Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Astrology: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:39, 11 September 2013 editSecond Quantization (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers24,876 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:51, 31 August 2024 edit undoZ1720 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators30,618 edits →Good article reassessment for Archaeoastronomy: new sectionTag: New topic 
(64 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Astrology project|importance=High|class=NA}} {{project}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Astrology|importance=High}}
}}
{{Archive box|auto=yes}} {{Archive box|auto=yes}}
{{astrology}} {{astrology}}
Line 8: Line 11:
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astrology/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astrology/Archive %(counter)d
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(30d)
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 4 |minthreadstoarchive = 4
}} }}


== AFD == == Ptolemy RM ==

]. ]<sup>]</sup></font> 20:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

: My earlier experience is that touching astrology/astrologer articles can quickly become like stirring a hornets nest, especially when you touch articles of British astrologers/organizations. Maybe we should try to have a broader RfC before we attempt to do more cleanup in this area. How high do we put the notability bar for astrologers or astrology organizations? As I mentioned in my reply on ] , our current ] notability guideline suggests that the bar should be put higher for pseudoscience related activities. There is definitely more cleanup to do. But a RfC would make more clear what to delete and what not to delete. ] (]) 06:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

{{collapse top|off topic attack on another editor}}
::::Hello MakeSense. We first need to remove editors who consider this to be a pseudoscience. Again, I will insist. Some minimal knowledge is required, which you lack. You are biased. ] (]) 21:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::This is a mainstream encyclopedia that reports what reliable sources report. The mainstream of science considers astrology to be pseudoscience and thus this is what we report. Please go over the policy links I have left on your talk page and decide whether you are willing to follow WP norms or not; if not then perhaps would be a better fit for you. ]<sup>]</sup></font> 21:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
:: I have started by putting up the question here: ]
:: ] (]) 07:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Note ]. ] (]) 12:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


===October===

* And ]. ] (]) 16:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
* ]

* ]

* ]. ] (]) 00:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

== Scope ==

I've started to remove some of the articles that have no mention of astrology from project. It is more awkward to monitor the project when irrelevant articles are in it. Astronomy articles are not necessarily in scope or else we have a pointless overlapping; the article should be specifically about some topic within astrology, or the connection of a topic within astrology to another topic. ] (]) 17:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

== Redirection of Western Zodiac signs ==

On 22 October 2012 the contents of the articles for the individual signs of the western zodiac (Pisces (astrology) etc.) were removed and replaced with redirects to ]. These edits were made by ] with the edit summary: ''Unsourced and unsourceable cruft. No justification for stand-alone article.'' This did not seem to follow a community discussion.

Following concerns raised at the ] I will, after posting this, restore the articles to the form they were in immediately before their redirection. At least some of the articles seem to have been significantly reduced in size also prior to this redirection, however I have not reverted these changes.

Because I am sure editors may wish to discuss this (perhaps to reinstate the redirects, or make other changes to these articles), however a discussion spread among the talk pages twelve articles in question would be too dissipated, I suggest ''']''' as a centralised discussion location. An editor with more experience than I in Misplaced Pages policies may wish to move this discussion to a better location. ]<sup> ] ]</sup> 15:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
:Restoring unsourced content is probably not a good move. Do you have sources which support changes like and and ? ] (]) 16:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

:I made the redirects initially. The redirects were made to an article which covers the signs. Do you have any reason against the redirect? Redirection does not need to follow discussion; rather if valid objections are made then it needs to be discussed. No actual objections have been raised; rather people are citing the need for discussion (contrary to what ] says). ] (]) 16:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
::I have replied at ]. ]<sup> ] ]</sup> 17:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it strange that the zodiac sign articles are sparse at best. - <small>] (])</small> 04:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to try and cleanup the infoboxes for the zodiac signs. Not only is there {{tl|Infobox zodiac}} and {{tl|Infobox zodiac sign}}, but each sign ''itself'' has a designated template, e.g. {{tl|Pisces box}} or {{tl|Aries box}}. This defeats the purpose of using a template, since there is no perceivable way to use a specific zodiac sign template on any other page ''but'' its article. I've also tried to clean up the box a bit, moving the neat row of signs to the bottom from the midsection. I don't think we should link our project page from the infobox; I haven't seen that done in other infoboxes but maybe I'm wrong. - <small>] (])</small> 00:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

== Main Astrology article Cognitive Bias section ==

Recent edits to remove OR from the Cognitive Bias section in the main Astrology article have been reverted. ] Please contribute constructively to resolve the issues. ] (]) 19:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


:I would be interested in hearing where the OR is, as I wrote much of (all?) that section, and did it based purely on the secondary sources. ] (]) 19:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC) There is currently an on-going requested move discussion pertaining to ] at ] that might be of interest to this WikiProject. ] (]) 17:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


== Help writing an article for TimePassages ==
== The "New Millennium Astrological Chart" Graphic ==


Hello, I'm Asia Seltzer, and I'd like to suggest the creation of a Misplaced Pages article for the app TimePassages. I am the app developer, and I understand the importance of neutrality and verifying notability. Based on what I've observed, TimePassages has received significant coverage in Oprah Daily (https://www.oprahdaily.com/entertainment/g36081413/best-astrology-apps/?slide=1), Cosmopolitan (https://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/g29762175/best-horoscope-apps/?slide=3), Bustle (https://www.bustle.com/life/best-astrology-apps), and many other articles. I believe it meets the notability criteria for software/apps on Misplaced Pages. However, I seek the community's insights and consensus on this matter. Could interested editors please review the available sources and consider whether TimePassages warrants a standalone article? Thank you for your time and consideration. ~Asia ] (]) 07:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The astrological chart graphic in the project description is beautiful. It is also cast for the wrong year. It is clearly the horoscope of some point on the Prime Meridian for midnight on 2000-01-01 instead of the correct 2001-01-01.


I trust I do not need to recap the reasoning for this here, but if anyone wants to take a stab at explaining which of the first 20 centuries of the current calendar should be considered to contain 99 years instead of 100, go ahead. ] (]) 20:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC) :You ''can'' ask wikiproject talk pages like this, but the most common and probably the best way to make your new article is to make it yourself then submit it for review. the information on how to go about doing that is here:]. Good luck! ] (]) 05:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:Fire ahead with a correction if you want, ] (]) 12:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
::I'd love to, when I get up the $400 for the software that generates nice charts like that. ] (]) 21:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


== Help needed in expanding "List of conjunctions (astronomy)" ==
* On second thoughts, why would the start of 2001 be more appropriate? ] (]) 21:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


What I'm thinking is that the page "]" is a bit outdated, (the latest listed year being 2020) and that the page only lists a limited amount of years, (2005-2020) and is pretty crowded. So you see, I found this that lists every conjunction from every year from 1950-2024 and is computed from NASA's DE430 planetary ephemeris so it is pretty accurate and reliable. My plan is to use that website to make a couple of pages about the "list of conjunctions", so each "list of conjunctions" page that I will make has 10 years of conjunctions in it. For example, the first page in the series will be "List of conjunctions (astronomy) from 1950-1959" and the second one will be "List of conjunctions (astronomy) from 1960-1969" ''et cetera.'' I know that this should be in the talk page for the article, but ] it's been 6 days since I posted it, and no-one has responded. Since this place has a bigger community, I hope someone will have the time to help me for this cause. ] (]) 05:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
: The new millennium began in 2001 because there was no year zero, so the year 2000 was the last year of the old millennium - its 2000th. But most people celebrated the new millennium as we saw 1999 out and believed the start of 2000 to be the beginning of a new millennium. I'm not sure it's a big problem because it matches public perception, but technically-speaking, Freeman is right. ] (]) 11:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
::Interesting. ] (]) 20:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


:It's been almost 10 days. I'm done with no-one responding to this valiant clause. I will do it myself. It's going to be nigh impossible, but at least '''<big>I</big>''' have the determination and guts to even attempt it. If you disagree with anything I'll do or have done, the only person to blame is yourself. If, '''<big>If</big>''', on the other hand, you would like to help, message me on my ]. If you do, I salute you. We can do this together. ] (]) 21:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
==] statue images up for deletion==
:: {{ping|Iamamodforjellymario}} My one suggestion would be to include a rigorous definition of the maximum ] for inclusion in the list. The largest I could find listed is 11°08', which is 22 times the diameter of the Sun and Moon. My impulse would be to tighten that up considerably, but I have no idea what criteria would serve. ] (]) 13:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Several images used at ] are up for deletion.
:::@]: yeah, that would be a good thing to consider. when I checked the website, there was over 100 conjunctions for each year. I still am thinking about doing it, but I agree that tightening the criteria is very important in making this possible to do. the conjunctions in the ]) page are pretty random and disorganized. ] (]) 21:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
* {{lf|Mammoth Ivory Three Star Gods.JPG}}
:::: {{ping|Iamamodforjellymario}} According to ], "A Conjunction (abbreviated as "Con") is an angle of approximately (~) 0–⁠10°. Typically, an orb of ~10° is considered to be a Conjunction." So that might work. Alternatively, a good field of view with astronomical binoculars is around 6°. ] (]) 00:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
* {{lf|Mammoth Ivory Shou Star.jpg}}
* {{lf|Mammoth Ivory Lu Star.jpg}}
* {{lf|Mammoth Ivory Fu Star.jpg}}


