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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:15, 18 September 2013 editTento2 (talk | contribs)290 edits →Adding Albohali to the project: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 00:01, 19 September 2013 edit undoKen McRitchie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users722 edits →Interest in reviving this projectNext edit →
Line 104: Line 104:
:::::My post was appropriate. It was not put "on lots of editor's talkpages", but specifically placed on the talk pages of every editor listed as an active member of the project, including yourself. As an member I have the right to contact other members to make them fully aware that without an indication of more interest this project is under a proposal of being merged - and to point out my own view that it would be a shame for that to happen without seeing if there are ways to regenerate interest. Neutrality requires that I put forward both views factually and without exaggeration, which I did, with the intention to generate more discussion; it does not require me to pretend that I do not want to generate discussion and involvement from other members, when patently that is the purpose of contacting them, to see if it exists. (I wonder if it is dwelling on petty points like this, and being told "don't do that" instead of being welcomed and encouraged as a new member trying to work collaboratively, which has driven other editors away?). :::::My post was appropriate. It was not put "on lots of editor's talkpages", but specifically placed on the talk pages of every editor listed as an active member of the project, including yourself. As an member I have the right to contact other members to make them fully aware that without an indication of more interest this project is under a proposal of being merged - and to point out my own view that it would be a shame for that to happen without seeing if there are ways to regenerate interest. Neutrality requires that I put forward both views factually and without exaggeration, which I did, with the intention to generate more discussion; it does not require me to pretend that I do not want to generate discussion and involvement from other members, when patently that is the purpose of contacting them, to see if it exists. (I wonder if it is dwelling on petty points like this, and being told "don't do that" instead of being welcomed and encouraged as a new member trying to work collaboratively, which has driven other editors away?).
:::::I agree that in the absence of any responses to suggest that there are editors willing to invest time on the project's concerns, it can be fairly described as a dying project. However, I noticed that some editors only post periodically so I would suggest waiting another week before drawing that conclusion. It took years to develop this project, and I see no need to rush decisions on its future as if there is an impending deadline at the end of the week. ] (]) 09:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC) :::::I agree that in the absence of any responses to suggest that there are editors willing to invest time on the project's concerns, it can be fairly described as a dying project. However, I noticed that some editors only post periodically so I would suggest waiting another week before drawing that conclusion. It took years to develop this project, and I see no need to rush decisions on its future as if there is an impending deadline at the end of the week. ] (]) 09:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
::::::] thanks for the heads-up, but I don't have time for this. ], ] and others like them seem to have an unlimited amount of time to devote to excluding all views from Misplaced Pages but their own narrow dark and suspicious beliefs. Misplaced Pages is getting a bad reputation and it will only get worse as I expect you can tell from the current proposals. Maybe when Misplaced Pages becomes so bad, it will either crumble into pieces like a corrupt empire or, if it is valued enough by the public, it will incur a massive backlash of renewed openness and rich diversity of views. ] (]) 00:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
*Looking at the discussion linked in the previous section, I must admit that I don't see the point in congregating a bunch of dead Wikiprojects (like putting a bunch of corpses in a hole, covering it, and hoping for some kind of reanimation! Quick! cast a spell!) I'm not going to suddenly have an interest in Homeopathy; I expect the same of someone from the other projects. This does not seem beneficial for ''any'' active / inactive person from a specific Wikiproject. My guess is that they will all remain just as dead (I guess one grave to maintain is better for the groundskeeper) *Looking at the discussion linked in the previous section, I must admit that I don't see the point in congregating a bunch of dead Wikiprojects (like putting a bunch of corpses in a hole, covering it, and hoping for some kind of reanimation! Quick! cast a spell!) I'm not going to suddenly have an interest in Homeopathy; I expect the same of someone from the other projects. This does not seem beneficial for ''any'' active / inactive person from a specific Wikiproject. My guess is that they will all remain just as dead (I guess one grave to maintain is better for the groundskeeper)
:I really don't care what those active want to call it, be it "Wikiproject" or "Task Force." Rather, I can't see any detriment or benefit, leave it as-is or change it. Don't know why anyone is even bothering... - <small>] (])</small> 01:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC) :I really don't care what those active want to call it, be it "Wikiproject" or "Task Force." Rather, I can't see any detriment or benefit, leave it as-is or change it. Don't know why anyone is even bothering... - <small>] (])</small> 01:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:01, 19 September 2013

WikiProject iconAstrology NA‑class
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
NAThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4


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

AFD

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Urania Trust. Sædon 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 Talk:Astrology , our current WP:ACADEMIC 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. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
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. Dave of Maryland (talk) 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 astrowiki would be a better fit for you. Sædon 21:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I have started by putting up the question here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Independent_sources
MakeSense64 (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Note Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Little_Astrology_Prince_(2nd_nomination). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


October

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. IRWolfie- (talk) 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 Astrological sign#Western zodiac signs. These edits were made by User:Dominus Vobisdu 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 Reference Desk 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 Talk:Astrological_sign#Redirection_of_Western_Zodiac_signs 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. LukeSurl 15:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Restoring unsourced content is probably not a good move. Do you have sources which support changes like this and this and this? bobrayner (talk) 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 WP:BRD says). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I have replied at Talk:Astrological_sign#Redirection_of_Western_Zodiac_signs. LukeSurl 17:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it strange that the zodiac sign articles are sparse at best. - s t a r c a r (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to try and cleanup the infoboxes for the zodiac signs. Not only is there {{Infobox zodiac}} and {{Infobox zodiac sign}}, but each sign itself has a designated template, e.g. {{Pisces box}} or {{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. - s t a r c a r (talk) 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. Talk:Astrology#Cognitive_Bias Please contribute constructively to resolve the issues. Ken McRitchie (talk) 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. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The "New Millennium Astrological Chart" Graphic

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. Freeman (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Fire ahead with a correction if you want, IRWolfie- (talk) 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. Freeman (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2013 (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. Tento2 (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Fu Lu Shou statue images up for deletion

Several images used at Fu Lu Shou are up for deletion.

-- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have proposed to merge this wikiproject and 12 others to a new wikiproject. Please see the proposal. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Interest in reviving this project

IRWolfie's Merge Proposal (see above) suggests we consider this project dead and merge it with 12 others into a new wiki project to oversee all aspects of Fringe. He says "My thought was to re-purpose skepticism into a task force specifically related to the concepts of skepticism and to notable skeptics and organisations" (but please see the full discussion to understand his comments in their proper context).

My view is that this approach is counter-productive; and it would be better to explore why a project which was once very active now feels like it is covered in dust. I don't have a great deal of experience as a[REDACTED] editor, or a great deal of time to commit to[REDACTED] generally, butcan contribute fairly regularly and will happily help however I can. I would like to work collaboratively with other members of this project, so my first effort will be to contact everyone listed as a member to see what interest exists, and encourage discussion on if and how the project can be re-stimulated.

I notice that under "Purpose and goals" on the project page, the first objective is:

  • Identify unmarked astrology-related stubs and expand them into full articles. See Articles in need of expansion below.

But the link to "Articles in need of expansion" is dead (goes nowhere). Maybe a good way to get a team active would be to identify a few articles that need development, or an overhaul, and create a "project of the month", so we can pool our knowledge and efforts and bring at least one astrology-related article a month to a good standard. I welcome input on this idea, any other suggestions, or any indication that other members are still active here and interested in keeping this project alive.Tento2 (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your quote of me is very odd and has no relation to what I actually proposed. Rather here is the guts of why I proposed it: "Broadly my suggestion was meant to capture all those areas generally covered by WP:FRINGE guidelines and which are in the area of scientific scepticism generally, Fringe was my suggestion as a compromise between putting people off with the word "skepticism" and also not putting off mainstream editors with names like "alternative science" (as though one can pick their science!)." IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned that posting this message on lots of editors' talkpages is canvassing. Don't do that. bobrayner (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
@IRWolfie. I made a quote from your post of that day; if your words have no relation to what you actually proposed then that is very odd. Best advice is always that which I gave "see the full discussion".
@Bobrayner. I have noted your concern. Please note that I disagree. Tento2 (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Tento, please note that editors are expected to leave neutrally worded messages when they notify someone and not get a head start on the argument at the user talk pages (see WP:CANVASS for more details). I take it from the lack of replies here that my comment about lack of interest is quite apt. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
My post was appropriate. It was not put "on lots of editor's talkpages", but specifically placed on the talk pages of every editor listed as an active member of the project, including yourself. As an member I have the right to contact other members to make them fully aware that without an indication of more interest this project is under a proposal of being merged - and to point out my own view that it would be a shame for that to happen without seeing if there are ways to regenerate interest. Neutrality requires that I put forward both views factually and without exaggeration, which I did, with the intention to generate more discussion; it does not require me to pretend that I do not want to generate discussion and involvement from other members, when patently that is the purpose of contacting them, to see if it exists. (I wonder if it is dwelling on petty points like this, and being told "don't do that" instead of being welcomed and encouraged as a new member trying to work collaboratively, which has driven other editors away?).
I agree that in the absence of any responses to suggest that there are editors willing to invest time on the project's concerns, it can be fairly described as a dying project. However, I noticed that some editors only post periodically so I would suggest waiting another week before drawing that conclusion. It took years to develop this project, and I see no need to rush decisions on its future as if there is an impending deadline at the end of the week. Tento2 (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Tento2 thanks for the heads-up, but I don't have time for this. IRWolfie-, bobrayner and others like them seem to have an unlimited amount of time to devote to excluding all views from Misplaced Pages but their own narrow dark and suspicious beliefs. Misplaced Pages is getting a bad reputation and it will only get worse as I expect you can tell from the current proposals. Maybe when Misplaced Pages becomes so bad, it will either crumble into pieces like a corrupt empire or, if it is valued enough by the public, it will incur a massive backlash of renewed openness and rich diversity of views. Ken McRitchie (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Looking at the discussion linked in the previous section, I must admit that I don't see the point in congregating a bunch of dead Wikiprojects (like putting a bunch of corpses in a hole, covering it, and hoping for some kind of reanimation! Quick! cast a spell!) I'm not going to suddenly have an interest in Homeopathy; I expect the same of someone from the other projects. This does not seem beneficial for any active / inactive person from a specific Wikiproject. My guess is that they will all remain just as dead (I guess one grave to maintain is better for the groundskeeper)
I really don't care what those active want to call it, be it "Wikiproject" or "Task Force." Rather, I can't see any detriment or benefit, leave it as-is or change it. Don't know why anyone is even bothering... - s t a r c a r (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding Albohali to the project

I added the page on Abu 'Ali al-Khayyat (Albohali) to the astrology project since his works were mainly of astrological interest. I also changed the name of the entry from Pingree's unusual spelling to Khayait to Khayyat, to make the page more accessible. A google check shows that all other sources refer to him as Khayyat rather than Khayait. I gave the page a "mid-importance" rating to reflect the fact that there is increasing interest in his works through recent translations of James Holden and Ben Dykes. Tento2 (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

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