Talk:Astrology software

Future of page

This war is missing the long-range, big picture about the future of the page. It is relatively easy to decide historical notability of a company or program, in retrospect. But no one is qualified to decide notability of current programs. A company in India once sent me a suite of astrology programs that they wanted me to distribute. I put my birth data in one of them and it informed me that the birth time from my birth certificate had to be at least ten minutes in error because only females were born then. I declined to distribute their software. The point is that this page cannot become a list of all programs. That would open up a can of worms. It needs to limit itself to generalities and a survey of historically important developments. John Halloran (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We would be limited to only mentioning notable, reliably sourced software. Unfortunately the software we mention at the moment isn't reliably sourced. In addition, no astrology software is "accurate" and going on personal opinion would be a poor measure of notability. Going on personal tests would be WP:OR. It's more pressing to bring reliable sources which establish notability. What is required for "notability" in the wikipedia sense is clearly spelled out at WP:NOTE. Thanks, Verbal chat 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's why it's a good idea to bring in people with experience in editing IT-related articles, either from WP:WikiProject Computing or perhaps from WP:WikiProject Software. They will have in mind objective criteria for establishing notability of software packages and apps. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I agree. Verbal chat 20:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You write, "no astrology software is 'accurate'". What are you responding to with that off-the-cuff statement? Moonriddengirl wrote above, "while Verbal may be wrong in this case, please don't presume that he has a bias against the content unless there is further evidence of that." I have seen where you created a topic about this page at:

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Astrology_and_computers

It seems like you are invested because of that and need to read what WP:OWN says about taking a week or two to cool off. John Halloran (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no ownership issues with this page, and have no interest in astrology or any of its accoutrements. Please stop trying to make this personal. I was responding to your comment about inaccurate astrology software at the start of this thread. Wikipedia rules apply to all pages whether we believe in them or not. You, however, do have an acknowledged COI and have been trying to force me off the page. Please stop that and address improving the article, within the framework of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Verbal chat 21:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Remember, astrological software has two parts, the astronomical and the interpretive. Certainly, the astronomical calculations must be accurate. About the interpretive part, one must refer to research that has been done. The main complaint that has been made is not inaccuracy but that descriptions are so inspecific as to permit the uncritical to read into them what they wish. (That's the gist of the blind trial that was reported in Nature maybe 15 years ago.) Research by Gauquelin, Addey and others controverts traditional treatments of the diurnal cycle by locating significant sectors in the opposite direction, but the semantics otherwise accords very well. Disclaimer: I am not a practicing astrologer. I wrote a book almost 30 years ago enabling readers to make their own evaluation. My own view is that there is something definitely going on there, but that we don't yet know a heck of a lot about it. The dismissive discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard (a grossly inappropriate location for a topic about a type of software) patently confounds serious astrology with the fluff one finds in newspapers. Bn (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

the purpose of this article is not a criticism of astrology. Programs that draw horoscopes are just that, programs that draw horoscopes. If you like horoscopes, you can run such a program. Just like space invaders is a game where you shoot alien spaceships. If you like shooting alien spaceships, you run it. The complaint that astrology isn't "real" is about as sensible as the complaint that the spaceships in space invaders aren't real.

I fully agree with Bn that the fringe noticeboard is not the proper place to discuss an article on a type of software. --dab (𒁳) 07:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"the purpose of this article is not a criticism of astrology" no one has claimed otherwise. "The complaint that astrology isn't 'real'" no one has made that complaint. FTN an the appropriate place to discuss any matters pertaining to astrology, as it is where most subject matter experts will be found and because WP:FRINGE applies to claims made in this article too. Would you care to address any points that have actually been made? Verbal chat 07:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your "subject matter experts" appear to have been too busy to step forward. Speaking of which, your user page says that you are a PhD physicist. I have a close friend with a PhD in physics. He has a job at the Aerospace Corporation. He is certainly too busy to spend his days editing Wikipedia. And someone with a PhD would know that 'repeatedly' is based on the word 'repeat'. You consistently write 'repeadedly'. Something is wrong here. The infamous Essjay (see Essjay controversy) hid behind a persona and claimed to have a doctorate in theology and canon law. "It was later discovered that he was 24 years old and had dropped out of community college with no qualifications." The other editors here, I know their names are Louie, Judith, Steven, etc. I don't know if your name is Bill, Fred, or what. John Halloran (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're that worried about it I can get a trusted admin to confirm my credentials to you. I'm an academic at a top university, however that is entirely irrelevant to improving this page as wikipedia works on the principle of nullius in verba. Please concentrate on improving the article rather than casting aspersions about other editors. You are the "subject matter expert" dab is talking about, and it would help if you could provide some solid WP:RS for the claims in the article. I've written "repeadedly" once, which was an obvious typo and I'll go and fix it. As to my name, I don't like giving it to people who make unfounded attacks. You can call me Verbal chat 16:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"You and John have attacked me repeadedly, trying to ban me from the page and making blatantly untrue accusations. I gave John teh benefit of the doubt, but dab you really should know better. Removing the notability tag repeadedly, while notability has not yet been established, is not appropriate." If you truly want astrology software experts to cooperate with you, demonstrate good faith by removing your precious notability tag. This started when you thought that this page was an easy target for destruction, claiming that the entire page was copied from a website in India. So that's it - demonstrate good faith with your actions. John Halloran (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are not appropriate for Wikipedia: you need to talk about the article and not about other editors. Experienced editors knows that they are supposed to use {{Copyvio}} on articles that look like a complete copyright violation: that is standard, and the issue was quickly resolved, and you should not take it personally. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Gaps

Adding a subsection to discuss missing pieces.

Before the advent of PCs, a number of companies developed software on minicomputers to calculate horoscopes as a mail-order business. Some of these also created text (on the order of 1200-1400 multi-paragraph chunks of interpretive content) to be assembled into custom reports. (Example: Para Research, whose text files were also published as books, and are the origin of the text files still in use by Astrodienst. There's a convenient annotated list of the books at http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=108714247378.) Other companies developed software for PCs from the start, which they used for a mail-order business. (Example: Astro-Graphics Services, later named Astrolabe. Company history at http://alabe.com/history.htm.) This information about the history is missing from the article because of the difficulty finding sources that are accepted as reliable. Bn (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Per discussion in the Sydney Omarr section and in the List of Software section, research is needed to locate reviews of current astrology software and assemble a list as in the List_of_disk_partitioning_software article. That article could then be referenced here.Bn (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The Sydney Omarr book

This reference:

• Trish MacGregor; Carol Tonsing (2009), "Chapter 9: The Best Astrology Software", Sydney Omarr's Day-by-day Astrological Guide, Penguin Group, pp. 124–129, ISBN 9780451227249

to a chapter in one of the "Sydney Omarr's this-and-that" books seems to survey available astrology software, and looks useful to the page. User:Verbal has been repeatedly removing the book as being "not a reliable source"; comments would be welcome on whether a link to this chapter is worth including on the page or not. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it is not a reliable source. I am not the only one to say this. What exactly in the body is it supporting? Only notable texts in and out of the field should be listed in the further reading section. Verbal chat 19:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Penguin books therefore perfectly sensible source for this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

May be so, but Sydney Omarr is not. Verbal chat 19:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is on astrology software, and the book chapter is a survey of astrology software, in a popular book by a reputable publisher. Sydney Omarr's personal reputation is irrelevant: according to the Wikipedia article, he's dead, so the book is just named after him. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes it even more problematic. Who wrote the section? And just what is it actually supporting? Verbal chat 19:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The citation lists the authors for Chapter 9. Knowledgeable editors with access to this chapter can make references to it that support content in this article. And readers can get a survey of what's available today from a non-COI source. The only thing that is objectionable is this silly quarreling. Let's get on with improving the article. Bn (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It should be left out until it is used, when its suitability as a source can be better assessed. Verbal chat 16:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you agree. If I understand Bn correctly, he's arguing that the book can be included, and answering your strange question of who the authors are (when they're already mentioned in the citation), and explaining why it's worth including. Obviously, works in "Further reading" are not meant for the purpose of directly supporting any specific statements in the article. You seem to be persistently blocking all attempts to improve the article, invoking policy rather than the good of the article. Please stop. Shreevatsa (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please justify why it should be added to the further reading section, which is for notable works or those that have had significant impact or praise. It seems this is just a section of one book in a series of no particular note. Verbal chat 16:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

We are here to build an encyclopedia. Asking why something "should" be added is not a productive question. If something is useful, and there are no strong reasons not to add it, we do so. Bn has already explained why it's useful: "readers can get a survey of what's available today from a non-COI source" (i.e. a source that does not also produce its own software). I have no connection with the book, authors, or astrology, but added the section (it's found in all books of the series, BTW) because it is useful, and an improvement. You on the other hand seem to be here on a personal vendetta, determined to remove anything you don't like, add tags just because you don't like the topic, etc. This sort of veiled aggressive behaviour is not helpful. Shreevatsa (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Verbal. I think this is a perfectly fine source just so long as it is actually used to source something. It would be great to use to source a list of current astrology software programs, and perhaps even for some text indicating their differences, strengths and weaknesses. But just adding it to further reading is promoting the book for no reason! Yworo (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Yworo that this article should include a list of the software reviewed in the cited chapter. This is a neutral review in a publication by a major publisher. Penguin Books (under its hard-nosed parent Pearson Longmans) would not include it if they did not think it was of interest to a large population of readers. Therefore, it further demonstrates notability of the topic (though that has already been amply demonstrated). It also demonstrates that readers of wikipedia will also be interested in seeing the list. Therefore, I agree that we should include a list of the software packages cited in this chapter as being the most notable, with a reference to that publication. We should add such others as are substantially mentioned in Prof. Lewis's book, which is cited elsewhere. I realize there is a concern for "me too" spam. Addition of other software might be met with a RS tag (not immediate deletion) until a suitable objective, wide distribution, non-COI reference can be found for it. Other reviews of astrological software can be found in professional journals such as those of the National_Council_for_Geocosmic_Research (one published since 1984, the other since 1991). Please stop grinding the axe and put more energy into providing useful information for those wikipedia readers who are actually interested in learning something about this topic. Bn (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I see now that Yworo (here and 06:57, 7 July 2010) was suggesting a separate list topic, rather than a list incorporated into this article. List_of_disk_partitioning_software is an example of such a topic.Bn (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I retreated from that position, as there are probably not adequate sources for enough different pieces of software to make a list article worthwhile. Yworo (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a matter for research, then. I'll add it to the Gaps section. Bn (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the principal author is Trish MacGregor. I have found nothing significant about Carol Tonsing; she may be an editor at Penguin. The interview with MacGregor on the Matrix site http://www.astrologysoftware.com/resources/articles/getarticle.asp?ID=101 makes it clear that she is a competent technician and also a successful writer who is effective at addressing the general public. She is certainly competent to review astrology software for the purpose stated in the cited chapter, that is, to encourage readers to investigate beyond the necessary limitations of such a book, which they cannot do if all they know is which 30-degree segment of the ecliptic the sun was in when they were born. (For those who are not familiar with the field, the necessary limitation is that a writer for the general public can say nothing in respect to where the moon and eight planets were for each reader. They can either write generalities about the sun sign, as in newspaper astrology and in the "day by day" parts of this book, hence their superficiality; or they can detail between one and two thousand possible combinations for the most well-known factors, as in text such as is employed by astrological software and published in some books (e.g. the Para Research titles mentioned in discussion). This limitation obviously does not effect the cited review chapter.)Bn (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability, again

Please demonstrate how WP:NOTE has been met. Thanks, Verbal chat 09:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

On the top of WP:NOTE, it says "…guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense". Please use common sense. It is not a "rule" to be "met", after which you can decide what is a "valid tag" and what is not. As a class of software, it is clearly notable enough. You're the only one who disagrees. Shreevatsa (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, WP:NOTE has "If you want to ask advice whether an article topic is likely to be notable please visit the notability noticeboard". Please go seek advice there if you disagree with all other editors here, so that this can be settled once and for all. Shreevatsa (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This article does not meet any of the notability criteria, and does not seem notable to the mainstream per lack of coverage. Common sense says it is not notable. Please also restore the refimprove tag, that is better than having to litter the page with citation needed tags and is required do to the poor nature of the current sources. I do not need to ask for advice, as I understand why this article currently fails the criteria. Thanks, Verbal chat 09:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely, when your view differs from that of everyone else, you ought to realise there's something wrong? :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's simple, demonstrate how WP:NOTE has been met (with reference to RS). Verbal chat 10:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? We are not beholden to any such non-rule, we're just supposed to improve the encyclopedia. What do you think you're doing? Shreevatsa (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Astrology software is certainly notable, even if there are no individual software products that meet notability requirements. There are 7 valid reference on the article, and the further reading section has two additional sources that cover astrology software in general. As long as there are reliable sources supporting the article, notability has been established. Yworo (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please answer the question, following notability criteria. There are multiple problems with the poor sources as is already clear from above. Verbal chat 09:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please detail what you find "poor" about the sources. Yworo (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC discussion of notability and trade publication sources

A certain user keeps adding a notability tag when the article is supported by multiple reliable sources which establish notability of the topic (e.g. Astrology for Dummies as a recent source). They also have removed references to reviews in the leading trade magazine for astrologers. This magazine has won awards and is available in mainstream bookstores including Barnes & Noble and Borders. It qualifies for an article on Wikipedia as it meet notability requirements. It's a reliable source within the field of the astrology business, reviews tools used by those in the trade, and is neither spam nor unreliable. Astrology may be "fringe", but it is popular and has its own reliable sources with the field. Please weigh in on these issues. Yworo (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please provide WP:RS that show a specific criteria of WP:NOTE is met, with a justification. The listing of multiple non-notable products is, as was agreed above, unhelpful and fails WP:UNDUE - and is very close to being spam (or spammy, as it is called above). Verbal chat 02:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would susgest taking this to the RSN board.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, the consensus here is against you and you are edit warring. If you truly believe that astrology software is not notable as a topic, then nominate the article for deletion. If you believe the sources do not qualify as reliable, take it to the RSN board. Otherwise, stop edit warring against the consensus that the sources are reliable and they support notability. Yworo (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)