Talk:Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Structure of article[edit]

Would it not be better if the article was structured in chronological order of when these proposals emerged? So: Central Fire (BC), Smith (1830s), Lilith (1918), Hubbard (1950s), Ummo (1960s), Sitchin (1970s), Serpo (1980s?), Rizq (1990s?). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Chronological or alphabetical, both are fine to me. Serendipodous 18:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


Someone needs to add a section about Nibiru to this article as it is one of the more talked about crackpot pseudoplanets — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It is discussed, under "Planets proposed by Zecharia Sitchin". Serendipodous 08:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

re-directed again[edit]

... to the newly created Pythagorean astronomical system --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


According to the linked W article, York claims not to be a contactee, but to be from the planet Rizq.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


Don't know how to add a section to the main page: would Kolob not count?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Kolob was removed, if I remember correctly, because it's a star, not a planet. Serendipodous 06:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

good point. Can unnamed planets be mentioned? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I suppose so, if they can be sourced. Serendipodous 00:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I notice that the Wikipedia entry for Kolob says it is a "star or planet". Does reference to another Wiki article count as referenced? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Autosourcing Wikipeida is not accepted, if only because Wikipedia changes all the time. Serendipodous 00:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)