Talk:Planetae

Fake Latin
"Stars a planet", that's what astra planeta means in Latin. (Nor is the mock Greek Αστρα Πλανητα any better.) Astra is the plural of astrum, which is a neuter noun which can be interpreted "star". Planeta is the Latin word for planet; it is a masculine singular noun. It is not an adjective meaning "wandering". If it were an adjective, it would need to match astra in number (plural) and gender (neuter).

The Latin term for "wandering stars" is stellae errantes. The word errantae which appears in the article is not a Latin word. The stellae errantes of Latin literature were the seven (not five) Classical planets: the sun. the moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury.

These inaccuracies are obvious to anyone who knows any Latin, and they are all unsourced. Indeed, the whole article is unsourced, and should be replaced by a redirect to Classical planets. Rwflammang (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This article is very strange, to say the least. I have, on the other hand, found some references to the supposed concept:
 * Now I don't think these sources prove this concept a hoax -- I actually think it is a sign of shoddy, half-baked research, especially since these are all passing mentions. At least one of them (the New Age book by Carol Day) seems to have used Wikipedia as a source (WP:CIRCULAR).  MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE  IS REAL EMO!discuss 12:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now I don't think these sources prove this concept a hoax -- I actually think it is a sign of shoddy, half-baked research, especially since these are all passing mentions. At least one of them (the New Age book by Carol Day) seems to have used Wikipedia as a source (WP:CIRCULAR).  MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE  IS REAL EMO!discuss 12:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now I don't think these sources prove this concept a hoax -- I actually think it is a sign of shoddy, half-baked research, especially since these are all passing mentions. At least one of them (the New Age book by Carol Day) seems to have used Wikipedia as a source (WP:CIRCULAR).  MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE  IS REAL EMO!discuss 12:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now I don't think these sources prove this concept a hoax -- I actually think it is a sign of shoddy, half-baked research, especially since these are all passing mentions. At least one of them (the New Age book by Carol Day) seems to have used Wikipedia as a source (WP:CIRCULAR).  MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE  IS REAL EMO!discuss 12:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now I don't think these sources prove this concept a hoax -- I actually think it is a sign of shoddy, half-baked research, especially since these are all passing mentions. At least one of them (the New Age book by Carol Day) seems to have used Wikipedia as a source (WP:CIRCULAR).  MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE  IS REAL EMO!discuss 12:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think this article is a Hoax. But I suspect that "Astra Planeta" is a neoligism created by the author of Theoi.com (see ), and that our article is based upon this (unreliable) source. This article probably needs to be deleted. Paul August &#9742; 19:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You've convinced me. Let's do that before any more articles link here. Rwflammang (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks like (thanks!) has found a reliable source for this topic, but which may need to be renamed. Paul August &#9742; 13:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Already replied at length in the AfD—which began after I deprodded this article and began revising it based on scholarly sources—but that's about the size of it. It seemed to be a valid topic badly written about using Theoi or other internet resources instead of valid Greek and Roman reference materials.  I can't account for the name, except as somebody's misunderstanding or confusion about the topic.  I can't be certain it doesn't turn up in any reliable sources, but it does look wrong.  Since the obvious name for the subject was "planetae", I've moved the article there.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)