Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the Astrology WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the astrological content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA	This page does not require an assessment on the quality scale.

Contents 1 how is this different? 2 Categories 3 External links 4 Counter-Earth and Antichthon 5 1181 Lilit/1181 Lilith 6 Michael Erlewine 7 Wikipedia'a own Horoscope charts 8 Portal:Astrology 9 Wikipedia Day Awards 10 What is Anabibazon and Catabibazon? 11 Horoscope for the Wikiproject 12 Ephemerides 13 Eris 14 Category descriptions 15 W. B. Yeats FAR 16 Relations to constellations hierarchy 17 Birth by date hierarchy 18 Tiamat (hypothetical planet) 19 Astrological factors/technical factors category 20 Galileo Galilei FAR 21 Cosmosophy prodded 22 Project talk page header 23 Category:Astrology 24 Possible categorization questions 25 Articles needing citations 26 Astrological associations 27 Serpentarius 28 Milky Way 29 Astrological signs, general discussion on removal 30 Native American Astrology 31 Astrology information .. 32 Ext link dead? 33 Ashmole 34 Cusps and Vedic Articles 35 Removal of statements regarding Ceres 36 Main Problem with the Introduction and Topic of the Astrological Ages in General 36.1 MAJOR EDIT WRAP-UP 37 Barnstar 38 Chinese astrology needs help

[edit] how is this different?

Just curious--how is this different from regular contribution to articles? Doovinator 01:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the idea is that we will be able to have a centralized location from which to coordinate the creation and improvement of articles. Most of the other subjects on wikipedia are a lot more organized and well done than the astrology articles here because they have specific groups of people who specialize in the field, and they get together to coordinate their efforts. Part of the advantage of having a project like this is just to be able to organize all of the subject matter into the correct groups and subgroups, but also to be able to standardize the terminolgy used and other things that streamline the editing process and make it much easier. So, this wont really change the way that you usually contribute to articles, but it will just be a project to give more overall structure to astrological content of wikipedia in general. Make sense? --Chris Brennan 03:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good! Doovinator 03:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Does astrology articles need to be more co-ordinated? I mean apart from its historical reference hasn't it all been shown to be a falsehood based upon numerous scientific studies which show that by no physical mechanism could the motions of the planets and stars cause significat effects upon a human, and that people born close to each other have no statisticaly significant similarities relative to people born over invervals separated by a significant period of time? --Neo 22:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The validity of astrology, or lack thereof, is somewhat irrelevant within the context of Wikipedia. The goal of this project is mainly to present the beliefs and practices of various cultures and civilizations where there existed a specific systematic explanation of perceived or imaginary phenomena, or more specifically a system based on such an explanation that we refer to generally as astrology. What you seem to imply in your statement is that subjects which are 'wrong' or seen to be in bad taste should either not be addressed or should be left in a state of disorganization due to our culture's view of the subject. If we applied such logic to other areas of Wikipedia then we should also either not have, or not organize articles on World War II since the subject is somewhat distasteful, or on Aristotelian physics since it is wrong. This doesn’t make sense. So, the answer is 'yes', the astrology articles on Wikipedia do need to be more organized and coordinated because it is a rather large field that spans many different civilizations and time periods, and their is no reason to simply ignore that the subject exists. --Chris Brennan 23:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea that astrology "has been shown" to be a falsehood in some "scientific" way is an unfortunate misconception of what science is and is not. Science is rather good at demonstrating "what is", but very poor at proving "what isn't". The way of science is to start with a theory, seemingly prove 98.5% of it, and leave 1.5% to be figured out later. In a few years someone investigates the 1.5%, and discovers in fitting the pieces that, in fact, only 62% of the original theory is true, an additional 37% is explained by a new and different theory, and this leaves 1% unexplained, which another researcher tackles later, and another later, all to similar results. Science thus comes continually closer to "the truth", but never reaches it, and never categorically disproves anything. Doovinator 04:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent example of the Pareto principle! --Fractain 00:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Astrology
Background
History of astrology
History of astronomy
Astrology and astronomy
Traditions
Babylonian astrology
Arab and Persian astrology
Chinese astrology
Hellenistic astrology
Indian astrology
Sidereal astrology
Western astrology
More...
Branches of horoscopic astrology
Natal astrology
Electional astrology
Horary astrology
Mundane astrology
More...
Categories
Astrologers
Astrological texts
Astrological writers
Astrology Portal
This box: view • talk • edit

The Astrology category currently holds 9 subcategories and 159 pages. These will need to be re-categorized along the lines of entries in the box on the main page (also shown to the right of this text). So perhaps suggestions to expand or modify that list could be collected here.

I also have a technical question: How can this box be edited? Aquirata 10:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, figuring out the categories and getting that into place should be top priority since actually putting all of the astrology articles into categories will be such a big job. You can edit the astrology box at the following link. I just wanted to get something up initially, but maybe we should hold some discussions on how this should be organized. We are going to be covering a lot of uncharted territory in attempting to classify some of this stuff because it has never been done before on such a large scale where all of the traditions have to be taken into consideration. Do you have thoughts on how the structure of the template should look? Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Astrology

A historical (or traditional) categorization is certainly one we need. Then there is natal astrology, horary, electional, mundane, medical, financial, etc. Scientific research should certainly get its own page if not category. I don't understand the Astrology by type category as it seems like a potpourri of everything astrology. One cannot have a category where one item is natal astrology and another is sidereal astrology. Also, I think electional astrology is a much better understood term than katarchic astrology is; same for horary vs interrogational astrology.

The organization by traditions may need some tweaking when it comes to 20th century astrology because of the sudden diversity of traditions that sprung up in the 20th century. At this point I just left it as "Western astrology" since that appears to be the main article on mainstream modern western astrology at this point, but I was thinking that it might be a better idea to replace that entry in the template with a large page on 20th century astrology/traditions, and then that page can discuss and link to the specific developments in the 20th century. I don’t really understand the astrology by type category either, but I just added it because I wanted to get together all of the preexisting categories on Wikipedia for astrology so that we could remake them. I guess that I would agree about the naming of horary and electional astrology, I just got used to using those older terms based on their common usage in academic works on astrology. I will change those right now, although both of the pages that they will link to are badly in need of work. The entire page on electional astrology is almost solely on Indian electional astrology, and while I agree that that is valuable, I think that the page should be more neutral in explaining what the subject is and its implications, and then branching off into different pages which explain its application in different traditions. It seems that there is quite a bit of work to be done here. I think that we are going to need more recruits. --Chris Brennan 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris is right. The subject of Astrology is so major, spanning so many centuries, that perhaps the best way is to assign sections to those who have expertise and knowledge in these areas. One of the ways, that may help is taking two titles, Judicial (classical) Astrology and Natural Astrology and working within those pairs. I agree with Chris also on the Electional Astrology being solely based on Indian electional astrology; however, historical facts should suffice there as well with branches, as Chris suggested, going into different pages that can expand on the various astrological cultural traditions.

I think you probably just have an ambiguous sentence here, but I wonder if Chris thinks that electional astrology is of Hindu origin. It's probably the oldest Hellenistic astrology and clearly has origins in the Mediterranean long before Dorotheus in the First. The Hindus got astrology from the Mediterranean world originally. I don't think there's much room for doubt about that. At best, you might say there was some technical cross-pollination. And modern-day Hindu prasna is not at all the same as Western electional. NaySay 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall saying anything about electional astrology originating in India, so I'm not exactly sure where this is coming from. I have been making the argument for a while that interrogational astrology originated in India, but that is a separate matter that I'm still researching. --Chris Brennan 21:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Chris. I'd love to see that stuff, if you're willing to share. NaySay 15:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I didn't know that William Lilly, who predicted the fire of London in 1660, was practicing Hindu astrology. Andrew Homer 19:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that many people, while they've heard of Astrology, mostly have a popular culture view, which isn't much, when they hear the term. So, when they turn to resouces like Wikipedia, the Astrology Page itself should be clear, and clean enough to lead the reader towards sections that perhaps they are looking for, or want to learn more about (this includes critical views on astrology that provide perspective, rather than seeking to debunk the subject outright based on POV, either individual, or group-based conventional. Chris' direction helps provide more neutrality which is a definite road towards getting an expansive, knowledge-building, and cleaner Astrology Page.Theo

[edit] External links

I have added a link to the 'Objective validity of astrology' article (now stored on Wikinfo) at the bottom of the page in a new section entitled 'External links'. This will preserve the link even if it is removed from the Astrology page. Research notes and suggestions for title change from old Talk page have also been copied over to Wikinfo. Aquirata 07:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent resource Aquirata. Thanks!Theo

[edit] Counter-Earth and Antichthon

User:Mrwuggs is proposing to merge Counter-Earth and Antichthon together. Previously, it appears he merged both into the Antichthon article. This would be wrong, since the Counter-Earth article is not mainly involved with the Antichthon concept of antiquity. 132.205.44.134 02:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1181 Lilit/1181 Lilith

Hello,

there is a discussion on whether the asteroid 1181 Lilith has any relation at all to the astrological concept of the second moon / black moon / Lilith. From the section on the article, it seems that these two concepts are disjoint, and only share a name in common. There is an article Lilith (hypothetical moon). 132.205.93.148 00:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There's thousands of asteroids, and one of them is called Lilith. The "Black Moon Lilith" is a 20th-c. idea about the possible effect of some nodal positions on the Moon's orbit. So, no, you're right-- they are not the same thing. There's an awful lot of asteroids and we basically know nothing about the effect of any of them, since almost all astrological literature long pre-dates their discovery and naming. Some of the larger ones (e.g., Ceres) have been promoted to planetoids by scientists, which is likely to spur even greater speculation on their possible significance in the future, but not much has been written about any of them, except a few books about Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, Juno and Chiron--which are, again, purely speculative, and generally based on a kind of free-association with their names. Any information on Lilith would be of the same nature. However, an internet search on "asteroid + Lilith" would probably net some information like this about that asteroid. I don't know if this project will soon address asteroids. For me, the topic is very peripheral, but perhaps others will disagree. NaySay 11:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Erlewine

Astrology software pioneer (with Matrix Software) and AllMusicGuide founder Michael Erlewine has material he would like to include in the article. I'm unable to determine much about his astrology software claims, and hope that someone here can help make the article compliant while being fair to Erlewine's desire for coverage of this aspect of his career. See Talk:Michael Erlewine#Request for comment. --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia'a own Horoscope charts

Some time ago there was a discussion on what Wikipedia's own horoscope looked like. See Talk:Astrology/archive1#A_Horoscope_for_Wikipedia and these charts were produced . But a precise time was not available.

I just came across information on the posting of the first edit held here Wikipedia:UuU which shows the first ever edit at 21:08, 16 January 2001.

Perhaps the Wikipedia Astrology project could decide a suitable fate for this information Lumos3 09:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I asked around on the #Wikipedia IRC channel and a user suggested I ask here. Sam 15:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Another attempt at asking hasn't garnered much more, but nonetheless: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007_May_14#Time_of_creation_of_Wikipedia

Just noticed something... in the "Date and time" tab in the user preferences, the example date is January 15, 2001 at 16:12. Maybe this was the time the site went online? Drawing a chart for this time (I presume the time is in UTC as everything else recorded by the server is) is very interesting. It gives Aquarius rising at 18 degrees with Uranus at 19. Samuel Grant 16:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Astrology

Hello all! I created the Astrology Portal as requested in the "Current goals" section of the main project page. Feel free to help out! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 03:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! Sam 19:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the featured article for January. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Sam 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

When you say "editors" are you referring to people as myself with 35 years experience in astrology who have contributed to the "Astrology" and "Zodiac" articles or the censors who keep deleting my contributions though they never have studied the topics? Andrew Homer 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is Anabibazon and Catabibazon?

Hi. I'm involved in the WikiProject Moon, and am trying to figure out what to do with two articles that are categorized under Cat:Orbit of the Moon: Anabibazon and Catabibazon. These two stubs don't have enough information for me to figure what they are talking about, and its not clear if they are using astronomical terms (which are probably incorrect) or astrological terms. For instance

"Anabibazon, in astronomy and astrology, is the Dragon's Head, or the northern node of the moon, where it passes the ecliptic from south to north latitude."

Technically, I think this should be called the ascending node. And if it is the "head", is it part of a constellation? I don't think that Anabibazon can be a star, though, because the orbit plane of the Moon precesses with an 18 year period, and these nodes are hence not fixed in space. Also perhaps someone knows the origin of these words. The stub says that it is both astronomical and astrological, but I have never heard anyone in "astronomy" refer to the ascending and descending nodes with these words. Thanks! Lunokhod 23:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lunokhod. I recognize anabibazon and catabibazon as the terms used by Hellenistic astrologers to refer to the north and south node of the Moon, respectively. I assume that it was the same in the Greek astronomical texts as well. I don't know why someone gave them their own pages though. It is definitely just referring to the ascending and descending nodes of the Moon using the ancient Greek terms though. The 'dragons head' and 'dragons tail' are just Medieval astrological epithets for the nodes as well. Seems like you should just do a redirect on those articles or something. I hope this helps. --Chris Brennan 06:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horoscope for the Wikiproject

Wikiproject Astrology was founded June 10, 2006 at 1:00 PM in Cumberland, Maryland, USA (78w46, 39n39). The image that's used on many of the project templates (to the right) is actually the horoscope drawn for this time. Thought this might be of interest. — Sam 01:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this wikiproject inactive or is it still active? I have considered joining this wikiproject, but I feel that it is inactive. Let me know if I'm wrong. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ephemerides

Found these, some of them have been prodded. 70.51.8.30 06:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Aspects of Mars
• Aspects of 1 Ceres
• Aspects of 2 Pallas
• Aspects of 3 Juno
• Aspects of 4 Vesta
• Aspects of Jupiter
• Aspects of Saturn
• Aspects of Uranus
• Aspects of Neptune
• Aspects of Pluto

A whole lot of asteroids appear to have these ephemerides sections attached to them. See asteroids starting at #10, and continuing on and on and on. 132.205.44.134 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eris

Does planet Eris have an astrological symbol? 70.55.88.134 05:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The latest issue of Mountain Astrologer magazine has 2 articles on the big & distant planet Eris (formerly called Xena). Don't forget: thanks to "attraction" of "hyperdimensional space," just because Eris is way beyond Pluto doesn't make it inconsequential. Its orbital velocity makes it pertinent. (The issue of speed was underrated in that postumous concept once known as "gravity.") - Andrew Homer 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Eris does have an officially unofficial symbol, which I think is quite lovely:

The concept behind the symbology of Eris is two arrows meeting at a single point.
The above image was created by Denis Moskowitz.
pixiequix 12:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category descriptions

In an effort to avoid ambiguity in the astrology categories, I'd like to begin a discussion on documenting all existing categories. A few descriptions I've written up that I'd like to get reviewed for utmost clarity:

• Category:Astrology by tradition: While tradition may carry historical connotations, this category is for any differentiated system of astrology, historical or otherwise. Not to be confused with Astrology by type which is for astrology's various applications.
• Category:Astrology by type: This category is for specific applications of astrology such as natal astrology, horary astrology, and so on. Not to be confused with Astrology by tradition.
• Category:Astrological factors: This category is for all technical factors of astrology. — Sam 13:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to change my mind about "Astrological factors". The idea is far too broad I think. I would be interested in hearing others' thoughts. — Sam 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell the folk @ Project Hindsight about Astrology being too broad. They would have a hearty chuckle. They're translating ancient astrological texts from Greek, Latin, & Arabic. The astrology of yore was more complicated than today's. - Andrew Homer 09:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not saying astrology is too broad, just the astrological factors category because it's too ambiguous. — Sam 13:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We need a miscellaneous category to hold all of the disparate topics that are astrology-related, and Category:Astrological factors does this perfectly...no need to change it. --Wassermann 23:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A miscellaneous category sort of defeats the purpose of a category in my opinion. "Astrological factors" doesn't make any sense. The subcategories in Category:Astrological factors would be better moved to being subcats of Category:Astrology. — Sam 04:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm becoming increasingly convinced Category:Astrological factors is a hindrance standing in the way of properly categorizing astrological articles. If anyone besides Wassermann has any thoughts regarding the matter, I would like to begin terminating its use. — Sam 03:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sam, INTP's are supposed to be great at doing things like restructuring a system to make it more effective. I say go for it.
pixiequix 12:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the categories should be as follows:

• Astrological Traditions. This would refer to all the different cultural/religious traditions - Chinese, Western, Kabbalistic etc.

• Astrological Sectors . This would refer to all the different branches or sub-divisions of astrology - natal, mundane, electional, medical etc. In other words, all the different areas that astrology is applied to. It would replace 'Astrology by Type'

• Astrological Concepts . This refers to the 'building blocks' of astrology - planets, signs, houses, aspects etc., and also include topics such as transits, progressions, rulership and so on. It would replace 'astrological factors'

There might still need to be some kind of miscellaneous category, but I think those three would cover nearly everything. Neelmack 11:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A miscellaneous category should be avoided at all costs. It's counter-productive to the purpose of categories — to organize topics in a way that classifies by a common thread so that readers can find information they don't specifically know the name of. There is no telling what is inside a misc category, so it's only a self-serving classification for the organizer, not the reader. Any topics that do not fit into any of the subcategories should simply go into Category:Astrology. — Sam 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] W. B. Yeats FAR

W. B. Yeats has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 13:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relations to constellations hierarchy

Would it be inside the scope of this WikiProject to have a focus on Category:Constellations? Also should the project take any parental interest in Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force (previously WikiProject Constellations)? __meco 10:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Certainly topics and fields bleed together. More people working together is always a plus. — Sam 03:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birth by date hierarchy

There has previously been an attempt to create a temporal hierarchy based on date of birth in addition to the existing hierarchy based on year of birth. This initiative was however strangled in its birth about a year ago. Would there be any support for a renewed initative from members of this WikiProject? On the Norwegian (nynorsk) Wikipedia such a hierarchy exists and seems to be both innocuous and well-functioning. __meco 10:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiamat (hypothetical planet)

Tiamat (hypothetical planet) has been nominated for deletion... it seems to mention something about Babylonian astrology... 132.205.44.134 02:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astrological factors/technical factors category

Per the discussion above and a conflict between User:Wassermann and I, I nominated Category:Astrological factors for deletion. After a week of discussion, the consensus was to delete. Shortly after the discussion closed, Wassermann was quick to acquire a new registered account (his original was blocked indefinitely) and begin recategorizing those topics under Astrological factors in a new category of his own creation, Category:Technical factors of astrology.

I bring this dispute up here because in creating the new category, he ignored many legitimate concerns not only of my own, but also of other active astrology editors. I am unsatisfied with the results of the category's resurrection. Others' expressed ideas were not pooled and brought together to form a plan, and in fact viewpoints outside of Wassermann's were rudely ignored by him. Technical factors of astrology was hastily put together and, like its predecessor, it remains undefined and in my opinion overly vague.

In an effort to prevent the same thing from happening again, I would like to begin a discussion in which the category and its topics are properly discussed and weighed by more than one person.

My primary concern with the category is that it is undefined. A clear definition for a category on its page is vital to keeping it from becoming too muddled with irrelevant topics. The category's premise, to house "technical factors", is ambiguous in my opinion. The original creator of Category:Astrological factors has stated the category was intended for "the factors examined in interpreting an astrological chart... the planets, the houses and signs, the aspects; and (less precisely, the categories they belong to, such as the triplicities to which the signs belong)" (quoted from my talk page). Following that logic, I recommended the category to be renamed to "horoscopic factors" to be more specific. Please feel free to comment on anything I brought up here. — Sam 19:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This does need to be discussed and planned out ahead of time, otherwise the category is just going to go right back to the chopping block. Technical factors is indeed still to vague to be useful. I even hesitate with 'horoscopic factors', although that is a bit more acceptable since it is more specific. It seems like some of these categories really need to be tradition specific, instead of attempting to lump a bunch of stuff together under one umbrella category. --Chris Brennan 00:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point; the possibilities for this category and its topics should not be limited to merely the future of the category's name, but it also should be considered that it may be more useful to split these topics into more categories of their own, etc. I think what we really need to do is create a list of topics that need recategorizing and make a mock-up of sorts to propose new categorical structures. That way, things are properly planned and discussed before they are implemented and there is less trial-and-error. — Sam 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

i think that "horoscopic factors" is more appropriate. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 12:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Category:Technical factors of astrology is probably the category needing cleanup the most, I've compiled a list of the topics and subcategories within it. We can list these entries and proposals regarding them here. Then others can collaborate, weigh, and properly discuss the future of these topics. I will begin with the subcategories:

1. Category:Astrological aspects: Remove from this category and leave it under Category:Astrological aspects for now.
2. Category:Birthdays: Remove. It may be relevant for Category:Astrology.
3. Category:Celestial mechanics: Remove altogether from any astrological category unless further need for it arises.
4. Category:Classical elements: Remove and leave only in Category:Astrological triplicities for now.
5. Category:Astrological house systems: Reserve for Category:Astrology for now.
6. Category:Minor planets: Remove altogether from any astrological category unless further need for it arises.
7. Category:Precession: Remove altogether from any astrological category unless further need for it arises.
8. Category:Astrological signs: Move to Category:Astrology.
9. Category:Trans-Neptunian objects: Remove altogether from any astrological category unless further need for it arises.
10. Category:Astrological triplicities: Move to Category:Astrology for now.

Samuel Grant 04:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's funny Sam -- directly above you wrote that Category:Astrological factors "is for all technical factors of astrology." You are creating mountains out of molehills, and you are clearly making a big deal out of something that is not even a minor issue. So, either please create a similar category to contain all of these technical factors of astrology (because they are too technical and specific to be in Category:Astrology) or let this issue rest. --Wassermann 22:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wassermann, you can either dredge up past disputes with petty, weak attacks at my comments here or you can start working creatively with other people. If you even read all of my comments above you would realize the message you are quoting came prior to my further inspection of this category and the realization it should be scrapped and reorganized. I was attempting to document categories in ways that made categorization easier for editors and at the time I had not taken a close enough look to realize this category's faults. I am not interested in fighting with you, nor am I interested in making a big deal out of anything that isn't worthy of such attention. I have started a discussion trying to work with the community here to make astrological categories better. Join it or keep your snide comments to yourself. Samuel Grant 22:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galileo Galilei FAR

Galileo Galilei has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmosophy prodded

User:Banno on July 12 2007 WP:PRODed cosmosophy. 132.205.44.5 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project talk page header

The project's talk page header now has the ability to sort by a page's quality rating, type, and importance. Information on using these functions can be found on the template's page. – Sam 17:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Astrology

I would be very gratified if the members of the project were to look at the contents of the Project's category, like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology/Articles. It is, with the repetition of categories, inclusion of subcats which are probably at best really peripherally related to the subject, and other things, a bit of a mess. Any help in sorting it out would be greatly appreciated. John Carter 21:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Astrology is indeed a mess. There are a couple of ongoing discussions here on this page regarding categories — feel free to take part in them. I'm not quite sure what Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology/Articles is for. I noticed the page after I created Category:WikiProject Astrology recently. Could you fill me out on the details? – Sam 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the "Recent changes" function which I just added to the main project page can be used to keep track of recent changes to any article included on the page. So, including the articles relevant to the project on that page will make it easier for people to keep up to any changes on the article or talk pages of the articles listed. John Carter 21:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanks for all the help! – Sam 22:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible categorization questions

• (1) I think it's more standard to include individual astronomers from the main Category:Astrologers if they are also included in the relevant subcats, like "(Country X) astrologers", as inclusion in the smaller category might also get attention from the appropriate national project as well.
• (2) Category:Ancient astronomers and Category:Medieval astronomers could probably be made subcats of Category:Astrologers by period, rather than Category:Astrologers, with no real problems.
• (3) I really wonder about including the Category:Moon myths and Category:Sun myths, as inclusion of them means we seem to deal with Werewolves and such as well. Maybe just include the relevant articles in a separate Lunar astrology or Solar astrology category?
• (4) Category:Technical factors of astrology creates a big mess, particularly considering all of its subcats and related articles. Maybe whatever category exists there could be made to contain specific articles, rather than the plethora of subcats it already contains?
• (5) Category:Creationism is currently a subcat of Category:Mythological cosmologies. I really question this.
• (6) Lastly, maybe it might be possible to remove a category from another category if the category it's included in is already a subcategory of the initial category itself? Category:Astrology is listed as a subcat of a subcat of itself at least four times right now. John Carter 14:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean having an astrologer listed not only in the specific subcat (e.g., British astrologers) but also Category:Astrologers? I was under the impression that generally this should be avoided and that topics should be categorized as specifically as possible, unless both categories are particularly relevant.

2.Agreed; this is proper sorting that hasn't yet been done.

3. I haven't a clue why those topics are in the category, either. There are pages in these categories that are relevant to astrology, like Ketu (mythology) in Category:Moon myths, but the categories themselves are not that pertinent.

4. My thoughts exactly, it's too broad and generalized. Currently we are discussing the future of the category and its topics. See #Astrological factors/technical factors category above.

5. These topics' relevancy to astrology is questionable anyway. Such a category is probably outside of the scope of this project.

6. Agreed, these loops should be avoided. – Sam 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the inexact phrasing. Yes, these individual articles should be included only in the more specific "national" categories. I do think that many of the pages in Category:Astrologers would fit comfortably in the more national categories, though. Any objections to removing them to the smaller category, if an extant one exists, and maybe in beginning to implement some of the other proposals above? I would try to indiciate the specifics of each change in the edit summary or on the talk page of the relevant article. John Carter 13:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Yes, definitely, this is a case of poor categorization in which the topics are in both the main category and the specific subcategory. We also need to create a bunch of subcategories for Category:Astrologers by period, e.g., Category:9th century astrologers. – Sam 14:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Could be done. The question there is how or whether to categorize them within the Ancient or Medieval categories, and where to draw the lines of those categories. John Carter 14:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point, where do we draw the line? I think it would be better to throw "Ancient" and "Medieval" out because it's too ambiguous and just rely on dates. Boundaries for these periods are too fuzzy to be of any real value in organization. – Sam 14:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly doable. This will probably take a while though. John Carter 14:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's give everybody a chance to discuss this matter here before any action is taken. – Sam 14:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting the "subdivision" of Category:Astrologers by nation of origin, as that pretty much is according to existing guidelines. Upon completion of that, I'll start tagging the other articles that I haven't tagged yet, add them to the articles list, and wait for further comments. John Carter 14:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles needing citations

There are several articles (Barren sign, Bestial sign, Bicorporeal sign, etc.,) that have no sources listed, and haven't for over a year. It would be nice if they were sourced or prodded. 24.4.253.249 00:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astrological associations

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Astrological associations, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serpentarius

Apparently in the past, this constellation was omitted from study. It has other names, and it should prove vital if it were to be listed among the contents of this project. With few references to base the existance of a "thirteenth zodiac", and only the proof that it is in fact a constellation in the starry heavens, plotted out by Ptolemy. At first it sounds folly, an additional zodiac? The true nature of the constellation is still widely unknown, it is beleived to be a man with two serpents...but who is this figure, and what of the snakes? As a part of history, no fact or theory should ever be omitted. First off, doing so may close the door on the future; of unraveling and making logic of loose historical jargon. I suggest that Serpentarius be provided alongside the others, but only once there is more information regarding it's significance beyond a puzzling constellation.

--Sir Tyler Cole 08:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the validity can only be completed with a label...what is the astrological sign of Serpentarius? (or should I say symbol, I can only assume to call it a "zodiac".) This might expand a little insight, and the symbol can also be studied to further explain the probable history of Serpentarius, perhaps even it's exclusion from the 12 Zodiac Signs.

--Sir Tyler Cole 08:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to Ophiuchus? Samuel Grant 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milky Way

At Talk: Milky Way there is a discussion on splitting the article in two, as to have a Milky Way Galaxy and a Milky Way (???) representing the band of light in the night sky. Currently, the majority of commentators are of an astrophysical bent, and say that there is no difference between the two (very odd, since if you look away from the band, any star you see is still part of the galaxy, but not the band). 70.55.88.135 01:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astrological signs, general discussion on removal

I have removed some text from all twelve astrological sign articles, and there is a centralized discussion on the removals at Talk:Aries_(astrology)#Trimming. I placed notes regarding the discussion on all twelve articles' talk pages. Please comment if so inclined. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 01:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Native American Astrology

Well, I'm not sure "is there any article about this topic in Wikipedia?" (I have tried to find, but found nothing about Native American Astrology.) Could you please tell me if there is not, and desire some information about Native American astrology. I'm not an expert, but I have a book about it, and I want to share this information in case of there is no article about.

Thanks you all in advance.

PS. I'm new hear and I have to admit that I will have some problems about my English language and also some computer code (or something like that???)when I have to edit the article(such as the code when I want to add some table and etc.).It would be your great kindness, if you could advise me about these matters. PS2. umm..m if I don't recieve any answer in about 2-3 days, I "will" add the information about Native American Astrology roughly in this part. So, it is up to your decision if they are OK, you can add all information in the real article. I will cite the reference. 99th NIGHT (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Astrology information ..

