Talk:Zeta Tauri

Needed
External links, some headings, see also, etc.. AFAIK CHARA array has some measurements on the metrics of the subsystem ζ Tau A, see Talk:CHARA array. Said: Rursus (☻) 22:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

External links, some headings, see also, etc.. AFAIK CHARA array has some measurements on the metrics of the subsystem ζ Tau A, see Talk:CHARA array. Said: Rursus (☻) 22:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Image submitted for deletion
The image on this page has been submitted for deletion from Commons. See Lithopsian (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Name
It might be useful if someone could comment on its lack of any common name; e.g. Arabic or western. It's curious such a bright star would have Zeta designation and name only assigned by Chinese astronomers. Indeed, I can find no reference to an alternative moniker, which is rare among a brighter-than-three-magnitude star. It's particularly curious since so many dim stars in Taurus among the Pleiades are named.


 * It has an Arabic name: Shurnarkabtishashutu --18.189.98.98 (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * That name used to be in the article but nobody could provide a reliable reference so it was removed. The star now has an IAU proper name, so transliterating more unpronounceable foreign names is hardly a priority.  As always, when there are reliable references, a sufficiently notable proper name or designation can be added to the starbox or described in the nomenclature section.  Note that Shurnarkabtishashutu is now found in several places around the web and even in some recent books, but most could plausibly be traced to Wikipedia itself.  Lithopsian (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Allen's Star Names state that ζ Tau "was the determinant of the 7th ecliptic constellation of Babylonia, Shurnarkabti-sha-shūtū, the Star in the Bull towards the South". So while it is obsolete, it is not fake. Szczureq (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So someone changed Shurnarkabti-sha-shūtū to Shurnarkabtishashutu? Wasn't me, possibly wasn't you.  Anyway like I said, if it had been referenced in the first place it would probably still be there.  My advice is stick to describing what you get from reliable references and all should be fine.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)