| Revision as of 13:19, 8 March 2017 edit70.51.200.162 (talk)No edit summary← 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 | ||
| (31 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{project}} | {{project}} | ||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell| | ||
| {{WikiProject Astrology|importance=High}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Archive box|auto=yes}} | {{Archive box|auto=yes}} | ||
| {{astrology}} | {{astrology}} | ||
| Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astrology/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astrology/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |algo = old(30d) | |algo = old(30d) | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 4 | |minthreadstoarchive = 4 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Ptolemy RM == | |||
| == Comment on the WikiProject X proposal == | |||
| Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Misplaced Pages struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please ''']''' and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my ]. Thank you for your time! <small>(Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.)</small> ] (]) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Harej@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Harej/WikiProjects&oldid=627879829 --> | |||
| == WikiProject X is live! == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello everyone! | |||
| You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that ''']''' is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, ]! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! | |||
| '''Note:''' To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to ]. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X. | |||
| ] (]) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Harej@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Harej/WikiProjects&oldid=642466477 --> | |||
| ==Category:Stars with proper names== | |||
| ] has been nominated for deletion, as these stars appear in various cultures astrologies, you may be interested -- ] (]) 07:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| =="Stargazer"== | |||
| The naming, usage and primary topic of ] is under discussion, see ] -- ] (]) 06:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Corrections to dates, date and citation format in sign articles== | |||
| I have created a ] which encapulates values for the dates the Sun enters and exits the various signs; the data is taken from the U.S. Naval Observatory's ''Multiyear Interactive Computer Almanac'' and covers 2015 through most | |||
| of 2050. The ] produces some erroneous results, so I hope to implement the change this week. | |||
| Eight of the twelve articles about astrological signs use the format of the month going first (like March 23), one uses the day first (like 23 March), and the rest are mixed. I have written the module to put the month first; if this is agreeable, I would change the date format in the four articles that aren't already using it. | |||
| The ] would also be altered to provide a citation for the new information. Seven of the twelve articles use the style known as ], one seems to use the '']'', and the rest are inconsistent or use bare urls. Except, that is, for ], which uses a combination of {{tl|Citation}} and {{tl|sfn}}, and has an extensive list of sources. | |||
| I would suggest moving the articles, other than "Pisces (astrology)" to the {{tl|Citation}} template, which is very nearly the same as Citation Style 1. The main difference is that the different elements in the citation are separated with commas rather than periods, which is what most publications outside Misplaced Pages do when they use end notes. (All the articles use end notes.) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Help writing an article for TimePassages == | |||
| :Considering the lack of suggestions about ] and not wishing to upset the fine set of references at Pisces, I think the best solution is to have the infobox produce a short footnote and create a reference list, including one for the MICA software, at each article that transcludes the infobox. ] (]) 14:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::This change is complete. ] (]) 21:24, 5 April 2016 (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:]. Good luck! ] (]) 05:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| =="Mercury"== | |||
| The usage and primary topic of "]" is under discussion, see ] -- ] (]) 05:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Help needed in expanding "List of conjunctions (astronomy)" == | |||
| == Academic mathematics vs. astrology in ] == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Please have a look to ]. Apparently whenever astrologic symbolism encounters over basic logics also mathematical logics there is a danger that some tunnel view mathematicians who want to robotize everything distantly mathematical try to overrun it. So is here a more serious view to it possible? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :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) | |||
| == GAR for Tycho Brahe == | |||
| :: {{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 ] == | |||
| ⚫ | ] |
||
| ] 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 ] == | |||
| == The large moons of Jupiter and Saturn == | |||
| ⚫ | ] 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) | ||
| I know that there've been castings based on the 4 large Jupiter moons and 5 large Saturn moons in astrology in the 1600s and 1700s. Does anyone have the astrological/astronomical symbols for these celestial bodies? | |||
| -- ] (]) 13:19, 8 March 2017 (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: