Talk:Aries (astrology)/Archive 1

message: This reads like a horoscope, and needs to be cleaned up. icydid 01:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added the tag --michael180 21:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 1

message: Aries are not prone to promiscuity, they are obsessive about honesty and therefore do not deceive unless something large has driven them to it.true.
:I went ahead and cleaned out most of the speculative content that belongs in a newspaper horoscope column. — TheKMantalk 21:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 2

message: (see discussion below)
In case you're wondering what's happened to the Notable persons section, it has been deleted in favor of the page Category:Subjects of the Sign of Aries. If you want to add a notable person go there.
--Carmelita 21:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ARIES ROCKS. One reference is available on the article.If any reference needed then please add . NAHID 20:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (I'm gonna cross-post this): there is absolutely no need to have a "notable persons" section. What about cuspers (people born between two signs), what would they be? If they went under both that'd take up more space. You can't list EVERY single person ever born under one sign. If you want to know what a famous person's zodiac sign or birthday is, just look up their separate article on Wikipedia. If they are famous, they should be on Wikipedia. So yeah, I'm taking out the notable persons section and I'm warning people not to readd it. 75.27.185.204 03:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable persons

message: The reference to 'the work of Doctor Acacandam dating from 1592' should presumably be to 'Doctor Arcandam' (Arcandam)?
Kkjc5824 05:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 3

message: As User:67.163.136.120 points out, simply omitting some sort of characteristics section in the twelve zodiac articles can only be a temporary measure. In terms of re-adding the removed sections, I think the text here Astrological_signs#The_twelve_signs could legitimately be copied into the relevant articles (noting that such has been done to satisfy licensing) as it appears to be reasonably well sourced. Some kind of preamble identifying the astrological tradition to which this applies would also be needed. Contrary opinions welcome... CIreland 23:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it seems reasonable as long as the information is sourced to a reliable source.  I'm a bit unsure on how to handle the wide ranging opinions of what traits are associated with what, or how to make that clear in the text.  Some sort of statement along the lines of "There is little agreement among astrologers as to the characteristics associated with a particular sign..." I will look around for a ref for it.  Does the text you have specify if the traits apply to sidereal, tropical, or solar?  Thanks, --TeaDrinker 07:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-additions 

message: I've added in some text which could serve as a model for all the twelve articles. There is a piece in the introduction laying out the astrological notion of a sign with a scientific disclaimer - to get that issue out of the way - , and then a brief piece on the characteristics of the sign. Neelmack 14:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model text 

message: This section should be alphabetized, any without articles removed and birthdates adding to decrease vandalism and add relevancy. Benjiboi 10:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've overhauled the section at Taurus (see Taurus_%28astrology%29#Some_Taureans_and_their_birthdates) so you can see what I mean, I ended up pulling three people, one because they have a different sign and two whose birthdates are unknown. Benjiboi 20:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Benjiboi 02:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable people section 

message: Hi me again. As well as Linda Goodman the following are good sources: http://www.nickcampion.com is the website of Nicholas Campion one of today's foremost astrologers. Anything that quotes from the following astrologers is also good: Margaret Hone, Jeff Mayo, Evangeline Adams, Alan Leo, Charles Carter. That should be enough to cover modern astrology. Ancient astrology begins with Ptolemy, but maybe that's for another day.Neelmack 14:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had also considered looking into those who are used by major newspapers and seen as reputable as a way to start sourcing. Benjiboi 02:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Myself and another editor disagree on whether this section's inclusion is worthy of wikipedia. I feel the section is fine and verifiable as long as the person listed is notable (in that they have an article) and their birth date is on the article. For people looking for such information it is relevant and an (albiet short) list is easily maintained and is more useful than a categorization search, which frankly I think lends to over-categorization. Benjiboi 02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I suggest we continue this on the Gemini talk page, where there has been a discussion against them since October 2006. I've already started a continuation there anyway. Pairadox (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Already cross-posted to all the other articles and I feel this is the appropriate venue per the precedent set above and that it's the first sign listed in the template. Since you bring up the October 2006 deletion though it brings up another point or two. One is that the issue hasn't been discussed since Oct 2006 but more correctly that an editor decreed (much like you're doing) that such a section should not exist and deleted it with no discussion which seems to have backfired. Guess what/ Dozens of editors felt they wanted it in. So that's my first additional point is that our readers want it and just like many astrology columns I see little harm in listing some notable examples, indeed this might inspire our readers to click on the people and dates listed and learn more about them and see what else wikipedia has to offer. My second additional point is that this is an organic wiki in that it grows and is added to and pruned every hour of every day. We should manage change not bully it into some box. I think we both agree that these article need a lot of work but we seem to disagree on how to affect positive change. My method was to wikify the material that was there in hopes that it would stem a lot of the nonsense and it mostly has until your section deletion. Vandalism was more easily spotted and when dealing with a mass of anon edits the first three articles were starting to improve. I hardly see the need to insist someone provides a reference for each characteristic listed when, in fact contradictory refd seem to support almost anything one would like to state. So I was shooting for article stabilization and incremental improvement. Benjiboi 02:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those cross postings have been updated to Gemini since that is where you asked me to post, where I posted before you started your notification campaign and where responses are already being seen. Feel free to copy your post there, because that's where I'll be waiting. Pairadox (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting interpretation on diplomatic. How kind of you to not only delete material you're opposed to but also redirect an entire conversation away from the intended target. Benjiboi 02:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Probably just about as kind as asking for conversation in one place, ignoring the response there and directing everybody someplace else. Pairadox (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable people who share this sign section 

message: As a quick look at the history will show, data in this and other astrological articles is constantly being added to and changed without any citation. Involved editors, of which there are many, have ignored calls for discussion. In no way should this article be considered as anything more that a random collection of information subject to the whims of clashing belief systems. Pairadox (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  65.189.207.206 (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally disputed tag 

message: Why isn't the astrological term spelled Ares? I believe it, I see that spelling in Oxford, but is there etymology? Seems odd to me. Pete St.John (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the astrological term comes from the Latin for "ram" and does not refer to the mythological human named Ares.  You might as well ask why "bead" isn't spelled "Bede." 216.75.183.126 (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling? 

message: I can't help but notice the "they suck" introductory text at the very beginning of the article. While I must command the sense of synthesis of the author that is nearing the quintescence of the aiku art, I think it may be resented by some as a personal opinion.  I wasn't able to trace the author in the history. How can it be done?  In the end, I propose to simply remove those two words.  Wikidid (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction? 

message: Is this true? I'm interested because I've run into a lot of nonsense about Egyptian astrology, which so far as I know didn't exist until the Greeks conquered Egypt. It seems to come from one book mainly, and then got copied into other articles. I've already cut out the nonsense about 4200 bce star maps and Egyptian astrology the oldest (or whatever) in the world.Doug Weller (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ptolemy in question lived after the Greek conquest.  He wasn't one of the Ptolemaic dynasty of kings of Egypt.  However, that dynasty was the one founded when the Greeks conquered Egypt - they were ethnically Greek and the first of them was one of Alexander the Great's generals - so they, too, postdate the Greek conquest.  I'm not sure you're right about there having been no Egyptian astrology before the Greek conquest of Egypt, but Ptolemy being a founder of Western astrology doesn't contradict that assumption. 69.63.57.7 (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient astrology begins with Ptolemy 

message: I just reverted an edit by another IP address user that added "gay" to the traits section. Not sure if this qualifies as vandalism, (I mean no offence to the gay community!) but even if not it was completely unsourced/referenced 78.86.205.234 (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traits section 

message: I believe it is in good etiquette here to request the addition of link (rather than just adding it) so others can agree if it is suitable to be placed on the page as well. 
http://www.antiquus-astrology.com/Aries.html
It provides a listing of traditional astrological associations of the Sign of Aries, citing the authors from that period as well. If this link is appropriate for this page, please add it. 75.156.110.87 (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of information can be integrated into the Wikipedia article, stating the original sources. There's really no need for a link there. The 3 books cited have had their copyrights long expired and thus their material is completely in the public domain, however some of their claims may be outdated. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I can't find the material stated on the website in John Gadbury's stated book, p.110  Maybe I'm missing something? --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a link 

message: Israeli astrologer Talia Stan describes Aries people as having smooth, straight dark hair with a reddish cast. I believe Scorpios have the thick, wiry hair.--jeanne (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares, it comes from your genes..Someone963852 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hair texture 

message: Aries opposite is Libre.  The relationship would work with libra.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.208.184 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aries opposite 

message: It is said that a Ram is in association with Lucifer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.66.33 (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more often said about goats, but either way it seems irrelevant to this article. 67.158.72.135 (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aries (Ram) 

message: The articles for the twelve signs used to have way more information!
The editors involved with this page are under the misapprehension that reporting on a pseudo science must not include any information about said subject. With this attitude, it is a wonder that any information remains at all. I cannot promise anything, as I am busy in many places that are hard science, history, etc, and they take precedence. One option is just to let it get to its inevitable conclusion, to where these articles become nominated for deletion. It would make a very convincing case that the editors have been misreading the WP rules, were it to be brought to someone's attention that the zodiac signs were deleted.
On the other hand, if you or anyone else would like to make a start on adding more material, a good place is Google Books or Google Scholar. The ease with which information has been removed, I will concede, is directly related to the lack of durability of the cites that were used. However, it does show a scarcely credible lack of knowledge on the subject, to remove the main part of an article on a subject that represents three millenia of human observation. Anarchangel (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's pretty hard to write an encyclopedic article on utter bullshit. 202.58.240.18 (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck happened? 

message: A general error considering the correct dates marking beginning and end of each sign seems to occur in all of the articles covering theese,so that there`s an overlapping date between every sign( or atleast some of them ).This is most likely not the case from a strict astrological point of view, and most confusing aswell as annoying, especially for those born on such a date.Look fx to Aries - Taurus - Gemini, I havent inspected further than so, but it strikes the eye immediately.Flight714 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Flight714.  The dates are confusing.   The reality is that with leap years, the calendar year is not as consistent as the 'astrological year' - the path of the Sun.  So the date on which the Sun moves into each sign (solar ingress) varies from year to year.  IMO the most reliable way to express the Sun Sign start and end dates would be to take the earliest date (within 100 years) for the solar ingress in Hawaii (being as far west as possible) and the latest date in New Zealand.  The dates could be expressed as a range. If you were born before the midpoint in the range, you would be more likely to be the previous sign and after the midway point, you would be increasingly likely to be the next sign.  While this may be useful on general resources like Wikipedia, all of this is unnecessary on a personal level.  Your Sun sign can always be worked out by a consultant astrologer or you can go to an astrological site on the web that enables you to calculate it for free by entering your data or you can look it up in an ephemeris  (a published book or on-line), but this may mean interpolating between two positions and allowing for your time zone at birth.  Robert Currey talk 06:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colliding Dates 

message: On 22 October 2012 the contents of the articles for the individual signs of the western zodiac (Pisces (astrology) etc.) were removed and replaced with redirects to Astrological sign#Western zodiac signs. These edits were made by User:Dominus Vobisdu  with the edit summary: Unsourced and unsourceable cruft. No justification for stand-alone article. This did not seem to follow a community discussion.
Following concerns raised at the Reference Desk I will, after posting this, restore the articles to the form they were in immediately before their redirection. At least some of the articles seem to have been significantly reduced in size also prior to this redirection, however I have not reverted these changes.
Because I am sure editors may wish to discuss this (perhaps to reinstate the redirects, or make other changes to these articles), however a discussion spread among the talk pages twelve articles in question would be too dissipated, I suggest Talk:Astrological_sign#Redirection_of_Western_Zodiac_signs as a centralised discussion location. An editor with more experience than I in Wikipedia policies may wish to move this discussion to a better location. LukeSurl t c 15:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection of Western Zodiac signs 

message: Note that the text added here  is a copy and paste from . . IRWolfie- (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: It seems to me that the zodiac wheel is mostly lacking in sustenance. I have a unique viewpoint on the subject and wish to share my opinions. Please don't hesitate to stop by my user page. I will update it more when I get the chance. Stuffed tiger (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't about writing your opinions into an article. Original research is forbidden. We only add content that is reliably sourced and unoriginal. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insert of property 

message: I have created a module which encapulates values for the dates the Sun enters and exits the various signs; the data is taken from the U.S. Naval Observatory's Multiyear Interactive Computer Almanac and covers 2015 through most
of 2050. The Template:Zodiac date produces some erroneous results, so I hope to implement the change this week.
It is only practical to implement one date and citation style for the module and infobox, so it would be helpful if we can agree on what format to use for the various sign articles. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology#Corrections to dates, date and citation format in sign articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrections to dates, date and citation format in sign articles

message: There used to be way more stuff on the zodiac here. About a year ago. I came back to see if it was still there, but it was gone. I'm not sure where the information came from, but I doubt it was well sourced either. I'm not saying that your opinion is wrong, I'm just saying that when information is available, won't it always be around? Where did it go? Was it proven wrong? You tell me. Stuffed tiger (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Thought Occurs 

message: In this edit a website was added to the "Works cited" section. As explained at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout a "Works cited" section is for a list of works that were consulted while creating the article. Since this latest work was added but no changes were made to the article, it's apparent it wasn't used in writing the article. Thus, it would belong in the "External links" section. Anyone interested in adding it there should review the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links to see if that website qualifies for inclusion. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Where links go

message: I've never met an Aries with a temper. I've only EVER met a Taurus with Anger. All facts. 98.118.173.125 (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2021 

message: What power does Aries give? 207.148.176.145 (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aries 

message: The page was seriously lacking so I took it upon myself to add a section on the characteristics of an Aries based on the expertise of astrologers, not my personal opinions or experiences. I also added to the mythology section, which did not mention the God of War that the sign is named after, which seemed like a serious oversight to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbenejan (talk • contribs) 00:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Characteristics and Mythology