Talk:Classical planet

What?

What exactly is this article supposed to be about? RedWolf 01:48, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

It's the planets that can be seen with the naked eye from earth. Weda 01:52, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Definitely merge with starry planets & seven heavenly objects. Basically the same content.

Another Merge

I have found yet another page repeating most of this information. It is Classical Planets. I recommend another merge since so much of the content overlaps. Maestlin 02:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely merge.

Merge, and remove the information about Sailor Moon :)

I would like to see info. on symbolism of "classical planets" and their effect on culture have its own section, actually. with links to entries on planets in astrology and alchemy -- that kind of thing. this and the more technical-scientific part at the beginning don't mesh well together and the current arrangements seems to me unwieldy. straddles two somewhat different concerns. ***Ria777 14:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Japanese mythology

Should articles be written for earth star, fire star, wood star, and metal star as well as for water star, or is there something unique about Mercury in Japanese mythology?66.24.224.205 04:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an anime show called Sailor Moon with a Mercury character. That could be the "unique" something. Maestlin 22:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, it seems that the connetion between suisei and Sailor Murcury should be put on the character's page, and the page "Suisei (mythology)" should be deleted altogether.66.24.224.205 19:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Five naked-eye planets?

• There are five naked-eye planets? How hard exactly is it to see the earth from the surface of the earth? Someone needs to clarify the definition. . . . 71.102.144.27 06:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• I agree - Earth should be considered a naked-eye planet, LOL. 204.52.215.107 02:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the rest of the definition is a bit vague, too. What is meant by 'without much difficulty'? When it says Uranus is visible 'in principle', does this mean people actually have seen it with the naked eye, or that it is in theory bright enough that they might do on rare occasions? Actually, thinking about it, if you use some strange philosophical definition of visible, you could say that Earth is not visible from Earth (you know, some kind of "can't see the woods for the trees" kind of thing). Bistromathic 14:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• I have seen Uranus naked-eye, at Coonabarabran in Australia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The 7 Classical Planets were/are moving objects in the heavens seen with the naked eye. This is clearly established in the opening paragraph, therefore, it's NOT appropriate to include Earth; the ancients did NOT. Uranus is very difficult to see with the naked eye and when it is, it's movement is so slow as to not appear to be moving. - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.130.115 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Uitti made this point on his website, although probably as a joke: The Earth is clearly and easily visible with the naked eye. You have to look down. Double sharp (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced editor's opinions

This article is rife with 'perhaps', 'may be' etc. These are weasel words for unverified editor's opinion and need sources to avoid removal. Ashmoo (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

MesoAmerican Astronomy

Should reference to the MesoAmerican interpretation of the visible planets not constitute a section? The Maya had a highly developed calendar and knowledge of planetary periods and behaviour, timing sacrifice and war to Venus' cylce. I think without more non-EurAsian references this article lacks cultural NPOV. Ready to add if nobody objects. Shamanchill (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Brihaspati.jpg

The image Image:Brihaspati.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Surya planet.jpg
• Image:Surya Yantra.jpg
• Image:Shukra planet.jpg
• Image:Shukra Yantra.jpg
• Image:Shani yantra.jpg
• Image:Shani planet.jpg
• Image:Mars yantra.jpg
• Image:Mangal.jpg
• Image:Ketu.jpg
• Image:Guru Yantra.jpg
• Image:Chandra img.jpg
• Image:Chandra Yantra.jpg
• Image:Budh°planet.jpg
• Image:Budha Yantra.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad article name

As mentioned above there are six naked-eye planets: Mercury-the-planet, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The trouble is that the article doesn't treat naked-eye planet at all, the article treats the "planet" concept from antiquity and before: "planet" of today is a ball of matter orbiting the Sun in the solar system ― "planet" of antiquity is a heavenly light that hasn't a fixed position in reference to the stellar sky, but instead wanders around on it. That verily includes Sun and Moon, while by current knowledge neither Sun nor Moon orbits Sun in the normal sense. The article treats Planet (of antiquity), not naked-eye planets. This is about an obvious article move, making it itch in my fingers. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, bad article name. It should be the Seven Classical Planets or something.--Michael C. Price ^talk 09:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've put in a request to move it to "Classical planet". --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Rursus: The ancients, obviously, did NOT recognize Earth as a planet: wandering star. The 7 Classical Planets would be a much better name for this article. Because of the 7 moving objects in the heavens and the 4 lunar phases of about 7 days (~7.4 days) each, the ancients regarded the #7 as sacred and we find it all over the Bible and elsewhere. - The Messenger 75.74.55.230 (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Glypths

I tried adding the planet glyphs to the section on metals, but they distort the next section. I've left them in for the moment.--Michael C. Price ^talk 09:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Classical planet. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This started out as a request to move Naked-eye planet to Classical planet, but as it turns out it is a lot more complicated than that. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we'll have to get relisted on the move request page. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Naked-eye planet → Classical planet — The sun and moon are not naked eye planets; discussed on talk page - no objection — Michael C. Price ^talk 16:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• The term "classical planet" is ambiguous and has 2 meanings:
  1. The 7 planets according to the Ptolemaic system: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.
  2. The objects which have been called planets for the last several decades: Mercury, Moon, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto.

  The page Classical planet already has history: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classical_planet&action=history . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The page was created as an unnecessary fork of the 2006 defintion of planet article... The history does not impact other articles. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• 20th century usage hardly justifies the term "classical", a fact acknowledged on the solar planet template:{{solar planets}}, which uses the term "classical planet" in a way consistent with this move request. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Which planets are officially naked-eye? In 1984 at Coonabarabran in the Australian outback I saw Uranus naked-eye easily.
  • Good point. So Uranus is a naked-eye planet but not a classical/ptolemaic planet, whereas the Sun and Moon are classical/ptolemaic planets but not naked-eye planets.--Michael C. Price ^talk 22:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Move to something. "Naked-eye" planet is clearly a bad name for what the article describes, but I'm not sure that "classical planet" is either. Why not "[seven] planets of antiquity", as that seems the most common phrase? (Yes it's plural, but that's ok.) Shreevatsa (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed about "naked-eye". Does not the term "classical" cover all pre-modern cultures? Do we want seven? The Indian entry seems to be 9. Incidently, googling "planets of antiquity" gives me 90 hits, "classical planets" gives 8460 hits. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You're right, the name shouldn't say seven. Where did you Google? For a normal web search, "planets of antiquity" gives 180,000 results and "classical planets" 60,300. On Google Books (not sure if it's sufficiently representative to be used, but anyway) they give 162 and 202 results respectively. More importantly, it seemed as if "planets of antiquity" always referred to the concept described here, while "classical planet" often meant other things. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Am I doing something really stupid? Can't see what. Here's my "classical planets" search and here's the "planets of antiquity" search. Do you get the same numbers now? --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
        • No, it seems that the difference between google.com and google.co.uk (or the &num=100 parameter) is doing something strange. Here are the searches for "classical planets" and "planets of antiquity". I cannot imagine how the latter can say 91 results with one search and 180,000 with another. :-) Anyway, the more important point — than simple counts — is usage. It seems that some of the results for "classical planet" refer to the pre-2006 definition of planet (i.e., including Pluto), some say "eight classical planets" (i.e., everything except Pluto), some say "five classical planets" (i.e., Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, but not Sun, Moon or Earth), or even "ten classical planets" (including Pluto and Sun and Moon but not Earth!). See search. I'm not sure that "planets of antiquity" is a good name, but it does seem that "classical planets" can mean many things. (And the fact that the IAU uses it in press releases to mean the modern definition (everything except Pluto) means it's probably not a good idea for us to use it.) Shreevatsa (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I still get many more hits for classical planets than planets of antiquity, even using google.com rather than google.co.uk. Could we go for a disambiguation? Classical planets (modern) and Classical planets (ancient)?--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Did you click the links above, or just go to google.com? Anyway, the so-called 180,000 results thin out to 93 if you go to page 10, so it's just Google miscounting, as usual. That clears up the count bug. As for usage — if you think "classical planet" is fine, then I have no objection. I only pointed out the other intersecting meanings so that the article wouldn't get rewritten into something else later based on its name. Shreevatsa (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The 2nd definition of 'Classical Planet' above is clearly wrong! 7 Classical Planets applies to the 7 moving objects in the heavens that the ancients were observing with the naked eye. - The Messenger 75.74.55.230 (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

RFC

I don't think this will get solved with a simple page move. Really, we need to hammer down what is what and then write the appropriate articles. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm biased :-) but I thought my last suggestion was the perfect solution: a disambiguation page from Classical Planet to Classical planet (modern) and Classical planet (ancient). No reason why an RFC can't solve it, but it seems a bit like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I think we should wait for feedback from Shreevatsa before concluding we have a real problem here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 03:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if we're close to a solution then that's great! The idea to disambiguate this page seems best, and I think we should move ahead with it assuming there are no objections or better ideas. —harej (talk) (cool!) 04:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, looks like we have a consensus. What happens now? Do we remove the tags and wait? (I might be offline for a few days.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move request - Oops

• Okay, I relisted our request as an uncontroversial move request and removed the move request tag, which was a tag for the discussion we were having, since that has now closed. Hopefully something will happen quite soon now.... --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

One last call before we split into two pages. It is suggested we have Classical planet (ancient) and Classical planet (modern)

Any other suggestions? What about :

Classical planet (antiquity) or Classical planet (Hellenistic)

&

Classical planet (20th century) or Classical planet (recent)

Any thoughts? If no objections/further thoughts I'll go with the ancient/modern split. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What is there to split? Everything in this article is about the "ancient" definition. So as long as we clarify at the beginning that we don't mean the IAU definition or whatever, there shouldn't need to be any splitting. Shreevatsa (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. No split. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian Planets?

Why isn't there any information on what the Egyptians thought about the planets? The Dark Peria (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Greeks were much more influenced by Mesopotamia than Egypt in astrology/astronomy. However, the 7-day astrological week (not necessarily originally the same as the Jewish 7-day Sabbath week) originated in Hellenistic Egypt... AnonMoos (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

'Babylonians grouped the stars in companies of seven' - reference needed

"Babylonians grouped the stars in companies of seven. References are made to the seven Tikshi, the seven Lumashi, and the seven Mashi<ref]citation needed</ref]." Can anyone HELP! - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.130.115 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I can source it that statement appears so rarely it should be removed per WP:UNDUE. It's from Donald Alexander Mackenzie's Myths of Babylonia and Assyria,[1]. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"theory"/"mythological cosmology"

It is false to imply that the classical notion of "planet" is obsolete because the Sun and the Moon "are not planets". What happened here is that the meaning of the term "planet" was changed. You cannot say a statement is "wrong" if you first change the dictionary definition of its terms.

The classical notion of "planet" simply means "a celestial object which moves relative to the fixed stars". Therefore it certainly isn't "wrong" to say that the Sun and the Moon are planets in this sense. Also, this isn't a "mythological cosmology" or something. The concept of a year and of a month (lunation) is directly based on the fact that the Sun and Moon move relative to the fixed stars. Unless you want to argue that the modern Gregorian calendar qualifies as an "obsolete theory" or a "mythological cosmology", there is no reason to imply that this is the case here.

Of course there is the "obsolete" view of geocentrism that can be discussed in this context, but it is in no way necessary to adhere to geocentrism before one may use a celestial coordinate system. --dab (𒁳) 09:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm wary of the 1915 Sumerian reference

I've never seen any source that suggests the Sumerians had names for all five classical planets. The earliest records of this were Babylonian, not Sumerian. Serendi^podous 14:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Classical planet. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217065651/http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/relg/non-christiancomparative/TheReligionofBabyloniaandAssyria/chap5.html to http://worldwideschool.org/library/books/relg/non-christiancomparative/TheReligionofBabyloniaandAssyria/chap5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100511104928/http://www.bj80.com/jiaoyanzu/wlz/wlxs/zggdwl2.htm to http://www.bj80.com/jiaoyanzu/wlz/wlxs/zggdwl2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Days of the week

I modified the table by adding the French names, and moving the English names to the other side, so both names are next to their gods, making the connection clearer.

Is there any reason for the Greek gods to be in that table? KevinBTheobald (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)