come here, in whatever sequence makes the most sense.
#Ethnological impact: Issues like etymology or mythology I've seen at the beginning of articles.  But that doesn't make any sense to me as it is largely ancillary to the main purpose of the article.  So as I see it, this section should probably be the last section before the Optional sections like "See Also".
Just my thoughts. Sadalsuud (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other issues 

message: *Remarks: I don't know if we want to standardize the sequence of main headings as well.  It might be "too much structure" for some people's liking.  But I'm very much on the same wavelength as Contributor 76.66.195.196 regarding their "short precis" comments.  Most users, before they come to a page, already have an idea of what they are looking for.  So in addition to a "short precis", clear nomenclature and sequence get users to where they want to go quickly, making Wikipedia that much more usable.
*Sequence: If we do decide on some kind of sequence structure, I tend to like the sequence that is hinted at in the sub-section Main themes and sub-themes and echoed in the Sirius and Vega featured articles.  The reasons would be as follows:
#Observational history: It provides a historical context, which is always useful before you dig into the specifics. 
#Visibility: This is typically our most immediate experience... viewing the star.
#Properties: With most stars, "Properties" will be the main and most important section, so I think it comes third.
#Star system: In order of importance, Star system comes next, unless, as already noted above, there is so much information on a system that it makes more sense to scrap the "Properties" section altogether. 
#Other main themes: All other main themes come here, in whatever sequence makes the most sense.
#Ethnological impact: Issues like etymology or mythology I've seen at the beginning of articles.  But that doesn't make any sense to me as it is largely ancillary to the main purpose of the article.  So as I see it, this section should probably be the last section before the Optional sections like "See Also".
Just my thoughts. Sadalsuud (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: The Modern legacy sub-section refers to a 1955 Time-Life article with an illustration from Chesley Bonestell.  Does anyone have access to that illustration, or possibly a photograph of the painting?  Can we get it uploaded?  The year 1955 was a long time ago.  It would be great if we could include this illustration in the article.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purple Pleione 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pleione (star). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://ww.marbleheadiod.com/8mr/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100217064337/http://www.tayloryachtdesigns.com/yacht_design.php to http://www.tayloryachtdesigns.com/yacht_design.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified