Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astrology (Rated NA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The "New Millennium Astrological Chart" Graphic[edit]

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)
Interesting. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Fu Lu Shou statue images up for deletion[edit]

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

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

Merge proposal[edit]

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[edit]

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 wikipedia editor, or a great deal of time to commit to wikipedia 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 Wikipedia but their own narrow dark and suspicious beliefs. Wikipedia is getting a bad reputation and it will only get worse as I expect you can tell from the current proposals. Maybe when Wikipedia 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)
I'd be curious to hear what my "dark and suspicious beliefs" are since I don't think I have ever outlined my own beliefs. As an astrologer, I think you will always find aspects of wikipedia undesirable because the most reliable sources do not accept astrology but actively refute it. When someone is writing a neutral summary of astrology that fact must be acknowledged. In the current astrology article I think there is a fair balance between, say the practices, history, cultural impact of astrology, and its current reception amongst scientists and in theology, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
If you haven't outlined your beliefs they are dark and suspicious by definition, IR! Itsmejudith (talk) 10:30, 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[edit]

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)

Infobox Lunar eclipse[edit]

{{Infobox Lunar eclipse}} has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Solar eclipse2[edit]

{{Infobox Solar eclipse2}} has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with the deletion, but can't find the link for the discussion. Tento2 (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion ended about 4 days ago: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_1#Template:Infobox_Solar_eclipse2, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah. OK, well thanks anyway. Tento2 (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Malefic planet[edit]

Any gurus on malefic planets willing to help out at that article? I'm having time finding good sources and the existing sources are startlingly bad! Thanks! Alicb (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)