Template talk:ZodiacSign
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
what are the suggested sources for these?
Zodiac Element: {{{Element}}}
Zodiac Quality: {{{Quality}}}
Body Part: {{{Body Part}}}
Domicile: {{{Domicile}}}
Detriment: {{{Detriment}}}
Exaltation: {{{Exaltation}}}
Fall: {{{Fall}}}
Birthstone: {{{Birthstone}}}
Colours: {{{Colours}}}
Numbers: {{{Numbers}}}
Day: {{{Day}}}
Gemstones: {{{Gemstones}}}
Metal: {{{Metal}}}
I mean, it is far from clear that a zodiacal sign should have any of these, or that there should be any kind of agreement on the association. Each of these needs to be attributed to authors and justified, which cannot be done in an infobox. I suggest we remove these items from the template, and people who wish to discuss them can do so in prose, in the article body, citing their references. dab (𒁳) 14:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not only for sources, but I'm wondering about the significance of any of it. Wikidan829 14:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Things like quality, domicile, element, etc., are widely agreed upon and have been for some time. Others like number and birthstone I'm sure is chosen at the whim of the author and haven't developed a consensus over time as the others have. These fields would be better off deleted from the template. — Sam 16:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- yes, I think this is right. Things attributed with the signs since the Renaissance seem to be stable enough to list matter-of-factly. The history of this needs to be made clear on Astrological sign of course. If we are really charitable, we can count this section's reference to William Lilly as "attribution". But no mention is made of Birthstones, Numbers, Gemstones, Body Parts or Metals. If these are stable associations (say, pre-17th century), I suggest this be discussed at the astrological sign, upon which we can re-include them here. dab (𒁳) 16:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is also no discussion of Days or Numbers. I'm going to remove these as well, and they can be readded in the off chance that they are both nonarbitrary and become discussed in the astrological sign article. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 10:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- yes, I think this is right. Things attributed with the signs since the Renaissance seem to be stable enough to list matter-of-factly. The history of this needs to be made clear on Astrological sign of course. If we are really charitable, we can count this section's reference to William Lilly as "attribution". But no mention is made of Birthstones, Numbers, Gemstones, Body Parts or Metals. If these are stable associations (say, pre-17th century), I suggest this be discussed at the astrological sign, upon which we can re-include them here. dab (𒁳) 16:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Things like quality, domicile, element, etc., are widely agreed upon and have been for some time. Others like number and birthstone I'm sure is chosen at the whim of the author and haven't developed a consensus over time as the others have. These fields would be better off deleted from the template. — Sam 16:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Birth dates (Solar)?
What are these supposed to signify? At a glance they look like they may be referring to the astronomical constellations of the same names as the signs, but those are problematic not least because of Ophiucus, which is a constellation but not a sign and creates a gap in the dates; also, the values given in the articles don't quite match the astronomical-constellation dates in Zodiac. We have the sidereal and tropical sign dates, and those are actually used in astrology. There is no "Solar" zodiac in astrology, so at the very least the name of this item in the box is confusing; and the data in it appears to correspond to astronomical constellations, which are irrelevant in this context. Would it be okay to remove this item from the box? 216.75.183.126 (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- No response after a week; I'm deleting it. 216.75.183.126 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
