Talk:Western astrology

message: I would like to see the "symbols" removed, as only 3 of them show up properly, and the author has admitted that most browsers won't display them. Can anyone actually see those symbols? If so, they can stay, if not, scrap them! - Chimpa
I think the paragraph about fractals should be removed. It's inaccurate, since it makes it sound as though there is some scientific justification for astrology. I'm sure astrologers could come up with many pseudoscientific explanations for possible mechanisms by which astrology might work, but scientific tests show that astrology has no predictive power. I don't see why one should speculate about scientific mechanisms for a correlation that has been shown scientifically not to exist. Even from the point of view of someone who believes in astrology, I doubt that this paragraph represents any commonly held view.
I would also like to see the long table of astrological symbols eliminated. I don't see what purpose it serves.
--User:bcrowell
:As a person with a more open view to astrology, I do agree about the speculative fractal paragraph.  I was indeed hard-pressed to find its connection with astrology.  It should be up to the person who wants to make the fractal connection to at least show links to this hypothesis.
:The list of symbols is useful whether or not one supports astrology.  Astrologers do use these symbols; that makes the list useful to anyone who encounters them in an astrological text. Eclecticology 19:23 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)
::Yes, the list of symbols is useful. Actually they were used in astronomy too. About the fractals, please take that "argument" out of there.--AN
:::Displaying the symbols is not a question of browsers, but of having a unicode font with miscellaneous symbols installed on your system. Mkweise 21:43 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)
:The list would be more useful if it was, in fact, visible. Perhaps an alternative method of display is possible? Or at least a link to one of these, if cropping images is not anyone's idea of fun? Trithemius
::I agree that images should be used here. Hmm... I think I'll get started! Samuella 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: From some year pages:
: 2007 is the year of the sign Pisces in Western Astrology.
: [2003] has been designated the:
:* Year of Scorpio in Western Astrology
We should have something here about what on earth (or indeed any planet) this means. -- Smjg 12:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like someone is confusing Chinese astrology oranges with Western astrology apples.  Andrew Homer 11:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah , I think there is a generational planet which is Pluto, so like when pluto changes you see generational change, on a massive scale, but I've never heard of a certain year in correlation to a sign.MaximusEditor (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the ''year'' of a star sign? 

message: This article seems to contain little information that is not also in Astrology. Is there a reason for a separate article? Or am I missing something here? A Ramachandran 04:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Western astrology is just one of many astrological traditions. It probably shares a lot with the main astrology article because of the backgrounds of Western anglophone users and English astrological literature. Sam 16:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western astrology vs. [[Astrology]] 

message: While the information is somewhat different, it seems like these two pages are actually describing the same thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zenten (talk • contribs) 03:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western astrology vs. [[Hellenistic astrology]] 

message: Medium coeli is not zenith, and imum coeli is not nadir. MC is the highest point in the sky reached by the Sun, and IC is the opposite point to MC. Both MC and IC are on the ecriptic, but zenith and nadir are out of the ecriptic. Zenith is above your head on the sky. See angle (astrology).--Bay Flam 01:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MC and IC 

message: What does it mean if you have a sign rising, for example 'virgo rising'? 71.201.34.215 (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read about it under The primary angles section. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

text: a really good explanation is the popular expression "the dough you are made of".88.23.71.233 (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

text: you can have planets rising as well --81.37.198.188 (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rising? 

message: Can we discuss any new references such as those to do with Ophiuchus here first before editing the main article. I've heavily edited this section as it appeared on the article as it was not wholly accurate and quoted an astrologer who appeared misinformed about, amongst other things, the sidereal zodiac. Also, there was a listing of sidereal positions based upon the new sign, which is not relevant to the topic of western astrology.Xpaulk (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was pointed out millennia ago. However the article had been amended recently with factually inaccurate statements, so I think it's best to not mention Ophiuchus until discussing it here.Xpaulk (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Xpaulk, best not to mention Ophiuchus until discussing it further. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Two Zodiacs and the 13th Zodiac - Ophiuchus 

message: The article should be expanded to include at least some mention of the "New Planets" and asteroids (e.g. Chiron) that are now being used in Western astrology. A brief section about modern Western astrology techniques is also needed, e.g. Uranian astrology and Astrocartography are not mentioned at all for the moment.  MakeSense64 (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information 

message: :Category:Pseudoscience as redundant; both the article Astrology and :Category:Astrology are in said category. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the removal again, for the same reason. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored it. The categories in this article aren't in said category, are they? And if this article isn't in the category, users wanting to look at all our pseudoscience articles aren't likely to find this one. Doug Weller (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed 

message: This still needs proper sourcing. "Hone" isn't enough, how am I supposed to know what it is? And doing it that way makes it look copied. Please quote Hone here where he or she backs the text.
Also, I can't imagine why we want Chinese characters for Mesopotamian astrology. Doug Weller talk 13:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I don't see how anyone can justify including Ceres in the list when it was discovered in the 18th century (and not BCE, either).  That and the Hanzi tells me that it's some hippie hogwash, or perhaps a synthesis of various hippie hogwash sources.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I point out the possibility of reprinting from other wikis listed here.--Tail furry (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twelve main planets -sources, rationale for Chinese characters for Mesopotamian astrology