Talk:Triplicity

Merge

I don't see why this article should be merged. If someone is looking for a definition of "triplicity", they should be able to find it without a lot of hunting and pecking through another article. Triplicity is a very important idea which is at the very basis of astrology. I say no. NaySay 13:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The contents of these two articles (Triplicity and Astrology and the classical elements) are the same, except for formatting and minor differences. Nobody suggested removing Triplicity. See also this discussion. --Cubbi 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

they are most emphatically NOT the same. Your article is one of those "astrology is an artifact of the structure of the four elements" thangs, which has its place with modern astrologers, but says nothing about triplicity. As for considering that your article is structured better, it certainly is structured more for that point of view. Which I don't share. As for improving this article, by all means do. But to say that it has no references??? What exactly are you referring to? What reference would you like to see? Liz Greene? NaySay 14:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, reinstating refimprove was my mistake. What I said about the merge is that the subject matter appears to me, a casual reader, identical between the two articles. Seeing your detailed comment on Talk:Astrology and the classical elements, I am starting to see the difference in the approaches here, and now I am beginning to wonder if Astrology and the classical elements is even notable enough to exist on its own. In which case, meaningful parts of it could be merged into triplicity and the rest deleted. So I still think a merge is a good idea, just on different grounds. --Cubbi 15:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I too can see why these articles are not the same. If I understand correctly, 'triplicity' is primarily an historical term, or at least used differently through the history of western astrology. Am I right? Maybe the article could be improved by giving it a more historical point of view? I don't know much about astrological history, I would simply like to have at least a section that deals with the classical elements in modern astrology, as in Astrology and the classical elements. — Starylon 15:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Neelmack, you runined a scholarly article and filled it with just the sort of silly claptrap that so many beginners are saddled with. Save it for the newspaper columns. This article, which I labored over for a long time, will need to be completely rewritten. If you want to set up a separate article for this stuff, please do so. NaySay 13:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Naysay. First off, I find it strange that the concepts of different personality types being associated with the elements is 'silly claptrap' for beginners. It seems that the vast majority of modern astrologers are just not up to your high standards. Secondly, no article is the exclusive property of any user, even if they did set it up, so you have no right to completely dictate content to everyone else. Thirdly it seems to me that there is plenty of room in the article for different points of view so I dont see what the fuss is about. As the concept of triplicity is understood (once again) by the vast majority of astrologers to include different personality types, I suggest you set up another article under a different name if you feel that strongly about it. How about Triplicity (ancient)?Neelmack 09:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Elements in modern astrology" brand new tables

User:Kmarinas86, do you have a source for the tables you've been adding about personality (MBTI) types? If they are original research they have to be reverted. If they are not they have to be referenced to the source. --Starylon (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody has answered this i've added the template infobox for "unreferenced section". If this section contains original research it must be removed! Starylon (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

AGREE ABSOLUTELY. Silly unsourced, idiosyncratic hornswoggle, and it has no business on a page which is supposed to be presenting accurate material in widespread and/or historical use for someone who doesn't know the material. I'm going to delete it in several days unless someone claims it and makes a case for it. NaySay (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

changes to historical table

Someone with I assume not much background in classical astrology removed the participating rulers and entered Pluto (!) into the triplicities table. This despite the fact that the material in that table with carefully sourced with footnotes referring to historical material that said quite the opposite. I take issue with the facts, but that can be argued or presented separately. But just removing material which is referenced in footnotes, leaving the footnotes and deleting a whole part of the table which is explained in a following paragraph is just clumsy, careless and brainless. If you have an issue, bring it up here, but please leave the tables showing the historical use of triplicities, well-supported by fact, alone unless you can prove I'm wrong. NaySay (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Need to diversify explanation of triplicity

This article is too similar to the article Astrology and the classical elements. Since merging the articles is something we want to avoid, someone should find sources that relate to Triplicity without being entirely being consumed with the concept of "classical elements". If there is 100% overlap between Triplicity and the classical elements, then we should question the need for a separate article for Triplicity.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 01:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I looked. I SHOULD resemble it--this article and what I wrote in it were simply transferred wholesale to that article, footnotes and all!! That article was an attempt by someone to put together classical elements from various astrological traditions. I don't know why because it seems like an idea that just waters everything down, first off, and secondly, it gives a misleading notion of correspondences which often simply aren't there. That's someone else's project, with a very different aim, clearly meant as an explaining link from the larger "Astrology" article. Most importantly, it has nothing to do with the important concept of the essential dignities. So that article doesn't seem very useful to me, but this on is a lot more central to basic astrological concepts. To prove my point, someone messed up the table here in attempt to add modern rulerships, in the process also deleting material. But the table in the article you mention is pristine--just the way I originally wrote it. Why? Because no one looks for the basic astrological concepts in some article called "the classical elements in astrology." Thanks for pointing it out its existence though. I wasn't aware of, like most astrological writers on Wiki. NaySay (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

On this same topic, I have removed the incorrect reference to Neptune as being a triplicity ruler of the water trigon. It is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpaulk (talk • contribs) 13:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I deleted my own creation

While my past reorganization of the "personality" section helped me to understand the classical elements better (which I preferred over the laundry list of adjectives), to be honest, it has absolutely nothing to do with triplicity. I still think this article needs a lot of work. If it is true that triplicity is a major aspect of astrology, shouldn't there be more material distinguishing it from the classical elements? Another question: Why is there no article on Quadruplicity? All the best.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 01:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

you're absolutely right, there ought to be an article on "quadruplicity." I think the reason there is only an article on "triplicity" is because it is one of the "essential dignities." "Quadruplicity," on the other hand, is a concept which was similarly named along the line, but which has nothing to do with essential dignity. The name is misleading, because the two concepts have hardly anything to do with one another. Nevertheless, a good point. NaySay (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Seasons?

I am not an expert, so I will leave any corrections to someone more knowledgable than myself, and I might be mistaken here, but....

The association of the signs with seasons section states sensibly that Aries, Taurus and Gemini would fall within the concept of "Spring." The article then proceeds to list different signs under the rubric of spring! Is there some vandalism here, or maybe some arcane knowledge of which I am unaware? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.55.65.200 (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Triplicity. 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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)