Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology

Request for input in discussion forum

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

_{Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011}

Correlation - a point of concern for references in astrology articles.

Correlation is regarded as the premier journal of astrological research; its remit according with the standard academic requirements "that all submissions are peer-reviewed by suitably qualified experts in the fields of astrology, physics, and statistics". A point of debate has arisen on the reliable sources noticeboard, concerning whether Correlation and similar journals can be accepted asw a 'reliable source' for papers published concerning studies into astrology.

You are invited to comment here. Or on the discussion page of the main astrology article.

Astrology Project templates proposed for merge or deletion

There has been a proposal to merge the two astrology templates - Template:Astrology and Template:Ast box. Since the argument is that Template:Ast box has a more limited use I assume this proposes the deletion of the newer Template:Ast box. Additionally it has been suggested that both could be deleted on the grounds that we have the astrology footer template which renders them both useless.

I have commented and pointed out that each template serves a specific purpose and they are best left alone. Trying to merge/delete any of them would cause many problems for Astrology project pages. Since each has a purpose I would also have thought that the proposal goes beyond the reasons by which a template can be proposed for deletion, which are only these:

1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template
3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility

If you have views on this please add them to the discussion before the decision is made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Ast_box

Proposal to merge the page on Esoteric astrology page into the main Astrology page or the entry on Alice Bailey

Discussion has been requested on this proposal - see the talk page discussion here. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning that Wikipedia recently lost a sizeable, and IMO informative, article on Mundane astrology through a similar suggestion to merge its contents into the main astrology page. Follow the hyperlink I've just given to see how this 'merge' ended up as a four sentence paragraph in the History of astrology page. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It may have been sizeable, but how much of the previous article was neutral and properly-sourced? This is supposed to be an encyclopædia, rather than the world's largest prose collection. The merge was a result of this discussion; I think we got the right outcome. bobrayner (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well WP editors are all welcome to their own opinions but I can't see myself how that can be called a "right outcome". I was personally unaware of proposal, but more worrying (since I was taking a wiki-break) is the fact that no one bothered to make the WP editors most capable of fixing the sourcing problem aware of the situation. For example, I see no notification, or invitation for input into the discussion placed here on the Wiki:Project astrology project page.

Looking over the content of the link you provided, opinions seem to be split between the options of keeping or deleting the page, or merging its content into another page. So no clear consensus was established as far as I can see. It looks to me like the decision to merge was taken as a compromise for the fact that editorial views were divided, but since so very little content was kept to offer a WP account of one of the oldest and historically important branches of astrology, effectively the page was deleted. Of course, pages can be rebuilt with renewewed commitment to better sourcing, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that most of the editors with good knowledge of the subject and its sources have become too demoralised by the "anti-fringe" paranoia (which sees any objective account of astrology as dangerous in its presumed promotion of pseudo-science) to continue with an exercise akin to pissing in the wind. Just my opinion, of course, based on what I've seen and experienced here myself. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey people. Astrology is a vast subject. It has around five distinct subdivisions (Natal, Horary, Electional, Mundane, Medical, off the top of my head) and a staggering number of subdivisions, one of which is Esoteric, which, prior to - I believe - Alan Leo, did not exist. Alice Bailey is a late-comer and an also-ran.

So, yes, you NEED an independent Esoteric Astrology page, just as you NEED an independent page on Bailey (who herself said she knew nothing about astrology), as well as independent pages on Mundane, Medical, Electional, Horary, as well as Natal.

I am myself actively campaigning to get rid of Enlightenment Science, as it is, in the end, simply a consensus based mess that has outlived its usefulness. The Encyclopedic movement is of course one of its major components. We need to restore the Greek fundamentals. Which, starting with the 12th Century Translators, had been done and was the underlying force driving the Italian Renaissance. Which was picked up by the Germans (German Renaissance) which after five centuries was wiped out in the 30 Years War, whereupon the French imposed Enlightened Ignorance, as the genuine science component of the Renaissance went straight past them. If Wiki wants to continue as a serious reference, it needs to come up to fully professional standards. This trivia of deleting this and deleting that, based on whim or phony consensus, needs to stop.

In my day job I have on more than one occasion found and restored and published books that had been lost, or were on the verge of being lost due to modern scientific prejudice. I have people asking me what do do with their libraries of precious books, what to do with their personal papers. I'm at wits ends as to what to tell them. Donate them to an institution? They'll be trashed on sight. This is serious business and I've run out of patience. Do we make it an eye for an eye? You delete us, we delete you? Dave of Maryland (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed MOS for Religion

There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Despite the best efforts of Nicholas Campion in Bristol (I think that's where he is at the moment), Astrology is in no way religious. Never has been, never will be. Astrology is its own science and requires its own rules. The problem is the failure of astrologers to seize the confidence to formulate and insist upon them. Dave of Maryland (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent and current page deletion proposals

Recent page deletions include Mundane astrology and archetypal astrology. Currently the page archetypal cosmology has been proposed for deleteion. Please comment on the discussion page if you have views to add.

It would be very helpful is anyone becaoming aware of deletion requests which affect the astrology project pages could make a notice here, as these are obviously discussions of interest to members of this project. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Just be aware that asking members you know to be sympathetic to astrology to join the wikiproject, and then posting up relevant AfD's here looks a lot like canvassing. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hardly I would have thought, since the project gets as much input from editors who are not sympathetic to astrology. Editors with all sorts of reasons to keep an eye on astrology-related content are members of this project, so all benefit from having a central place for notices and discussions relevant to the project pages.

I was hoping to try to revitalise this project a little - is there any policy you know of that prevents me letting other editors who might not know of it, and may be interested in joining, know about this?

History of astrology

I have done quite a lot of work to this article in response to the request made in July 2011 that the content be referenced and overhauled to save the page from deletion. The outdated text from the 1911 Encyclopdia Brittanica has mostly been removed and replaced with better quality content sourced from other WP pages or new content with appropriate references. I would appreciate further contributions and critical analysis from any other project members. There is still a lot of work to be done to the page and I'll aim to contribute further as I can. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Project Hindsight page proposed for deletion

There is a discussion on whether this page should be deleted. See the discussion here if you have a view on this. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

AfD Faculty_of_Astrological_Studies

Also note this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faculty_of_Astrological_Studies. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advisory_Panel_on_Astrological_Education. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Clean up

I have cleaned up the main page of this project a bit, since it was a terrible mess. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Some more AfD

Some more astrology articles I have put in AfD:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Like-engirding
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aphetic place
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horoscope pattern

A few articles I have just tagged for now, but also look like very weak keepers:

• Color of the day
• Mangal Dosha

How many more do we have of these?

What about some ongoing AfD, now that Zac has been topic banned. Do we put in a neutral worded note to let the closing admin know of his topic ban? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule, merge would be a better option than AfD. Some of the content is useful in terms of astrology. And we do have to cover the belief system of astrology carefully. It is essential reference for understanding medieval and early modern literature. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

But we cannot merge unsourced material. These terms are so obscure that it is hard to find anything about it. Many astrologers probably don't even know them. Also, doing a merge is a rather complex operation. Is there any history worth keeping in an article that never had any sources? It will be more simple to delete these articles, and if sourced material on those topics is found, then add it in an article where it belongs. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd second that. Easier to delete/redirect and then add content to the main article as and when sources are found. Sometimes cleaniup is less practical than just starting from scratch. bobrayner (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Bob. When there is zero reliably-sourced content, it's better to delete and start from scratch. Would support deletion of "Color of the day" and "Mangal Dosha" as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like ignorance and prejudice. In point of fact, over the past 20 years extensive work has been done in Hellenistic area, where tentative efforts were built upon. One of which was/is the Aphetic Place. Horoscope patterns go back to Marc Edmund Jones and were picked up by the Hubers, in Switzerland, with their very colorful charts and is in fact a major subdivision of natal astrology. Not only do working astrologers use patterns in their work, there are at least two distinct schools. That "most astrologers don't know" is not an excuse. I myself am preparing Mark Riley's translation of Vettius Valens for publication. The academics have done a fabulous job with the translation, but what they've given us is very far from being usable. It's going to take publication and then another dozen or maybe 50 years before we completely understand what Valens was up to. Is it Wiki's policy to suppress astrology?

It's better to delete now and figure it out later? Let's build on what we have. Point out the specific areas believed to need help and be patient. Help will come eventually. I myself can supply half of what you want (whatever it is), sourced and all I sit in a library of some 1500 books, some 500 from India, I publish nearly 50 astro titles, but I need the incentive. Casual talk of deletion simply makes me see red. What advantage is there to that? Dave of Maryland (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Article alerts activated

I have added "article alerts" to the main project page, which replaces the manually kept lists that are rarely ever up to date. The article alerts show any AfD, PROD, RM, RFC, MERGE,.. in articles that fall within the scope of the astrology project. The list is automatically updated every day. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astrology#Current_tasks
MakeSense64 (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

infobox for zodiac signs

The infobox we see in articles like Libra (astrology) only shows duration according to the Tropical zodiac. But, we should add the duration according to the Sidereal zodiac as well, because WP is supposed to be neutral and should not show a preference for either zodiac system.

Hello MakeSense. Your ignorance is showing. A tropical sign and a sidereal sign, as they are both 1/12th of the year, have exactly the same duration. Did you mean something else?

The TROPICAL ZODIAC is based on SOLSTICES and EQUINOXES. It shows the RELATIONSHIP between Earth and Sun. It always has. It always will. Source: Common sense.

The SIDEREAL ZODIAC is an arbitrary star-based system. Some point in the sky is picked and declared to be 0 Aries. By contrast to the Tropical, it appears to drift 1 degree every 72 years or so, but the Sidereal Zodiac is not based in star positions, but on the Earth's axial wobble, which is created by the tug-of-war between the Sun and Moon. (Basic astronomy.) Stars have their own proper motion, which Vivian Robson noted in his Fixed Stars and Constellations in Astrology, which was published back in 1923.

Hello MakeSense, it seems you are not well read in this area, and with your calls for "delete this and delete that" it would seem you are a troublemaker. Would you consider resigning? I could be induced into some role with Wiki, but I must be asked. I am David R. Roell, I run The Astrology Center of America / AstroAmerica.com, where I have a great many books at my disposal as well as a quarter-century dealing with astrology and astrologers. Dave of Maryland (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

On a related note. Anybody else who thinks it would be better to split our current Zodiac article into Zodiac and Zodiac (astrology)? The current mix of astronomy and astrology in that article makes it almost unreadable, and also goes against WP:PSCI (scientific information should not be dwarfed by psci info in an article) MakeSense64 (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd support the split for the reasons you gave. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible merge with Astrological sign as well? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Logical. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions welcome

Hi all,
I discovered what I think might be a walled garden of... problematic content on "chinese zodiac" articles. There's a handy navbox here:

For instance, we have neat tables of personal qualities - people born in the year of the Dog may become a "great designer, counselor, priest, politician, actor, judge, clerk, agent, police officer, scientist, and professor"; their motto is "Harmonize"; their colours are Lavender and Vermilion; and they are associated with countries like Latvia, Belarus, and Canada. (The wisdom of the ancients has no trouble keeping in line with modern geopolitical developments). Anyway, I removed most of it (lots of diffs like this &c) but some has been readded. All comments and complaints welcomed... bobrayner (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

We could probably clean up in astrology articles for a year, and still not see the end of the tunnel. All we can do is take it category by category and see where it takes us. The Chinese astrology articles are in bad shape and poorly sourced, but it's not easy to find good sources for it. The Vedic astrology articles are a mess as well. Where to start? MakeSense64 (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Found one good academic paper, not for the detail of the belief, but for the sociology of how it is used today, Creating New Traditions in Modern Chinese Populations: Aiming for Birth in the Year of the Dragon. Daniel M. Goodkind. Population and Development Review , Vol. 17, No. 4 (Dec., 1991), pp. 663-686. Published by: Population Council. Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1973601. Only since 1976 have people taken the zodiac into account when trying to time the birth of children. They mention "the perennially bestselling Chinese famers' almanac, of which every Taiwanese household owns at least one copy". That could be usable for details of the belief system. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good direction to go in; thanks! bobrayner (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think "Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures" is a useful source with chapters about astrology in China, astrology in India, and astrology in Islam. Here you can see it: [1]. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps a tertiary source, but good enough to allow us to make improvements. Based in what I see in that encyclopedia entry, plus reading of the two articles, I think that Chinese zodiac should be merged into Earthly Branches. The latter article should be renamed Earthly branch. The material in Earthly Branches that deals with points of the compass is separable and should possibly go into Cardinal point, but that is a rambling catch-all of an article that already has information about Chinese concepts. I'm off on break now, not back till September, so that's just a suggestion. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urania Trust. Sædon^talk 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)

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 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Little_Astrology_Prince_(2nd_nomination). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)