| Revision as of 06:36, 3 March 2007 edit70.51.8.30 (talk) Ephemerides← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:51, 31 August 2024 edit undoZ1720 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators29,967 edits →Good article reassessment for Archaeoastronomy: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| (492 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{project}} | |||
| ==how is this different?== | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| Just curious--how is this different from regular contribution to articles? ] 01:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{WikiProject Astrology|importance=High}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Archive box|auto=yes}} | |||
| {{astrology}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| :Well, the idea is that we will be able to have a centralized location from which to coordinate the creation and improvement of articles. Most of the other subjects on wikipedia are a lot more organized and well done than the astrology articles here because they have specific groups of people who specialize in the field, and they get together to coordinate their efforts. Part of the advantage of having a project like this is just to be able to organize all of the subject matter into the correct groups and subgroups, but also to be able to standardize the terminolgy used and other things that streamline the editing process and make it much easier. So, this wont really change the way that you usually contribute to articles, but it will just be a project to give more overall structure to astrological content of wikipedia in general. Make sense? --] 03:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| ::Sounds good! ] 03:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |counter = 4 | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astrology/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |algo = old(30d) | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 4 | |||
| }} | |||
| == Ptolemy RM == | |||
| Does astrology articles need to be more co-ordinated? I mean apart from its historical reference hasn't it all been shown to be a falsehood based upon numerous scientific studies which show that by no physical mechanism could the motions of the planets and stars cause significat effects upon a human, and that people born close to each other have no statisticaly significant similarities relative to people born over invervals separated by a significant period of time? --] 22:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There is currently an on-going requested move discussion pertaining to ] at ] that might be of interest to this WikiProject. ] (]) 17:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :The validity of astrology, or lack thereof, is somewhat irrelevant within the context of Misplaced Pages. The goal of this project is mainly to present the beliefs and practices of various cultures and civilizations where there existed a specific systematic explanation of perceived or imaginary phenomena, or more specifically a system based on such an explanation that we refer to generally as astrology. What you seem to imply in your statement is that subjects which are 'wrong' or seen to be in bad taste should either not be addressed or should be left in a state of disorganization due to our culture's view of the subject. If we applied such logic to other areas of Misplaced Pages then we should also either not have, or not organize articles on World War II since the subject is somewhat distasteful, or on Aristotelian physics since it is wrong. This doesn’t make sense. So, the answer is 'yes', the astrology articles on Misplaced Pages do need to be more organized and coordinated because it is a rather large field that spans many different civilizations and time periods, and their is no reason to simply ignore that the subject exists. --] 23:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The idea that astrology "has been shown" to be a falsehood in some "scientific" way is an unfortunate misconception of what science is and is not. Science is rather good at demonstrating "what is", but very poor at proving "what isn't". The way of science is to start with a theory, seemingly prove 98.5% of it, and leave 1.5% to be figured out later. In a few years someone investigates the 1.5%, and discovers in fitting the pieces that, in fact, only 62% of the original theory is true, an additional 37% is explained by a new and different theory, and this leaves 1% unexplained, which another researcher tackles later, and another later, all to similar results. Science thus comes continually closer to "the truth", but never reaches it, and never categorically disproves anything. ] 04:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Help writing an article for TimePassages == | |||
| == Categories == | |||
| Hello, I'm Asia Seltzer, and I'd like to suggest the creation of a Misplaced Pages article for the app TimePassages. I am the app developer, and I understand the importance of neutrality and verifying notability. Based on what I've observed, TimePassages has received significant coverage in Oprah Daily (https://www.oprahdaily.com/entertainment/g36081413/best-astrology-apps/?slide=1), Cosmopolitan (https://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/g29762175/best-horoscope-apps/?slide=3), Bustle (https://www.bustle.com/life/best-astrology-apps), and many other articles. I believe it meets the notability criteria for software/apps on Misplaced Pages. However, I seek the community's insights and consensus on this matter. Could interested editors please review the available sources and consider whether TimePassages warrants a standalone article? Thank you for your time and consideration. ~Asia ] (]) 07:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Astrology}} | |||
| The Astrology category currently holds 9 subcategories and 159 pages. These will need to be re-categorized along the lines of entries in the box on the main page (also shown to the right of this text). So perhaps suggestions to expand or modify that list could be collected here. | |||
| :You ''can'' ask wikiproject talk pages like this, but the most common and probably the best way to make your new article is to make it yourself then submit it for review. the information on how to go about doing that is here:]. Good luck! ] (]) 05:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I also have a technical question: How can this box be edited? ] 10:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Help needed in expanding "List of conjunctions (astronomy)" == | |||
| :Yes, figuring out the categories and getting that into place should be top priority since actually putting all of the astrology articles into categories will be such a big job. You can edit the astrology box at the following link. I just wanted to get something up initially, but maybe we should hold some discussions on how this should be organized. We are going to be covering a lot of uncharted territory in attempting to classify some of this stuff because it has never been done before on such a large scale where all of the traditions have to be taken into consideration. Do you have thoughts on how the structure of the template should look? Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Astrology | |||
| ::A historical (or traditional) categorization is certainly one we need. Then there is natal astrology, horary, electional, mundane, medical, financial, etc. Scientific research should certainly get its own page if not category. I don't understand the ''Astrology by type'' category as it seems like a potpourri of everything astrology. One cannot have a category where one item is ''natal astrology'' and another is ''sidereal astrology''. Also, I think ''electional astrology'' is a much better understood term than ''katarchic astrology'' is; same for ''horary'' vs ''interrogational astrology''. | |||
| :::The organization by traditions may need some tweaking when it comes to 20th century astrology because of the sudden diversity of traditions that sprung up in the 20th century. At this point I just left it as "Western astrology" since that appears to be the main article on mainstream modern western astrology at this point, but I was thinking that it might be a better idea to replace that entry in the template with a large page on 20th century astrology/traditions, and then that page can discuss and link to the specific developments in the 20th century. I don’t really understand the astrology by type category either, but I just added it because I wanted to get together all of the preexisting categories on Misplaced Pages for astrology so that we could remake them. I guess that I would agree about the naming of horary and electional astrology, I just got used to using those older terms based on their common usage in academic works on astrology. I will change those right now, although both of the pages that they will link to are badly in need of work. The entire page on electional astrology is almost solely on Indian electional astrology, and while I agree that that is valuable, I think that the page should be more neutral in explaining what the subject is and its implications, and then branching off into different pages which explain its application in different traditions. It seems that there is quite a bit of work to be done here. I think that we are going to need more recruits. --] 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| What I'm thinking is that the page "]" is a bit outdated, (the latest listed year being 2020) and that the page only lists a limited amount of years, (2005-2020) and is pretty crowded. So you see, I found this that lists every conjunction from every year from 1950-2024 and is computed from NASA's DE430 planetary ephemeris so it is pretty accurate and reliable. My plan is to use that website to make a couple of pages about the "list of conjunctions", so each "list of conjunctions" page that I will make has 10 years of conjunctions in it. For example, the first page in the series will be "List of conjunctions (astronomy) from 1950-1959" and the second one will be "List of conjunctions (astronomy) from 1960-1969" ''et cetera.'' I know that this should be in the talk page for the article, but ] it's been 6 days since I posted it, and no-one has responded. Since this place has a bigger community, I hope someone will have the time to help me for this cause. ] (]) 05:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Chris is right. The subject of Astrology is so major, spanning so many centuries, that perhaps the best way is to assign sections to those who have expertise and knowledge in these areas. One of the ways, that may help is taking two titles, Judicial (classical) Astrology and Natural Astrology and working within those pairs. I agree with Chris also on the Electional Astrology being solely based on Indian electional astrology; however, historical facts should suffice there as well with branches, as Chris suggested, going into different pages that can expand on the various astrological cultural traditions. | |||
| :It's been almost 10 days. I'm done with no-one responding to this valiant clause. I will do it myself. It's going to be nigh impossible, but at least '''<big>I</big>''' have the determination and guts to even attempt it. If you disagree with anything I'll do or have done, the only person to blame is yourself. If, '''<big>If</big>''', on the other hand, you would like to help, message me on my ]. If you do, I salute you. We can do this together. ] (]) 21:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I think you probably just have an ambiguous sentence here, but I wonder if Chris thinks that electional astrology is of Hindu origin. It's probably the oldest Hellenistic astrology and clearly has origins in the Mediterranean long before Dorotheus in the First. The Hindus got astrology from the Mediterranean world originally. I don't think there's much room for doubt about that. At best, you might say there was some technical cross-pollination. And modern-day Hindu ''prasna'' is not at all the same as Western electional. ] 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{ping|Iamamodforjellymario}} My one suggestion would be to include a rigorous definition of the maximum ] for inclusion in the list. The largest I could find listed is 11°08', which is 22 times the diameter of the Sun and Moon. My impulse would be to tighten that up considerably, but I have no idea what criteria would serve. ] (]) 13:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@]: yeah, that would be a good thing to consider. when I checked the website, there was over 100 conjunctions for each year. I still am thinking about doing it, but I agree that tightening the criteria is very important in making this possible to do. the conjunctions in the ]) page are pretty random and disorganized. ] (]) 21:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: {{ping|Iamamodforjellymario}} According to ], "A Conjunction (abbreviated as "Con") is an angle of approximately (~) 0–10°. Typically, an orb of ~10° is considered to be a Conjunction." So that might work. Alternatively, a good field of view with astronomical binoculars is around 6°. ] (]) 00:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| :I don't recall saying anything about electional astrology originating in India, so I'm not exactly sure where this is coming from. I have been making the argument for a while that interrogational astrology originated in India, but that is a separate matter that I'm still researching. --] 21:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 12:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| ::Wow, Chris. I'd love to see that stuff, if you're willing to share. ] 15:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 15:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Funny, I didn't know that William Lilly, who predicted the fire of London in 1660, was practicing Hindu astrology. ] 19:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The thing is that many people, while they've heard of Astrology, mostly have a popular culture view, which isn't much, when they hear the term. So, when they turn to resouces like Misplaced Pages, the Astrology Page itself should be clear, and clean enough to lead the reader towards sections that perhaps they are looking for, or want to learn more about (this includes critical views on astrology that provide perspective, rather than seeking to debunk the subject outright based on POV, either individual, or group-based conventional. Chris' direction helps provide more neutrality which is a definite road towards getting an expansive, knowledge-building, and cleaner Astrology Page.] | |||
| == External links == | |||
| I have added a link to the 'Objective validity of astrology' article (now stored on ) at the bottom of the page in a new section entitled 'External links'. This will preserve the link even if it is removed from the ] page. Research notes and suggestions for title change from old Talk page have also been copied over to Wikinfo. ] 07:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Excellent resource Aquirata. Thanks!] | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| ] is proposing to merge ] and ] together. Previously, it appears he merged both into the ''Antichthon'' article. This would be wrong, since the Counter-Earth article is not mainly involved with the Antichthon concept of antiquity. ] 02:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ]/] == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| there is a discussion on whether the asteroid ''1181 Lilith'' has any relation at all to the astrological concept of the second moon / black moon / Lilith. From the section on the article, it seems that these two concepts are disjoint, and only share a name in common. There is an article ]. ] 00:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :There's thousands of asteroids, and one of them is called Lilith. The "Black Moon Lilith" is a 20th-c. idea about the possible effect of some nodal positions on the Moon's orbit. So, no, you're right-- they are not the same thing. There's an awful lot of asteroids and we basically know nothing about the effect of any of