Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zachariel (talk | contribs) at 19:39, 3 September 2011 (→Edits of September 2011: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Redirect was wrong

Hmm. Tetrabiblos currently redirects to Almagest. From reading Ptolemy I see that the former covered astrological stuff, while the latter covered astronomical stuff. Looks like that redirect is wrong. Anyone agree? Carcharoth 02:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that problem. I have looked at both books and you are right, they are on different subjects. Plus, they are two separate books, making it like redirecting The Hobbit to Lord of the Rings. Someone needs to un-redirect. Maestlin 18:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

For the moment I have blanked the redirect page so it no longer redirects. I think there are two options for now: (1) Someone writes a stub article; (2) The page is deleted until someone can write an article (thus turning the blue links red). At the moment, what is in Ptolemy#Astrology is sufficient. Copying that into Tetrabiblos is another option, but rather redundant. I've copied the above three comments to the discussion page for Tetrabiblos. Carcharoth 22:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Carcharoth 22:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Page redirected to Ptolemy

Obvious solution! Page redirected to Ptolemy and the current link removed from the Ptolemy article. That way the (less than 10) articles that link to Tetrabiblos will go to Ptolmey. I could redo the Tetrabiblos links in the articles to go to Ptolemy#Astrology, but they would need redoing if someone wrote a Tetrabiblos article. Carcharoth 01:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoever writes this article...

Please wikilink the Tetrabiblos word in the Ptolemy article. Thanks. Carcharoth 01:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits of September 2011

Following Ihcoyc's recent substantial development of this article I have made a number of edits today and will detail the most significant here, in case anyone wants to raise a question or objection to any of the amendments:

Lede changes:

1. Changed "Tetrabiblos, its companion volume, was considered equally authoritative in determining the meaning of the astronomical cycles: astrology, the study of the stars and planets in relation to earthly matters" to: "Tetrabiblos, its companion volume, was considered equally authoritative in astrology, the study of the 'outcome' or 'effects' of the astronomical cycles upon earthly matters" - this is to smooth the read and to reflect the definition originally given in the early references to the book, by which is was known as the books of astrological 'outcomes' or 'effects' (a point covered in the next section of the article).
2. Changed the phrase: "the Tetrabiblos remains a fundamental work still consulted by astrologers practicing Islamic and Western astrology" to "the Tetrabiblos remains an important and influential astrological text which continues to be considered an indispensible reference for serious students of western astrology". The reason for the change is that the phrase "practicing Islamic and western astrology" is confusing, since medieval Islamic astrology is generally considered to be a part of the western astrological tradition, not an alternative contemporary tradition. Also, the two references linked to the original comment didn't give strong support to the fact that the Tetrabiblos remains a working textbook today, so I changed these refs to one that clearly does demonstrate this.