Astrology NA‑class | |||||||
|
Astronomy: Astronomical objects Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
Please don't remove Ophiuchus from the Zodiac template. It's recognized as part of the Zodiac by Ptolemy, the IAU, the Ophiuchus article, and certain places in popular culture.
Also, since our Wikipedia article is called Scorpius, the template should refer to the constellation as Scorpius. Viltris 09:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
By that logic, Fire, Earth, Air, and Water should be included in the Periodic Table, because Ptolemy considered them to be elements. Ptolemy's interpretation is not the current consensus. 67.158.72.8 02:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
24.190.34.219 ( talk) 17:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Then why the article on the Zodiac states: Ophiuchus is an anciently recognized constellation, catalogued along with many others in Ptolemy's Almagest, but not historically referred to as a zodiac constellation. [1] [2] The inaccurate description of Ophiuchus as a sign of the zodiac drew media attention in 1995, when the BBC Nine O'Clock News reported that "an extra sign of the zodiac has been announced by the Royal Astronomical Society". [3] There had been no such announcement, and the report had merely sensationalized the 67-year-old 'news' of the IAU's decision to alter the number of designated ecliptic constellations. [4] [5]?
Could you show any source where Ophiuchus is considered a sign of the Zodiac and in which astrological tradition characteristics, ruling planet, ancient element and qualities are assigned to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.115.100.137 ( talk • contribs)
References
I've just reverted another attempt to merge the astrological and astronomical zodiacs in this template. User:Barticus88's edit comment in March 2007 was very apt. We need to be clear on whether the template is talking about the astronomical or astrological zodiacs. If just one, we need to be very clear which one; if both, fine, but then well-meaning editors will attempt to "fix" it by combining the two. Even as it stands there's some inappropriate mixing, since the template lists astrological symbols for the astronomical constellations, to which they don't really apply (hence the conspicuous absence of a symbol for Ophiucus). I'd like to remove those, but will wait for consensus before doing so because, as I said in my own edit summary just now, the current state of affairs is a delicate compromise.
The reason this is important is that there are political implications. Opponents of astrology are fond of claiming that the zodiac "really" contains 13 signs (and, by implication, that astrologers are stupid for saying it has 12). On what basis such people think they know better of the technical details of astrology than its professional practitioners do, is a question seldom visited. Meanwhile working astronomers have a legitimate claim of their own on the word "zodiac," their zodiac really does have 13 constellations (not signs) in it, and they're probably sick of hearing about the whole mess. The bottom line is that if you display a list of 13 constellations with astrological symbols and call it "the zodiac," you're equating the two zodiacs and taking a position on a political issue in a way inappropriate for Wikipedia. It would be as inappropriate as displaying a list of The Twelve Imams under the heading " Successors of the Prophet Muhammad" with no further comment. 67.158.72.135 ( talk) 03:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The debate whether to include constellations beyond the standard accepted 12 (e.g. Ophiuchus) is simple. Have a second sub-section called other signs or something, and list them there under the main 12. The other signs are important to some researchers so should not be removed, but this way also satiates the people that only want the main 12. 24.190.34.219 ( talk) 17:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
To Izno, Barek-public and Versageek.
The Sun is traversing 13 astronomical constellations, including
Ophiuchus. Nobody is arguing that. The issue is whether
Ophiuchus (astrology) should be included as an astrological sign or not. 74.0.254.242 made a mess 2011-01-13 and 86.164.224.144, 213.122.142.100 and 82.110.91.242 tried to repair it. Please notice that there are two rows; an astronomical and an astrological. --Regards,
Necessary Evil (
talk) 02:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The Sun is traversing 13 astronomical constellations according to their 1930 definition. I indeed be prepared to argue that in antiquity, the constellation Ophiuchus was not considered part of the ecliptic. -- dab (𒁳) 18:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Starcartographer's good faith edits of 19 December 2012 have eliminated the astronomical constellations entirely, and put "Ophiucus" back on the astrological list. I thought we'd already reached consensus on these issues, and I'm really disappointed to see all the work we did forming that consensus undone in such a cavalier manner. I'm going to revert it now. I expect someone will probably threaten to ban me for that, and if so, I won't contribute further and will leave the template to decay in peace... but please, people, read the talk page before rearranging a widely-seen template! The astronomical ecliptic is not the same thing as the astrological zodiac, the signs do not have the same names as the related constellations, neither astronomers nor astrologers want to use the others' conventions, and Ophiucus is *not* part of the standard astrological zodiac. All these facts would be clear to someone who read this talk page, or the relevant articles linked from the template. 207.161.219.24 ( talk) 14:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
"decay" and "threaten to ban me" are unnecessary hyperbole. Please avoid that. I have reverted your changes.
No one has claimed that the ecliptic and the zodiac are the same. However, given the titles of all the linked articles, I see no reason to remove any of them from the template. As it is, I'm of the feeling that having both the ecliptic and zodiac would be inappropriate. The edits which made the current template have resulted in a much cleaner template. Having the images was unnecessary, and the actual constellations linked was perhaps confusing to individuals viewing the template. I so no reason of course not to readd them, but to go back to the old template is quite unnecessary. I might advise not reincluding the constellations due to the potential confusion, but as I said, I have no great opinion against that course of action either. -- Izno ( talk) 17:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Even if it is not hyperbole, it is still irrelevant. Frankly, no one cares here whether someone has done that to you before. In the future, such problematic edits should be reported to WP:ANI or WP:DRN, or you should attempt to resolve the problem at the user's talk page, rather than attempting to use such issues as evidence to change a page to your preferred version....
Having symbols, having both astrological and astronomical sections, having those sections separate, and having Ophiuchus not included in the astrological section, have all been consensus since at least mid-2009. All those points were changed without discussion in the edits of December 19: the symbols were removed, either one section was removed or the distinction between the sections was removed, and Ophiuchus was made to look like part of the astrological zodiac.
However, if this template is the one about the astrological zodiac - which it seems is your view - then it should not list Ophiuchus at the same status as the actual signs, and ideally it shouldn't list Ophiuchus at all. Ophiuchus is not part of the standard zodiac used by virtually all astrologers. As mentioned elsewhere on this page, it would be like including "the Republic of Texas" without comment on a list of "countries of North America" at the same status as the USA and Mexico. Even among the tiny minority of professional astrologers who do use Ophiuchus at all, many call it a "constellation" rather than a sign because having signs be other than 30-degree increments screws up most of the purposes for which signs are useful. Those issues can be addressed in the Ophiuchus article, but are not well addressed by showing thirteen names in the template on all the other sign-related pages as if that list were somehow standard.
True. However, there is support for the new look, of which I am one. I would be careful to distinguish Ophiuchus's place in that category from its actual inclusion in the zodiac. The location of the sign/constellation here is not an indication of whether it is a part of the zodiac, only that it is related to that particular section and that it has indeed been called a sign (whether useful or not, accepted or not, is also irrelevant in this case, in my opinion). You would be hardpressed to show evidence that it is confusing or otherwise. I'm not going to argue whether its used or not ( WP:OR). It would be disagreeable to me not to include the article in the template at the least.
If we're going to represent fringe views as standard (yes, some would claim astrology itself is a fringe subject, but then we're onto the fringe of a fringe) then we might as well jump to Schmidt's fourteen-sign zodiac with Cetus.
I would have no objection to Cetus's inclusion myself, if an article for the sign existed. :)
I would be content with the version that exists as of this writing - with only one section and no symbols - if Ophiuchus were removed.
So then, the question is a) whether the link should be included in the template, and b) where, if so? My answer to the former is yes, my answer to the latter is in that first section. It might be wise to start an RFC for this to find resolution, since the issue seems to come up rather regularly. -- Izno ( talk) 23:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The drastic change of including Ophiuchus at the same status as the actual signs shouldn't be made because this drastic change places undue weight on a fringe view of the subject.
You count it as "drastic" (more hyperbole), I do not. Its location in a template is hardly going to affect its real world status. Similarly, invoking undue weight, a policy aimed at articles. Even if we were to assume the spirit of the policy and not the letter, I'm still not sure how that reflects on this template here. It is indisputable that the 13th sign has indeed been claimed to be a sign. Whether that claim is strong or not is not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is that the strength of the claim does not matter when we are simply listing the elements of the zodiac.
you said it wasn't important and nobody cares, and then you misrepresented my position to make my position sound fallacious.
Who is misrepresenting who here? Would you like me to quote the relevant lines of my reply? The introduction of the argument of "oh no, I will be blocked for speaking out" was completely fallacious. I have no interest in whether you will be blocked, but only in whether your argument is concise, cogent, and complete, and if you were expecting otherwise, you should take that up at the appropriate venue as I linked you to before. I would expect any other editor to make the same non-distinction between yourself, a confirmed editor, an administrator, or any of the other user roles available on Wikipedia. As I said, your past experience elsewhere is irrelevant to your argument at this page.
So, fine, you win, you can drastically change the template to represent only the wacky fringe view - which is what it does when it lists thirteen signs at the same status - if you want.
