Talk:Astrology software

Development

This article has some inaccuracies and heavy biases. For example, the programs in 1977 were not "complete programs" and generally did one or two calculations. It was not until I joined Matrix in 1981 tha all purpose programs were available. Claims regarding what company is the largest, etc. are undocumented and may not be true. I am an astrology software developer and it not appropriate for any astrology software developer to be contributing to this article so I have not edited the article. We need an objective panel to interview contributors to satrology software and do some research into the field and to assemble a much more objective and reastlistic history of astrology and computers. Right now this article has too much advertising hype and not enough scholarly research. DavidCochrane 15:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement that developers of astrology software should not contribute to this article. There is ample precedent for this disagreement. Many articles about operating systems, programs, computing standards, and so forth, have benefited irreplaceably by engineers who are uniquely knowledgeable precisely because they participated in their development, and would be astonished and upset if they were told that their expertise was ruled out. Other means are available to exclude commercial conflict of interest. (And IMO the distinction between WP:COI and WP:OWN is being lost in much of this discussion, which risks devolving into a pissing contest.)Bn (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It also would be nice to cover developments subsequent to 1994...216.75.191.251 05:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the article is far from complete, and does not cover the full range of astrological software avaiable today, or hardware and software available in early years of personal computers... and is heavily biased toward American software manufacturers and distributors, still giving little if any attention to European software, as of this date. 66.81.77.232 (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Blake Finley

I agree with the statements suggesting that the article is biased and unsupported. I also think it could be merged into another page as it is not notable enough to merit its own page. Zebedee88 (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Those who have additional knowledge of the development history of astrological software should come forth and contribute to this article instead of simply saying that the information is missing. If you know it is missing, then you know something about what is missing. Contribute it.

Verbal (timestamp 06:20, 30 June 2010 characterized changes as "copyedit, restore tags, remove poorly sourced/unsourced (google searches, non-RS books)" Please justify the (unmentioned) removal of a paragraph about Para Research, Inc. Bn (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

There is no copyright violation because although I did not create this page, I added most of the content as a public service five years ago, from my knowledge as an insider with over 40 years of experience with astrology. Other contributors have tweaked the content of the page, but the bulk of the information has stood unchanged for five years. If an external page has this text, then they clearly copied it from Wikipedia, not vice-versa. Do not let a person biased against astrology destroy a page that is providing a public service. John Halloran (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Any page on Wikipedia can be accused of copyright violation, if a person wanted to do so. As a test, I copied the following text from the page on George Washington, "The Continental Congress appointed Washington commander-in-chief of the American revolutionary forces in 1775. The following year, he forced the British out of Boston, lost New York City, and crossed the Delaware River in New Jersey, defeating the surprised enemy units later that year." I put this text, surrounded by quotation marks, in Google and found that this exact text is at 902 web sites, including timelines.com, dcpages.com, askbiography.com, youtube.com, etc. Why doesn't user Verbal flag the George Washington page for copyright infringement? John Halloran (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that you were given the incorrect template; this page is not nominated for speedy deletion. The copyright concerns will be carefully evaluated before any action is taken against the article. Wikipedia is widely mirrored and I suspect that in this case the external site is using your content without credit, but unfortunately some of the easy markers I look for to confirm that are absent here. Please be patient with the process, and I will attempt to get to the bottom of it as swiftly as possible. However, 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. Wikipedia does encourage its contributors to take copyright concerns seriously, to protect the project, its reusers and the copyright holders. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You can tell that the external page recently copied the Wikipedia page because their copy includes these lines added by Walter Pullen, AKA Cruiser1 on July 12, 2007: "Similarly, astrologers on the internet sought an astrological calculation program that would work on Unix systems. This demand was met by the open source software program Astrolog, first posted to Usenet in 1991." Therefore, the page's 2005-2010 copyright notice is bogus. Not to mention that the www.co.cc domain service is not mentioned in any news archive before the year 2010.John Halloran (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's very helpful. :) I consulted with a colleague before shutting off last night (here), and he notes that dates added in 2009 here are also included in the external site. I'd say that those two facts are definitive. I'll clear the copyright listing at WP:CP, restore the article, and put a note at the top of this page to help prevent this recurring with this source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY

Verbal decided to delete an Interpretation Reports section that was not pirated by the external page. I am going to undo his deletion of that section, a section that has stood for five years. John Halloran (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't unless you add WP:RS that shows this isn't WP:OR. Notability is a bigger concern right now. Verbal chat 19:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You have disqualified yourself from having anything to do with this page. John Halloran (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN. I have left a note about your apparent WP:COI on your talk page. Please provide reliable sources for the article claims here, and I would ask you not to edit the article to add claims about yourself or software you have an interest in. I have asked others to review this page at the appropriate noticeboard. Verbal chat 19:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of sourcing for this article, removing un sourced material (or putting in CN tags) us not vandalism, but it is to remove them with out providing sources.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

user Verbal deleted the paragraph that referenced The Astrology Book encyclopedia, showing his bias. user Verbal should be disqualified from editing this page.John Halloran (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with Slatersteven, and see WP:NOTVAND. John, I'm sorry I'm pointing you to so many rules so quickly, but they are all relevant to your recent actions. Please discuss the sourcing and improving the article here. Verbal chat

I think that the paragraph may need restoring, if it can be demonstrated that the source meets RS. Aslo (john) I think you need to read how to cite sources.Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales did not intend Wikipedia to be only the product of high-school students. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Expert_editors; John Halloran (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A historical essay marked as not gaining consensus doesn't seem to be relevant. Neither does the high-school student comment. As to restoring that paragraph, only the first sentence seems to be sourced to it - and as Slatersteven says we'd need assurance it meets WP:RS. Please discuss edits and improving the article, not editors. Verbal chat 21:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the first two paragraphs for general flow and removed the citation and reference needed tags as they were for statements which were either sufficiently referenced, or for which I did not think needed a formal reference in an introductory article such as this.Horsechestnut (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

All facts in an articel need to be referanced. Also ther are only two refeances, and they have been challenged. Please explai9n why youi bleive they are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the links to commercial companies per WP:NOT and the text promoting those companies products. They are not WP:RS reliable sources, nor can I find any sources that identify them as more notable than any of the thousands of companies that offer computerized astrological chart services, sell astrological software, or provide computing resources to astrologers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Info about companies that first developed astrological software and related products is pertinent to the history, unless the claim is that the history itself is not pertinent to the article. As to WP:NOT, two published references are Computers and Astrology: A Universal User's Guide and Reference by Patricia L. Foreman and Peter Ashe; Astrology on Your Personal Computer by Hank Friedman. Bn (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Those references were not in the version I found and edited. Only links to software company pages and products for sale. If the article is to remain, you'll need additional references such as non-trivial books or scholarly works that treat "astrology and computers" in-depth and prominently that qualify as WP:RS reliable sources that ensure the article covers ALL relevant companies and individuals of historical importance, not just some. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the first WP:RS a call for independent documentation that ACS was the first such company? Historians rarely write the history of a small company.Bn (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If ther is no RS supproting a claim it cannot be made. By the way if something is a notable part of a subject, it will have been noted.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In this case, the subject itself is dismissed as not notable by people with no expert knowledge of it, and a source that is notable and reliable within the subject domain is not recognized outside of it. My own academic field is linguistics, and I have done particular research for years on the Pit River (Achumawi) language of northeastern California. There is no one alive with the knowledge that I have of that subject. Nor is it a notable subject outside of a few subfields of linguistics. In wikipedia I am not allowed to enter my original research, but I am allowed quote original research on this that I have published elsewhere. It is still original research. The difference is that by WP:RS someone else is responsible for attesting to its credibility. Is their attestation reliable? Not your problem! The fact that David Olmsted did such an incredibly careless hack job with his Achumawi Dictionary (redacting de Angulo's inadequate materials and including words from an entirely different language copied from an unpublished ms. of his) would not prevent anyone from making false assertions based upon it, and only a current expert could correct the errors--but it would satisfy [WP:RS] for anyone outside the field and indeed for most linguists. I don't know if I will ever be able to correct Olmsted's terrible errors in reconstructing so-called Palaihnihan. I could cite a couple of other fields in which I have narrow expertise that is not widely shared.

As I understand the motivation for the WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:NOTABILITY rules, they arise from a concern for the credibility of Wikipedia. You don't see citations of reliable sources for every assertion in a conventional encyclopedia article, and such articles can be (and sometimes famously are) original research. The credibility of articles in the conventional encyclopedias is affirmed by brief statements of the qualifications of those who have contributed articles. In wikipedia, a reader can identify authors with difficulty through the History tab. Sometimes (as in the present case), the discussion tab provides additional indicators. From there, the user, talk, and contribs links sometimes give information of roughly the type that you see in much more focused form in the bio for each contributor to a conventional encyclopedia. I have pointed this out to fellow former employees of BBN (America's least well-known famous company, and certainly notable for all that), to assuage their scepticism about Wikipedia. But obviously, the reader who will chase all this down is rare indeed, and this has essentially no effect on credibility. To address this very real issue of Wikipedia's credibility, I would suggest an optional means to specify the principal author or authors of a topic, and to link to a credibility-oriented brief bio. The bio could be a designated optional section of the user page. (Most users and many contributors do not have a user page.) The content of such a section would of course be subject to verification, editing, discussion, and adjudication, like any other content in Wikipedia. Justification for ssociating such content with a topic would be a function of how much of the topic's content was created and improved by that person. Bn (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bn this is general stuff about Wikipedia and you need to post it somewhere else, like the village pump. Sounds interesting, but there is so much else we have to work out on this talk page. 21:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you're saying you've read WP policies but you don't agree with them? Color me confused. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough re village pump, and no it's not that I disagree but they seem incomplete and not quite adequate to the task. It backs Wikipedia into an unfortunate corner. We want to encourage participation of SMEs. Being able to distinguish genuine SMEs in a field from dilettantes and from outsiders who just happen to have opinions about it would be very useful for Wikipedia editors and admins, because the same principles of reliability apply to contributors as to sources. Applying the dilettant standard of interrogation to a recognized scholar or a major contributor to a field who has been present through many years of its development can only discourage participation by those whom we most want to contribute their expertise. I won't continue the theme here, but I do want to clarify and respond to your comments, LuckyLuie and whoever you are (unsigned first comment). Bn (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion of SMEs should be held elsewhere, as people would have different opinions as to what makes a subject matter expert. For example, in homeopathy Homeopaths might claim to have a special position, and they do have certain insights, but they should not be replied upon to manage the article. This is too big to debate here. Verbal chat 19:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

COI tag

How about we remove the WP:COI flag now. Bn (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that tag being removed, if the Notability and refimprove tags stay, and John and others he mentioned with a CoI restrict themselves to the talk page or non-controversial edits from now. Dab did have a different opinion, but he'd have to clarify and may be ok with it now. Verbal chat 18:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Off topic and accusations of bad faith

How about we remove the WP:COI flag now. It appears to me that Halloran was upset that apparently uninformed users who were not identified as having any particular wiki-authority were making substantial deletions. It is understandable that he might take it for vandalism. Many people contributed to the article between October 2005 when he initiated it and June 20 of this year, 5 years later, when Verbal removed two sections in their entirety with the notations "Interpretation reports: rm unsourced WP:OR" and "Current Resources: rm unsourced, not notable, and spam". (It seems to me that these issues would only call for a citation needed flag and a not notable flag at each of the places so judged. Looking at the deleted text at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astrology_software&action=historysubmit&diff=369220446&oldid=369211115 I fail to see any spam. Deletion seems overkill.) In June 2009 the collection of Java scripts called Friendly added an 'article issues' box tagging the article for notability, npov and lack of references. It's difficult for me to see NPOV issues, but let be. I suppose lack of action in response to those tags was what triggered the return attention by Verbal exactly one year later. But that very lack of action belies a claim of WP:OWN, which is I think the closest this has ever got to COI — there has never been any touting of his own company or software here at the expense of rivals. So--can we unslime him? (That's what it feels like, I'm sure.) Bn (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Wow that's a lot of bad faith accusations and a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. Firstly "uninformed users" is definitely not civil. To put your mind at rest I'm perfectly well informed, thanks. "Wiki-authority" isn't required (and shows a misunderstanding of wikipedia), yet I am a highly experienced editor. It was definetly not vandalsim, as policy and guidelines were pointed to including WP:NOTVAND. I could understand John might not be familiar with all these which is why I pointed him to them politely. Those edit summaries give perfectly valid policy based reasons for removing that content. The ownership issues were on John's side, but I took it with good grace. "At the expense of rivals" shows a slight misunderstanding of WP:COI. I feel there are still COI issues until the content is reliably sourced and checked for neutrality, but I wouldn't object to that tag being removed if the Notability and refimprove tags stay and John and others with a CoI restrict themselves to the talk page or non-controversial edits. However, dab might disagree per his talk page. Verbal chat 20:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I apologize if "apparently uninformed users" seemed an uncivil "bad faith accusation". (By that, I assume you mean "accusation of bad faith" and not "accusation made in and demonstrating bad faith.") It is unfortunate that you have overlooked The word "apparently". It asserts my belief that it so appeared to Halloran, who I think is probably not expert in the detailed workings of Wikipedia. Nor, obviously, am I, though I think we're both learning. The whole paragraph is framed under the initial phrase "it appears to me". I too am "perfectly well informed" about many things. It is clear, I should think, that the phrase here specifically means well informed about the subject of this article. If you had been well informed about the form, functions, and history of astrological software then the tagging and the commentary would IMO have been far different. Very likely as a SME you would have collaborated with Halloran in improving the article, and might even have used your contacts in the field to encourage other SMEs to help. Outright deletion IMO would never have entered your mind if you were well informed about the field. "Unsourced" would have taken the form of specific requests for citation. For that matter, as an SME you would likely have participated in researching sources. "Not notable" would not literally have been in question to an SME — I see that Prof. Lewis's book has been mentioned in the text from the first draft, as an SME you would have recognized it a reliable source then rather than belatedly now, and the obvious fix would have been to cite it with correct markup (as it is now). But of course none of us is well informed about all things, and that is a good part of why we value wikipedia. Based on this little window into performance of several editors, my perception is that at a certain level of commitment wikipedia editors like yourself take on some of the shared responsibility for improving wikipedia by trolling topics for issues, flagging them, and intervening when less active contributors have failed to implement changes that flags call for. It appears to me that, like myself, many contributors check on the status of their contributions only sporadically or rarely. It appears from the history that Halloran did not touch this article for almost 5 years, between 29 October 2005 and 28 June 2010. (It's possible he didn't sign in on occasion. The few unsigned tweaks are mostly category labels. On 10 June 2010 a user at 84.90.193.99 added a section on "Current Resources", an incomplete list of available software packages, which you identified as spam when you deleted it on the 28th.) The "article issues" box was added 28 June 2009, hence my supposition that this set up a tickler for renewed editorial attention precisely one year later. When contributors fail to recognize that an invisible clock is ticking and then fail to respond and fix the identified issues, perhaps there could be additional methods of communication to nudge them, methods intermediate between flagging the article and deletion. I'm not proposing that's a simple solution, but recognition that there is a systemic communication problem would help foster a more humane editorial presence. I refer here to "attitude" comments made by your fellow editors. I recognize that experience with wars around other articles could prime one's expectations, but if you come loaded for bear, folks just might tend to respond like bears. Bn (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Adding "it appears to me" to the start of a sentence does not stop it being a personal attack or a comment assuming bad faith or just rude. Whether or not John is a SME is entirely irrelevant to his conduct, as is who knows the most about the subject. The goal should be improving the page not the silly accusations. "Outright deletion"? If you are referring to the copyvio template, that has been resolved and would have applied even if the article was brilliantly written and well sourced - we cannot use copyrighted content. Fortunately in this case the other website is the one guilty of copyright infringement. "trolling topics for issues" is another personal attack, and not true either. How long until the next? As to precisely one year later, that is just a coincidence - though I know people involved in astrology often read a lot into those. I don't have a calendar filled with article issues. Indeed, please stop responding like a bear. Please focus on improving the article and not the misguided and insulting meta-discussion. Verbal chat 15:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Trolling_(fishing) is unrelated to Troll. What I was imagining (incorrectly, it seems) was some kind of crawler or other script process that would surface potential issue for editors' or reviewers' attention. I was unaware until I just googled it that "trolling" was also used for gratuitous flaming: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling. I was guessing about the role and available tools of editors who are recognized as being more actively involved than either I or Halloran are. With that clarification I hope it is evident that in this paragraph and elsewhere I am talking about process, not people, and that taking these words personally is unnecessary and does not help the discussion. I try to live by the maxim that it causes as much trouble to take offense as it does to give it. The main thrust of what I have said is, please don't BITE us as we become more familiar with the more complex aspects of wikipedia. Everything in that BITE article could be taken personally, but it is clearly about process and not about people. And I have several times indicated that I, and Halloran too (judging from his contribution list), are among the neophytes identified in the BITE article. I have also indicated, I think very clearly, that we have been feeling bit. Please. WP:ASF.Bn (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested Discussion of Restored and Improved Content

Three sections and most or all of their content were removed with neither explanation or justification:

1. History
2. Calculation Features
3. Interpretation Reports

After improving the content with citations and editing, I restored the deleted sections. I could give detailed citations of all the ephemerides and books of tables published by ACS, but that hardly seems motivated and would overweight the references with repetitive information.

The History section is a summary of developments, drawing on a book by Professor Lewis. The citation of that book was missing; I have added it.

The 'Computation Features' section briefly describes the operations and computing products typical of these programs. I have added citations of two books on the subject.

These sections and their improved content have again been deleted. The only comment from Verbal about that change was a request that I discuss the changes here. Since those sections were previously deleted without discussion here, with all due respect I submit that this principle cuts both ways. Please discuss here the reasons for the original deletion.

Within the History section, a new paragraph about one of the early contributors to the historical development, Para Research, Inc., was deleted without explanation. The edit comment by Verbal (timestamp 06:20, 30 June 2010 characterized changes as "copyedit, restore tags, remove poorly sourced/unsourced (google searches, non-RS books)". There has been no response to my request for the justification for this deletion. (See my request 14:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC) at the end of the Development section above on this page.) Please note that [WP:COI] can hardly apply, the founder is dead and the company defunct.

Now, in compliance with the editor comment from Verbal, I have accounted here for the changes that I have made — in brief, a restoration of content that was deleted with no expressed warrant, and improvement of that content with citations and wordsmithing. I will now undo the last deletion by Verbal. I am doing so because it was deleted without explanation or justification. Before swooping in to assert your editorial ownership of this topic, you are enjoined by your own stated principle to give an accounting for those prior deletions here on this page.

In general, I am bemused by the aggressive tactics of a few editors here, unlike what I have experienced elsewhere in Wikipedia. While apparently claiming the WikiMaven high ground for themselves, they seem to me to be exemplifying more than a little of WP:OWN. Please take this opportunity to prove me wrong, and be more communicative. Bn (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You haven't provided any WP:RS for the material you are seeking to add. In addition, some of it is of dubious relevance (such as the entire Interpretation Reports section) or just plain poorly sourced. Verbal chat 20:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You say that the section on interpretive text is 'of dubious relevance' to the topic of computers and astrology. This judgment is uninformed. Astrology is astronomy plus interpretation. I do not want to make any guess as to personal philosophies, but as a notable parallel Scientistic judgment, e.g. by adherents of SCICOP), rejects the interpretive side, but that is controversial and clearly does not make it irrelevant to this topic. It is a simple and manifest fact that astrological software is of two kinds: those that do the astronomical calculations and present the results in astrological form; and those that do this and in addition assemble interpretive text.Bn (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You say that the reason that you deleted a section of content is that it does not provide what in your judgment are reliable sources. That is a reason for flagging the text as needing reliable sources. It is no justification for deleting it. [Oops! omitted the signature.]Bn (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, judgment as to what sources are reliable may call for some familiarity with the field. Taking just the first such flag on this topic, the claim seems to be that a company that has been in business for 40 years is not a reliable source for information about its origins. Every company that I have worked for has included at the end of its press releases a statement of its origin and its mission, and this statement is commonly picked up verbatim in the press, and also appears on its website. By this standard, a secondary quotation from the press is reliable, but a quotation from the company's own material is not.Bn (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Particularly dubious-appearing are the Astrocom claims that are sourced to its own web site. If you could provide a secondary source (such as the book by Professor Lewis, or other relevant text) for those claims, it would go a long way to address these problems. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note for just one example the many citations of IBM internal archives, closely analogous to the ACS page about the founding of that company. See e.g. refs 40, 44-46, 49, 50, 53-59 and many others.Bn (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

