Talk:Astrological aspect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astrology (Rated C-class)
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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Am trying to get some of the stuff about the less commonly used aspects backed up with references. Hope they're okay.Methychroma (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


I am currently in the process of merging all the rather poor subarticles which aren't even mentioned here into this article. The quality is low but I'll work on that after gettng the text in. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Astrological aspect (Hindu Astrology) proposed merge[edit]

This recently created page seems like it belongs on this article. It does have substantive content, but perhaps could be shortened a little for the sake of brevity. Is there a consensus for this merge? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You may as well fire ahead, astrology pages don't tend to be very active (so it's sometimes good to ask at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astrology), but a lot of unnecessary forks exist. I've been trying to merge/redirect many of the related but unnecessary stubs etc into this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh...I just noticed there was Hindu Astrology as well. There is a link to the proposed page from there as well. Maybe that might be better? In any case, it doesn't seem to stand up on its own that well. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
This has already been discussed on user page and in AfC. The Hindu astrology article has a separate article for the major sections. This was one of the few missing major sections. Apples and oranges do not belong together. Every thing is consistent, everything is in order. -- :- ) Don 17:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Major aspects completely gone?[edit]

I realize that the previous entries for the major aspects (trine, opposition, etc.) were considered unsourced, but was completely deleting the section and all references to those aspects really the best thing to do? This page now just contains information about the minor aspects; there is zero information about the major ones, not even a mention of what they are. - Motsa (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I switched it around, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Things like quincunx & hard and soft aspects etc just redirect to this article, and with no mention. Is someone out to screw with Astrology articles yet again? Manytexts (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This was my go-to source for astrological aspect symbols but they're all gone now! I was looking for the symbols of Novile, Binovile, Sesquiquadrate, stuff like that. I don't see them anywhere. Where did they go? (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant. The page for Quincunx includes information on every kind of quincunx except the astrological one. For that, you are directed here. But this page does not even mention the quincunx. All the See Also links come back here too. Astrology is back in the intellectual ghetto I see. BeeTea (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the "merge" for Grand cross, as nothing was actually merged and there was no discussion whatsoever for what was, in actuality, a covert deletion. (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Where's the Quincunx astrological reference? Who deleted it, and why? What's wrong with you people? Seriously, what the f**ck? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Add the minor aspects section back in?[edit]

Who removed it? They're aspects too. Not major, but they still deserve to be on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

BS subject requires editorial excellence[edit]

This article is an article about a pseudoscience subject and should follow all relevant guidelines of such, i.e. WP:PSCI, Wikipedia:Fringe theories etc. if its content is to remain on Wikipedia. All statements not citing reliable sources in particular is liable to be removed completely.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)