== Requested move at ] ==
-- ] (]) 03:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
== Merge proposal ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 15:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I have proposed to merge this wikiproject and 12 others to a new wikiproject. Please see ]. ] (]) 19:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:51, 31 August 2024

This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate!
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAstrology
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Misplaced Pages. 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
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Astrology
Background
Traditions
Branches
Astrological signs
Symbols

Ptolemy RM

There is currently an on-going requested move discussion pertaining to Ptolemy at Talk:Ptolemy#Requested move 25 May 2023 that might be of interest to this WikiProject. Walrasiad (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Help writing an article for TimePassages

Hello, I'm Asia Seltzer, and I'd like to suggest the creation of a Misplaced Pages article for the app TimePassages. I am the app developer, and I understand the importance of neutrality and verifying notability. Based on what I've observed, TimePassages has received significant coverage in Oprah Daily (https://www.oprahdaily.com/entertainment/g36081413/best-astrology-apps/?slide=1), Cosmopolitan (https://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/g29762175/best-horoscope-apps/?slide=3), Bustle (https://www.bustle.com/life/best-astrology-apps), and many other articles. I believe it meets the notability criteria for software/apps on Misplaced Pages. However, I seek the community's insights and consensus on this matter. Could interested editors please review the available sources and consider whether TimePassages warrants a standalone article? Thank you for your time and consideration. ~Asia 0Rl0N (talk) 07:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You can ask wikiproject talk pages like this, but the most common and probably the best way to make your new article is to make it yourself then submit it for review. the information on how to go about doing that is here:Help:Your first article. Good luck! Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Help needed in expanding "List of conjunctions (astronomy)"

What I'm thinking is that the page "List of conjunctions (astronomy)" is a bit outdated, (the latest listed year being 2020) and that the page only lists a limited amount of years, (2005-2020) and is pretty crowded. So you see, I found this website that lists every conjunction from every year from 1950-2024 and is computed from NASA's DE430 planetary ephemeris so it is pretty accurate and reliable. My plan is to use that website to make a couple of pages about the "list of conjunctions", so each "list of conjunctions" page that I will make has 10 years of conjunctions in it. For example, the first page in the series will be "List of conjunctions (astronomy) from 1950-1959" and the second one will be "List of conjunctions (astronomy) from 1960-1969" et cetera. I know that this should be in the talk page for the article, but I've already done that, it's been 6 days since I posted it, and no-one has responded. Since this place has a bigger community, I hope someone will have the time to help me for this cause. Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It's been almost 10 days. I'm done with no-one responding to this valiant clause. I will do it myself. It's going to be nigh impossible, but at least I have the determination and guts to even attempt it. If you disagree with anything I'll do or have done, the only person to blame is yourself. If, If, on the other hand, you would like to help, message me on my talk page. If you do, I salute you. We can do this together. Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
@Iamamodforjellymario: My one suggestion would be to include a rigorous definition of the maximum angular separation for inclusion in the list. The largest I could find listed is 11°08', which is 22 times the diameter of the Sun and Moon. My impulse would be to tighten that up considerably, but I have no idea what criteria would serve. Praemonitus (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@Praemonitus: yeah, that would be a good thing to consider. when I checked the website, there was over 100 conjunctions for each year. I still am thinking about doing it, but I agree that tightening the criteria is very important in making this possible to do. the conjunctions in the List of conjunctions (astronomy) page are pretty random and disorganized. Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@Iamamodforjellymario: According to Astrological aspect#Conjunction, "A Conjunction (abbreviated as "Con") is an angle of approximately (~) 0–⁠10°. Typically, an orb of ~10° is considered to be a Conjunction." So that might work. Alternatively, a good field of view with astronomical binoculars is around 6°. Praemonitus (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ancient near eastern cosmology#Requested move 23 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ancient near eastern cosmology#Requested move 23 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Remsense ‥ 论 12:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Archaeoastronomy

Archaeoastronomy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astrology: Difference between revisions Add topic