All serious astrologers and astrology software programmers pay homage to the late Neil Franklin Michelsen, born May 11, 1931, in Chicago, founder and inspiration behind Astro Computing Services (ACS) and ACS Publications. His biography appears on page 454 of The Astrology Book: The Encyclopedia of Heavenly Influences (2003), by James R. Lewis. Part of the problem here is that editors who know nothing about this field are trying to dictate to people who do know these things. A person who knows nothing about the field should leave the decision of relevance up to those who do know. John Halloran (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

When I wrote the original three sections, it was just as a starter - I put underneath, "This article needs to be expanded." Of course any article written by just one person was going to be one-sided. But I guarantee that in the five years that the article stood, all the astrology software heavyweights viewed it. Michael Erlewine himself edited it. If there had been any factual inaccuracy in what I wrote, Michael would have corrected it, from his insider knowledge. It was perfectly appropriate for Walter Pullen to add a mention of his historically important Astrolog program, which he started for the Unix operating system. So for five years Wikipedia functioned as intended, a place where any expert could jump in and correct inaccurate information. I am just sorry that more contributors did not jump in with additional information, such as the info about Para Research, a company whose advertisements all astrologers my age remember seeing, or AstroNumeric Services, a company that competed with ACS and which partnered with Jim Lewis the astrocartographer to offered astromapping reports. What attracted Verbal's attention was a paragraph of links that someone recently added to current programs and companies - that paragraph came too close to spam and opened up what was meant to be a very general article to abuse. To avoid going down a road that would lead to abuse, the name of this page should revert from Horoscope Software back to Astrology and Computers. John Halloran (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion. What was the objection to "Astrology and Computers" that caused someone to change it to "Astrology Software"? Bn (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I must sympathize with John Halloran here, he clearly has good knowledge of the topic, the topic is valid, and he is doing a good job assembling relevant information. The article needs some work, especially better references, but I see no problem at all with keeping an article about horoscopy software. In fact it will be very useful to have a page giving a decent overview of the field. The excessive tagging of the article strikes me as unnecessarily hostile.

This may be an obscure topic, but expert recognition is very important to me, and if we have the good luck to have an expert contributing to a technical article, it is important to seek constructive collaboration instead of alienating them with excessive cleanup razzias.

That said, I do not think that "Astrology and Computers" is a valid article title. This page has the single purpose of giving an overview of astrology software, past and present. Also, expert knowledge doesn't excuse anyone from providing decent references. The advantage of the expert is that he will know in advance what statements to look for references for, and where to look for these references. So it is perfectly fair to remove any statement that John leaves unreferenced (within reason). For example, the claim that "Computer astrology programs today typically do accurate planet position calculations over a range of hundreds or thousands of years" is pulled out of thin air.

I know some things about celestial mechanics (note how the calculation of planet positions on the face of it has nothing whatsoever to do with astrology, it is merely a prerequisite), and I have never seen a program that claims to be able to calculate planetary orbits accurately over hundreds of thousands of years. The perturbation series simply cannot cover that kind of scope. Of course you will get a result no matter what date you enter, but the claim of "accuracy" will require that you provide an error bar, and this error bar will quickly drown out any signal as you go tens of thousands of years into the past or future. Any calculation of planetary positions without error bars you can just disregard as worthless. If there are astrology programs that claim to do an order of magnitude better than state-of-the-art astronomy programs, that's a WP:REDFLAG to say the least, and it will need excellent references. --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It is late. Thanks for your statement. You missed the word "or", which made the sentence accurate. Astrology calculation programs are either accurate for hundreds of years or for thousands of years. The planet Saturn starts diverging by more than one degree from what numerical integration would give in my on-the-fly calculations if the date is more than 4,000 years from the present. Some programs read from ephemeris or planet position files which increase the accuracy, but which have a limited date range. John Halloran (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter how expert someone is wiki9pedia works on verifability not truth. With out RS (and the excuse they do not exsist does not wash with me, as I have said befrore if something is notable it will have been noted.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"The advantage of the expert is that he will know in advance what statements to look for references for, and where to look for these references. " Good point, the article would benefit from his assistance in locating sources pending his willingness to give it and his understanding of what WP considers a reliable source . - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven, this is nonsense. There are lots of topics of undisputed notability which do not have Wikipedia articles, and if somebody happens to create one of these articles without citing references, that will not change the fact that the notability of the topic itself is undisputed, the article will just have to be tagged for refimprove. --dab (𒁳) 14:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, please provide RS that establish WP:NOTE. That tag should remain until that is done. Verbal chat 14:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

ahem, I stand corrected. Sorry for rambling on about something that only existed in my head. I misread 'or' as 'of'.

Yes, our celestial mechanics algorithms can easily be considered accurate for a couple of thousand years. Again, this has nothing to do with astrology, these are ephemerides programs. An astrology program is a program that takes the standard ephemerides algorithms and uses them for astrological purposes. --dab (𒁳) 14:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

edit warring over cleanup tags

is not so cool. Seriously, we get it, this article needs better references. Say "refimprove" and be done. There is no need to add a collection of other tags just to spite the author. As for "notability", I do not think that notability of this class of application program can be disputed. It's a huge market for the iphone alone. Again, we get it, better references are needed, but there is no reasonable grounds to assume that there are notability issues with the topic itself. --dab (𒁳) 14:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't accuse others of spite (AGF?). I have no personal feelings to John. The tags are there because they are justified. It would be better if they were in a multi-issues box, but someone removed that. Verbal chat 14:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

please reconsider your attitude. We are in the same business of fixing this article. At present, you are not really helping. My point is that there is no reason to add multiple tags if there is a single problem. The problem is insufficient references. You may not be doing this out of spite, but your action is still ill-advised. --dab (𒁳) 14:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not accused anyone of anything, you have. I will assume it was a good faith mistake on your part. i do not consider it ill advised to apply relevant tags and follow policy. Verbal chat 14:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If people could chase up the WikiProject Computing folk, that should be the fastest route to improvement. John might like to do that. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

why? Anyone can google the major astrology applications on the market and add references to that. You don't need to be an IT specialist for this. This is like saying we need help from professional printers and layouters to discuss notable print publications in astrology. --dab (𒁳) 14:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've regrouped the tags. Unfortunately I felt that the COI tag should be added again based on what John has said above. It should remain until the article is rewritten with RS. I'm not sure the computing folk can help, but no reason not to ask. Verbal chat 14:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Verbal, I feel that your bad cop routine is completely misplaced here, as John is behaving impeccably and not trying to OWN the article. He is writing about a subject he knows about, but that alone doesn't make for COI. Or you could tag most of our physics articles for being written by physicists. --dab (𒁳) 14:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Behaving impeccably? Demonstrating ownership, telling me I cannot participate anymore, and accusing me of vandalism repeatedly? What are you talking about? The COI tag is not because he is involved in Astrology software, but because the article mentioned him and he has said he and others mentioned have edited the article. Until there are RS for the assertions made or the article is stubbed the COI tag is a necessary service to our readers. Despite the attacks from John I have been polite to him, apologised to pointing him to so many rules, and asked for him to participate in improving the article here. I also resent the "bad cop" comment. Please WP:AGF, and revert you removal of the tags. Verbal chat 14:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

In the editing frenzy, the reference to Prof. Lewis's book was deleted. It (spec. Appendix D) should cited for most or all of the RS issues in the history. Please restore that citation to the reference list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bn (talk • contribs) 22:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please add the reference here and justify its use. Also, please show how it meets the WP:RS criteria. Verbal chat 22:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Lewis, James R. (March 1, 2003). The Astrology Book: The Encyclopedia of Heavenly Influences. Canton, MI: Visible Ink Press. p. 928. ISBN 978-1578591442.

Justification:

The biography for Neil Franklin Michelsen is on page 454, and that for Michael Erlewine is on pp. 224-225. The historical information for Cosmic Patterns Software is on p. 181. That for Esoteric Technologies, maker of Solar Fire, is on pp. 226-227. For Matrix Astrological Software pp. 432-434. One important gap: there is no entry for Astrolabe or for Robert Hand.

Appendix D, "Astrological Software", includes a 10-page scholarly survey of the history of software for astrology, "A Brief History of Astrological Calculation Software." Since Mr. Halloran's text has been flagged for conflict of interest we should note for example that this section includes on page 859 the line "In 1992, Esoteric Technologies and Halloran Software released the first serious astrology programs for Microsoft Windows, called Solar Fire and AstrolDeluxe for Windows respectively."

The author, James R. Lewis, is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Wisconsin (Stevens Point), and Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at DePaul University. Amazon lists 15 of his books. These books demonstrate that even religions and cults that are regarded as fringe phenomena, such as the Order of Christ Sophia and the Church of Scientology, may be subject of scholarly studies and reference works. For example Legitimating New Religions (Rutgers U. Press) I see is described as "the first book to deal explicitly with the issue of how emerging religions legitimate themselves." Cults in America (ABC-CLIO, in their Contemporary World Issues series) is described in American Library Journal as "Well researched and written, ... a valuable introduction to this topic for students and the general public. Recommended for public and academic libraries." Jesus and Mary: The Order of Christ Sophia (Oxford): "[b]eyond surveying the history, doctrines and practices of this unusual group, ... brings data from his study of the OCS to bear on many items of conventional wisdom in the New Religions field." The publisher's blurb for the particular book in question here, The Astrology Book, says "The scientific, historic, and popular basis behind the ancient art of astrology is explored in this comprehensive reference." We learn on that same Amazon page that the author "is the recipient of Choice's Outstanding Academic Title award and Best Reference Book awards from the American Library Association and the New York Public Library Association."

I hope that covers the ad verecundiam requirements, and that this reference work can be cited.

When I was about to save the above, my computer crashed. When I restored my URLs in Chrome, it obediently brought up just the edit page for this section. However, the Wikipedia server evidently lost the context of the edit and when I saved it every other section was deleted. I undid two insertions I had made and then re-inserted and saved them. I believe all is restored correctly. Caveat scriptor! Bn (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Those adding content might look over WP:Notability (software). While not a policy, it gives a good indication of how the Wikipedia community views the issue of notability regarding software. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a constructive reference. It ties in with what I was saying about how this should be a history of computing type article, especially where it mentions the automatically increased notability of "Software from the era of 8-bit personal computers." But we are not even trying to justify devoting a whole page to a particular software application, which is what that reference is about, we were educating readers about the field as a whole. I think that the field as a whole meets the Notability requirement. If the Wikipedia editors accept that, why does every sentence and fact in the article have to meet the burden of notability in itself? Does everything said about George Washington in the page about him have to meet that burden? John Halloran (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"Note that this essay, like all notability essays, does not restrict article content. Rather, the purpose of a notability guideline is to provide guidance for deciding when a topic warrants a page of its own." Notability criteria cannot legitimately be applied to sections, sentences, citations of references, etc.

On a related note: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Bn (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability of the topic has not yet been established per WP:NOTE. The linked essay has some useful advice, but it did not gain consensus. Once we have RS establishing notability, and it would be great if you cold provide some from mainstream publishers or software reviews from mainstream or computer press, then clams made in the article would still need to be sourced to reliable sources. If reliable sources cannot be found it should not be in the article. Questionable sources include self published, which most of these are. I agree that this should be should be a history of software article. Verbal chat 07:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The the computer-specific notability topic may lack consensus in other aspects, but this language in directly echoes language in the established notability policy that does have consensus, e.g.:

"Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."

Professor Lewis's book is a reliable third-party source, and the cited sections and 10-page appendix are clearly not trivial coverage. Please account for your posture that notability of the topic has not been established. With considerable labor, further references could be dug out of back issues of the various astrology journals and technical publications, but surely such extraordinary measures are not called for. This convenient summary by a recognized scholar who is independent of the field (no WP:COI) provides a convenient reference for any Wikipedia users who for unforeseeable reasons may want to verify the facts. I will insert appropriate references in the article presently.Bn (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

A subject may be notable (George W Bush) but a fact in that articel may not be (He is a man in a mole suite).Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Some criterion other than WP:NOT must be applied to bits of content from within a topic. ""These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." (topic links elided)Bn (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Lack of adequate sources to verify notability also brings up the question of whether or not this article gives an adequate world view of astrology software, or perhaps should be retitled "Astrology software (United States)". - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article should be flagged as needing additional content from contributors who are knowledgeable about astrological software developed in other parts of the world, if reliable sources (such as Prof. Lewis's book) can be found for them. Otherwise, or alternatively (and there is a relevant semantic distinction there), it could be retitled "Astrology Software (United States)".Bn (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that is an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but a couple of reliably-sourced texts that give a general survey of astrology software and specify examples of notable software programs would certainly help determine it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

IOW, more like this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a page in Professor Lewis's book. I agree that it is a suitable reference.Bn (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll replace the links to astrocom with a book citation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

One thing: I don't see any mention of (ACS) or Neil Michelsen in the Lewis book. Can you tell me where to find a ref for that (other than ACS)? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Found it [1]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Odd, I've never read that book yet I'm sure I've read that section before. Verbal chat 17:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Off topic
(Personal attack removed) John Halloran (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC) John this is too much. I've filed a report at WP:WQA, please remove or refactor the above comment.Verbal chat 19:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Cleanup tags

1. Does someone seriously claim that the topic is not notable enough for an article? 2. Since I've read the article and not found anything that may be attributable to a conflict-of-interest, let me ask: what would it take to remove the COI tag? (See some discussions on Template talk:COI.)
Let us remember that the tags exist to help readers. Placing them with an idea something like "this is a bad article, therefore it must be punished" is not productive. How do these tags improve the article or make it more useful to readers at present? If notability is in question, shouldn't we discuss the topic and come to a consensus (so that the tag can be removed, or the article can be deleted) instead of having them stay on the page indefinitely? Shreevatsa (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

1, Yes. 2, Read the discussions above. 3, Please WP:AGF. There are several discussions about the tags, and what it would take to remove them, above. Thanks, Verbal chat 15:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I continue to assume good faith. My remark was based on comments like

"Nope, please provide RS that establish WP:NOTE. That tag should remain until that is done"

and others to the effect that because the article fails to comply with rule X, tag Y "should" be placed on the article (rather than because the tag will help somehow) — hence the remark on tags as punishment for bad articles. Also, I did (re)read all the discussions above, and cannot find any clear answers. In the interest of taking the discussion forward constructively, could you please repeat what you think are the problematic parts of the article that need to be removed? The only things I could find were variations on the above theme (e.g. a comment that we need reliable sources, even though we already have a couple). By this argument, any article without sources should automatically have a notability tag on it. Again, I have "checked for neutrality" as you suggested, and cannot find any conflict of interest. To repeat comments from dab:

"The excessive tagging of the article strikes me as unnecessarily hostile."

