Talk:Triplicity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the Astrology WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the astrological content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Merge

I don't see why this article should be merged. If someone is looking for a definition of "triplicity", they should be able to find it without a lot of hunting and pecking through another article. Triplicity is a very important idea which is at the very basis of astrology. I say no. NaySay 13:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The contents of these two articles (Triplicity and Astrology and the classical elements) are the same, except for formatting and minor differences. Nobody suggested removing Triplicity. See also this discussion. --Cubbi 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

they are most emphatically NOT the same. Your article is one of those "astrology is an artifact of the structure of the four elements" thangs, which has its place with modern astrologers, but says nothing about triplicity. As for considering that your article is structured better, it certainly is structured more for that point of view. Which I don't share. As for improving this article, by all means do. But to say that it has no references??? What exactly are you referring to? What reference would you like to see? Liz Greene? NaySay 14:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, reinstating refimprove was my mistake. What I said about the merge is that the subject matter appears to me, a casual reader, identical between the two articles. Seeing your detailed comment on Talk:Astrology and the classical elements, I am starting to see the difference in the approaches here, and now I am beginning to wonder if Astrology and the classical elements is even notable enough to exist on its own. In which case, meaningful parts of it could be merged into triplicity and the rest deleted. So I still think a merge is a good idea, just on different grounds. --Cubbi 15:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I too can see why these articles are not the same. If I understand correctly, 'triplicity' is primarily an historical term, or at least used differently through the history of western astrology. Am I right? Maybe the article could be improved by giving it a more historical point of view? I don't know much about astrological history, I would simply like to have at least a section that deals with the classical elements in modern astrology, as in Astrology and the classical elements. — Starylon 15:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Neelmack, you runined a scholarly article and filled it with just the sort of silly claptrap that so many beginners are saddled with. Save it for the newspaper columns. This article, which I labored over for a long time, will need to be completely rewritten. If you want to set up a separate article for this stuff, please do so. NaySay 13:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Naysay. First off, I find it strange that the concepts of different personality types being associated with the elements is 'silly claptrap' for beginners. It seems that the vast majority of modern astrologers are just not up to your high standards. Secondly, no article is the exclusive property of any user, even if they did set it up, so you have no right to completely dictate content to everyone else. Thirdly it seems to me that there is plenty of room in the article for different points of view so I dont see what the fuss is about. As the concept of triplicity is understood (once again) by the vast majority of astrologers to include different personality types, I suggest you set up another article under a different name if you feel that strongly about it. How about Triplicity (ancient)?Neelmack 09:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)