Talk:Astrological sign/Archive 1

Archive 1

Start

OK I've made a start. There's plenty more could be said about each sign. Have fun! Shantavira 12:33, 12 April 2004 (UTC)

Months correspond to signs

Someone should show how the months maps to the star signs... Paul 19:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Rulerships & Essential Dignities link

The link

Rulerships & Essential Dignities - Useful resource on planetary rulerships & essential dignities.

leading to

[[1]]

is from an IP having made lots of addition of these pages, most of which seem completely unnecesary, could someone with more insight into these areas please check if the website is notable? Lundse 15:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Voice

This article is INCREDIBLY hard to read, especially toward the bottom. Sentences like "So we might have..." need to GO. It doesn't make sense to me, otherwise I'd change it, so could someone with some knowledge please fix this? Heatherfire 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Discussion

Has anyone else pressed the "back" button to return to the Astrological sign page and was routed to a page calling you a B**** and that you will burn and die- written over and over all the way down the page? Quite creepy! Wiki, you should look into this as well as who wrote the article.

It was vandalism and was removed. No worries :) Sam 22:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Taurus is missing

Taurus is missing from "Characteristics". Could someone please correct this? I'm not an expert in astrology. Just noticed a missing one.

I just thought someone would actually want to add a link to the Uranian Astrology page in the part down in planets where they mention Uranian Astrology. If only because the comment made me curious and then I had to look it up rather than it being linked to from here.

I'm afraid I'm not actually a Wiki-er (or whatever people who edit wikipedia call themselves) so I'm not familiar with the context for doing so. 146.201.175.220 03:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

this was all unsourced anyway. A respectable discussion would cite the earliest known source for these "characteristics". 16th century? 17th century? Just listing things without context is worthless. dab (𒁳) 17:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

scientific aproach of western signs

Hi.
I know that there is no scientific approach to signs and I do believe this should be done - started.
If you can help or are interested into this subject go here.
I hope we will come out with something and initialize a chapter here called scientific approach of signs or so. Raffethefirst (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Taurus is worrying

I am a Taurus and I want to my married stage the dates that fall in for my marry. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.54.21.148 (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we all want that, but Wikipedia is probably not a good place to look for it. 67.158.74.7 (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Beware of the false traits/claims along with any misleading URLs in some citations

Some person in here wrote a made up cr*ppy trait that the sign Aries is <<sexy>> along with some other false traits for most of the zodiac signs, he also made a misleading citation with a wrong URL. Anyway i fixed the text according to what www.artcharts.com states (as much as my free time permits...) and added the correct citations with the correct URLs for each sign. Beware of the people that try to add their lies in the wikipedia zodiac pages for their personal satisfaction. Always check the URL source of the reference source and always read the source to see if their statements in wikipedia are correct --SotosfromGreece (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fiery trigon

I came here on a redirect from Fiery Trigon, but there is no mention that I could see on this page. So why the redirect?

Specifically I was looking for something on the fiery trigon of 1583. MidlandLinda (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

characteristics

I have restored the characteristics with references I have sourced myself, but similar can be found in just about any astrology book you care to look in. If you want a discussion about the historical origins of the signs I suggest that is a matter for another article. The history of Astrology article does quite a lot on the origins of the zodiac.Neelmack 12:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a revision of the characteristics mentioned for the elements. They seem pretty asinine to me and overly focused upon the sun sign, as opposed to traits relevant to all the planets. For example "They strive to be the center of attention and are at home when showing of", doesn't tell me anything about Mars or Mercury in that element. "They have excellent manners and are very polite." hardly describes Mars in those signs. "At their worst, they can be mean. They carry a grudge" is not relevant to the air sign element, would suit water or the fixed signs more. Air signs are noted as the 'humane' signs, a point not made anywhere. etc etc etc. I don't know where these were sourced but they don't seem relevant to modern astrologers and are almost exclusively based upon the sun falling into those elements.Xpaulk (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Constellations

I think the intro is slightly incorrect. 'Western' astrologers don't relate the 12 signs to the constellations anymore because everything has now moved. We DO divide the sky into 12 segments now, which don't relate to the constellations...this gets everyone how under the collar. When I get some time I might make some corrections and add some sources. Just to let you know this does need correction and modernising:) 82.0.89.224 (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Veryscarymary (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason star signs are changing is because the starsign "cancer" in the old days meant "uncool" and the sun has realised that the people who are "cancer" are not uncool so they have decided to move it up. Meg is a legend ... that is all — Preceding unsigned comment added by THESCOTTIO (talk • contribs) 21:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletions: Introduction

The following two sentences seem to contribute less to the effectiveness of this article and I recommend they be deleted. They are more effectively handled under Astrology.

'According to astrology, celestial phenomena reflect or govern human activity on the principle of "as above, so below", so that the twelve signs are held to represent twelve basic personality types or characteristic modes of expression. There are sun signs and moon signs, which both depend on your date of birth.'Volpane (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Earth Precession

It finally made it into the headline news that the astrological signs are off by 30 days now and even though it's old news this article doesn't mention the precession of the earth and the change in the dates corresponding to the axial movement. Why has this POV not being introduced? Alatari (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Read above in the comments section about Ophiuchus and about the 13th sign. The astrological signs are not off my 30 days. What the headline news has failed, embarrassingly for them, to take into consideration is that there are two zodiacs. One is the sidereal zodiac which is aligned to the beginning of the constellation Aries and the other is the tropical zodiac which is aligned to the intersection of the ecliptic with the celestial equator - neither one is wrong, but both are different and the difference is what has confused the news articles. There is nothing new, this has been known of and accounted for by astrologers since at least the 2nd century. Xpaulk (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mention any 13th sign. And what I'm mentioning is that this article does not explain what you so clearly explained to me in one paragraph. So again: why doesn't this article mention the differences and the earth's precession? I've known about these differences since my astronomy book circa 1980 and am shocked by the clout it took to finally get this into the public's awareness. I would disagree when you say there is nothing new. The level of awareness of the earth's precession is new. The usage of the 13th sign is new and very wide-spread in Japan. The Zodiac article has taken the time and developed a chart to make these differences obvious to any casual Wikipedia searcher. It would not be hard to install a short paragraph and a main topic pointer into the Zodiac article. Or you can keep fighting all the new edits that are coming this way for months. Alatari (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The article as it stands does mention explicitly that "there is no connection with constellations". So why would we include that the signs are off by 30 days like you suggested in your original comment in this section? Clearly this is not the case. Instead the difference between the sidereal zodiac and the tropical zodiac is off by about 30 days - but that's not relevant to the signs themselves, that's relevant to the zodiac. So it's more appropriate to include in the Zodiac article (which it is). It's enough to highlight that the constellations are not utilised - this negates automatically any precession thinking at all. As the earth's precession has nothing to do with the signs themselves, I don't see why we should repeat what's written on another article. Xpaulk (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus attempt Take 2: Proposed edit: Tropical zodiac vs. Sidereal zodiac

There is quite a bit of discussion about this subject on the Zodiac article.

From Astrological sign article:

'In Indian astrology, the twelve signs are associated with constellations, while in Chinese astrology and Western Astrology there is no connection with constellations, as it is simply the line of the equator that is divided into twelve equal segments.'

Perhaps a better way of wording for this article:

'Various approaches to measuring and dividing the sky are currently used by differing systems of astrology, although the tradition of the Zodiac's names and symbols remain consistent. Western astrology measures from equinox and solstice points (points relating to longest, equal and shortest days of the tropical year), while Jyotiṣa or Vedic astrology measures along the equatorial plane (sidereal year). Precession results in Western astrology's zodiacal divisions not corresponding in the current era to the constellations that carry similar names, while Jyotiṣa measurements still correspond with the background constellations.'

Some consideration of astronomy and astrology can also change this edit and am open to suggestions. I have removed the reference to Chinese astrology because I am unfamiliar with how it relates here, but am open to suggestions for revising this edit.

Additionally at this time this article's subject may be better handled by the Zodiac (disambiguation), although I think a discussion here would help. The Zodiac article seems to only include information on Western Astronomy and while this article could become the astrology adjunct. Perhaps consolidation of some kind is in order also.Volpane (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism seems to continue on this page. Last week it was reading better and now it reads worse. Is no one using this discussion page for potential updates to the article? Random editing without discussion seems counter-productive. I'm going to add my edit and see if it sticks.Volpane (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• SUPPORT This edit jibes with the sources on the other articles and I support it's adoption. The signs WERE tied to the constellations as they existed in 600BCE. Source every fact if necessary then the debate will subside. The Zodiac article is in excellent shape and I would suggest adopting whole sections of it's sourced material if this lead can't be pinned down soon.Alatari (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Makes much more sense; the western zodiac predates Hipparchus and Ptolemy. The signs may not correspond properly to the stars anymore, but it seems pretty unlikely that they were based upon a system of latitudes which hadn't been invented yet. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have posted references and reintroduced this paragraph to the main article. Please advise if improvement is needed. I will delete talk above that is repetitious and edit my comments here. Thanks all! Volpane (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

References

The 13 zodiacs

How about a new heading that explains the 13th zodiac? as it is a legal starsign, that gets more "sun time" then the scorpion.

The new dates:

• Capricorn: Jan. 20 - Feb. 16
• Aquarius: Feb. 16 - March 11
• Pisces: March 11- April 18
• Aries: April 18 - May 13
• Taurus: May 13 - June 21
• Gemini: June 21 - July 20
• Cancer: July 20 - Aug. 10
• Leo: Aug. 10 - Sept. 16
• Virgo: Sept. 16 - Oct. 30
• Scorpio: Nov. 23 - Nov. 29
• Ophiuchus: Nov. 29 - Dec. 17
• Sagittarius: Dec. 17 - Jan. 20

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/lifestyle/earth%27s-shift-adds-13th-sign-to-zodiac

--Synethos (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Your link asserts the opposite of what you are proposing. Can you document more evidence that suggests a thirteenth zodiac that was not recognized by the ancients is valid in astrology as it is practised today? Please note that at the bottom of the article are links to pertinent articles that imply the distinction between astronomy's inclusion of Ophiuchus in the zodiac of the ecliptic and astrology's current exclusion of a new 13th sign in the Zodiac. If you can find sufficient documentation that this is more than just one minor difference between science and the occult, then perhaps you should attempt adding your heading to the main article. Sorry, I'm not convinced this "sun time" is anything more than uninformed media hype. Volpane (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Taurus

In this article the dates of Taurus end with 20-th and in Taurus article with 21-st May. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobi1589 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

sign duration

obviously, tabloid horoscopes will just settle for durations like "Aries: 21 March to 20 April". But we are an encyclopedia. We can report on a poll of common "fixed" durations given in popular literature, but this will need to be attributed. The actual duration of the signs do of course vary in each year, and they do not conveniently begin and end at 00:00 midnight. Aries is defined as beginning exactly at vernal equinox, in 2009 this means 20 March 11:44 UTC, and each sign lasts for 30.44 days or 2629743 seconds. I don't think there is any room for debate in this, since that's the simple definition of the tropical signs of the zodiac. There is room for debate in the case of the sidereal signs, of course, but such debate will need to be attributed to respectable sources. --dab (𒁳) 13:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed mention of the 'durations' of the signs, because contrary to as it is posted here and on the article as it was, the 'durations' of the signs do not change at all. Ever. They are 30 degrees constantly. What changes is the date that the Sun enters and leave those signs, but this is irrelevant to an article on astrological signs as it should be distinguished that an astrological sign is not the same as the period that the Sun in particular occupies that sign. Why not the Moon or Pluto? It is a fallacy to confuse the astrological signs with the 'sun signs. Xpaulk (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I am also somewhat concerned with sign duration: for instance, for Capricorn, the duration is from December 22 to January 20, but growing up I always heard January 19 was the cusp date, not January 20. Doing a quick look up on Google, it seems like there are more sites that have January 19 than January 20. I think a discussion of this should accompany the main article. Dsmoya31410 (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dates

I guess I am slightly confused. I was born on April 20th and I know I am a taurus. The dates on http://www.astrology.com/sundates.html confirm this. Why are the dates different on the wiki?

• The dates change from year to year. Also you are a cusp
  • Its actually pretty amazing how the slightest detail can make a difference as to which sign you are when you're on a cusp. I'm on the cusp of Capricorn and Aquarius and I've found that where I was born (combined with the date and time of day I was born) makes me a Capricorn...just BARELY. However, if I had been born on the same date at the same time, but in the location that I live now, I would have been an Aquarius. Also, if I had been born just a half-hour later than I was (in the location I was born), I would have been an Aquarius. Here is a good tool to use to find your sign:

http://www.alabe.com/freechart/ JSDA (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not confuse people with aproximative dates to be fix dates, in the present article and all other articles like Taurus, Aries, Virgo, etc.

An article talking about this

Complex Astrology Chart Generator

--TudorTulok (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirection of Western Zodiac signs

On 22 October 2012 the contents of the articles for the individual signs of the western zodiac (Pisces (astrology) etc.) were removed and replaced with redirects to Astrological sign#Western zodiac signs. These edits were made by User:Dominus Vobisdu with the edit summary: Unsourced and unsourceable cruft. No justification for stand-alone article. This did not seem to follow a specific community discussion.

Following concerns raised at the Reference Desk I will, after posting this, restore the articles to the form they were in immediately before their redirection. At least some of the articles seem to have been significantly reduced in size also prior to this redirection, however I have not reverted these changes.

Because I am sure editors may wish to discuss this (perhaps to reinstate the redirects, or make other changes to these articles), however a discussion spread among the talk pages twelve articles in question would be too dissipated, I suggest this page as a centralised discussion location. An editor with more experience than I in Wikipedia policies may wish to move this discussion to a better location. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

We can discuss here. My view is that independent articles on each of the signs are not justified. The same goes for the East Asian signs. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, no case has been made for the redirects to be reverted. I had added a source to the astrological sign article for the dates of the signs (although I've noticed there appears to be some variation in dates that people use). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that no reliable sources exist for any of this material. The sources that do exist are totally unreliable, in-universe, and "for-entertainment-purposes only" of zero scholarly standing or encyclopedic value. Agree also with Itsmejudith that the oriental zodiac signs need to be merged, too. I also trimmed them way back because of lack of sourcing. Furthermore, the articles just repeat what is in the Astrological signs article, anyway, and there is zero chance that they can be expanded using reliable sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason I restored the articles is as so: within a day of the articles' content removal a reader commented that this meant the encyclopaedia no longer had content they were looking for. In the discussion, User:StuRat and I also declared that we felt the encyclopaedia was now missing important articles. While the articles at the point of redirection contained little information beyond what it was redirected towards, this was because the articles had been progressively drastically reduced in size in the previous few days.

I suggest the following:

• The articles be reduced to the basic information that can be easily verified (such as the most commonly used dates etc.), declared as stubs, and be rebuilt using content that adheres to WP:V, WP:NOR etc.
• If editors wish to have no content at these article names apart from redirects, this could be taken through the WP:AfD process (or a similar RfD) so that community consensus can be gauged.

Looking back, it does look like the articles were of poor quality, but this is a case for reducing the articles down and building them up again, rather than effectively removing them from the encyclopaedia. I think the argument that there are no reliable sources is defeatist, we have decent articles on other forms of fiction. :)

---LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no sign (pun not intented) of actual significant coverage of, say, Pisces etc beyond reporting basic info that are reported for all the signs collectively together. The notability of Pisces is completely dependent on it being an astrological sign. Commonly used dates etc can be added to the signs article, and in a more consistent and easy to read manner than having each separate; with the additional benefit of more info on signs in generality. "what users are looking for" has never been a metric for what we include; content is expected to be encyclopedic and not indiscriminate etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking for a project. Gimme 10 days with one of them, let's say Aries, and I'll see if I can make a decent article out of it. Consider it a test case. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If you wish, but be aware of what is expected in relation to sourcing for fringe theories at Wikipedia:FRINGE#Sourcing_and_attribution. I would suggest reading WP:FRINGE (and WP:PSCI) in general if you are not familiar with it. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that LukeSurl might do as well to look through the past history of the Aries article, to see what sort of state it has been in - and to note the singular lack of anything remotely like a definitive (in-universe) source for what 'Aries' actually means, astrologically... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it reminds me of the astrology article. Some astrologers will say it is a religion and works through divination and insist that it be described as such; but then other astrologers will insist it's scientific and scoff at the wikipedia article for mentioning it's divination. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

@LukeSurl: Fair enough, but please do it in your sandbox and not in article space. Let us know here when you are finished. Remember that the sources you use have to be considered reliable outside of the fringe community, and that few such sources exist for this sort of material. In-universe sourcing is essentially worthless. As IRWolfie has discovered and AndyTheGrump has pointed out, in-universe sources disagree on just about everything, including basic things like dates. Without solid, serious and substantial coverage in mainstream scholarly sources, it's impossible to determine the reliability of in-universe sources, and it would be difficult to justify a stand-alone article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if people could bear in mind that covering some of the iconography, or giving links to where it is covered, is useful for people who come across astrological references in medieval and early modern literature and art. Filling articles up with magazine airheadedness does nothing to advance that. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent scholarly sources exist for a lot of that, but the material would still be better presented in the umbrella article on astrological signs than in separate, disjointed articles. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Doing it in a sandbox makes sense. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Well in my opinion there should be separate articles. There are whole separate books on these signs. Personally I think it is nonsense, but still I would like to have the information available in a compact article sized form for each of the signs (and including the eastern ones too). There is plenty of sources to go from, so there is no shortage of verifiability or proof of notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is if the books are reliable for what they state. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie - just to clarify, when you say "reliable" here, is that shorthand for "meets the benchmarks of WP:SOURCES and WP:RELIABLESOURCES", or do you mean something else ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, standard RS. i.e; do the reference being used have a sufficient reputation for fact checking for the claim it makes that you wish to cite it for? Is it a questionable source? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see there being enough separate info about each sign that an article is needed for each. Most info can go into the main Zodiac and/or Astrological sign articles, in tabular form. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that books about astrology that are widely regarded by those who work it can be reliable sources about astrology, the same way that books widely regarded by Republicans can be reliable sources about Reaganomics. We are not here to judge people. We are here to document what they believe in, what they say, draw, and publish.

I may be ridiculed for it, but I'll say it again: we cannot say, with religious certainty, that infants born at all times of year are exactly identical. It is possible that, especially in ancient times, at some particular place(s), mothers consumed different foods at different times of year that could have affected the physical or psychological development of their fetuses, who might been born within a fairly narrow window of time that, at a crude approximation, might have matched the interval assigned to some sign of the zodiac. Our ancestors took much closer notice of natural cycles than most of us living in temperature-conditioned comfort and electric light today; we should not discard out of hand that they could have hit upon some interesting observation. But even if it was completely, unrelievedly a waste of time, even so, it still is worthy of documentation. Wnt (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Modern astrologers aren't historians, they aren't reliable for historical details. Modern astrologers don't agree on much of anything. If you edit a little in this topic area you will see this. I've addressed your original research which has nothing to do with the discussion on your talk page. Articles are expected to reflect the weight of the sources; not just the fringe ones. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If they don't agree on anything, great. Sample some of the big ones, give an overview of their contradictory beliefs, and that way you can have the readers come out the far end with a sense that these people are just making stuff up, which is apparently what you want. Problem solved. Wnt (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be original research. What I want to do is improve articles based on reliable, not have discussions on article talk pages about whether astrology is real or not, or whatever when it has no connection to the topic at hand. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, doesn't everyone wish they could just edit articles in peace and not be called off to these side-tracks? But when you are supporting the complete removal of other people's work, you've pretty well made conflict inevitable. I don't think it is original research to accurately summarize the positions of several well-known workers in a field. I'm not saying to harp on how it's inconsistent; the data will do that for you if it is true. Wnt (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A source is primary, for opinion. Your suggestion is to construct an article based on primary sources. Sounds a lot like OR. Secondary sources establish weight. There is no reason why we should include fringe opinions which have no coverage in the most reliable sources about the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• I should note that you have a simpler issue here, which explains why some of this material isn't written to Wikipedia standards: at least the old version of Aries was copied verbatim from [2]. (It actually has a kind of poetic flow to it - rather a shame he didn't turn it toward a more open-ended fictional genre) It would be good to check for any other copyvios in these articles, which might bring things closer to a consensus. Wnt (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It was just a recent insert which was reverted. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The articles on each sign should continue to exist (my opinion) with some detail of what the different schools of astrologers have said about them. Aquarius and Pisces for example should have information relating to the whole Age of Aquarius malarkey for example, and there's interesting stuff about the way astrologers have reacted to things like the discovery/demotion of Pluto. Culpepper and the medicinal significance could be added as well. The astrologers are reliable sources for what the astrologers believe about such things - obviously it should not be presented as verifiable science or gospel truth (popular culture maybe). Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Those topics would seem more relevant for Astrological age, astrology and medical astrology respectively (bear in mind there are around 600 astrology articles in wikiproject astrology alone, so there are plenty of appropriate articles for much of the mentioned content). Astrology already mentions the issue with pluto, but I'm not sure what the relation to Pisces (astrology) etc is. Astrologers aren't reliable for what astrologers believe, they are reliable for what they believe personally. Astrologers aren't one coherent group. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The redirects were restored. Noone improved them in the time by one iota, and instead editor time has been wasted dealing with the near constant vandalism. Can someone show actual reliable sources which can justify the existence of any of the articles? If we redirect people to here, there is a reasonable chance they will improve this article, since sources do exist for that. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia should treat the metaphysical claims of astrology as it does those of religion. There are no "reliable sources" for either beyond stuff that people have made up. I suspect that some astrology-related content is being deleted just because people think it is nonsense. I agree it is nonsense, but that is NOT in itself a valid reason to delete it, just as it is not acceptable to delete religion-related content simply because it is nonsense. 86.128.3.213 (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Lack of relaible independent secondary sources is indeed a valid reason to delete an article. Your comparison with religious topics is faulty, as we also delete material on religious topics that is not backed up with reliable independent secondary sources. Read WP:RS and WP:FRINGE again. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I said. I said that the content being nonsense (i.e. patently untrue) is not in itself a valid reason to delete it. There may be other reasons. I suspect that some editors' opinons about astrology may bias them, perhaps even subconsciously, when evaluating this point. A noted astrologer may not be given the same credence as a source as a religious scholar. That is what I think I observe happening sometimes. 86.146.108.178 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

True in some respects. I recently deleted a piece that was an excellent biblical exposition - would have made a great sermon - but unfortunately was wholly unsourced and probably did have its origins as a sermon the editor had either heard or preached. Now if instead of doing that, the editor had looked up a great sermon writer like Charles Spurgeon on the subject, or had read some books by Christian writers like A. W. Tozer on the subject, he could have created some good content with sound references that still included his exposition, only as an encyclopaedia article, not a sermon. I accept that astrology lacks the easy rank of well-respected-by-all-sides go-to sources, but that only makes it more difficult, not impossible. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Since currently the user seeking information will be redirected to an article that does at least contain some information, perhaps the emphasis should be on improving the information in that article. If a section expands beyond a convenient size, it can be split off to create a separate article, without the need to have articles on all the signs if some have less material. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The important thing is that editors hostile to astrology are not allowed to run rampant over all the articles deleting stuff purely because of their personal opinions. I cannot comment on individual cases because I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject, but I hope there are some checks and balances in place. 86.146.108.178 (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Too late. Hooray for science and peer review. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is unclear, but if you are supporting the deletion of content from Wikipedia simply because it is unscientific then you are very wrong indeed. If your "too late" comment means that you and/or other editors have indeed been deleting content simply because of your personal opinions, then those edits need to be undone. I hope someone will look into this matter. 86.146.108.247 (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Unscientific stuff is great. For instance, I like star wars and harry potter. Yet Hoth is not a real planet and even if it were, you couldn't use it to predict anything. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have understood you fully; you are ok with the redirect? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Internal Wiki Links

What was the purpose for deleting internal Wiki links? For example, if 'Chinese zodiac' is a Wiki topic, why has the link from this topic to Chinese zodiac been removed? Terry Macro (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Odd and even years for Yin/Yang in the Chinese Zodiac signs

At the very end of the article, there's the following sentence: "an easy rule to follow is that years that end in an odd number are Yang, those that end with an even number are Yin." Aren't the years switched? Should it not be even = yang and odd = yin? e.g. I'm Horse, which is yang, and was born in 1990. All years listed are consistent with odd = yin and even = yang. I didn't feel like editing just in case I was wrong somehow, but figured I should report this. 187.65.215.108 (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Astrological sign. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103102752/http://accessnewage.com/articles/astro/HIGELEMS.HTM to http://accessnewage.com/Articles/astro/HIGELEMS.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070127194954/http://www.astrologynow.com:80/carolwillis/Rulerships.txt to http://www.astrologynow.com/carolwillis/Rulerships.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080122142135/http://logosastrology.dk:80/glossary.htm to http://logosastrology.dk/glossary.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071209083130/http://www.spiritsingles.com:80/Astrology/aboutAstrology.cfm to http://www.spiritsingles.com/Astrology/aboutAstrology.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Astrology as a pseudoscience

Astrology in the western sense of horoscopes and the like claiming to make at all accurate predictions is, demonstrably, pseudoscientific. Yet if I believed it, and came here to this article, I would not be assuaged of this position. There should mention in the article, or even a section of its own, detailing the material uselessness of astrology, and the many, many studies demonstrating its utter lack of any predictive power. --SgtLion (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

First of all, modern astrology doesn't claim to make "accurate predictions". In any case this article discusses astrological signs, and you are talking about astrology, and your point is made very clearly in the astrology article, where it belongs. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to assuage anyone, so it isn't necessary to repeat the pseudoscience part of the definition of astrology in every associated article. However, if you can see some way your point would fit logically into the article on astrological signs, but all means add it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

13 signs

Before any more changes are made to this article involving the "hoax" that the measurement of the zodiac resulting in thirteen signs has somehow changed after thousands of years from twelve signs...I recommend you read this article on the MNBC site pointing out what lead to this misinformation:http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/14/5841166-the-twitter-snowball-effect-the-zodiac-and-npr Volpane (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I believe the link is broken. The two constellations (Ophiouchus & Cetus) should at least be included in a separate section, as there seem to be still revisions on them, & it would be good for people to know that they were close to be considered part of the Zodiac Signs. FelipeVO (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Ophiuchus

What is meant by "long things"?

Why hasnt Ophiuchus been included in the sun signs? Why do the articles still refer to "twelve" signs, and have not taken into account the 13th sign: Ophiuchus (the serpent bearer) which falls between Sagittarius and Scorpio? I'm not very used to using wikipedia, so forgive me if this is the wrong place to post this suggestion. It seems like a bit of work to correct all the mentions of 12 signs to 13 over all the articles, and I don't want to upset anyone by poorly trying to make edits/expansions.

85.210.11.62 (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)DG

Ophiucus is not included because it is not an astrological sign. Telling astrologers that they left it out is like telling mathematicians that they left out forbleblatz, the integer that goes between seven and eight. 216.75.183.126 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be updated to reflect the astrological changes. They finally are including Ophiuchus in the zodiac. Opaz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

No they're not. Someone963852 (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No they're not.Xpaulk (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The recent article about the 13th sign is from the field of astronomy which has little to do with the art of astrology. 184.77.189.134 (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

Edit request from 98.160.199.152, 15 January 2011

Add the new astrological sign - see the L.A. Times article on Ophiuchus, The Serpent Bearer. According to astronomer in the article dated January 14, 2011. Also,please add visualization training primarily for training students in should to visualize text to help comprehend it. It is a really important category of visualization. Thank you. Gena Lombino

98.160.199.152 (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There is no consensus yet that this is actually going to be incorporated into the astrological community. Additionally, when making this type of request, you need to specify the exact text you want inserted, including full citations if any. --Darkwind (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, even if the new astrological sign is not 100% accepted, it should be included at least as a separate reference that specifies that, at some point, in was considered.

Let's not forget Astrology is, at the end, a pseudoscience, so we don't need to be as strict with it as with Math. FelipeVO (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

References

13th sign

Scientists have discovered a 13th zodiac sign, it's been all over the news for about a month now, someone should update this?--68.186.160.22 (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hardly. Ophiuchus has been known about for over two millennia, it was explicitly recorded by Ptolemy in the second century BC and precession of the equinoxes has been recorded at least from the time of Hipparchus. These news stories are anything but new and are merely a strawman argument used in an attempt to discredit astrology. Western astrology does not even use the constellations and there are no 'discoveries' of constellations, whatever is there has always been there Xpaulk (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like this should be mentioned in the article at least. I was curious about it and came to the discussion page since I didn't see anything about it. Anxiety35 (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree, this should be, at least, added as a reference. FelipeVO (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Zodiac Ephemeris

the Sun in 23° Aries (23° longitude), the Moon in 7° Scorpio (217° longitude), or Jupiter in 29° Pisces (359° longitude).

