Talk:Asteroids in astrology

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 August 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Lists List‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Astrology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Original research?[edit]

This really needs an inline citation, as it may be construed as an original research kind of synthesis.

These myths, including the fact that Ceres is the roundest asteroid (it resembles the Moon) signify that in astrology the placement of Ceres in a birth chart is said to show what the native needs to feel loved and nurtured.

Thanks, --Nate (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Astrologia od początku" Jarosław Gronert, Pabianice 2007, Poland - it includes a chapter on Ceres, but assigns significantly different qualities to her. But I've seen these keywords in some english source. GrzegorzWu (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it would be better to edit the phrase to reflect those sources. Reasoning because of X then Y is still considered original research unless some source makes that very analogy as well. Thanks, --Nate (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres[edit]

Since Ceres is now classified as BOTH an asteroid and dwarf planet, I don't think it should be removed from any article about asteroids. I'm sure if telescopes in the 1800's could have resolved it as a sphere they would have treated it differently, but for most of it's history it was treated as a mere asteroid. I'm tempted to rv the last edit. -- Kheider (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did that, the astronomical communities labels don't have as much bearing in astrology. This article might never be complete and will probably end up stretching many pages if we attempt to include all of the asteroids (probably won't happen since only a few are thought to be important). --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea here is to document which bodies the astrologers want to use in their practice. This does not include all asteroids, what made you assume that? Kortoso (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of nonsense[edit]

Enough said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.41.170 (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be interesting to see something which tells us about how astrologers decide whether any particular asteroid has any astrological significance, and what that influence might be. As this article stands, it can give the impression to the casual reader that it is just a matter of anyone can say whatever one wants, and surely that would be an unfortunate impression. TomS TDotO (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "astrology is pseudoscience" is new to you? Kortoso (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiron[edit]

Looks like Chiron is considered to be an asteroid for astrology purposes:[1]. Kortoso (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]