This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Second Quantization (talk | contribs) at 19:55, 29 December 2012 (→Main Astrology article Cognitive Bias section: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:55, 29 December 2012 by Second Quantization (talk | contribs) (→Main Astrology article Cognitive Bias section: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Astrology NA‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| Astrology |
|---|
 |
| Background |
| Traditions |
| Branches |
| Astrological signs |
| Symbols |
Astrological aspect
An important concept, I think, in the Ptolemaic system, and elaborated by Ptolemy himself. Lots of junk in the article, though, which is a pity, because I need to understand whether the word "trine" is correctly used in Chinese zodiac. It seems pretty dubious to use a word from Western astrology to explicate a Chinese concept. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Having read up just a bit more, I'm sure that the triadic groupings of Chinese signs have nothing at all to do with "trine" in Ptolemaic astrology. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- As is, the article looks like an indiscriminate collection of information. I think the entire section "Ternary aspects" should go, it highlights in the text that it is rarely used in astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- One of the problems is that with articles like these we are going into describing the in-universe jargon and methods of astrology, which for most part will be only be backed up by in-universe sources. One would probably expect to find all of this in a course on astrology, the question is how much of this belongs in an encyclopedia? E.g. in these "ternary aspects" we come to a fringe theory within astrology, so fringe within fringe. How far do we go in this? Do we explain all the concepts of a pseudoscience in standalone articles? Maybe we need a RfC on how much weight to give to all these astrology concepts, before we spend much more time on this. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
| Potentially offensive material |
|---|
|
- Great to clean up, but can we keep the most basic concepts, plus everything that is part of Ptolemaic astronomy as opposed to astrology. Selfishly, I want a way in to make sense of literary criticism of Chaucer and other writers who used astrology, and some of that criticism has to go quite deeply into the belief system. I don't need it all in the encyclopedia, but what is here does have to be readable and referenced. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Past or present tense in articles about discarded systems of astrology
We have a List of astrological traditions, types, and systems and a lot of systems are in the "historic" category. I was doing some much needed cleanup in Medical astrology and was wondering why this article is written in the present tense, as if this is still current practice. Just looked at another article about a discarded practice Phrenology, and found it written in the past tense. So do we use present or past tense in articles about historic forms of astrology? MakeSense64 (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Past tense if its not in use. I should say that article seems generally unneeded as the template does a much better job; I would suggest redirecting to astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Which template did you mean? I think "Medical astrology" is sufficiently notable to get a standalone article as a topic of historic interest. There is certainly more cleaning up to do, I have started with prodding some articles from Category:Technical factors of astrology. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- What I mean is the astrology template template:Ast box. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Which template did you mean? I think "Medical astrology" is sufficiently notable to get a standalone article as a topic of historic interest. There is certainly more cleaning up to do, I have started with prodding some articles from Category:Technical factors of astrology. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Capricorn
The usage of Capricorn is under discussion, see Talk:Capricorn -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
ast box
I'm in the process of changing the main astrology page template to use more standard template features: Template_talk:Ast_box#draft_change_.28standardised_forms.29, if anyone wants to help with the draft. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
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 |
|---|
|
- 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
- And Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Uranian astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/John_Addey_(astrologer)
- Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Howard_Beckman_(2nd_nomination). IRWolfie- (talk) 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. 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 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)