"Otoh, it is my opinion that [...] the article topic is of undisputed notability. If you want to argue that the topic of astrology software (as a class of applications, not any given individual application) fails WP:NOTE I would very much like to see some rudimentary argument in support of this, as I really completely fail to see what could give you this idea."

So some argument would be nice — there are scores of astrology software applications, several books and several hundred thousand webpages that mention it, and as a class of applications it seems clearly notable. Without invoking the letter of the "law", do you have an explanation for why you think this is not notable? Shreevatsa (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF, you are assuming bad faith when you state that I view "tags as punishment for bad articles". If you have a problem with tagging pages in general or the guidelines and policies attached, please debate them on the relevant talk page. At the moment I'm not convinced we have more than one RS looking at the publishers. See WP:NOTE for the criteria, and I have also asked for reviews of the software in mainstream computer or national press. I am disputing the notability of the field as a whole and individual software, but would be convinced by RS. As is standard. Google hits are not interesting, unless they are from RS. Rather than this tedious meta-argument, could we focus on improving the article so that it clearly meets the criteria? Then this would all be resolved. Verbal chat 19:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit I find it odd that proving notability should be considerd such a chore if the subject is notable (which I suspect it is). Simply put the easiest wat to 'defeat' Verbal is to RS him (or her). So lets help out (I am trying to not insult someone here bleive me) http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?rlz=1T4ACAW_en___GB380&q=Astrology%20software&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws try wading thru that and find some sources.Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My wife tells me I'm a man :) I will do my bit looking for sources next week when I have more time. Verbal chat 20:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in 'defeating' Verbal (or in astrology); I'm just dismayed that such an exercise has been made necessary, and consider such excessive tagging to be bureaucratic rule-mongering (whoever does it). If someone truly believes that this is not a notable topic, then they ought to nominate the article for deletion so that it can be removed. If they don't truly believe it, then they can allow others to remove the tag. Either way, playing a by-the-rulebook game of counting sources, and adding too many tags to deface the article, is not an improvement — I do not see how readers here are served by warnings that this topic may not be notable, nor how it encourages improvement: it seems to have dissuaded one editor already. I will wash my hands off the matter here. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This is off topic. If you have a problem with the notability tag, then take it to the notability talk page. "bureaucratic rule-mongering" is not civil, and not the purpose of the tag - as has been explained. Verbal chat 21:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(Sigh.) I'm not making a personal attack, just describing the act. It's not offtopic — I'm asking specifically about this article: do you, Verbal, believe this is not a notable topic for an article to exist, despite the multiple reliable sources in the article? If you believe so, why don't you nominate it for deletion? I have also asked about the purpose of the tag and how it helps readers or encourages improvement, and you have not explained. Please do so, or remove the tag. I thought our goal was to improve Wikipedia, not bargain with statements like "I will not object to removing tag X if Y stays". Shreevatsa (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Compromise is allowing the justified COI tag to be removed. Making clear that this compromise does not include the other valid tags is not "bargaining". It was an attempt at compromise made in good faith, as is good practice and as an attempt at defusing the situation. "bureaucratic rule-mongering" is a personal attack. I do not believe that we currently have sufficient WP:RS to meet the criteria set out in WP:NOTE. I feel it may be possible to meet these criteria, and have no desire to see an article which could be improved deleted. If you have an issue with notability policy, or feel that a notability tag should trigger an AfD, then that is a matter for Wikipedia talk:Notability and is off the topic of this page. I'm sick of having to say the same thing over and over and put up with these attacks. Concentrate on improving the article so that these concerns vanish, rather than this mind numbing arguing against established policy. Further off topic comments will be removed. Verbal chat 19:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This is amusing. Starting with my very first comment on this page, I have repeatedly asked how placing these tags helps here, on this article. You keep changing the topic without ever answering it, and accuse me of being offtopic. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And each time I've said they help in the usual way and directed you to the relevant policies and guidelines. This is not amusing. Verbal chat 07:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the so-called relevant policies and guidelines, and cannot find anything. Can you, for my edification, please tell me clearly? For instance, WP:NOTE doesn't say the tag must be placed, it only suggests placing the tag as one of several alternatives — after looking for sources yourself, and asking experts for advice on where to find them. So again, I'll ask, with hope that you can give an honest answer without wikilawyering or referring to various policies: what good does it do to place the tag here? Shreevatsa (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You have answered your own question. The other two alternatives have been tried at the same time, and have so far failed to address the issues. To remove the tag the criteria at WP:NOTE need to be shown to be met. Again, rather than this tedious meta discussion (which is not appropriate to the this page) please discuss how to improve the article, possible extensions, new references etc. For example, some more recent reviews of software from independent (non-astrological) sources would be great. Verbal chat 06:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As I already said, nowhere in any policy is it said that if an article fails the criteria at WP:NOTE, such a tag must be placed. You can place if it you want to attract attention and discussion, which has already happened here. I am discussing the improvement of this page: I hold that removing the tag is an obvious (if minor) improvement, because it improves the appearance of the page. Despite being asked several times now, you have yet to give me one reason why the tag improves the page. All this is consistent with the suspicion that your attitude is that if an article fails certain criteria, a tag "must" be placed (to punish the article? or why?). This was exactly what I accused you of in the first post here, and you asked me to assume good faith! :-) I am also getting tired of this tedious discussion, and will remove the tag unless you can give me a reason how it helps. Shreevatsa (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be discussing the placing and merits of the tag rather than improving the page. I'd also like more involvement by others, and discussion related to improving the article. The tag has been placed as the article currently fails WP:NOTE, not as "punishment". Please assume good faith. The tag is meant to be noticed, and removing it may slow the improvement hence damage the page. Do not remove the tag until notability has been established. Verbal chat 09:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed section

Off topic

Thread retitled from "A Love for Knowledge vs. A Love for Rules". A love for knowledge versus a love for rules - I see this dichotomy in the editors here. Some people have a love for knowledge. Anyone who makes a substantial contribution to a page does so because they love knowledge. John Halloran (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC) 1> AGF 2> If everyone who claimed to be an expert was allowed to create and edit articels using just their expertise how long do you think it would be bofore we had pages such as "Physics and why Astrology software is a load of rubbish belived by loonies"? We have rules to ensure that wikipedia is not abused and is a sources of relibale information, that can be checked if you are unsure. Moreover woujld you condideer an articel writen by a commercial rival reilialbe?Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Better references

I don't think any of the references are particularly unreliable. They wouldn't meet standards for science articles, but the purpose of the references here is to provide an independent account of what software is on the market. The real problem is that most of them are very out of date, so we don't know what's on the market now. Are there not any more recent articles in the major computer magazines? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I both agree and disagree. In computing these references are woefully out of date and newer references are very much needed. I disagree about the sources from New Age WP:FRINGE publishers, they are inherently unreliable. Verbal chat 08:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well we have a problem, and I don't think it's related to POV pushing by WP editors. I've been searching for "astrology app review" and found that all the reviews are in astrology publications rather than in software publications. I would be happy to use these because if someone independent has checked out software and says "it's easy to use", "has new features", "disappointing", etc. etc., then it's a similar situation to a heavy metal album being reviewed in a heavy metal specialist mag. No source is "inherently unreliable"; even personal blogs can be used for some purposes. I'd be pleased to read other comments. Dab, what do you think? Any people who regularly edit software articles around? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Judith, you are starting to understand the nature of the field. No astrologer would expect a computer magazine to be able to competently review an astrology program. Computer people are able to admire a program's interface and adherence to things like Windows conventions, but without a knowledge of astrology, a reviewer would not know what they are looking at, so their review would be uninformed. So the "mainstream" computer press and astrology programs have pretty much gone their separate ways. I do remember that in the 1990s PC Magazine reviewed a program called "Love Ties" by Permutation Software, a program and a company that I had never heard of and which none of my customers have ever mentioned since. So PC Magazine did not know what to review and their review was meaningless to astrologers. You can see all the magazines and journals that reviewed my astrology software from 1995 to 2005 at this "http://www.halloran.com/quotesm.htm" Magazine Reviews page. The earliest review is from the most ambitious attempt to do a comprehensive, impartial survey of all the major programs, by Tom Bridges in the November 1995 issue of Mountain Astrologer magazine. There are also web sites that have reviews of astrology software programs, but you have to find out if there is a conflict of interest from the web site acting as a distributor or marketer of the software that they review, as there is then an incentive to push the software on which the most money can be made. There used to be a website business called The Astrology Software Shop like this - although I was friendly with its proprietor, Mark McDonough, I could not get him to carry my software because of its lower price. That issue of Mountain Astrologer magazine can be regarded as a Reliable Source. I have a copy of the issue somewhere, but perhaps another reader can also supply a list of the programs and companies that made it into that survey of the field. John Halloran (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

These fringe or self published publications can't be used to establish notability. I'm getting worried that this subject may not actually be able to meet the criteria. Verbal chat 10:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree with you. I would say htat if you can establish notability within the field of astrology (rahter then computer science) I would say that counts as being notable. Not as computer programs but as Astrology software.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we have to establish notability generally, using significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (ie not fringe sources). Verbal chat 10:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

For reviews of cultural products we would look for the kinds of publications that usually carry those reviews. For example, the Daily Mail's science coverage has come under a lot of fire and in many ways is fringe. We shouldn't use it for scientific fact. But its opinion of a new TV sitcom wouldn't be affected. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what Verbal was saying is that http://www.halloran.com/quotesm.htm is not in itself a reliable source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This has gone so far into WP:POINT, not to mention WP:DICK territory now that I think no further comment is necessary. What is a "fringe source" in relation to the notability of a type of software? The notability of astrology software within the field of astrology is duly established by reference to quotable astrological publications. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:DICK. Please state with reference to the criteria in WP:NOTE how notability has been established. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Going back on topic, the astrology/horoscope software I have seen and used was probably, if memory serves, given away on cover mounted disks in the UK by magazines such as Computer Shopper, PC Format, PC Plus etc. These probably had associated write-ups within the magazine and may be a potential source of reliable sources. Verbal chat 11:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt very much these are the programs under discussion, although freeware is (or was) mentioned. Bn (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In reference to "07:00, 7 July 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (5,360 bytes) (a couple more concerns, really, why is Sydney Omarr's for Gemini 2010 here?)", it appears to have been there because Chapter 9 is a review of astrology software. The excerpt at the given Google Books URL shows that it is comprehensive and even-handed, not promotional fluff, though addressed to neophytes. I would be very surprised if this essay did not appear in all 12 volumes of this series for the year. I think the publisher's usual practice is to commission such pieces for the series to accompany the day by day whatever. The author's name doesn't appear in the excerpted pages, so can't check bona fides without getting better access to a copy. The publisher (Penguin) has no stake in these products. "Fringe" does not entail "unreliable source" about the subject matter that is considered fringe. Consider reverting. Bn (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Astrology may not have any scientific basis, but it's a widespread belief and has its own publications. Reviews in these publications can be considered reliable in the field and multiple reviews of the same program would indicate notability within the field. Asking for reviews in computer magazines is like asking for reviews of the Bible in scientific journals. Yworo (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Analogy to Geology software

Wikipedia has a category devoted to Geology Software, but mainstream publications like PC Magazine have never reviewed geology software - unlike PC Magazine's 10-page review of Microastrology in Dec. 1983. Reviews of geology software appear in specialty publications within that field, such as Coal Age, GEO World, GEO: connexion, Mining Journal, Ceramics Monthly, Mining Magazine, and Earth - very reminiscent of the kind of specialized field publications that review astrology software. John Halloran (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Problems with other pages doesn't excuse problems here. Feel free to request improvement of that page. Verbal chat 19:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that because PC Magazine editors do not have the specialized knowledge to do an informed review of geology software, combined with many of their readers not being interested in geology software, that therefore geology software does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirement? The same could be said of many other specialized types of software. You don't think that Wikipedia's readers deserve an introduction to what such software does, if they are interested? John Halloran (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be (perhaps) an appropriate topic for Talk:Geology software - except it seems that article doesn't exist. Perhaps because, as you say, it fails the notability requirements. Verbal chat 20:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Geology software category has 23 pages in it. Would you like to see an Astrology software category in Wikipedia, instead of the one overview page that you are contesting? John Halloran (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories are different things, and group similar articles. The categorisations just have to be useful and have a lower standard. Each of those 23 pages has to meet the WP:NOTE requirements. Are you proposing deleting this page and replacing it with a category? I don't think that's wise. Also, for reasons why your argument isn't sound see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'd also be glad if you could take back your personal attack. Verbal chat 21:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That page says, "the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project." Did you click on and read WP:BIAS, regarding the skewing that results from the demographic makeup of most Wikipedia editors? Astrologers are accustomed to being discriminated against by members of certain groups. Institutionalized discrimination is another relevant page. I have asked you several times to demonstrate your good faith, with no response. John Halloran (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We are consistent as there is not a Geology software page, probably for the reasons you have mentioned. Accusing good faith editors of discrimination (above) and of religious fanaticism (redacted), as you have done, is not showing good faith. I am showing good faith by debating this with you politely despite your behaviour. Verbal chat 06:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Notability tag, which only you insist on keeping in place, is a preliminary to removing the page and all mention of astrology software from Wikipedia. But you would be leaving all the pages devoted to other specialized software. How does that maintain consistency? How is that not discrimination? We were talking about the male, astronomy-oriented demographics of Wikipedia editors shown at WP:BIAS. That makeup is different from the demographics recorded by Alexa for astrology.com - "Based on internet averages, astrology.com is visited more frequently by females who are in the age range 45-54, have no children and received some college education." Wikipedia would like to achieve diversity; it has a stated goal of expanding to meet the interests of the complete population. There are many other specialized software pages that have less in the way of references than I gave to the Astrology and Computers page five years ago, including the Medical software page, but you are not questioning the notability of any of those pages. How is that not discrimination? John Halloran (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no Geology software page, which makes your argument hard to follow. If you feel other pages fail the notability requirements either tag them yourself or add them to my talk page and I'll conduct a review or raise them at appropriate noticeboard. This is more than I am required to do - and shows a lot of good faith despite your personal attacks. I have not personally reviewed every wikipedia page, sorry. As the Medical software, just looking at the NHS IT project, it has achieved massive amounts of mainstream, software and reliable medical press coverage (BMJ, Pulse, Nature, Private Eye, all the broadsheets and most tabloids), and personal medical software is often reviewed in hobbyist PC magazines (Computer Shopper, PC Format, etc) and the mainstream press. Lastly, all articles should adhere to our rules - that is the consistency. If some do not they need to be brought into line with the rules to maintain consistency. I'm not interested, and neither are wikipedia policies, with special pleading by special interest groups. Verbal chat 09:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the bias argument is particularly strong, and Verbal is right that consistency will only be achieved by rounding up rather than rounding down. Sorry if this is a bit repetitive, but we have a problem not of our making, which is that this software is obviously very popular and therefore notable, yet it is not regularly reviewed in the computer or general press. John, I suggest you add info very carefully from some reviews in astrology magazines. Ensure scrupulously that they are independent reviews and there is no COI. Up to date stuff as well. Verbal will probably revert and then we can discuss here. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I can guarantee I wont revert if we discuss the sources here and come to agreement first. Note to John, I've brought up the problems with Medical software at the medicine wikiproject. Verbal chat 09:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

New sources

Right, so we're OK with using Google Scholar to track down refs? A paper by William Sims Bainbridge; I can't get the whole text at the moment but it definitely includes the term "astrology software" and he has published extensively including in Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion or similar title. His papers are widely cited too. Also, two papers on internet kiosks in India. One, going by the format and style, is from a journal but the citation details are missing. "A kiosk typically allowed customers, to browse, send mails, chat, offer on-line health consultancy, agri-consultancy, e-governance and on-line university admission. Off-line activities include teaching basic computer courses, digital photos and web-astrology." The other one seems to be funded by Microsoft: "Job searches on the Internet are not uncommon. Astrology is taken seriously in many communities, and believers will pay for computer-generated horoscopes. One kiosk operator was able to post a profit solely from sales of astrological charts. Matchmaking services are also quite popular – often these services are utilized by the family of the prospective brides and grooms." These establish notability. I also looked on Google Books, which yields more, most of it rubbish. One source stands out though: Astrology for Dummies. Contains exactly the kind of overview of the software that I was expecting to see in magazines. RS, I would say, and an indication of the suitability of the other sources it mentions. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Astrology for dummies and the paper sound interesting, the internet kiosks don't sound like significant discussion. I might look up the for dummies book. Verbal chat 13:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This might be better in the above section (before the invocation of DICK. This page is getting a bit too fragmented). Any objections to moving it ItsMeJudith? Verbal chat 13:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I object. You seem to have a fondness for collapsing and hiding and burying comments you do not like, leave it as it is. :p Shreevatsa (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you object? This thread is about Geology software and other articles, while IMJs comment and my reply are about better references, which would be better suited to the above section. Rather than hiding it it would, I think, bring more attention to it from new editors looking for references. Verbal chat 13:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've given it a subsection title. Perhaps these meta-comments can be removed, to keep things tidy. Feel free to remove mine from "This may be better". Verbal chat

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Astrology software → Astrology and computers — Reverting because "Astrology software" encourages a continuation of spam about particular software packages. BRD step suggested by dab. I attempted the move but it gets the error "a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid". Bn (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose move sources refer to astrology or horoscope software and follow WPs standard naming convention. This article is an overview of astrology software, past and present. Verbal chat 06:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose move - also there is nothing wrong with maintaining a list of notable astrology software. If it's notable, it will or should have a Wikpedia article. Enforce that listed software must have an article, remove all additions for which an article does not exist. Don't permit external links. Revert spam. If you think it would make it easier to maintain this article, create a subarticle called List of astrology software. Yworo (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I am sympathetic to the idea of avoiding a spamtrap, and if I thought that the modified name would actually work to dissuade spammers, I might support it. However, people would add dubious links in any article vaguely concerning the topic, so I think we should stick to the "commonly known" title. Please do not suggest a "list of astrology software" article because that really would be a spamtrap, and there is no reason to believe that independent reliable sources have shown significant interest in such a list. I think a hidden comment in the article, and a prominent talk page notice, should proclaim that the article is about astrology software, and is not a directory of implementations. Any external links should be reverted per WP:WTAF (write the article first). Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johnuniq. Some articles by their nature attract a lot of spam. Solar energy, for example, which is obviously an encyclopedic topic, but is a magnet for people with products to market. "Astrology software" is more clearly descriptive of the article's content and is consistent with naming of other articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose All above as well as the fact that the proposed title sems rather more vague and could attract all kind of daftnerss (AI compter's for example).Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose move per Yworo. I certainly share Bn's concern that astrology software companies potentially attempting to use this article for commercial purposes would be a bad thing indeed, but a name change would make little difference to dedicated marketers and those who want to enshrine themselves or their products at any cost. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

These points are well taken. I was unaware of a consistency issue (naming convention). My main concern was that the question "why the move?" (Halloran 1 July, bn 4 July) was unanswered, buried in all the self-defensive edit warring and wikilawyering. This discussion answers my concerns. Of course, I can't speak for others. I assume that no further action is required e.g. to withdraw the request. Thank you. Bn (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of astrology software

Someone mentioned above that there would be no reliable sources to establish notability of astrology software. This is simply not true. There are a number of reliable sources within the field that have published reviews of software. One that I can think of off the top of my head is The Mountain Astrologer. I think it safe to say that a product which has a review could be listed along with a citation of the review. These reviews may not and need not be accessible online. Yworo (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we can use these reviews but would be opposed to a list. It is more important to say what kind of features the software has. Some people will be interested in the IT technicalities, others in the astrological/astrononomical observation technicalities; how the software has evolved over time might be of interest too. Ideally this could be written up without naming particular packages. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that while there are many instances of astrological software, the number of reviewed software packages is so low as to not require a list. Yworo (talk) 19:28, 8 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)