![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I don't see why this article should be merged. If someone is looking for a definition of "triplicity", they should be able to find it without a lot of hunting and pecking through another article. Triplicity is a very important idea which is at the very basis of astrology. I say no. NaySay 13:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
they are most emphatically NOT the same. Your article is one of those "astrology is an artifact of the structure of the four elements" thangs, which has its place with modern astrologers, but says nothing about triplicity. As for considering that your article is structured better, it certainly is structured more for that point of view. Which I don't share. As for improving this article, by all means do. But to say that it has no references??? What exactly are you referring to? What reference would you like to see? Liz Greene? NaySay 14:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Neelmack, you runined a scholarly article and filled it with just the sort of silly claptrap that so many beginners are saddled with. Save it for the newspaper columns. This article, which I labored over for a long time, will need to be completely rewritten. If you want to set up a separate article for this stuff, please do so. NaySay 13:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Dear Naysay. First off, I find it strange that the concepts of different personality types being associated with the elements is 'silly claptrap' for beginners. It seems that the vast majority of modern astrologers are just not up to your high standards. Secondly, no article is the exclusive property of any user, even if they did set it up, so you have no right to completely dictate content to everyone else. Thirdly it seems to me that there is plenty of room in the article for different points of view so I dont see what the fuss is about. As the concept of triplicity is understood (once again) by the vast majority of astrologers to include different personality types, I suggest you set up another article under a different name if you feel that strongly about it. How about Triplicity (ancient)?Neelmack 09:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
User:Kmarinas86, do you have a source for the tables you've been adding about personality (MBTI) types? If they are original research they have to be reverted. If they are not they have to be referenced to the source. --Starylon (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Since nobody has answered this i've added the template infobox for "unreferenced section". If this section contains original research it must be removed! Starylon (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
AGREE ABSOLUTELY. Silly unsourced, idiosyncratic hornswoggle, and it has no business on a page which is supposed to be presenting accurate material in widespread and/or historical use for someone who doesn't know the material. I'm going to delete it in several days unless someone claims it and makes a case for it. NaySay (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Someone with I assume not much background in classical astrology removed the participating rulers and entered Pluto (!) into the triplicities table. This despite the fact that the material in that table with carefully sourced with footnotes referring to historical material that said quite the opposite. I take issue with the facts, but that can be argued or presented separately. But just removing material which is referenced in footnotes, leaving the footnotes and deleting a whole part of the table which is explained in a following paragraph is just clumsy, careless and brainless. If you have an issue, bring it up here, but please leave the tables showing the historical use of triplicities, well-supported by fact, alone unless you can prove I'm wrong. NaySay (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
This article is too similar to the article Astrology and the classical elements. Since merging the articles is something we want to avoid, someone should find sources that relate to Triplicity without being entirely being consumed with the concept of "classical elements". If there is 100% overlap between Triplicity and the classical elements, then we should question the need for a separate article for Triplicity.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 01:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
While my past reorganization of the "personality" section helped me to understand the classical elements better (which I preferred over the laundry list of adjectives), to be honest, it has absolutely nothing to do with triplicity. I still think this article needs a lot of work. If it is true that triplicity is a major aspect of astrology, shouldn't there be more material distinguishing it from the classical elements? Another question: Why is there no article on Quadruplicity? All the best.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 01:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I am not an expert, so I will leave any corrections to someone more knowledgable than myself, and I might be mistaken here, but....
The association of the signs with seasons section states sensibly that Aries, Taurus and Gemini would fall within the concept of "Spring." The article then proceeds to list different signs under the rubric of spring! Is there some vandalism here, or maybe some arcane knowledge of which I am unaware? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.55.65.200 (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Triplicity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply