Talk:Geomantic figures

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:

[[Geomancy#Western methodology|generation of the geomantic charts]] The anchor (#Western methodology) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.

Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

How old are geomantic figures?

The reason I ask: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Braille#Braille_.27the_world.27s_first_binary_character_encoding.27.3F Etaonsh 05:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not recent, anyway - I've found a partial answer myself: http://www.princeton.edu/~ezb/geomancy/figures.html Etaonsh 05:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just redirected all of the stubs back here and I think I got all the double redirects also. No one had previously worked on those stubs at all since March. If left as stubs, having their own pages, they would have been deleted. I added them here since there wasnt alot of info on this page either, but now there is. SynergeticMaggot 19:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting suggestion

I'm not sure if it would be better or worse, but perhaps each figure could have bullets instead of paragraphs to describe them. Example:

Via (this would be the heading)
Name: Latin for "road"
Depicts/resembles: Road or path.
Fortune: Usually bad, but good with concerns of roads, travels, or journeys.
Outcome: Neutral, unless change by itself infers a positive or negative result.
Associated with: Cancer and Moon
Notes: All the elements in Via are active, and as such the figure indicates 'change' more than any other figure.

 X
 X
 X
 X

It might make things easier to read/edit. 24.126.199.129 08:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Sounds like a good idea to me... 68.110.184.129 (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think that simple images would be much better than text-bsed representations Blueaster 20:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cauda and caput

It looks like the meanings of "caput" and "cauda" are switched. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caput. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.99.55 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rehauled the page

Rehauled the page; got rid of the "need sources/citations/introductory style" tags, added graphics, charts, new links to other articles, a few sources, information about the figures themselves and the general structure of the figures, and the different manipulations one can apply to them, The article itself doesn't contain citations, since I don't clearly know where to put them. Please check over for style and content, but it's much much better than it was before. As it stands, we may or may not want to still merge this with geomancy. -Tascil March 10 2009 0406 EDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tascil (talk • contribs) 08:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A music video

A music video is not a reliable source for this topic. Elizium23 (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mavors, Saeturnus

These are just eccentric spellings for Mars and Saturn. Someone give me a good reason not to revert them to those spellings. Nuttyskin (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Implementing a long-standing suggestion to improve the formatting of the 16 Geomantic Figures

Hello everyone,

I recently began a major structural edit of the 16 geomantic figures. My work was reverted partway through this laborious, 16-part process, before I had a chance to add citations, and without me realizing that my work was being actively reverted while I was still trying finish an hours long process. I'm opening this discussion to explain the reasoning behind the changes and propose restoring the improved version, complete with full sourcing.

The goal of the edit was to make the information clearer and more accessible, as the original paragraph format was dense and contained errors (like the copy-paste error between Via and Populus).

This exact change was proposed on this very Talk page back in 2006 under the heading "Formatting suggestion." The consensus then was that a list-based format would "make things easier to read/edit." My edits were done to implement that long-standing suggestion.

The recent revert mentioned three concerns, which I'd like to address:

"unsourced": This is a completely valid point. The original paragraphs were also unsourced. My revised version is based on the work of the foremost modern authorities on the topic, primarily John Michael Greer ("The Art and Practice of Geomancy") and Stephen Skinner ("Geomancy in Theory and Practice"), as well as the foundational Renaissance text by Agrippa. I am prepared to add inline <ref> citations for each figure's interpretation and associations to the new format.

"not formatted as ... bullet point lists": As noted above, this list-based format was previously suggested by other editors to improve readability. This is consistent with Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS:LIST), which states that lists are appropriate "where a list will present the information in a more readable way than prose."

"suspect LLM use”: As the editor, I take full responsibility for the content I publish, which is sourced to the authorities mentioned above.

My proposal is to reinstate the cleaner, more accurate, and corrected text in the definition list format, as suggested in 2006, and to complete this laborious process with the correct sourcing. I believe this will result in the higher-quality encyclopedia entry that editors have wanted for a long time. Thank you for your consideration. Geoffdice1 (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot has changed at Wikipedia since 2006. Please don't add unsourced content and bullet lists inside the body of the article when it already has rather odd formatting and existing problems with lack of inline citations. You might want to post the suggested content you would like to add and the associated sources here before making such sweeping changes to the article. Thanks and best, Netherzone (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]