Talk:Zodiac (disambiguation)

(Astronomical and astrological usage)

While this disambiguation page is clear that there are two main definitions of "zodiac", i.e. in "astonomy" and "astrology", there is only one article attempting to satify the differing demands of both. The current Zodiac article contradicts itself: the article and one chart indicate 12 divisions (astrology) [Template:WesternZodiac] when another chart (referring to both astrology and astonomy) [Template:Zodiac] lists 13, and could possibly list more signs that do cross the ecliptic.
The preceding 'graph is the first of a 2-'graph contrib by editor Gary Shannon, which continues after the following (struck-thru) unsigned contrib by the IP-editor 92.[etc.]

Why not simply separate the "zodiac" article into two articles "Zodiac (astronomy)" and "Zodiac (astrology)? Likewise, sort the very useful charts between the two subjects, then let them resolve confusions by becoming truly different.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.131.72 (talk) 09:26: , 10 May 2008‎ - - - Regarding the immediately preceding talk-contrib (struck thru by me), please see #Surgery vs. in-situ neutralization, below on this talk page.--Jerzy•t 09:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This separation is beyond my wiki skill, and a lot of discussion is occurring on this subject, so I'd rather get opinions than simply peeve someone. Dab, what do you think?
--Gary Shannon 22:51:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not simply separate the "zodiac" article into two articles" "Zodiac (astronomy)" and "Zodiac (astrology)? Likewise, sort the very useful charts between the two subjects, then let them resolve confusions by becoming truly different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.131.72 (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2008‎

Surgery vs. in-situ neutralization on this talk page

Suppose (never mind how) a 1-inch-diameter explosive shell (intended for anti-aircraft?) is stuck in your thigh with its point sticking out one side and its tail out the other (with blood oozing but not gushing), and you can see a switch that you could move to the "unarmed" position. Let's move that switch from "arm" to "safe" before worrying about how to get it out, right?
Analogously, i've struck-thru an IP-editor's contrib that they stuck in the middle of a colleague's signed contrib that started the section that i've retrofitted with the title "(Astronomical and astrological usage)", but i'm not just dragging it away to where it should have been put: i believe that the strike-thru markup will protect any more users from having to wonder who's saying what and to whom. (And i copied its content to further down the page where it'll more effectively contribute to an orderly discussion there.)
--Jerzy•t 09:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-notability removals)

I'm going to work on sifting out all that's not notable, there seems to be a lot of it here.
Rob Riv (talk) 09:26:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(Three edits to this talk page were logged in the interval of about 43 seconds, the first two using the same IP address, and the 3rd by Rob Riv, and i for one assume --pending any protests claiming to originate with the IP's user(s) and/or the acct holder! -- that all three were saved by the same person. [And if not, i doubt that very much is at stake.])--Jerzy•t 09:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse (2014 Canadian movie)

Should be added the 2014 Canadian movie "Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" in "Arts, entertainment, and media" -> "Film" sub-section?

From the incipit of its wiki-Article: «Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse (also known as Zodiac: Signs of Destruction) is a 2014 Canadian science fiction disaster television film directed for Syfy^[2] by (William) David Hogan as W.D. Hogan.^[1][4][3]».

Nickh ²+, Have a nice day! --151.68.79.88 (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Done. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]