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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism 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.
I suggest the merge because the contents of this page and the contents of Triplicity are the same, except this page is structured a little bit better. --Cubbi 17:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, they should definitely be merged. What is the best title tho? What page name is most in accordance with the naming conventions? "Triplicity" sounds best to me, even tho I wouldn't have thought of it when looking for the article. I would have searched for "[The] Classical elements in astrology", but that should be "western astrology", so "Triplicity" seems simplest. — Starylon 17:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The articles are NOT the same. This article is one of those "astrology is an artifact of the structure of the four elements" thangs. That has its place with beginning modern astrologers, but says nothing about triplicity, which is not demonstrably a function of the elements. Although the elements are not a modern concept, their use in delineation simply didn't exist before the modern era. Heretofore, they were an abstract analogy drawn between messy astrology as it was handed down and the popular Aristotlean and Stoic philosophical world-views. That doesn't mean anyone used them. I would argue that they were actually a construct imposed upon astrology to make it more scientific, in line with Ptolemy's reframing in the second century. As for considering that this article is structured better, it certainly is structured more for that point of view. I am puzzled that you see any correspondence at all. By all means criticize the "Triplicity" article for being incomplete or inaccurate or poorly written, or complain that you don't like the structure. All points taken. But to criticize its sourcing or to try to merge it into this concept would distort the aim of that article. If you want to merge the elements of it, fine. But wouldn't it be less redundant simply to hyperlink to it? NaySay 14:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added in the Chinese elements to remove a Western POV - which neatly resolves the merge/not merge issue I think. The two articles are now clearly different.Neelmack 13:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
But it says "Tree", isn't it supposed to be wood? But I don't know because I am not Chinese. --zzo38(✉) 20:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Me again. I've made triplicity the main article link for the Western astrology section. Although there are differences in approach to the Western elements, they need to be resolved somehow in the same article as the subject matter is clearly the same.Neelmack 14:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see no mention of mutable, fixed and cardinal signs. mkehrt (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Add them if it is applicable; element/mode is one way to select a sign, so is element/season (although this is not often done; perhaps because seasons are different in the other hemisphere). I would describe these mutable/fixed/cardinal as: Cardinal signs begin at an equinox or solstice, mutable signs end at an equinox or solstice, and fixed signs are those that do neither. (Another distinction sometimes made is "learn" and "share": "Learn" designate signs in the northern hemisphere and "share" designate signs in the southern hemisphere. This does not necessarily mean the objects are in those hemispheres if they do not lie on the ecliptic.) --Zzo38 (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)