Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology/Archive 3

Native American Astrology
Well, I'm not sure "is there any article about this topic in Wikipedia?" (I have tried to find, but found nothing about Native American Astrology.) Could you please tell me if there is not, and desire some information about Native American astrology. I'm not an expert, but I have a book about it, and I want to share this information in case of there is no article about.

Thanks you all in advance.

PS. I'm new hear and I have to admit that I will have some problems about my English language and also some computer code (or something like that???)when I have to edit the article(such as the code when I want to add some table and etc.).It would be your great kindness, if you could advise me about these matters. PS2. umm..m if I don't recieve any answer in about 2-3 days, I "will" add the information about Native American Astrology roughly in this part. So, it is up to your decision if they are OK, you can add all information in the real article. I will cite the reference. 99th NIGHT (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Astrology information ..
... doesn't belong in the astronomy pages describing the physical characteristics of stars. I suggest a removal of all pro-astrology references from the astronomy pages.

Historical information such as a star's use in navigation is fine, but placing arcane and pseudo-scientific references such as a star's 'kabbalistic symbol' alongside legitimate scientific data isn't acceptable. 68Kustom (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ext link dead?
Letting you know the external link at the foot of the page seems to be dead. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ashmole
Elias Ashmole 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.

Cusps and Vedic Articles
Could some folks interested in sorting out the astrology articles keep an eye on the contribs of ? There have been problems with copyvios, creation of usourced and/or redundant articles, or articles that appear to be sourced but then, when checked, the "source" doesn't source any of the text. Thanks. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 06:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of statements regarding Ceres
I'd like to get more opinions on this. I think I made a valid, well sourced point, which was reverted. Thanks, Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See also discussion on my talk page. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Main Problem with the Introduction and Topic of the Astrological Ages in General
The main problem with the introduction and topic of Astrological Ages in general is that apart from the presentation of minority or extremist views on the ages and use of antiquated non-mainstream terminology (i.e. the ‘Great Month of Aquarius’ instead of the ‘Age of Aquarius’) is that the topic does not take a top down view of the ages outlining the major issues and views expressed about the ages. The section on Past Great Years is really a joke and I notice it has no reference. Unless issues are referenced to published documentation they should not be included in this topic.

The major issue of the astrological ages is that nearly every aspect of the ages is disputed by astrologers, astronomers and archeoastronomers. The only issue I have found that is not disputed is the retrograde passage of the ages in reverse of their traditional astrological order. From this point on everything is disputed. Therefore to correctly present this topic the main issues of disputes and the points of views expressed should be presented to a reasonable degree.

Very careful consideration should be given to any one claim about the ages as there is no consensus about all the disputes surrounding the ages. Therefore to promote the work or views of one astrologer above others, or to promote the views of esoteric astrologers above other less esoteric approaches is gross misrepresentation. There needs to be a balance outlining the opposing viewpoints. For example it is commonly stated that Hipparchus discovered the precession of the equinoxes and thus the ages. This is highly contentious as there is much documented reference that earlier cultures were aware of the ages and that even other Ancient Greek astronomers were aware of precession before Hipparchus.

Terrymacro (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

MAJOR EDIT WRAP-UP
I have completed the first major edit of the Astrological Ages topic but more needs to be completed over time. In addition a History section and a Sub-Period section is required. Also some of the early ages from the Age of Leo onwards requires additional referenced material.

The Astrological Ages topic is subject to vandalism – there was one encounter this week. Due to the contentious nature of the topic and the very different perspectives of the stakeholders in this topic, I suggest that anyone who edits the topic without discussing the edits in advance in this Discussion area is liable to have their edits undone immediately, especially if the editing fails to provide the requisite references to publications. Website references are a dime a dozen and don’t count. Based on my experience of this editing process I propose that the following guidelines I have adopted should remain in place. The highest priority should be given to content the fulfils the first in the following list:

1. The subject matter has attained consensus in the astrological or archeoastronomy communities (i.e. the ages proceed in retrograde fashion compared to the normal order of the zodiac) 2. A majority opinion exists but where dissension exists though there is a fairly defined majority opinion on the subject (i.e. the Vernal point passing through a zodiacal constellation or associated sidereal zodiac is the established method for determining the astrological ages) 3. A minority opinions - points of view that are established but only but a minority of researchers (i.e. each astrological age coexists with its opposite sign so that the Aquarian age is actually the Aquarian-Leo age). These should be given only a passing mention in the main body of the topic. 4. Fringe ideas (new or innovative ideas not yet established (i.e. Walter Cruttenden’s hypothesis that precession of the equinoxes is not caused by the wobbling earth but by the solar system existing within a binary pair of stars where our own Sun is one of the stars). All fringe ideas should appear in the New, Alternative & Fringe Theories section provided adequate references are provided. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
I think we badly need a Astrology project barnstar. Meojive (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Chinese astrology needs help
There's been a series of semi-questionable edits followed by whole-sale deletion to this page by several anonymous editors. I'm not knowledgeable about this subject and can only guess at what's correct. Will someone from this project please help. Thanks! --Tesscass (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  22:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Question on dice with aspect symbols
I have a white six-sided die that has an aspect symbol on each face: magenta sextile, blue semi-sextile (or quincunct), green conjunction, red opposition, black square, orange triangle. Apparently dice like this one have been showing up loose at dollar stores, in assorted-dice bins and in private collections all over North America, but nobody at BoardGameGeek or our entertainment ref desk knows where they come from or whether they were ever part of a game. Does anyone here know? Neon Merlin  14:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 475 articles are assigned to this project, of which 182, or 38.3%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Astrology
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yods
I know many of you are trying to clean up the basics and yods can give a headache. I need sources though there is hardly any authoritative voices on this matter that are actually accurate in my view. I have posted this fro my own study and hae taken some lengths not to produce universalizing claims for its effects but rather to describe the current of energies that it produces and interpretive analytics so hopefully its tone will be appreciated and thus improved. Thank you. Tallmat (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC) 09:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)