Talk:Esoteric astrology

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 August 2016. The result of the discussion was redirect to Alice Bailey#Esoteric astrology.

Occult Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astrology Low‑importance

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

Untitled

"The neutrality of this article is disputed. See discussion on talk page." But talk page was there none. Was there evere one? Was it upsetting to someone? I find the article hard to understand, surely what an encyclopedia for general use says should be written in meaningful words.SilasW 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors often add these types of templates without any actual discussion, so although a template says "See talk page" or something similar, there has been no such discussion.— Sam 20:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

The article's meaning may be more apparent after my reducing its florid language. The huge display of every type of astrology belonged, not here in a specific astrology's article, but in the main Astrology article, where indeed it can be seen.Sceptical--SilasW 16:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

remove template

Given no discussion on the template and given I could find nothing controversial about the article, I have removed it. Renee (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

link?

I've added several references, a table, and some information on esoteric astrology. I'm not sure if the external link is valid but have left it in. Renee (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantean times addition

Hello, I found this information added to the Esoteric Astrology page very interesting but am wondering where you got it from? For Wikipedia, all new information added needs a reliable and verifiable source. Also, I don't understand the first sentence -- can you please clarify? Thanks, Renee (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

I would suggest this be merged to Alice Bailey given that everything that talks about it refers back to her, and everything that talks about her mentions this. Mangoe (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds ok.Itsmejudith (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an official proposal to merge - if so shouldn't there be some dedicated space for discussion related to the proposal (so the tag can be removed if not approved)? I would oppose the proposal to merge. As the article states, Blavatsky, Steiner, and others have helped to develop the mystical tradition of esoteric astrology. It's not just about Bailey and it may be that her influence has been overstated - if so the article can evolve over time, as all WP articles do. At the present time it has references to support the comments and some interesting details for anyone wanting a quick overview of this term. Esoteric astrology is only a small, minority branch of astrology as a whole, so couldn't merit more than a quick, unhelpful definition withint the main astrology page. It's appropriate for this term to branch out into its own page, as it does -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an official proposal to merge, and the place for discussion is right here, under the appropriate heading on the talk page. Your arguments above arent's convincing. There isn't enough well sourced material for an article, at the moment. So it can go into the Alice Bailey article for the time being, and then if someone finds further relevant material, it can be broken out again. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who knows a lot about astrology but very little about this particular branch of it, I'll just add that I found the article content interesting, and thought the references were useful in showing where I could get more information if I wanted to. As a general reader, turning to Wikipedia to know more about what the term 'esoteric astrology' means, it wouldn't occur to me to look under an article on Alice Bailey to find this. My comments were not intended to be 'arguments' - I'm simply contributing to the discussion by giving my opinion on the merger proposal, based on my own experience as a Wikipedia editor and user. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging what little, if anything, there may be of value to the Bailey article and then taking a big axe to that article, as it's horribly over-bloated and puffed up. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a mass od amorphous in-universe material about Bailey's ideas, and theosophy, dumped in here some time ago. Zac, if we merge there will be a redirect. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judith, I think there needs to be clarity on the question of where the merge will go. I don't believe it is sensible to consider merging this into the entry on Alice Bailey. Without even wondering about other works I know that Alan Leo wrote a 300-page book on this subject, published under the title 'Esoteric Astrology'. I don't believe he made significant reference to Bailey (from what I can see in the quick scan I made of the work he doesn't mention her at all). IMO, a subject that has had whole books dedicated to it, deserves its own page in WP, even if that page is only a stub. Anyway, as far as WP entries go, Alice Bailey is one subject, and Esoteric astrology is clearly another. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Theosophy, then, unless you've got sufficient reliable sourcing to expand it beyond stub. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a branch of astrology, so why merge it into Theosophy? Or anything else? There is clearly a topic in itself here and WP doesn't have a page limit. We should be careful not to look for somewhere, anywhere, to just "dump" the material. You've noted yourself the problems that the Alice Bailey page suffers because of that. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]