them, since almost all astrological literature long pre-dates their discovery and naming. Some of the larger ones (e.g., Ceres) have been promoted to planetoids by scientists, which is likely to spur even greater speculation on their possible significance in the future, but not much has been written about any of them, except a few books about Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, Juno and Chiron--which are, again, purely speculative, and generally based on a kind of free-association with their names. Any information on Lilith would be of the same nature. However, an internet search on "asteroid + Lilith" would probably net some information like this about that asteroid. I don't know if this project will soon address asteroids. For me, the topic is very peripheral, but perhaps others will disagree. ] 11:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Michael Erlewine == | |||
| Astrology software pioneer (with Matrix Software) and AllMusicGuide founder ] has material he would like to include in the article. I'm unable to determine much about his astrology software claims, and hope that someone here can help make the article compliant while being fair to Erlewine's desire for coverage of this aspect of his career. See ]. --] | ] 03:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages'a own Horoscope charts == | |||
| Some time ago there was a discussion on what Misplaced Pages's own horoscope looked like. See ] and these charts were produced . But a precise time was not available. | |||
| <br> <br> | |||
| I just came across information on the posting of the first edit held here ] which shows the first ever edit at '''21:08, 16 January 2001'''. | |||
| Perhaps the Misplaced Pages Astrology project could decide a suitable fate for this information ] 09:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ]]] | |||
| ] | |||
| <br/><br/> | |||
| :Hmm. I asked around on the #Misplaced Pages IRC channel and a user suggested I ask . ] 15:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello all! I created the Astrology Portal as requested in the "Current goals" section of the main project page. Feel free to help out! <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(] • ])</small> 03:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks great! ] 19:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've started a ]. Any suggestions would be appreciated. ] 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages Day Awards == | |||
| Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of ] proposal for an appreciation week to end on Misplaced Pages Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at ] where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. ] 18:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| When you say "editors" are you referring to people as myself with 35 years experience in astrology who have contributed to the "Astrology" and "Zodiac" articles or the censors who keep deleting my contributions though they never have studied the topics? ] 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == What is ] and ]? == | |||
| Hi. I'm involved in the ], and am trying to figure out what to do with two articles that are categorized under {{cl|Orbit of the Moon}}: ] and ]. These two stubs don't have enough information for me to figure what they are talking about, and its not clear if they are using astronomical terms (which are probably incorrect) or astrological terms. For instance | |||
| :"Anabibazon, in astronomy and astrology, is the Dragon's Head, or the northern node of the moon, where it passes the ecliptic from south to north latitude." | |||
| Technically, I think this should be called the ascending node. And if it is the "head", is it part of a constellation? I don't think that Anabibazon can be a star, though, because the orbit plane of the Moon precesses with an 18 year period, and these nodes are hence not fixed in space. Also perhaps someone knows the origin of these words. The stub says that it is both astronomical and astrological, but I have never heard anyone in "astronomy" refer to the ascending and descending nodes with these words. Thanks! ] 23:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi Lunokhod. I recognize anabibazon and catabibazon as the terms used by Hellenistic astrologers to refer to the north and south node of the Moon, respectively. I assume that it was the same in the Greek astronomical texts as well. I don't know why someone gave them their own pages though. It is definitely just referring to the ascending and descending nodes of the Moon using the ancient Greek terms though. The 'dragons head' and 'dragons tail' are just Medieval astrological epithets for the nodes as well. Seems like you should just do a redirect on those articles or something. I hope this helps. --] 06:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Horoscope for the Wikiproject == | |||
| ] Wikiproject Astrology was founded June 10, 2006 at 1:00 PM in Cumberland, MD. The image that's used on many of the project templates (to the right) is actually the horoscope drawn for this time. Thought this might be of interest. — ] 01:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Ephemerides == | |||
| Found these, some of them have been prodded. ] 06:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
Latest revision as of 15:51, 31 August 2024
 | This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate!