It is not my desire to "win". I offered the option of seeking external review per the processes of WP:3O or WP:RFC or another of your choice (I had it in mind to drop a note at WT:WikiProject Astrology). That comment still stands. -- Izno ( talk) 04:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Astrology NA‑class | |||||||
|
Astronomy: Astronomical objects Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
Please don't remove Ophiuchus from the Zodiac template. It's recognized as part of the Zodiac by Ptolemy, the IAU, the Ophiuchus article, and certain places in popular culture.
Also, since our Wikipedia article is called Scorpius, the template should refer to the constellation as Scorpius. Viltris 09:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
By that logic, Fire, Earth, Air, and Water should be included in the Periodic Table, because Ptolemy considered them to be elements. Ptolemy's interpretation is not the current consensus. 67.158.72.8 02:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
24.190.34.219 ( talk) 17:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Then why the article on the Zodiac states: Ophiuchus is an anciently recognized constellation, catalogued along with many others in Ptolemy's Almagest, but not historically referred to as a zodiac constellation. [1] [2] The inaccurate description of Ophiuchus as a sign of the zodiac drew media attention in 1995, when the BBC Nine O'Clock News reported that "an extra sign of the zodiac has been announced by the Royal Astronomical Society". [3] There had been no such announcement, and the report had merely sensationalized the 67-year-old 'news' of the IAU's decision to alter the number of designated ecliptic constellations. [4] [5]?
Could you show any source where Ophiuchus is considered a sign of the Zodiac and in which astrological tradition characteristics, ruling planet, ancient element and qualities are assigned to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.115.100.137 ( talk • contribs)
References
I've just reverted another attempt to merge the astrological and astronomical zodiacs in this template. User:Barticus88's edit comment in March 2007 was very apt. We need to be clear on whether the template is talking about the astronomical or astrological zodiacs. If just one, we need to be very clear which one; if both, fine, but then well-meaning editors will attempt to "fix" it by combining the two. Even as it stands there's some inappropriate mixing, since the template lists astrological symbols for the astronomical constellations, to which they don't really apply (hence the conspicuous absence of a symbol for Ophiucus). I'd like to remove those, but will wait for consensus before doing so because, as I said in my own edit summary just now, the current state of affairs is a delicate compromise.
The reason this is important is that there are political implications. Opponents of astrology are fond of claiming that the zodiac "really" contains 13 signs (and, by implication, that astrologers are stupid for saying it has 12). On what basis such people think they know better of the technical details of astrology than its professional practitioners do, is a question seldom visited. Meanwhile working astronomers have a legitimate claim of their own on the word "zodiac," their zodiac really does have 13 constellations (not signs) in it, and they're probably sick of hearing about the whole mess. The bottom line is that if you display a list of 13 constellations with astrological symbols and call it "the zodiac," you're equating the two zodiacs and taking a position on a political issue in a way inappropriate for Wikipedia. It would be as inappropriate as displaying a list of The Twelve Imams under the heading " Successors of the Prophet Muhammad" with no further comment. 67.158.72.135 ( talk) 03:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The debate whether to include constellations beyond the standard accepted 12 (e.g. Ophiuchus) is simple. Have a second sub-section called other signs or something, and list them there under the main 12. The other signs are important to some researchers so should not be removed, but this way also satiates the people that only want the main 12. 24.190.34.219 ( talk) 17:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
To Izno, Barek-public and Versageek.
The Sun is traversing 13 astronomical constellations, including
Ophiuchus. Nobody is arguing that. The issue is whether
Ophiuchus (astrology) should be included as an astrological sign or not. 74.0.254.242 made a mess 2011-01-13 and 86.164.224.144, 213.122.142.100 and 82.110.91.242 tried to repair it. Please notice that there are two rows; an astronomical and an astrological. --Regards,
Necessary Evil (
talk) 02:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The Sun is traversing 13 astronomical constellations according to their 1930 definition. I indeed be prepared to argue that in antiquity, the constellation Ophiuchus was not considered part of the ecliptic. -- dab (𒁳) 18:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Starcartographer's good faith edits of 19 December 2012 have eliminated the astronomical constellations entirely, and put "Ophiucus" back on the astrological list. I thought we'd already reached consensus on these issues, and I'm really disappointed to see all the work we did forming that consensus undone in such a cavalier manner. I'm going to revert it now. I expect someone will probably threaten to ban me for that, and if so, I won't contribute further and will leave the template to decay in peace... but please, people, read the talk page before rearranging a widely-seen template! The astronomical ecliptic is not the same thing as the astrological zodiac, the signs do not have the same names as the related constellations, neither astronomers nor astrologers want to use the others' conventions, and Ophiucus is *not* part of the standard astrological zodiac. All these facts would be clear to someone who read this talk page, or the relevant articles linked from the template. 207.161.219.24 ( talk) 14:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
"decay" and "threaten to ban me" are unnecessary hyperbole. Please avoid that. I have reverted your changes.
