There's good news and bad news on Ptolemy's use of Hipparchus's data in the
Almagest. While Ptolemy could have given more credit to Hipparchus, we wouldn't know much at all about Hipparchus were it not for Ptolemy. Also, it seems that Ptolemy did not conduct all of his own naked-eye observations, but extrapolated from Hipparchus's star positions. On the other hand, today Ptolemy is appreciated for mathematically modeling the heavens-- even though his cosmos was geocentric.
I am not particularly interested in any fixed star except for say the 50 or so brighter ones, and even then, not that much. There are a just a few hundred fixed stars that are constantly brighter than Uranus at its brightest. But I am sincerely interested in how one can synthesize the outer planets in traditional astrology along with the seven without changing the whole edifice. Bringing the magnitude of Uranus is not going to change minds. You might as well be clamoring that it is a planet and that planets are more important than fixed stars because they are moving, and cosmic motion transmits change in ancient physics. I bet you are going to have more success in conversion. That is a joke, I know you are not doing that.
It appears that I follow my own interests, and you follow yours. Is this a problem? Your interests are probably not identical with Ptolemy's, either.
If you look back at Tetrabiblos 1:9, you will see that Ptolemy often clusters stars by region within a constellation. In such cases, he takes the bright and dim stars together, collectively. He gives the influence of fixed stars according to analogies with planets. So use his system or don't. It hardly matters to me.
I'm not clamoring for anything. Are you?
In astronomy, Uranus is a planet.
In modern astrology, Uranus is a planet. It is the modern co-ruler of Aquarius. (Some would say, the sole ruler.) Modern astrology is concerned with a few major essential dignities, but ignores the finer points like terms, triplicities, and faces. You may not like or appreciate modern astrology, but there it is. It's been around for over a century.
I don't think you can fit the trans-Saturnians into the table of essential dignities unless you double-up or piggy-back them onto the traditional 7 planets. But I wouldn't recommend this. First of all, there are more dwarf planets out there than just Pluto. Second, a major meaning of Uranus in modern astrology is sudden change from the previous norm, or liberation from it.
Which is why, if you want to shoe-horn Uranus into traditional astrology (and I'm not saying you do) you can solve a lot of problems by treating it as Ptolemy did: as a fixed star.
Put differently, I would say one can use Uranus as a supplementary data point.