Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

What is Anabibazon and Catabibazon?

Hi. I'm involved in the WikiProject Moon, and am trying to figure out what to do with two articles that are categorized under Category:Orbit of the Moon: Anabibazon and Catabibazon. 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! Lunokhod 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. --Chris Brennan 06:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Horoscope for the Wikiproject

Wikiproject Astrology was founded June 10, 2006 at 1:00 PM in Cumberland, Maryland, USA (78w46, 39n39). 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. — Sam 01:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this wikiproject inactive or is it still active? I have considered joining this wikiproject, but I feel that it is inactive. Let me know if I'm wrong. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ephemerides

Found these, some of them have been prodded. 70.51.8.30 06:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A whole lot of asteroids appear to have these ephemerides sections attached to them. See asteroids starting at #10, and continuing on and on and on. 132.205.44.134 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Eris

Does planet Eris have an astrological symbol? 70.55.88.134 05:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The latest issue of Mountain Astrologer magazine has 2 articles on the big & distant planet Eris (formerly called Xena). Don't forget: thanks to "attraction" of "hyperdimensional space," just because Eris is way beyond Pluto doesn't make it inconsequential. Its orbital velocity makes it pertinent. (The issue of speed was underrated in that postumous concept once known as "gravity.") - Andrew Homer 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Eris does have an officially unofficial symbol, which I think is quite lovely:


The concept behind the symbology of Eris is two arrows meeting at a single point.
The above image was created by Denis Moskowitz.
pixiequix 12:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Category descriptions

In an effort to avoid ambiguity in the astrology categories, I'd like to begin a discussion on documenting all existing categories. A few descriptions I've written up that I'd like to get reviewed for utmost clarity:

I'm beginning to change my mind about "Astrological factors". The idea is far too broad I think. I would be interested in hearing others' thoughts. — Sam 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Tell the folk @ Project Hindsight about Astrology being too broad. They would have a hearty chuckle. They're translating ancient astrological texts from Greek, Latin, & Arabic. The astrology of yore was more complicated than today's. - Andrew Homer 09:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not saying astrology is too broad, just the astrological factors category because it's too ambiguous. — Sam 13:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We need a miscellaneous category to hold all of the disparate topics that are astrology-related, and Category:Astrological factors does this perfectly...no need to change it. --Wassermann 23:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A miscellaneous category sort of defeats the purpose of a category in my opinion. "Astrological factors" doesn't make any sense. The subcategories in Category:Astrological factors would be better moved to being subcats of Category:Astrology. — Sam 04:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm becoming increasingly convinced Category:Astrological factors is a hindrance standing in the way of properly categorizing astrological articles. If anyone besides Wassermann has any thoughts regarding the matter, I would like to begin terminating its use. — Sam 03:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Sam, INTP's are supposed to be great at doing things like restructuring a system to make it more effective. I say go for it.
pixiequix 12:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


I suggest the categories should be as follows:

  • Astrological Traditions. This would refer to all the different cultural/religious traditions - Chinese, Western, Kabbalistic etc.


  • Astrological Sectors . This would refer to all the different branches or sub-divisions of astrology - natal, mundane, electional, medical etc. In other words, all the different areas that astrology is applied to. It would replace 'Astrology by Type'


  • Astrological Concepts . This refers to the 'building blocks' of astrology - planets, signs, houses, aspects etc., and also include topics such as transits, progressions, rulership and so on. It would replace 'astrological factors'

There might still need to be some kind of miscellaneous category, but I think those three would cover nearly everything. Neelmack 11:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A miscellaneous category should be avoided at all costs. It's counter-productive to the purpose of categories — to organize topics in a way that classifies by a common thread so that readers can find information they don't specifically know the name of. There is no telling what is inside a misc category, so it's only a self-serving classification for the organizer, not the reader. Any topics that do not fit into any of the subcategories should simply go into Category:Astrology. — Sam 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

W. B. Yeats FAR

W. B. Yeats has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 13:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Relations to constellations hierarchy

Would it be inside the scope of this WikiProject to have a focus on Category:Constellations? Also should the project take any parental interest in Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force (previously WikiProject Constellations)? __meco 10:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Certainly topics and fields bleed together. More people working together is always a plus. — Sam 03:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Birth by date hierarchy

There has previously been an attempt to create a temporal hierarchy based on date of birth in addition to the existing hierarchy based on year of birth. This initiative was however strangled in its birth about a year ago. Would there be any support for a renewed initative from members of this WikiProject? On the Norwegian (nynorsk) Wikipedia such a hierarchy exists and seems to be both innocuous and well-functioning. __meco 10:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamat (hypothetical planet)

Tiamat (hypothetical planet) has been nominated for deletion... it seems to mention something about Babylonian astrology... 132.205.44.134 02:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Astrological factors/technical factors category

Per the discussion above and a conflict between User:Wassermann and I, I nominated Category:Astrological factors for deletion. After a week of discussion, the consensus was to delete. Shortly after the discussion closed, Wassermann was quick to acquire a new registered account (his original was blocked indefinitely) and begin recategorizing those topics under Astrological factors in a new category of his own creation, Category:Technical factors of astrology.

I bring this dispute up here because in creating the new category, he ignored many legitimate concerns not only of my own, but also of other active astrology editors. I am unsatisfied with the results of the category's resurrection. Others' expressed ideas were not pooled and brought together to form a plan, and in fact viewpoints outside of Wassermann's were rudely ignored by him. Technical factors of astrology was hastily put together and, like its predecessor, it remains undefined and in my opinion overly vague.

In an effort to prevent the same thing from happening again, I would like to begin a discussion in which the category and its topics are properly discussed and weighed by more than one person.

My primary concern with the category is that it is undefined. A clear definition for a category on its page is vital to keeping it from becoming too muddled with irrelevant topics. The category's premise, to house "technical factors", is ambiguous in my opinion. The original creator of Category:Astrological factors has stated the category was intended for "the factors examined in interpreting an astrological chart... the planets, the houses and signs, the aspects; and (less precisely, the categories they belong to, such as the triplicities to which the signs belong)" (quoted from my talk page). Following that logic, I recommended the category to be renamed to "horoscopic factors" to be more specific. Please feel free to comment on anything I brought up here. — Sam 19:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This does need to be discussed and planned out ahead of time, otherwise the category is just going to go right back to the chopping block. Technical factors is indeed still to vague to be useful. I even hesitate with 'horoscopic factors', although that is a bit more acceptable since it is more specific. It seems like some of these categories really need to be tradition specific, instead of attempting to lump a bunch of stuff together under one umbrella category. --Chris Brennan 00:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point; the possibilities for this category and its topics should not be limited to merely the future of the category's name, but it also should be considered that it may be more useful to split these topics into more categories of their own, etc. I think what we really need to do is create a list of topics that need recategorizing and make a mock-up of sorts to propose new categorical structures. That way, things are properly planned and discussed before they are implemented and there is less trial-and-error. — Sam 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
i think that "horoscopic factors" is more appropriate. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 12:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Category:Technical factors of astrology is probably the category needing cleanup the most, I've compiled a list of the topics and subcategories within it. We can list these entries and proposals regarding them here. Then others can collaborate, weigh, and properly discuss the future of these topics. I will begin with the subcategories:

  1. Category:Astrological aspects: Remove from this category and leave it under Category:Astrological aspects for now.
  2. Category:Birthdays: Remove. It may be relevant for Category:Astrology.
  3. Category:Celestial mechanics: Remove altogether from any astrological category unless further need for it arises.
  4. Category:Classical elements: Remove and leave only in Category:Astrological triplicities for now.
  5. Category:Astrological house systems: Reserve for Category:Astrology for now.
  6. Category:Minor planets: Remove altogether from any astrological category unless further need for it arises.
  7. Category:Precession: Remove altogether from any astrological category unless further need for it arises.
  8. Category:Astrological signs: Move to Category:Astrology.
  9. Category:Trans-Neptunian objects: Remove altogether from any astrological category unless further need for it arises.
  10. Category:Astrological triplicities: Move to Category:Astrology for now.

Samuel Grant 04:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's funny Sam -- directly above you wrote that Category:Astrological factors "is for all technical factors of astrology." You are creating mountains out of molehills, and you are clearly making a big deal out of something that is not even a minor issue. So, either please create a similar category to contain all of these technical factors of astrology (because they are too technical and specific to be in Category:Astrology) or let this issue rest. --Wassermann 22:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Wassermann, you can either dredge up past disputes with petty, weak attacks at my comments here or you can start working creatively with other people. If you even read all of my comments above you would realize the message you are quoting came prior to my further inspection of this category and the realization it should be scrapped and reorganized. I was attempting to document categories in ways that made categorization easier for editors and at the time I had not taken a close enough look to realize this category's faults. I am not interested in fighting with you, nor am I interested in making a big deal out of anything that isn't worthy of such attention. I have started a discussion trying to work with the community here to make astrological categories better. Join it or keep your snide comments to yourself. Samuel Grant 22:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Galileo Galilei FAR

Galileo Galilei has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cosmosophy prodded

User:Banno on July 12 2007 WP:PRODed cosmosophy. 132.205.44.5 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Project talk page header

The project's talk page header now has the ability to sort by a page's quality rating, type, and importance. Information on using these functions can be found on the template's page. – Sam 17:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Astrology

I would be very gratified if the members of the project were to look at the contents of the Project's category, like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology/Articles. It is, with the repetition of categories, inclusion of subcats which are probably at best really peripherally related to the subject, and other things, a bit of a mess. Any help in sorting it out would be greatly appreciated. John Carter 21:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Astrology is indeed a mess. There are a couple of ongoing discussions here on this page regarding categories — feel free to take part in them. I'm not quite sure what Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology/Articles is for. I noticed the page after I created Category:WikiProject Astrology recently. Could you fill me out on the details? – Sam 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Basically, the "Recent changes" function which I just added to the main project page can be used to keep track of recent changes to any article included on the page. So, including the articles relevant to the project on that page will make it easier for people to keep up to any changes on the article or talk pages of the articles listed. John Carter 21:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Thanks for all the help! – Sam 22:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible categorization questions