|
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
| Astrology |
|---|
 |
| Background |
| Traditions |
| Branches |
| Astrological signs |
| Symbols |
Ptolemy RM
There is currently an on-going requested move discussion pertaining to Ptolemy at Talk:Ptolemy#Requested move 25 May 2023 that might be of interest to this WikiProject. Walrasiad (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Help writing an article for TimePassages
Hello, I'm Asia Seltzer, and I'd like to suggest the creation of a Misplaced Pages article for the app TimePassages. I am the app developer, and I understand the importance of neutrality and verifying notability. Based on what I've observed, TimePassages has received significant coverage in Oprah Daily (https://www.oprahdaily.com/entertainment/g36081413/best-astrology-apps/?slide=1), Cosmopolitan (https://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/g29762175/best-horoscope-apps/?slide=3), Bustle (https://www.bustle.com/life/best-astrology-apps), and many other articles. I believe it meets the notability criteria for software/apps on Misplaced Pages. However, I seek the community's insights and consensus on this matter. Could interested editors please review the available sources and consider whether TimePassages warrants a standalone article? Thank you for your time and consideration. ~Asia 0Rl0N (talk) 07:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- You can ask wikiproject talk pages like this, but the most common and probably the best way to make your new article is to make it yourself then submit it for review. the information on how to go about doing that is here:Help:Your first article. Good luck! Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Help needed in expanding "List of conjunctions (astronomy)"
What I'm thinking is that the page "List of conjunctions (astronomy)" is a bit outdated, (the latest listed year being 2020) and that the page only lists a limited amount of years, (2005-2020) and is pretty crowded. So you see, I found this website that lists every conjunction from every year from 1950-2024 and is computed from NASA's DE430 planetary ephemeris so it is pretty accurate and reliable. My plan is to use that website to make a couple of pages about the "list of conjunctions", so each "list of conjunctions" page that I will make has 10 years of conjunctions in it. For example, the first page in the series will be "List of conjunctions (astronomy) from 1950-1959" and the second one will be "List of conjunctions (astronomy) from 1960-1969" et cetera. I know that this should be in the talk page for the article, but I've already done that, it's been 6 days since I posted it, and no-one has responded. Since this place has a bigger community, I hope someone will have the time to help me for this cause. Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's been almost 10 days. I'm done with no-one responding to this valiant clause. I will do it myself. It's going to be nigh impossible, but at least I have the determination and guts to even attempt it. If you disagree with anything I'll do or have done, the only person to blame is yourself. If, If, on the other hand, you would like to help, message me on my talk page. If you do, I salute you. We can do this together. Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Iamamodforjellymario: My one suggestion would be to include a rigorous definition of the maximum angular separation for inclusion in the list. The largest I could find listed is 11°08', which is 22 times the diameter of the Sun and Moon. My impulse would be to tighten that up considerably, but I have no idea what criteria would serve. Praemonitus (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Praemonitus: yeah, that would be a good thing to consider. when I checked the website, there was over 100 conjunctions for each year. I still am thinking about doing it, but I agree that tightening the criteria is very important in making this possible to do. the conjunctions in the List of conjunctions (astronomy) page are pretty random and disorganized. Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Iamamodforjellymario: According to Astrological aspect#Conjunction, "A Conjunction (abbreviated as "Con") is an angle of approximately (~) 0–10°. Typically, an orb of ~10° is considered to be a Conjunction." So that might work. Alternatively, a good field of view with astronomical binoculars is around 6°. Praemonitus (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Praemonitus: yeah, that would be a good thing to consider. when I checked the website, there was over 100 conjunctions for each year. I still am thinking about doing it, but I agree that tightening the criteria is very important in making this possible to do. the conjunctions in the List of conjunctions (astronomy) page are pretty random and disorganized. Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Iamamodforjellymario: My one suggestion would be to include a rigorous definition of the maximum angular separation for inclusion in the list. The largest I could find listed is 11°08', which is 22 times the diameter of the Sun and Moon. My impulse would be to tighten that up considerably, but I have no idea what criteria would serve. Praemonitus (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Ancient near eastern cosmology#Requested move 23 August 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ancient near eastern cosmology#Requested move 23 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Remsense ‥ 论 12:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Archaeoastronomy
Archaeoastronomy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Categories: