Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology

This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate! Guide to WikiProjects Directory of WikiProjects

Astrology NA‑class High‑importance

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. 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 articles NA This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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
Worship of heavenly bodies History of astrology Astrology and astronomy Planets Behenian Classical Zodiac Traditions, types, and systems Astrology and science Astrologers Astrological organizations
Traditions
Babylonian Chinese Hellenistic Hindu Islamic Jewish Tibetan Western
Branches
Natal Electional Horary Medical Financial Locational Psychological Meteorological
Astrological signs
Aries Taurus Gemini Cancer Leo Virgo Libra Scorpio Sagittarius Capricorn Aquarius Pisces
Symbols
Planet Metals
v t e

FYI, a new deletionsort list for Astrology exists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Astrology -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heliocentric astrology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heliocentric astrology until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Skyerise (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, I'm Asia Seltzer, and I'd like to suggest the creation of a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]