This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.51.200.101 (talk) at 06:02, 3 March 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:02, 3 March 2015 by 70.51.200.101 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Astrology NA‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| Astrology |
|---|
 |
| Background |
| Traditions |
| Branches |
| Astrological signs |
| Symbols |
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 project page, 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.Tento2 (talk) 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!)." IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that posting this message on lots of editors' talkpages is canvassing. Don't do that. bobrayner (talk) 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. Tento2 (talk) 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 WP:CANVASS for more details). I take it from the lack of replies here that my comment about lack of interest is quite apt. IRWolfie- (talk) 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. Tento2 (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Tento2 thanks for the heads-up, but I don't have time for this. IRWolfie-, bobrayner 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. Ken McRitchie (talk) 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 astrology 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, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you haven't outlined your beliefs they are dark and suspicious by definition, IR! Itsmejudith (talk) 10:30, 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 astrology 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, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Tento2 thanks for the heads-up, but I don't have time for this. IRWolfie-, bobrayner 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. Ken McRitchie (talk) 00:01, 19 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 WP:CANVASS for more details). I take it from the lack of replies here that my comment about lack of interest is quite apt. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that posting this message on lots of editors' talkpages is canvassing. Don't do that. bobrayner (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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... - s t a r c a r (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Infobox Lunar eclipse
{{Infobox Lunar eclipse}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Infobox Solar eclipse2
{{Infobox Solar eclipse2}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would agree with the deletion, but can't find the link for the discussion. Tento2 (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion ended about 4 days ago: Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_1#Template:Infobox_Solar_eclipse2, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ah. OK, well thanks anyway. Tento2 (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion ended about 4 days ago: Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_1#Template:Infobox_Solar_eclipse2, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:36, 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! Alicb (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
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 review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
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 WikiProject X 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, check us out! 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Category:Stars with proper names
Category:Stars with proper names has been nominated for deletion, as these stars appear in various cultures astrologies, you may be interested -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
"Stargazer"
The naming, usage and primary topic of Stargazer is under discussion, see talk:Stargazer (disambiguation) -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Categories: