This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aquirata (talk | contribs) at 14:27, 14 June 2006 (→Categories: thoughts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:27, 14 June 2006 by Aquirata (talk | contribs) (→Categories: thoughts)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Just curious--how is this different from regular contribution to articles? Doovinator 01:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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? --Chris Brennan 03:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good! Doovinator 03:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
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 I mean apart from its historical reference hasn't it all been shown to be a falsehood based upon numerous scientific studies which show that by no physical mechanism could the motions of the planets and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? --Neo 22:44, 11 June 2006 (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. --Chris Brennan 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. Doovinator 04:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Categories
| Astrology |
|---|
 |
| Background |
| Traditions |
| Branches |
| Astrological signs |
| Symbols |
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.
I also have a technical question: How can this box be edited? Aquirata 10:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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.