Talk:Classical planet

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Astrology C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Solar System Unassessed

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I agree - Earth should be considered a naked-eye planet, LOL. 204.52.215.107 02:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
I have seen Uranus naked-eye, at Coonabarabran in Australia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Move?

The request to rename this article to Classical planet has been carried out.

If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Naked-eye planet → Classical planet —

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

20th century usage hardly justifies the term "classical", a fact acknowledged on the solar planet template:

, which uses the term "classical planet" in a way consistent with this move request. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]