The article has this astrological alignment and I had to urge to find out when it exactly happened (never had, never will), but here's what I found: April 14-15, 1865 was when this alignment happened, actually Jupiter in 29' Sagittarius, the days when US president Abraham Lincoln was shot and died the next day, considering the ascendant on his death was 29' Pisces (another sign ruled by Jupiter). Lincoln was born on Feb. 12, 1809 - an Aquarius sun - 6 days until the sun enters Pisces and Sagittarius or Capricorn moon (cusp? or data varies by many astrologers). The sun and Jupiter in tropical, while the moon in Scorpio is sidereal (25' behind 1' Sagittarius) and the ASC could be sidereal as well. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

23 June is duplicated

In the first table 23 June is there under two differenet signs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.69.135 (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, come on, what is going on? How can one date be under two signs?

That's because signs are not determined by dates but by the location of the Sun. Dates do not have signs; *moments in time* have signs. The Sun crosses the boundary between Cancer and Leo some time on 23 June in most years. The exact time depends on the year, as well as what time zone you're in. Someone born just before the boundary would be a Cancer and someone born just after it would be a Leo, even though they were born on the same day. It is not possible to give one consistent set of dates that will be correct in every year, but it is actually not even possible to give one set of dates correct in any year, because it will always depend on the time (not just date) of birth for people born on the day the sign changes. 69.63.56.54 (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe June 23 is when the sun transits Cancer from Gemini, unless you meant July 23 is when the sun transits Leo from Cancer. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sixteen Signs of the Zodiac

I seem to remember that there was a time when there were sixteen signs of the zodiac and the reason given was the Earth turned at a slower rate so there were more months.

Does anyone have any insight on this or is it just rumour?

Ian Chattan 178.119.227.197 (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The constellations Cetus, Orion and Perseus served as zodiacal signs in other forms of past astrology, and of course, Ophiuchus was replaced by the newly formed Libra in what was the "claws" of the constellation Scorpio. Other astrologers tried to connect Aquila, Andromeda or Pegasus, Centaurus or Lupus, Bootes and Hercules in the parazodiacal group, whenever the sun and our earth's moon overlaps the elipetical every few years. Included in Ophiuchus is Serpens Caput or the Serpent held by Ophus, therefore you could have 24 not 12 or 13 signs of the zodiac, while we have 12 solar and 13 lunar months of the calendar year. The artificial recent constellation Triangulum used to be part of the constellation Aries, while the historic Pleaides star cluster was once a constellation itself was redesignated a part of Taurus by modern post-1900 AD astronomers. 71.102.3.122 (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

3 things to add here: 1. Serpens is two sub-constellations, the other is Serpens Cauda. 2. Sextans is between the constellations Cancer and Leo. And the pre-1930 IAU constellation of Orpheus in between Virgo and Libra, too faint to be seen in today's urban lighted skies. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

How about the dates

I looked this up to find out what sign I am

If you wanted to find out what sign you were, go look over at astrology and look at the constellations. Those list the dates. -- Remixed 12:33, 20 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I was expecting a chart or something that shows, such and such sign goes from this date to that date. An article on Astrological signs would be one place to expect that information. Jtyroler (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I decided to edit one of the charts that talks about each star sign characteristics like the what planet their rule bye among other things and introduce the dates of when their sign starts and their sign ends, I started with aries that birthdays starts in March and finish with Pisces wich birdays is in Febraury. Hope is helpfull for everyone, the dates is one of the most improtants characteristics of Zodiac Signs and when people search about zodiac signs they definlty look for the dates first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayyourfavemonth (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Zodiac in The Sky, pp. 40–41.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Zodiac in The Sky, pp. 40–41.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC) The deletion discussion is complete and the decision was made to retain.OrewaTel (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Planetary Rulerships - Possible Error

In the "Planetary rulerships" section there is the following statement, "the Sun and Moon are termed 'The Lights' or fixed stars, while the other bodies are called planets or wanderers". This I believe to be incorrect. The Lights and Fixed Stars are the stars and constellations. The Sun and Moon are planets. I would like someone with more knowledge of Astrology to approve this correction before I edit. Please note that in Astrology 'Stars' and 'Constellations' are nominal points on the Celestial Sphere that may or may not have any relationship with the Astronomical terms with the same names. Similarly astronomers do not consider Sun, Moon, Pluto, Ceres, Chiron etc. to be planets but this article is about Astrology not Astronomy.OrewaTel (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the statement as it was unsourced, you effectively challenged it, and there was an existing inline note stating that unsourced statements in that section would be deleted. Anyone who wishes to re-add it can do so while providing a reference. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

NASA doing the math on Ophiuchus

NASA recently talked about how when the Babylonians invented the constellations 3,000 years ago, they chose to leave out the 13th sign Ophiuchus. To make a tidy match with their 12-month calendar, the Babylonians ignored the fact that the sun actually moves through 13 constellations, not 12. Then they assigned each of those 12 constellations equal amounts of time. I feel like this needs to be mentioned. Michael14375 (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

NASA use stars to navigate. For that they need to know the exact current celestial positions. Consequently NASA must talk to Astronomers and use their language. Modern Astronomers have divided the sky into 88 arbitrary areas and given them Constellation names. Astrologers are not interested in the star positions. Instead they are interested in sky areas relative to the Sun and have divided the sky into 12 equal segments which they have named after constellations that were more or less in these segments 2000 years ago. The actual position of the 88 astronomical constellations are unimportant and the 76 constellations that don't correspond to Sign names are even less relevant. As an example, Polaris, the North Star, is in the Astrological Sign of Aries but Astronomically it is in the non-Zodiac constellation Ursa Minor.

I don't think NASA's concerns about Ophiuchus need be mentioned here. NASA are excellent scientists and engineers but they are not competent astrologers. OrewaTel (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

That NASA crap again? Ophiuchus is old hat. Every astronomer knows about it. the Babylonians ignored the fact that the sun actually moves through 13 constellations is meaningless nonsense - it wasn't a "fact" back then, and it is only a fact now because astronomer organizations chose to cut up the sky in a specific, arbitrarily chosen way, whereas the Babylonians chose to cut it up in another arbitrarily chosen way. As OrewaTel sid, constallations are just random patters humans chose to group together and make into entities. See also [3]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(Of course, astrology is still bunk, but this is not the bullet that kills it.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that Astronomical signs don't match Astrological signs rears its ugly head every so often. This is an attempt to head this off. The names and characteristics of the signs are Astrological. The position on the celestial sphere and the component stars are purely Astronomical. In Astrology, signs are associated with the old elements, Fire, Earth, Air and Water. Look at Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces. You would struggle to get a Crab, a Scorpion and a pair of Fish by playing join the dots with the stars but these are all Water signs. And so they must have a watery connection. The same applies to the Fire signs: Ram, Lion, Archer, Earth signs: Bull, Virgin, Goat and Air signs: Twins, Scales, Water Carrier. Okay Leo does have a sort of Lion's head and Gemini does have a double asterism headed by two bright stars but the others look nothing like their nominal figures. When you add in the Modality (Cardinal, Fixed, Mutable) the Sign avatars make sense. But it is obvious that the regions were named for their attributes and the star patterns were made to fit. In the last 3000 years the asterisms have moved so the signs no longer correspond to the patterns that don't look like the sign names. Does this matter? No one bit! But this demonstrates beyond argument that the actual pattern of the stars is completely irrelevant to an Astrological discussion.

By the way, whether Astrology is a fundamental truth or a load of rubbish is nothing to do with this article. This article is solely about Astrological signs as used by Astrologers. It is not about Astronomy, Scepticism or any other subject. OrewaTel (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

pseudoscience

"In modernity, astrology is generally regarded as pseudoscience and is widely considered to be diametrically opposed to the findings and theories of modern Western science.[3]"

This sentence in the lede is hogwash. Regarded as pseudoscience in modernity? In the view of any rational lens! Diametrically opposed? It's wholly unsupported, and should not be pitted against science. It downplays the consensus by which science considers astrology to be pseudoscience by reference to "findings and theories" and discredits science by calling it "Western".

That is the rationale for my change of wording. It is line with the lede of sun sign astrology.

"Astrology is a pseudoscience. Scientific investigations of the theoretical basis and experimental verification of claims have shown it to have no scientific validity or explanatory power.

Kauri0.o (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that calling Astrology 'pseudo-science' is praising it but this article is about Astrological Signs not about the validity of Astrology. An argument can be made that you don't have the right to criticise Astrology unless you know how to draw and interpret a horoscope. (I can do just that and so I know it is rubbish.) This is a factual article on what, according to Astrology, the signs and by extension the planets, mean and so can be used as a source for a student trying to interpret a horoscope. This is not the place for a significant discussion of the reality of Astrological meaning.

The 'pseudoscience' sentence in the lead (I prefer the English and Kiwi word to the American term) is poor. It contains a completely inappropriate link to Haunted Houses and similar as well as an orphaned link marker. The reference to 'Western Science' was probably meant to be a strong term meaning 'Real Honest Science' as opposed to '<insert racist term here> Shamanism'. I agree with your new wording but I'll remove the inappropriate cite and tidy up the rest.OrewaTel (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Modern Planetary Rulerships

Classical Astrology knew about seven planets which are Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. There is a host of lore that relates to planets and the signs that they rule. Ever since Herschel discovered Uranus some astrologers have tried to fit the new bodies in the system. This has been exacerbated by discovery of minor bodies including the asteroids and centaurs. However there is not the historical bank of knowledge relating to the new bodies and so even cited facts may well be an individual opinion rather than a consensus. We should therefore be cautious about editing this area. A recent edit (reverted) made unsupported statements that looked very much like Original Research. That edit also suggested that a sign may be ruled by Earth. That, of course, is not possible since Earth is not and can never be an astrological planet.OrewaTel (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Phase not element?

Is the use of the term „element“ (as in the „elements“ fire, air, water, earth) not simply bad translation? Presumably the philosophers were referring to what we now call the phases of matter, i.e. fire=plasma, air=gas, water=liquid and earth=solid. Interestingly, Chinese philosophers, overlooking the gas phase, see two further „elements“ metal and wood. Indeed, the crystalline structure of metal is different from the composite structure of wood. Again, I simply blame the bad translation as „elements“ which we today associate with the periodic table of matter.

Replying to an unsigned comment by 2a01:c23:7434:2b00:ac5c:67c1:c1fa:f313. (Please sign your comments by adding 4 tilde characters "~~~~")

Whilst what you say is correct, this bad translation has been perpetuated for the last thousand years. Earth, Air, Fire and Water have always been called the ancient elements. Our modern term 'element' was derived from this ancient term. Replacing the word 'element' by 'phase' would not be helpful.OrewaTel (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Planet Earth

The Astrological Planets are the wandering stars ((Ancient Greek: ἀστέρες πλανῆται asteres planetai). This name was applied to all permanent celestial objects that move through the sky. Before telescopes these comprise Moon, Venus, Mercury, Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The Earth is not a celestial object and it doesn't move; it is always here 👇. This means that Earth is not a planet. (Note ephemeral objects such as meteors don't count.)

In November an edit added Planet Earth to the 'Dignity, Detriment, Exaltation and Fall' table. This was hidden by the usual mass of vandalising posts. The reference to Earth was only found because a good faith edit added the Earth symbol 🜨. Earth has been removed from that table and a text search has not found any other references to planet Earth.

It may be that, against all logic and traditional practice, there is a branch of Astrology that declares Earth to be a planet. (Although how it can be added to the celestial part of a horoscope is an interesting question.) If that is the case then someone may wish to reinstate Planet Earth back in the heavens. A good citation is the minimum requirement for such an edit. But better by far would be to make a case here (with the necessary citation). OrewaTel (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Personality traits?

Tried to find the well known personality traits assigned to persons belonging to a certain sign, but found none. Does it mean that the described personality traits varies so much between one source and another, that there isn't possible to make a synthesis? If so it is possible they don't exist. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 22:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it just means that Wikipedians who are interested in pushing the view that "they don't exist..." won't accept as reliable any of the sources on personality traits used by the people who actually know the subject. Anywhere but Wikipedia, it's well-understood and agreed which general personality traits go with each sign. 216.59.225.251 (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Um. You know it's not, right? 66.153.111.211 (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Its my first ever post on Wikipedia. I just want to point out that the following statement on this page is incorrect:

"More plausible explanations for the apparent correlation between personality traits and birth months exist, such as the influence of seasonal birth in humans"

None of the scientific studies including those mentioned in influence of seasonal birth in humans page claim that seasons develop personality traits. Most of the studies are related to diseases, brain activity, and certain other conditions / hypotheses.

Development of personality traits is a well documented, peer-reviewed, established science and it has no mention of seasons or constellations as a contributing factor to the development of personality traits. Hiddendesire (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This is more a loose sentence than a wrong one. Please note that the sentence is attempting to deny any causal relationship between constellations and personality traits. What it is saying, is that any perceived correlation is due to the coincidence of constellation positioning and the seasons and it is plausible that personality traits may be linked to seasons. Of course if there is no correlation between seasons and personality traits (whether causal or coincident) then this sentence is redundant.

The influence of seasonal birth in humans page suggests that there may be a link but that suggestion is not cited. OrewaTel (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Sun dates

In popular astrology, the position of the Sun on a person's birthday is given great prominence. My birthday is early July and so I'm told that I'm a Cancer. The reason for the prominence is that it is easy to calculate. All you need is the date. Contrast this to the Moon and other planets as well as the Ascendant and Descendant. To find these you need the geographical location, the time of birth and a hefty set of tables. Now here's the point. The date of the March equinox, on which astrological Sun dates depend, changes each year. Each normal year the equinox is 5 hours 49 minutes later than the previous year and is 18 hours 11 minutes earlier in a leap year. In a 4 year cycle it migrates forward by 22 minutes. This is corrected at the turn of the century and further corrected every 400 years. There is a table in the article detailing the dates associated with the star signs. It gets edited each year with the changes made this year being reversed later in the cycle. I've added a note in the article about the movement of the dates. The edits cause no harm and I don't intend to revert them but they are completely useless. I strongly advise people not to waste their time doing the annual edit. OrewaTel (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Subsequent to this being written, there have been a number of edits to the Sun Dates. At least one was a good faith edit. Presumably the editor intends to edit on a regular basis as the dates become obsolete. (To-day 1 June, Aries 2023 is out of date and it is time to change the date to the day in 2024.) However, at least twice, a date edit was used by a vandal. The technique is to save an unconstructive edit. Then the vandal makes a good edit so that the bad edit is hidden in the Change List. The problem for the vandal is to find a plausible edit. In Astrological sign which suffers badly from vandalism there is an easy candidate. You can always justify messing about with the Sun Dates because they change every year. OrewaTel (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a list of the start dates for Aries and Taurus for the first 30 years of this century:

Aries 2000 20 Mar, 2001 20 Mar, 2002 20 Mar, 2003 21 Mar, 2004 20 Mar, 20 Mar, 2005 20 Mar, 2006 20 Mar, 2007 21 Mar, 2008 20 Mar, 2009 20 Mar, 2010 20 Mar, 2011 20 Mar, 2012 20 Mar, 2013 20 Mar, 2014 20 Mar, 2015 20 Mar, 2016 20 Mar, 2017 20 Mar, 2018 20 Mar, 2019 20 Mar, 2020 20 Mar, 2021 20 Mar, 2022 20 Mar, 2023 20 Mar, 2024 20 Mar, 2025 20 Mar, 2026 20 Mar, 2027 20 Mar, 2028 20 Mar, 2029 20 Mar

Taurus 2000 19 Apr, 2001 20 Apr, 2002 20 Apr, 2003 20 Apr, 2004 19 Apr, 2005 19 Apr, 2006 20 Apr, 2007 20 Apr, 2008 19 Apr, 2009 19 Apr, 2010 20 Apr, 2011 20 Apr, 2012 19 Apr, 2013 19 Apr, 2014 20 Apr, 2015 20 Apr, 2016 19 Apr, 2017 19 Apr, 2018 20 Apr, 2019 20 Apr, 2020 19 Apr, 2021 19 Apr, 2022 20 Apr, 2023 20 Apr, 2024 19 Apr, 2025 19 Apr, 2026 20 Apr, 2027 20 Apr, 2028 19 Apr, 2029 19 Apr

The actual start is given to the nearest minute but our table only has whole days. Please note that the first point of Taurus keeps changing between 19 April and 20 April. The first point of Aries falls on 20 March between 2008 and 2043. OrewaTel (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source that explains/shows how the raw data in the source you provided becomes the dates you want to show? Preferably with those dates listed, or (probably better) expected result ranges. We need to show someone, somewhere has done this work and we're not just making things up. Darker Dreams (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2024

Hi team,

This morning, I read a page in our encyclopedia about the astrological signs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_sign#References) and when I reached the end of the page in the references section, I saw a thing that was not relevant and not good in our pages (in my point of view). In the fourth point, we had a link on the keyword " Signs and Constellations" and it's broken. So please replace this for a better experience also I have a suggestion for a good and informative page (https://www.astroyogi.com/zodiac-signs)

Thanks Astrosir Astrosir (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of random astrological websites. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)