Talk:Planet symbols

New template:infobox symbol

♁🜨
Planet symbols
In Unicode	U+2641 ♁ EARTH U+1F728 🜨 ALCHEMICAL SYMBOL FOR VERDIGRIS

If people would like to use it, there is a new template for symbols that may be of use in this article - see the example for Earth above. It makes sense to me to tidy the techie stuff about Unicode off to the side rather that clutter the article but others may disagree, so I won't be that bold. I'll just leave it on the table. Comments or questions here, at my talk page or at [[template talk:Infobox symbol}}, depending on where you consider most appropriate to your comment/question. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

"♂" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ♂. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 10#♂ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Obsolete source

I was reverted in removing an obsolete claim. We say,

Probably none now accepts the interpretation of Scaliger that ♂ represents the shield and spear of Mars and ♀ Venus's looking-glass. All the evidence favours the conclusion of the French classical scholar Claude de Saumaise (Salmasius, 1588-1653) that these symbols, as also those for Saturn, Mercury and Jupiter, are derived from contractions in Greek script of the Greek names of the planets which are Kronos (Saturn), Zeus (Jupiter), Thouros (Mars), Phosphoros (Venus) and Stilbon (Mercury).

AFAICT, no-one believes this today. We have better manuscript evidence from the late Classical period now than we did in 1962, and while Jupiter and Saturn do appear to be abbreviations (this was still obvious for Jupiter until the Early Modern era, so no surprise there), the other three appear to be just symbols in even the oldest attestations. Consensus today is that Mercury is a caduceus, not an abbreviation for 'Stilbon', and while what Venus represented is unclear, it's unchanged in form (apart from the addition of the cross, also added to Mercury and Saturn). AFAICT, no-one claims it's an abbreviation of 'Phosphoros'. Mars is routinely said to be a spear and shield -- it looks even more like that it its medieval form -- and while we don't know what the late Classical symbol was (obliterated in one ms and crudely written in another), it looks like it at least might be a spear in the same orientation, though without a shield (↗).

So both of these claims, 'Probably none now accepts' and 'All the evidence favours', are obsolete, and we shouldn't present this as a truthful statement. We have recent RS's that Mercury is a caduceus and Mars a shield and spear, though Venus remains obscure. — kwami (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

So the problem is easily resolved by providing citations for the new sources that provide this evidence? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

That might come across more curt than intended. What I mean is that the Webb citation ( "The story at least seems plausible.") is particularly feeble, so we would need something a lot more convincing to dismiss Stearn. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of how feeble Webb might be, Stearn is clearly dated. It's contradicted by the only source we have that actually looks at the evidence, i.e. the known Classical-era mss (Jones 1999). So it should be removed regardless of Webb. It might be retained elsewhere for claims that are not contradicted, or for a historical perspective. — kwami (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm certainly persuaded that Scaliger was't the only one to suffer from pareidolia and that the papyri should be the end of it. Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly) the Jones book is not freely accessible and I don't really fancy travelling to Oxford to read one paragraph. What concerns me is that whoever transcribed "It is now possible to trace the medieval symbols for at least four of the five planets to forms that occur in some of the latest papyrus horoscopes ([ P.Oxy. ] 4272, 4274, 4275 [...]). Mercury's is a stylized caduceus. … The ideal form of Mars' symbol is uncertain, and perhaps not related to the later circle with an arrow through it" must not have found that Jones said anything at all about Venus (or else they would have transcribed it) and that he says the evidence for Mars is poor. I recognise, however, given that Salmassius's attribution of Mercury to Stilbon fails, then we must assume that the rest of his thesis is equally unfounded (though Mars as Thouros (θ) is not inconsistent with Jones's "later circle with an arrow through it").

So where are we? (a) Webb is fanciful and romantic nonsense, unsupported by any evidence, as he admits himself – so only useful as evidence that it such belief exist; (b) Salmassius (via Stearn) is unreliable though at least rational; (c) Jones is soundly evidence-based and thus reliable – but has nothing to say about Venus and is hesitant about Mars. It seems to me that "is unlikely to be" is a more accurate reflection of the evidence than "may not be", but then I am stuck for a supporting citation. I accept that we can't use Stearn but neither can we cite Jones ["not in source given"]. Is there any other option? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm the one who cited Jones. I forget where I found it -- maybe LibGen?

Correct, Jones didn't speculate on an origin for Venus. He only found that the shape was essentially the same as the modern one, with the exception of course of the added cross. Mercury was also basically the same. (The ms images on this page, just below the planisphere clips, are from Jones.) Mars was difficult because of of the quality of the mss. The symbol was obliterated on one and sloppily written on the other. (All the symbols are sloppy on that ms, which is why I copied the other one for all the symbols other than the missing Mars.) It looks like it could be a simple spear (in medieval mss, the presumed spear is longer and crosses the shield: ), but take a look at the image on this page -- I can certainly see why Jones wouldn't want to go on the record drawing that conclusion.

What we have from RS's is that Mercury, Venus, Moon, Jupiter, Saturn are all continuations of the Late Classical forms, with Mars ambiguous (even assuming a shield was added in medieval times). Jones is confident enough to say that the Moon is a crescent, Mercury a caduceus, Jupiter and Saturn Greek monograms. (There was also s.t. about the Sun.)

As for the rest, we're left with common and repeated speculation that the symbols of the planets correspond to iconic symbols of the gods. Of course, that doesn't hold for Jupiter and Saturn, but does for the Sun, Moon and Mercury. Venus is typically represented with a mirror, as in the planisphere, and Mars with a spear or spear and shield. Plus Venus has the connection to copper through copper/bronze mirrors and Mars to iron through iron weapons. Speculation, of course, but reasonable speculation; since no-one that we know of in Antiquity bothered to explain the symbols, AFAICT we don't have anything else to go on. It probably won't be too hard to find sources for that, but they'd probably just be repeating the same speculations, and we'd be extremely lucky to find anything of the quality of Jones. — kwami (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Then let's at least have an RS for Venus/Aphrodite being represented by a mirror. And we really should make clear that there is no convincing provenance for the symbol, that it descends "from time immemorial". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources are easy, it's reliable that's the problem, since rigorous sources aren't likely to spend time on this. I do have Dieter Rehder (prof of chemistry at the U of Hamburg) Chemistry in Space: From Interstellar Matter to the Origin of Life, Wiley-VCH (2011): "The symbol, the stylized hand mirror of the Goddess Venus, also represents femininity. It has also been used for the element copper: mirrors had been manufactured from polished copper," which is of course just repeating other sources but which at least suggests that the idea isn't rejected in academic circles (not that chemists and astronomers generally care about such things).

Actually, more likely a copper alloy such as bronze, since pure copper tarnishes within seconds, but few refs mention that.

Might be easier to get a RS for a mirror as a symbol of the goddess, but that's a step removed from the planet and so OR. — kwami (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to flog it to death. I accept and agree with your assessment of Salmassius via Stearn as being disproved by subsequent archaeology. Rehder (quoted) would be good enough for me, we don't really need to get sidetracked into metallurgy. Another source that more explicitly addressed the association of the mirror with Venus would be a nice-to-have but not essential. Maybe Rehder read it on Wikipedia . I still consider Webb rather feeble but it's not a PhD thesis. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Pluto

@Kwamikagami: Which planetary geologists still regard Pluto as a planet? Presumably when you reverted Simosanto97's deletion as "not true", you must have had some evidence? And if so, why not provide it rather than restore a "citation needed", awaited since December 2021? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

All of them, so far as I know. Alan Stern (head of the New Horizons mission) would be the easiest to cite.

Reverting an error is easier than tracking down a reference. — kwami (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Pulled a citation from the DP article, though it doesn't support the astrological side. — kwami (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources of additional symbols

What is the meaning of the abbreviation astr. in (for example) astr. symbol ? Is it "astronomical" or "astrological"?

Who has identified these as valid "sources of additional symbols"? Because right now it reads that Wikipedia is proposing them. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Astronomical.

Okay, "sources" is not a good word. (I took it out.) Can you suggest something better? These are symbols of the gods that became symbols of the planets named after the gods. (Often with a star added.) It's an attempt to illustrate the origins of the symbols, and that these associations exist more broadly, but you're correct, the astro symbols didn't come from those particular paintings or statues. — kwami (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The extra asteroid symbols were used in the 19th century, see Astronomical symbol#Symbols for asteroids. Double sharp (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The reason I asked is that I thought that the IAU deprecates symbols for even the major planets, so why would there be new ones? [which is why I suspected astrology]. Anyway, all these questions and more can be obviated by adding an introductory paragraph. Between you, you have almost written it already . --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I've explained it in two sentences. Double sharp (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Re Hygiea: the original astronomical symbol was a snake and a star, which later by mistake became a rod of Asclepius, sometimes with a star. It wasn't used for very long until astronomers abandoned asteroid symbols, though reference works continued showing them for a few more decades. As a second mistake, astrologers wanting to use Hygiea in their divinations turned the rod of Asclepius into a caduceus. So the most common symbol today is a mistake twice over. :)

The astronomical/astrological symbol divide is not very clear anyway for some of these. The Juno symbol for example was invented by an astronomer, was used by astronomers in the 19th century, but today only astrologers use it. Unicode has called many of the dwarf planet symbols astronomical, even if some of them have never actually been used astronomically rather than astrologically. But they're still planet symbols regardless of who is actually using them, so I feel like anything in Unicode is worth a mention here. Double sharp (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the principle you state but I'm a bit confused about how or even whether to proceed. I assume that we talking about the image showing Psyche+butterfly with Hermes+caduceus. The text I deleted referred to the staff of Hermes looking like the astrological symbol for Hygiea. But so what? Should it ever have been there?

• 10 Hygiea is listed under "Minor planets" with a twisted caduceus.
• Mercury/Hermes is listed among the classical planets with a conventional caduceus.

Every image in that gallery shows the symbol associated with that asteroid and the immediately preceding image has the butterfly for Psyche. So why would we want to show a symbol for a classic planet there? Surely it poses a serious risk of confusing the reader? It is a very eye-pleasing image but other than that, I don't understand why we even have it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I added that image because it shows Psyche as a whole butterfly, and not just as a butterfly wing. But in addition, it says, 'see, this may be Hygiea's planetary symbol today, but mythologically it's for Mercury.' The 3-twist variant has AFAIK never been used in isolation for the planet Mercury, which since classical times has been a 2-twist variant, but etymologically they're graphic variants of the same symbol.

Would it be less confusing to move it up with the Hygiea symbols? — kwami (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Well we have three images of Psyche and I suggest we can afford to lose one of them. To my eye, the Psyche & Hermes image is more legible/decipherable than the stone bas-relief and it shows the butterfly clearly. (The third image with Charon shows her wearing the wings.) My inclination would be to lose the bas-relief, keep Psyche & Hermes but change the caption slightly to read Psyche accompanied by a butterfly (astr. symbol ), beside Hermes (Mercury) holding a multiply twisted caduceus. What do you think?

I don't see that it would help to move it up to the main Minor Planets section because the image clearly shows the caduceus is that of Hermes/Mercury. To draw out an inference that it is more like the astrological symbol for Hygiea (which is already shown in the table for that section anyway) drifts seriously into wp:OR so I really can't see that we could restore that phrase in any case. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the bas relief isn't clear; the benefit is that it's old. But that doesn't really matter, because it's what people thought when the symbols were assigned that is relevant.

I think her wearing the wings should go first, because that's how she's usually portrayed, and because the usual symbol is a butterfly wing. — kwami (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, on further consideration, the oldest source should be shown. Let's just keep the three images, but I can't see that we can restore the observation that the Staff of Hermes looks like the astrological symbol for Hygiea. Unambiguously OR, it would be questionable even as a footnote. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

WHAT

How is the symbols of ☉ ☾ ☿ ♀ ♁ ♂ ♃ ♄ ⛢ ♅ ♆ ♇ POSSIBLE TO TYPE!? 2601:CB:4000:1B90:9D08:DDEB:BFBD:C5ED (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)