Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article's state[edit]

Looking through the history of this article it has been created as an article but changed to redirect to list of astrologers repeatedly. Little to no reasoning was given in these actions, and I see no reason to leave it as a redirector when this topic could actually be written extensively about. Sam 06:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed merge with astrology[edit]

Why? The text in this article is actually from the astrology article. Merging it would be repetitious. Sam 17:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The question is the answer. It should be merged because it's a duplicate article. Uncle G 13:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • How would merging this into astrology be done? The text in this article is taken from the introduction of the astrology article; there is nothing to merge.

      I just recently created this page (see heading above) after it being thoughtlessly redirected to List of astrologers repeatedly. If astronomer can exist without being a "duplicate" of astronomy, why can't this article? Sam 16:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

      • If the entire text is duplicated, then it is simply the case that step #5 of the article merger process is an easy one. As for your final question: It's up to you to tell us, not the other way around. It's up to you to explain how this article can be more than the exact duplicate that (as you yourself say) you have created. Uncle G 12:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • To reiterate, this article's text is redundant and so short because it was just recently salvaged after being redirected to List of astrologers, not because it cannot be elaborated on. I think this topic's weight is pretty obvious, so I instead would like to hear why you feel the topic could not be expanded on. Sam 23:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Once again: It's up to you to tell us, not the other way around. It's up to you to explain how this article can be more than the exact duplicate that (as you yourself say) you have created. Uncle G 16:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having to explain this article's worth is absurd. If you can't see the value in a profession that has existed for thousands of years I'm not sure what to say to you. Sam 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If no one else has any thoughts, I would like to remove the templates. Sam 03:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will help if someone needs[edit]

I am a professional astrologer and programmer. You can ask me about wiki astrology article. --User:Astrolog my e mail id is —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just tagged this article. -- The part about modern astrologers needs to be completely rewritten imo -- Maybe we should model it more after the article about Astronomer MakeSense64 (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed the prominent astrologers list as it gets spammed frequently. Putting in a link to the list of astrologers instead.
Will rewrite the modern astrologers part, as it is also looking very poluted. No need to put in the historical development of astrology, since that is covered on the astrology page. It is sufficient to say how modern astrologers work, just like the page Astronomer explains in broad terms what modern astronomers do without mentioning specific names. Discuss here if you disagree with any of these changes. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reverts by[edit]

Hi MrBill3, it seems that my edit has been reverted again by without discussing here on the talk page first. How do we proceed now? AadaamS (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm thinking that single wl revert was valid. Linking the word astrologer to charlatan in an article on astrologers is not exactly good editing and won't stand any challenge. I am not an admin or mediator just an active editor. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This short and uninformative article has, rightly in my view, been tagged for months to be merged to the main article, and I see the merger has been proposed years ago also. Since there's basically nothing here that isn't in the main article, nor is there really anything to say that isn't there already, I'm boldly going ahead with a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Astrologer/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I rated this article as "start class." It provides more useful information than a mere stub should. Though it needs more citations and should probably be expanded, the information provided is a good start. --Evb-wiki 16:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last edited at 16:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)