Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Astrology: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:19, 27 February 2015 edit70.51.200.101 (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 
(42 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Astrology project|importance=High|class=NA}} {{project}}
⚫ {{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Astrology|importance=High}}
}}
{{Archive box|auto=yes}} {{Archive box|auto=yes}}
{{astrology}} {{astrology}}
Line 8: 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 ==
== Interest in reviving this project ==

IRWolfie's Merge Proposal (see above) suggests we consider this project dead and merge it with 12 others into a new wiki project to oversee all aspects of Fringe. He says "My thought was to re-purpose skepticism into a task force specifically related to the concepts of skepticism and to notable skeptics and organisations" (but please see the full discussion to understand his comments in their proper context).

My view is that this approach is counter-productive; and it would be better to explore why a project which was once very active now feels like it is covered in dust. I don't have a great deal of experience as a wikipedia editor, or a great deal of time to commit to wikipedia generally, butcan contribute fairly regularly and will happily help however I can. I would like to work collaboratively with other members of this project, so my first effort will be to contact everyone listed as a member to see what interest exists, and encourage discussion on ''if'' and ''how'' the project can be re-stimulated.

I notice that under "Purpose and goals" on the ], the first objective is:
* Identify unmarked astrology-related stubs and expand them into full articles. See Articles in need of expansion below.

But the link to "Articles in need of expansion" is dead (goes nowhere). Maybe a good way to get a team active would be to identify a few articles that need development, or an overhaul, and create a "project of the month", so we can pool our knowledge and efforts and bring at least one astrology-related article a month to a good standard. I welcome input on this idea, any other suggestions, or any indication that other members are still active here and interested in keeping this project alive.] (]) 09:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
:Your quote of me is very odd and has no relation to what I actually proposed. Rather here is the guts of why I proposed it: "Broadly my suggestion was meant to capture all those areas generally covered by WP:FRINGE guidelines and which are in the area of scientific scepticism generally, Fringe was my suggestion as a compromise between putting people off with the word "skepticism" and also not putting off mainstream editors with names like "alternative science" (as though one can pick their science!)." ] (]) 09:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
::I'm concerned that posting on lots of editors' talkpages is ]. Don't do that. ] (]) 12:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
:::@IRWolfie. I made a quote from your post of that day; if your words have no relation to what you actually proposed then that ''is'' very odd. Best advice is always that which I gave "see the full discussion".
:::@Bobrayner. I have noted your concern. Please note that I disagree. ] (]) 18:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Tento, please note that editors are expected to leave neutrally worded messages when they notify someone and not get a head start on the argument at the user talk pages (see ] for more details). I take it from the lack of replies here that my comment about lack of interest is quite apt. ] (]) 22:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::My post was appropriate. It was not put "on lots of editor's talkpages", but specifically placed on the talk pages of every editor listed as an active member of the project, including yourself. As an member I have the right to contact other members to make them fully aware that without an indication of more interest this project is under a proposal of being merged - and to point out my own view that it would be a shame for that to happen without seeing if there are ways to regenerate interest. Neutrality requires that I put forward both views factually and without exaggeration, which I did, with the intention to generate more discussion; it does not require me to pretend that I do not want to generate discussion and involvement from other members, when patently that is the purpose of contacting them, to see if it exists. (I wonder if it is dwelling on petty points like this, and being told "don't do that" instead of being welcomed and encouraged as a new member trying to work collaboratively, which has driven other editors away?).
:::::I agree that in the absence of any responses to suggest that there are editors willing to invest time on the project's concerns, it can be fairly described as a dying project. However, I noticed that some editors only post periodically so I would suggest waiting another week before drawing that conclusion. It took years to develop this project, and I see no need to rush decisions on its future as if there is an impending deadline at the end of the week. ] (]) 09:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
::::::] thanks for the heads-up, but I don't have time for this. ], ] and others like them seem to have an unlimited amount of time to devote to excluding all views from Misplaced Pages but their own narrow dark and suspicious beliefs. Misplaced Pages is getting a bad reputation and it will only get worse as I expect you can tell from the current proposals. Maybe when Misplaced Pages becomes so bad, it will either crumble into pieces like a corrupt empire or, if it is valued enough by the public, it will incur a massive backlash of renewed openness and rich diversity of views. ] (]) 00:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I'd be curious to hear what my "dark and suspicious beliefs" are since I don't think I have ever outlined my own beliefs. As an astrologer, I think you will always find aspects of wikipedia undesirable because the most reliable sources do not accept astrology but actively refute it. When someone is writing a neutral summary of astrology that fact must be acknowledged. In the current ] article I think there is a fair balance between, say the practices, history, cultural impact of astrology, and its current reception amongst scientists and in theology, ] (]) 09:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::<small>If you haven't outlined your beliefs they are dark and suspicious by definition, IR! ] (]) 10:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC) </small>
*Looking at the discussion linked in the previous section, I must admit that I don't see the point in congregating a bunch of dead Wikiprojects (like putting a bunch of corpses in a hole, covering it, and hoping for some kind of reanimation! Quick! cast a spell!) I'm not going to suddenly have an interest in Homeopathy; I expect the same of someone from the other projects. This does not seem beneficial for ''any'' active / inactive person from a specific Wikiproject. My guess is that they will all remain just as dead (I guess one grave to maintain is better for the groundskeeper)
:I really don't care what those active want to call it, be it "Wikiproject" or "Task Force." Rather, I can't see any detriment or benefit, leave it as-is or change it. Don't know why anyone is even bothering... - <small>] (])</small> 01:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

==Infobox Lunar eclipse==
{{tl|Infobox Lunar eclipse}} has been nominated for deletion -- ] (]) 12:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

==Infobox Solar eclipse2==
{{tl|Infobox Solar eclipse2}} has been nominated for deletion -- ] (]) 13:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
: I would agree with the deletion, but can't find the link for the discussion. ] (]) 10:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
::The discussion ended about 4 days ago: ], ] (]) 10:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
::: Ah. OK, well thanks anyway. ] (]) 11:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
==Malefic planet==
Any gurus on malefic planets willing to help out at that article? I'm having time finding good sources and the existing sources are startlingly bad! Thanks! ] (]) 02:00, 27 July 2014 (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)
== Comment on the WikiProject X proposal ==


== Help writing an article for TimePassages ==
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 -->


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)
⚫ == WikiProject X is live! ==


: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)
]


== Help needed in expanding "List of conjunctions (astronomy)" ==
Hello everyone!


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)
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!


: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)
'''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.
:: {{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 ] ==
] (]) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (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">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Harej@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Harej/WikiProjects&oldid=642466477 -->


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
==Category:Stars with proper names==
] 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)
] has been nominated for deletion, as these stars appear in various cultures astrologies, you may be interested -- ] (]) 07:19, 27 February 2015 (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:
WikiProject iconAstrology
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4


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)

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: