Talk:Aquarius (astrology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astrology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Concerning sources only from certain published astrologers and for Non-neutral point of view attitude in the traits area[edit]

1) Many areas of this article do not represent a worldwide point of view, do not forget that astrologers may differ in their interpretation.

There are some legitimate sources from some Western-type astrologers like Goodman for example but these astrologers do not represent all the Worldwide astrological community. It would be better if there were additions from even more legititate astrologers from all over the world and not only from certain known Western ones

2) In the traits area there is clearly a tendency for Non-Npov attitude were mainly positive traits have added in a exaggerating manner and almost no negative traits at all. Aquarius have negative traits too but it seems the editor that added the latest traits had picked only positive traits and exaggerated too much about them and avoided adding most of the negative ones for his personal reasons...
--SotosfromGreece (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


Notable persons[edit]

In case you're wondering what's happened to the Notable persons section, it has been deleted in favor of the page Category:Subjects of the Sign of Aquarius. If you want to add a notable person go there. --Carmelita 21:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

End Date?[edit]

I always knew the end date to be February 18th, not 19th...was there a change?--Tainted Drifter 10:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the date to the 19th to reflect a change which had already been made to the Pisces page. Rlloyd3 19:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (UTC)
its 18th, the leap year some people believe its 19th, but in the Gregorian calender it was originally 18th. Leap years were made up.--69.255.16.162 23:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Charateristics and related sections, removal[edit]

Notice Relevant discussion of inclusion or removal of Charactistics, Compatibility, Sexuality, Exaltation and related sections is taking place on Talk:Aries_(astrology)#Trimming. Since this an issue which relates to all the astrological sign articles, please direct relevant comments there.

Can someone tell me why in some charts Aquarius is shown to begin on January 19th? Or on others it starts on January 20th? Or still on others, it is January 21st? In other words, what is the PRECISE date when the Aquarius sign begins and ends? If someone knows the answer, I'd appreciate it. THX.

The characteristics part is rediculous, it lists "tolerant" multiple times and it also lists opposites, for example "detached" and "individualistic", then "freind-oriented". Those can't really go hand in hand. Not to mention its so broad virtually anybody can relate to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.100.30 (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup they have "unemotional / cold / uncaring" along with "genial / friendly / sociable" go figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.45.112 (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a natural consequence of astrology being pseudoscience and even fraudulent. By assigning a huge list of characteristics to each star sign there is a good chance that a client will find some that apply. Of course many of these characteristics apply to everyone so what's the point? I don't know how Wikipedia should handle this. Perhaps removing the section altogether might be the way to go as there is no proof that any of these characteristics actually apply specifically to each star sign. Perhaps strengthening the section lead to state that the reason that scientists state that it's pseudoscience is because of actual statistical evidence that indicates that it's all bunk and then linking to that evidence. Or perhaps the we can let the list speak for itself, organising it into subsections such as "characteristics that apply to 99% of the population, characteristics that are the opposite of one another, characteristics that by their nature cannot be proved either way and so on. Personally I favor the first option and simply remove the whole section as hopelessly POV by nature which can never be made NPOV. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's why I removed the physical traits sections from all 12 articles, and I don't think the remaining traits/compatibilities etc. sections would be missed either - the article could end after the "mythology" section without anything really unencyclopedic being lost. Black Kite 07:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I'm not clear what these articles should contain. If there is no discussion of the traits most commonly associated with the sign, then why have an article at all? Not having the trait section would be like ignoring the elephant in the room. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You think the correspondences should be kept, then? It's the same deal, if not worse. There are many sources that would give different correspondences to each sign. As for the mythology section, there is already a parallel mythology section in the constellation's article, so by that standard there would be no need for it either. Finally we'll just be left with a stub that ignores the crux of the discussion about the article's subject. I think that the articles should at least give a summary of the most commonly associated traits by leading representatives in the field. Then the reader can make his own mind. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK what about this: If a trait is commonly agreed upon then multiple sources will all say the same thing yes? So what if we only keep traits that have at least three quality sources and ditch the rest. Would that be workable do you think? Theresa Knott | token threats 21:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that should be more workable here. Question is, what exactly do we consider quality sources? Is Elore.com a quality source? I think we should take claims by the more widely recognized astrologers and not just any random internet website or "Joe the Astrologer". --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess Correspondense is bad but not worse than the traits. -Someone963852 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

definately not a website. An astrolgoer who has written a daily horiscope for more than one newspaper, or one national newspaper. Or an ancient astrologer whose writings survive. Any others? Theresa Knott | token threats 14:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not newspaper or books because anyone would lie and say that it was in there. That's my thought though. Someone963852 (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the copyrighted professional material is not available through the internet. It should be ok if the book is popular - most likely that someone on the astrology wikiproject will have it and be able to validate any claims upon request. As for sources, I have recently replaced some of the funky sources with material from astrologers that have an article on Wikipedia (Linda Goodman, Liz Greene). I figured that if they have had an article dedicated to them, most likely they would be notable enough for their claims to be taken into consideration here. I think that sources by such big-shot astrologers (also Robert Hand should be a good addition) will be ideal in these articles, don't you think? --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

inappropriate or misinterpreted citations[edit]

This article or section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Please bullet list them, if so. Thanks J. D. Redding 07:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable people who share this sign section[edit]

Notice Relevant discussion of inclusion or removal of notable people who share this sign is taking place on Talk:Gemini_(astrology)#Notable people who share this sign section. Since this an issue which relates to all the astrological sign articles, please direct relevant comments there.

The Hindu equivalent of Aquarius is Kumbha[edit]

I think that it is an obvious fact and really does not need citations... Vishvax (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of Astrology-online.com[edit]

Notice Relevant discussion of the reliability of Astrology-online.com is taking place on Talk:Scorpio (astrology)#Reliability of Astrology-online.com. Since this an issue which relates to all the astrological sign articles, please direct relevant comments there.

AS A AQUARIUS WHY THE PROBLEM WITH NOTABLE PERSONS BORN UNDER THIS SIGN?[edit]

AS AN AQUARIUS (Jan 29,1945 Glendale Calf.) Wondering why the NOTABLE PEOPLE born under this sign has been removed? GASP! Maybe All Wikipedia Editors are Scorpios or Aries or such. Well, believe that Aquarius has MORE scientists and inventors then other signs at least! Thanks! decdamwed48921stcent EdsonAndre' J.) Andreisme (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur -ontological shock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.191.18 (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

zodiac[edit]

cool!!!!! 86.132.122.128 (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Compatibilities[edit]

Why are all of the same element considered compatible? Where is the logic there? Slowish guitar (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Birds of a feather flock together"? But truly that's the typical response. Those of the same "element" have similar likes, dislikes, temperant, perosnality types. However, some astrologers believe that being with someone of the same "element" can be tedious and boring, kind of like living with another you.--Y.ruvalcaba (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

25?[edit]

Why are we being referred to 25 ? Co149 (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Aquarius (astrology)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Aquarius (astrology)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "WattersT":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 00:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirection of Western Zodiac signs[edit]

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 Wikipedia policies may wish to move this discussion to a better location. LukeSurl t c 15:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)