Talk:Aquarius (constellation)

Infobox error

Why was unbolded: Number of main stars, Number of stars with planets, Number of nearby stars, Nearest star, and the Number of Messier objects, which is on the right side of the main infobox?

Actually: the astrology information wasn't destroyed, it was moved to Aquarius (astrology), where it properly belongs. In Aquarius (constellation) it was replaced by short sentences explaining the same things. Rursus 00:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

"AQR" redirects here by default. AQR (for "Applied Quantitative Research") Capital Management is also the name of one of the largest hedge funds in the U.S. With the recent market turmoil, it's been getting a certain degree of notoriety in the press. Perhaps, a disambiguation page is in order?

kl;sfdhkfald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.158.75.196 (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you wish: go ahead! Then use another disambiguation page as a template, for example IAU (disambiguation). It's not necessary to get everything at once, f.ex. links to "Applied Quantitative Research" and Aquarius (constellation) would suffice in the beginning, other users will add their own AQR:s as they don't find it in this disambig page. It is not correct to redirect three letter abbreviations to any constellation, since the astronomers themselves never introduces constellations like "We've measured five stars in A.Q.R.", but instead say "We've measured five stars in the constellation (of) Aquarius", and then go on abbreviating the stars in Aquarius like β Aqr (pronounced "Beta Aquarii") and so on. Said: Rursus (☻) 09:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ehm. Done already. Nice! Said: Rursus (☻) 09:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

The current article claims both that most astrologers think the Age of Aquarius has already begun, and that most astrologers think it hasn't. The contradiction may not be obvious to the casual reader because the relevant sentences talk about "tropical astrologers" and "polled astrologers" as if those were two different kinds of astrologers. At a glance it looks like the article is describing a disagreement between two different traditions. Actually, "tropical astrologers" means nearly all astrologers - it's a technical term referring to the tropical zodiac. The opposite would be sidereal astrologers, who don't use "Ages" at all. "Polled" astrologers presumably means the tropical astrologers who answered the poll. Since only one poll (the one saying "not yet AoA") is cited, it's not clear why the article claims that most astrologers have the opposite view. Ideally, I think both claims should be deleted; they are off-topic for this article anyway. 67.158.72.135 (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've now deleted that part. Skeptic2 (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythology

The mythology section seems to be messed-up. This has been a trouble with several other constellation mythology sections too, confusing one constellation with another, and leaping to conclusions wildly.

Eridanus cannot be the river poured out by Aquarius, since Cetus is between. I've never ever heard of Crater being described as the cup of Aquarius, since he holds an urn, not a cup. I think me some editor have thought up explanations him/herself and presented it in several constellations as truth. This will become a heavy work to fix! D*rn! ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 16:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I searched back in history to see why and when these faulty mythologies occurred, but the history doesn't go that far back in time. Doesn't matter, however. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 16:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Visualization

In the section Visualization > Alternative someone has added the complaint template {{Section OR|date=November 2008}}. Actually this is one of H. A. Reys quite nauseatingly horrible visualizations, containing lots of acute angles

1. making it very hard to follow the star patterns,
2. disregarding all constellation history in it's entirety,

The section contains H. A. Reys ahistoric imaginations, which is pretty much like giving one fringe source undue weight. I'm going to delete these "alternative visualisations" soon. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 17:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

per Astrology section. changes needed?

"Aquarius is also associated with the Age of Aquarius, a concept popular in 1960s counterculture. Despite this prominence, the Age of Aquarius will not dawn until the year 2597, as an astrological age does not begin until the Sun is in a particular constellation on the vernal equinox."[3][8]

per "age of Aquarius" article:

1) term denoting either the current or forthcoming astrological age, depending on the method of calculation. 2) ...are various methods of calculating the boundaries of an astrological age. 3) According to various astrologers' calculations, approximate dates for entering the Age of Aquarius range from

     AD 1447 (Terry MacKinnell) to AD 3597 (John Addey).

4) Astrologers do not agree on when the Aquarian age will start or even if it has already started.

maybe rephrase the paragraph to suit the general, and not the specific. JMO. Gizziiusa (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)gizziiusa

Agree. But what to do about the sources? If one of the sources gives nothing but the 2597 number, it should be removed with it.

That sentence gives two sources, Thompson & Thompson and Ridpath. I do not have the Thompson & Thompson book, but the Ridpath source does not seem to mention any of the things in the section, so it could be removed regardless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)