Talk:Astrology and the classical elements

Merge with Triplicity

I suggest the merge because the contents of this page and the contents of Triplicity are the same, except this page is structured a little bit better. --Cubbi 17:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, they should definitely be merged. What is the best title tho? What page name is most in accordance with the naming conventions? "Triplicity" sounds best to me, even tho I wouldn't have thought of it when looking for the article. I would have searched for "[The] Classical elements in astrology", but that should be "western astrology", so "Triplicity" seems simplest. — Starylon 17:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles are NOT the same. This article is one of those "astrology is an artifact of the structure of the four elements" thangs. That has its place with beginning modern astrologers, but says nothing about triplicity, which is not demonstrably a function of the elements. Although the elements are not a modern concept, their use in delineation simply didn't exist before the modern era. Heretofore, they were an abstract analogy drawn between messy astrology as it was handed down and the popular Aristotlean and Stoic philosophical world-views. That doesn't mean anyone used them. I would argue that they were actually a construct imposed upon astrology to make it more scientific, in line with Ptolemy's reframing in the second century. As for considering that this article is structured better, it certainly is structured more for that point of view. I am puzzled that you see any correspondence at all. By all means criticize the "Triplicity" article for being incomplete or inaccurate or poorly written, or complain that you don't like the structure. All points taken. But to criticize its sourcing or to try to merge it into this concept would distort the aim of that article. If you want to merge the elements of it, fine. But wouldn't it be less redundant simply to hyperlink to it? NaySay 14:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added in the Chinese elements to remove a Western POV - which neatly resolves the merge/not merge issue I think. The two articles are now clearly different.Neelmack 13:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But it says "Tree", isn't it supposed to be wood? But I don't know because I am not Chinese. --zzo38(✉) 20:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Me again. I've made triplicity the main article link for the Western astrology section. Although there are differences in approach to the Western elements, they need to be resolved somehow in the same article as the subject matter is clearly the same.Neelmack 14:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sign attributes

I'm surprised to see no mention of mutable, fixed and cardinal signs. mkehrt (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Add them if it is applicable; element/mode is one way to select a sign, so is element/season (although this is not often done; perhaps because seasons are different in the other hemisphere). I would describe these mutable/fixed/cardinal as: Cardinal signs begin at an equinox or solstice, mutable signs end at an equinox or solstice, and fixed signs are those that do neither. (Another distinction sometimes made is "learn" and "share": "Learn" designate signs in the northern hemisphere and "share" designate signs in the southern hemisphere. This does not necessarily mean the objects are in those hemispheres if they do not lie on the ecliptic.) --Zzo38 (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astrology and the classical elements. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071002064247/http://www.robhand.com/availpub.htm to http://www.robhand.com/availpub.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Indian Astrology Section errors

Nothing said in the indian astrology section is on the linked indian astrology page and the information has no citation here or there. I am inclined to believe that is modern indian astrology since I have never found a uniform association of planets with elements in indian astrology despite looking for years (there are inconsistent systems based on NINE planets, mostly in hatha manuals about the chakras and planets and elements). This needs to be removed or retooled with a source. It also is unusual the five elements from gross to subtle would line up with the five planets from closest to furthest from the sun when the indian astrological system had a different order for the distances of the planets and used a geocentric model. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)