OK, there are tags "astrology" and "zodiac". As of now, "astrology" has two questions, "zodiac" one. One of those are in common.
But then, there are not so many questions in total.
Is this the right place to ask such questions, or is there a better place?
On the one hand:
There are various myths associated with astrology. How the stars and constellations got their names, the elevation of heroes to the stars and so on. Any question regarding these myths would clearly be on-topic. Comparisons between western and chinese astrology and their myths are of interest.
On the other hand:
We aren't here to assist in the creation or interpretation of horoscopes or other astrological charts. This goes beyond mythology as seen by this site. I would suggest that 'pure' astrological questions are off-topic.
Every now and again there is a proposal on Area51 to create an Astrology site. So far, none of these have made it to the commitment stage. These Area51 proposals have never failed on the grounds of overlap with Mythology. They could happily co-exist.
I think it's easy to respond negatively to astrology as quackery, pseudo-science, and con-artistry. I think it's helpful here to try to get some distance from that, and think of it as a religion, much like any other.
Astrology is based on traditional mythological elements, much of it with a great deal of history, stories told long ago, etc. I think it's pretty clear that stuff is on topic. Myths involving Capricorn, for instance, is clearly on topic in my book.
I think it's also clear this isn't the place for a practicing astrologer to seek advice on their craft, in the same way that it isn't the place for a practicing Christian to seek moral guidance.
Which brings us to the more recent question How is the “power” of an astrological aspect computed?. That falls into a bit of a gray area, but I'm kinda inclined to call it on topic. Looking at the question there:
what are the different ways to compute the power, when did they arise and what, if any, reason is given?
If we take astrology to be a religious or mythic system, then asking about the mythological basis and history for an element of that system seems to be reasonably topical to me. The question is being asked here, on Mythology.SE, not on Pseudoscientific-Bologna.SE. It is implied that it is asking for the mythology, rather than for some poorly-reasoned scientific-sounding justification for the practice.
So, I don't believe it is off topic. That said, I have no interest whatsoever in that question and no intention of looking into it. I suspect I may not be the only one who feels that way about it.
I think before anything changes officially, we need to see if this is the form we want it in. Is adding folklore alone enough? What really holds it together? Why is religion specifically excluded? What about the culture that surrounds myths? History that surrounds myths?
I agree that questions about practice (e.g. how do I create my personal horoscope) should be off-topic. I also agree that questions that ask for a pseudo-scientific reasoning for why astrology is valid should be off-topic.
But I don't think the requirement should be if the question asks about a mythological story related to astrology. Not all of our questions are about myths, and I think that's OK. Also, most of the new people asking questions here don't even read any myths before asking questions like "are myths about unicorns based on a real creature," so clearly it's not a requirement to participate.
I would be OK with a question asking about the symbolism behind a feature of astrology (the same thing that goes for something like alchemy). I would even be OK with a question explaining one of the rules behind astrology. Of course, I wouldn't be able to answer it because I know nothing about the subject.
Honestly, I don't think any of the existing Stack Exchange forums are truly appropriate. I was just looking through them trying to figure out where to post an astrology question.
Astrology has different goals than mythology because it intends to draw conclusions about reality, like science does. It shares similar purposes and procedures to numerology. Both are forms of symbolism that try to find patterns from repetitions in nature. They frequently deal with spirituality. I think "pseudo-scientific" is a loosely accurate description of the field; it could be improved by identifying what impels the field.
I just now posted the question within Stack Exchange Meta:
Are questions about astrology on-topic on any SE site?