No one has claimed that the ecliptic and the zodiac are the same. However, given the titles of all the linked articles, I see no reason to remove any of them from the template. As it is, I'm of the feeling that having both the ecliptic and zodiac would be inappropriate. The edits which made the current template have resulted in a much cleaner template. Having the images was unnecessary, and the actual constellations linked was perhaps confusing to individuals viewing the template. I so no reason of course not to readd them, but to go back to the old template is quite unnecessary. I might advise not reincluding the constellations due to the potential confusion, but as I said, I have no great opinion against that course of action either. -- Izno ( talk) 17:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Even if it is not hyperbole, it is still irrelevant. Frankly, no one cares here whether someone has done that to you before. In the future, such problematic edits should be reported to WP:ANI or WP:DRN, or you should attempt to resolve the problem at the user's talk page, rather than attempting to use such issues as evidence to change a page to your preferred version....
Having symbols, having both astrological and astronomical sections, having those sections separate, and having Ophiuchus not included in the astrological section, have all been consensus since at least mid-2009. All those points were changed without discussion in the edits of December 19: the symbols were removed, either one section was removed or the distinction between the sections was removed, and Ophiuchus was made to look like part of the astrological zodiac.
However, if this template is the one about the astrological zodiac - which it seems is your view - then it should not list Ophiuchus at the same status as the actual signs, and ideally it shouldn't list Ophiuchus at all. Ophiuchus is not part of the standard zodiac used by virtually all astrologers. As mentioned elsewhere on this page, it would be like including "the Republic of Texas" without comment on a list of "countries of North America" at the same status as the USA and Mexico. Even among the tiny minority of professional astrologers who do use Ophiuchus at all, many call it a "constellation" rather than a sign because having signs be other than 30-degree increments screws up most of the purposes for which signs are useful. Those issues can be addressed in the Ophiuchus article, but are not well addressed by showing thirteen names in the template on all the other sign-related pages as if that list were somehow standard.
True. However, there is support for the new look, of which I am one. I would be careful to distinguish Ophiuchus's place in that category from its actual inclusion in the zodiac. The location of the sign/constellation here is not an indication of whether it is a part of the zodiac, only that it is related to that particular section and that it has indeed been called a sign (whether useful or not, accepted or not, is also irrelevant in this case, in my opinion). You would be hardpressed to show evidence that it is confusing or otherwise. I'm not going to argue whether its used or not ( WP:OR). It would be disagreeable to me not to include the article in the template at the least.
If we're going to represent fringe views as standard (yes, some would claim astrology itself is a fringe subject, but then we're onto the fringe of a fringe) then we might as well jump to Schmidt's fourteen-sign zodiac with Cetus.
I would have no objection to Cetus's inclusion myself, if an article for the sign existed. :)
I would be content with the version that exists as of this writing - with only one section and no symbols - if Ophiuchus were removed.
So then, the question is a) whether the link should be included in the template, and b) where, if so? My answer to the former is yes, my answer to the latter is in that first section. It might be wise to start an RFC for this to find resolution, since the issue seems to come up rather regularly. -- Izno ( talk) 23:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The drastic change of including Ophiuchus at the same status as the actual signs shouldn't be made because this drastic change places undue weight on a fringe view of the subject.
You count it as "drastic" (more hyperbole), I do not. Its location in a template is hardly going to affect its real world status. Similarly, invoking undue weight, a policy aimed at articles. Even if we were to assume the spirit of the policy and not the letter, I'm still not sure how that reflects on this template here. It is indisputable that the 13th sign has indeed been claimed to be a sign. Whether that claim is strong or not is not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is that the strength of the claim does not matter when we are simply listing the elements of the zodiac.
you said it wasn't important and nobody cares, and then you misrepresented my position to make my position sound fallacious.
Who is misrepresenting who here? Would you like me to quote the relevant lines of my reply? The introduction of the argument of "oh no, I will be blocked for speaking out" was completely fallacious. I have no interest in whether you will be blocked, but only in whether your argument is concise, cogent, and complete, and if you were expecting otherwise, you should take that up at the appropriate venue as I linked you to before. I would expect any other editor to make the same non-distinction between yourself, a confirmed editor, an administrator, or any of the other user roles available on Wikipedia. As I said, your past experience elsewhere is irrelevant to your argument at this page.
So, fine, you win, you can drastically change the template to represent only the wacky fringe view - which is what it does when it lists thirteen signs at the same status - if you want.
It is not my desire to "win". I offered the option of seeking external review per the processes of WP:3O or WP:RFC or another of your choice (I had it in mind to drop a note at WT:WikiProject Astrology). That comment still stands. -- Izno ( talk) 04:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)