Talk:Classical planet

message: 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)
thread_title: What? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Another Merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Japanese mythology  

message: *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)
replies: text: Stephen Uitti made this point on his website, although probably as a joke:  Double sharp (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five naked-eye planets? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Unsourced editor's opinions

message: 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)
thread_title:  MesoAmerican Astronomy 

message: 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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Brihaspati.jpg

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Glypths

message: move to Classical planet. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we'll have to get relisted on the move request page. --Michael C. Price talk 05:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: RFC

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed.  No split. --Michael C. Price talk 22:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move request - Oops

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

message: "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)
replies: text: 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,. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Babylonians grouped the stars in companies of seven' - reference needed 

message: 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)
thread_title: "theory"/"mythological cosmology"

message: 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. Serendipodous 14:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm wary of the 1915 Sumerian reference 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Days of the week