... doesn't belong in the astronomy pages describing the physical characteristics of stars. I suggest a removal of all pro-astrology references from the astronomy pages.

Historical information such as a star's use in navigation is fine, but placing arcane and pseudo-scientific references such as a star's 'kabbalistic symbol' alongside legitimate scientific data isn't acceptable. 68Kustom (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ext link dead?

Letting you know the external link at the foot of the page seems to be dead. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ashmole

Elias Ashmole has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

[edit] Cusps and Vedic Articles

Could some folks interested in sorting out the astrology articles keep an eye on the contribs of Halleana (talk · contribs)? There have been problems with copyvios, creation of usourced and/or redundant articles, or articles that appear to be sourced but then, when checked, the "source" doesn't source any of the text. Thanks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of statements regarding Ceres

I'd like to get more opinions on this. I think I made a valid, well sourced point, which was reverted. Thanks, Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

See also discussion on my talk page. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main Problem with the Introduction and Topic of the Astrological Ages in General

The main problem with the introduction and topic of Astrological Ages in general is that apart from the presentation of minority or extremist views on the ages and use of antiquated non-mainstream terminology (i.e. the ‘Great Month of Aquarius’ instead of the ‘Age of Aquarius’) is that the topic does not take a top down view of the ages outlining the major issues and views expressed about the ages. The section on Past Great Years is really a joke and I notice it has no reference. Unless issues are referenced to published documentation they should not be included in this topic.

The major issue of the astrological ages is that nearly every aspect of the ages is disputed by astrologers, astronomers and archeoastronomers. The only issue I have found that is not disputed is the retrograde passage of the ages in reverse of their traditional astrological order. From this point on everything is disputed. Therefore to correctly present this topic the main issues of disputes and the points of views expressed should be presented to a reasonable degree.

Very careful consideration should be given to any one claim about the ages as there is no consensus about all the disputes surrounding the ages. Therefore to promote the work or views of one astrologer above others, or to promote the views of esoteric astrologers above other less esoteric approaches is gross misrepresentation. There needs to be a balance outlining the opposing viewpoints. For example it is commonly stated that Hipparchus discovered the precession of the equinoxes and thus the ages. This is highly contentious as there is much documented reference that earlier cultures were aware of the ages and that even other Ancient Greek astronomers were aware of precession before Hipparchus.

Terrymacro (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MAJOR EDIT WRAP-UP

I have completed the first major edit of the Astrological Ages topic but more needs to be completed over time. In addition a History section and a Sub-Period section is required. Also some of the early ages from the Age of Leo onwards requires additional referenced material.

The Astrological Ages topic is subject to vandalism – there was one encounter this week. Due to the contentious nature of the topic and the very different perspectives of the stakeholders in this topic, I suggest that anyone who edits the topic without discussing the edits in advance in this Discussion area is liable to have their edits undone immediately, especially if the editing fails to provide the requisite references to publications. Website references are a dime a dozen and don’t count. Based on my experience of this editing process I propose that the following guidelines I have adopted should remain in place. The highest priority should be given to content the fulfils the first in the following list:

1. The subject matter has attained consensus in the astrological or archeoastronomy communities (i.e. the ages proceed in retrograde fashion compared to the normal order of the zodiac) 2. A majority opinion exists but where dissension exists though there is a fairly defined majority opinion on the subject (i.e. the Vernal point passing through a zodiacal constellation or associated sidereal zodiac is the established method for determining the astrological ages) 3. A minority opinions - points of view that are established but only but a minority of researchers (i.e. each astrological age coexists with its opposite sign so that the Aquarian age is actually the Aquarian-Leo age). These should be given only a passing mention in the main body of the topic. 4. Fringe ideas (new or innovative ideas not yet established (i.e. Walter Cruttenden’s hypothesis that precession of the equinoxes is not caused by the wobbling earth but by the solar system existing within a binary pair of stars where our own Sun is one of the stars). All fringe ideas should appear in the New, Alternative & Fringe Theories section provided adequate references are provided. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

I think we badly need a Astrology project barnstar. Meojive (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese astrology needs help

There's been a series of semi-questionable edits followed by whole-sale deletion to this page by several anonymous editors. I'm not knowledgeable about this subject and can only guess at what's correct. Will someone from this project please help. Thanks! --Tesscass (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)