1. I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean having an astrologer listed not only in the specific subcat (e.g., British astrologers) but also Category:Astrologers? I was under the impression that generally this should be avoided and that topics should be categorized as specifically as possible, unless both categories are particularly relevant.
2.Agreed; this is proper sorting that hasn't yet been done.
3. I haven't a clue why those topics are in the category, either. There are pages in these categories that are relevant to astrology, like Ketu (mythology) in Category:Moon myths, but the categories themselves are not that pertinent.
4. My thoughts exactly, it's too broad and generalized. Currently we are discussing the future of the category and its topics. See #Astrological factors/technical factors category above.
5. These topics' relevancy to astrology is questionable anyway. Such a category is probably outside of the scope of this project.
6. Agreed, these loops should be avoided. – Sam 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the inexact phrasing. Yes, these individual articles should be included only in the more specific "national" categories. I do think that many of the pages in Category:Astrologers would fit comfortably in the more national categories, though. Any objections to removing them to the smaller category, if an extant one exists, and maybe in beginning to implement some of the other proposals above? I would try to indiciate the specifics of each change in the edit summary or on the talk page of the relevant article. John Carter 13:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Yes, definitely, this is a case of poor categorization in which the topics are in both the main category and the specific subcategory. We also need to create a bunch of subcategories for Category:Astrologers by period, e.g., Category:9th century astrologers. – Sam 14:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Could be done. The question there is how or whether to categorize them within the Ancient or Medieval categories, and where to draw the lines of those categories. John Carter 14:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point, where do we draw the line? I think it would be better to throw "Ancient" and "Medieval" out because it's too ambiguous and just rely on dates. Boundaries for these periods are too fuzzy to be of any real value in organization. – Sam 14:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Certainly doable. This will probably take a while though. John Carter 14:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's give everybody a chance to discuss this matter here before any action is taken. – Sam 14:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting the "subdivision" of Category:Astrologers by nation of origin, as that pretty much is according to existing guidelines. Upon completion of that, I'll start tagging the other articles that I haven't tagged yet, add them to the articles list, and wait for further comments. John Carter 14:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles needing citations

There are several articles (Barren sign, Bestial sign, Bicorporeal sign, etc.,) that have no sources listed, and haven't for over a year. It would be nice if they were sourced or prodded. 24.4.253.249 00:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Astrological associations

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Astrological associations, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Serpentarius

Apparently in the past, this constellation was omitted from study. It has other names, and it should prove vital if it were to be listed among the contents of this project. With few references to base the existance of a "thirteenth zodiac", and only the proof that it is in fact a constellation in the starry heavens, plotted out by Ptolemy. At first it sounds folly, an additional zodiac? The true nature of the constellation is still widely unknown, it is beleived to be a man with two serpents...but who is this figure, and what of the snakes? As a part of history, no fact or theory should ever be omitted. First off, doing so may close the door on the future; of unraveling and making logic of loose historical jargon. I suggest that Serpentarius be provided alongside the others, but only once there is more information regarding it's significance beyond a puzzling constellation.

--Sir Tyler Cole 08:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the validity can only be completed with a label...what is the astrological sign of Serpentarius? (or should I say symbol, I can only assume to call it a "zodiac".) This might expand a little insight, and the symbol can also be studied to further explain the probable history of Serpentarius, perhaps even it's exclusion from the 12 Zodiac Signs.

--Sir Tyler Cole 08:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to Ophiuchus? Samuel Grant 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


To answer Sir Tyler Cole's question: The man in the constellation Ophiuchus is Asclepius, the Greek God of Medicine & Healing. The serpent he's handling is divided into 2 constellations: Serpens Caput (the head) & Serpens Cauda (the tail). The symbol for the sign known as Serpentarius/Ophiuchus (the Serpent-Handler) is a staff with two serpents intertwined on it. It's commonly used by hospitals & pharmacies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.193.246 (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Milky Way

At Talk: Milky Way there is a discussion on splitting the article in two, as to have a Milky Way Galaxy and a Milky Way (???) representing the band of light in the night sky. Currently, the majority of commentators are of an astrophysical bent, and say that there is no difference between the two (very odd, since if you look away from the band, any star you see is still part of the galaxy, but not the band). 70.55.88.135 01:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Astrological signs, general discussion on removal

I have removed some text from all twelve astrological sign articles, and there is a centralized discussion on the removals at Talk:Aries_(astrology)#Trimming. I placed notes regarding the discussion on all twelve articles' talk pages. Please comment if so inclined. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 01:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astrology/Archive_2&oldid=1078968684"