Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astrology

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tento2 (talk | contribs) at 11:03, 16 August 2013 (→The "New Millennium Astrological Chart" Graphic: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:03, 16 August 2013 by Tento2 (talk | contribs) (→The "New Millennium Astrological Chart" Graphic: cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Astrology NA‑class

	This 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
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Astrology

Background
Worship of heavenly bodies History of astrology Astrology and astronomy Glossary Planets Behenian Classical Zodiac Traditions, types, and systems Astrology and science Astrologers Astrological organizations
Traditions
Babylonian Chinese Hellenistic Hindu Islamic Jewish Tibetan Western
Branches
Natal Electional Horary Medical Financial Locational Psychological Meteorological
Astrological signs
Aries Taurus Gemini Cancer Leo Virgo Libra Scorpio Sagittarius Capricorn Aquarius Pisces
Symbols
Planet Metals
v t e

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)

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Roy_C._Firebrace

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 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)

On second thoughts, why would the start of 2001 be more appropriate? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:55, 15 August 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)

Fu Lu Shou statue images up for deletion

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

File:Mammoth Ivory Three Star Gods.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mammoth Ivory Shou Star.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mammoth Ivory Lu Star.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mammoth Ivory Fu Star.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Categories: