This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aquarius (constellation) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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
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)
"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