Talk:Scorpio (astrology)/Archive 1

Recent Contributions
but my skepticism would mean I may cut more than required. The content could be retained under some sort of disclaimer, but I feel that a more neutral editor need consider this. I will keep an eye on these pages but will help with spelling and grammar once the course of action is decided. LessHeard vanU 23:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good Idea --70.67.6.8 22:20, December 21 2005 (UTC)


 * It's easy to talk about someone when you're anon, eh? Anyway, if you don't have anything productive to say...  そせい!  10:34, January 1 2006 (UTC)

I'm just not sure
I'm afraid I don't know enough about astrology to make any useful changes to this page at the time, but I altered a couple of the more egregious grammatical errors. Stuffed tiger (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Real Solar Zodiac Dates Terrible English
Someone please correct the following passage:

The dates that are given isn't correct. That's why if you met somebody who was supposedly born under the Scorpio constellion, but didn't exactly a Scorpio, but acted an Libra, well that's because their probably really a Libra. The dates given that were incorrect are the Conventional Sun Sign Dates, but the Real Sun Sign Dates. The real Solar Dates of an Scorpio is October 23 to November 29. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.204.36 (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Article temporarily semi-protected
Due to ongoing vandalism from various IPs, which has risen to a noticable level here over the last few days, the article is semi-protected for the next week.

Please feel free to comment here or on my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of Astrology-online.com
Astrology-online.com has already been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard and there has been agreement that the material cannot be considered reliable, as it does not associate it's claims with any known, notable astrologer. Furthermore, there are strong indications that some of the content is lifted off of elore.com, and thus probably violates copyright. To top that, the content it does originate often contradicts itself. If someone wishes to reopen the discussion, please do so on the reliable sources noticeboard. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, there are strong indications that some of the content is lifted off of elore.com - have you provided evidence of this? the content it does originate often contradicts itself - well, thats astrology for you, its a pile of nonsense, what do you expect. Slightly more seriously, (a) do you have any evidence? and (b) is being internally non-contradictory actually a requirement for astrology? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. The discussions on WP:RSN are, and . A side-by-side comparison of the two articles makes it pretty obvious to anybody examining them. Although it is usually strongly reworded, the order of similar claims they are making for each sign is strikingly similar. Check out the start of each block on elore.


 * Note that according to the discussion on RSN, elore is not considered a reliable source itself and thus should be removed from the article. SotosfromGreece has continuously reverted my removal of that source. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

He has the right to. Nathanael, you are not an administrator. kashimjamed (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable persons (expanded list)
In case you're wondering what's happened to the Notable persons section, it has been deleted in favor of the page Category:Subjects of the Sign of Scorpio. If you want to add a notable person, go there. --Carmelita 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I got some famous people: Anne Hathaway, Winona Ryder, Mick Thomson (Slipknot), Cedric Bixler-Zavala (The Mars Volta), Gretchen Mol, Chris Jericho, Nick Lachey (lame), Vanessa Manillo (lame), Dermot Mulroney (sizzlin'), Eric Dane, Grace Kelly, Charles Manson, Neil Young, Megan Mullally, Pablo Picasso, Lisa Bonet, Martha Plimpton, Maria Shriver, Ethan Hawke, Thandie Newton,

and so many more... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.180.76 (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are the astrological sign pages so short?
Has it been done on purpose? I'm pretty sure they used to be longer and described associated traits and stuff. Simple English wiki has longer pages on the zodiac signs (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aries) Or have they just been moved or scattered around Wiki? Is there a reason? Not qualifying as 'knowledge'? Or too hazy?(Haha Cancer's talk page is way calmer than this one, hehehhe) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.169.56 (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Count me as very sad to see the characteristics sections gone. I have no belief in astrology, but I'm a writer and was looking at these pages out of interest. A while back I looked at the Scorpio page while thinking of one of my fictional characters and was astonished to find that the section described her so exactly, it could have been written with her in mind. It would be cool to have that section available to refer to again. 91.105.13.247 (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

MUST BE UPDATED
This needs to be updated to match the newest adjustments to the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.180.54 (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What "new" adjustment? Someone963852 (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Scorpio Dates are wrong!
Not sure why but a recent edit modified the dates of Scorpio. According to all other websites I check Scorpio is November/October 87.9.204.56 (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

3 day semi protect
I have done a 3 day semi protect. There are a few too many anon IPs editing argumentatively lately. --BozMo talk 13:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In view of the suggestions to get some structure discussed with the involvement of the astrology project, I think it would be wise for everyone who has edited recently to relax the tension and let this article stand as it is until some discussions and decisions have been made on the astrology project page. I'll try to initiate a discussion and call for comment there, and will aim to summarise the issues that have been raised here (as I best understand them). Please feel free to input - it will be much better to have one centralised place of discussion, so that if there are any areas of confusion over policy we can get assistance from the relevant noticeboards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs)

P.O.V and Bias statements about Scorpio (Neutrality issues in Scorpio page)
I have decide to complete blank the scorpio personal information since most of the info post are P.O.V (personal opinions)

Also i have noticed in the past that there are also some people making biased racist claims about this sign (examples like "Scorpio is the worse sign" ""Scorpio is the most problematic sign" etc etc). Some others they just give a citated opinion based of what 1 western famous astrologer says and believes (Not all astrologers agree with each other if you know what really is going on in the astrogolical community...)

Until there is some really neutral editing for this sign the text will stay mostly blank with only some basic info about it.

"Adoration POV characteristics" or the opposite "Hateful POV characteristics" or anything misleading about this sign will be deleted 91.138.238.198 (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You cannot blank pages, the content of this page is referenced to reliable sources (if you dispute any comment, raise it for attention), and there are no comments here that make statements anything like you suggested. If that happened in the past, that's not a reason to blank the content now. --   Zac   Δ talk! 17:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The previous text that was blanked was based from sources from Liz Greene and other famous astrologers and had citations too Zac but it was blanked anyway... 46.177.5.67 (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure why this is addressed to me; are you suggesting I blanked text? Doesn't sound like something I would want to do, unless it was easier to do a rewrite rather than use text that was difficult to substantiate. Please show me the diff so I can see what you mean. Liz Greene is a very good source and if there was previous text that could be brought back into the current content I'd be in favour of restoring it. But I'm sure we don't need to swap from one to the other, we can copy edit to integrate all good points. --   Zac   Δ talk! 09:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Pluto?
Now that Pluto is a "dwarf planet," will Scorpio go back to being ruled by Mars, or will it continue to be ruled by Pluto? --Feidian 07:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't astrologers be able to tell us? Personally, I think we should be ruled by Xena - but not UB411Y33_4.11 (who needs a reggae tinged UK band as its own planet?)LessHeard vanU 19:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree - rulership by Xena is ok with this scorpio.

I'm not so sure that things will change just because Pluto is now reclassified. After all, the Sun and Moon are classified as "planets" in astrological terms, and obviously those terms are completely wrong, scientifically. It's the astral bodies' influences that matter, not what people are calling them nowadays. I could be wrong, but that's just my two cents. Astroangie 03:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This all depends if you use astrology, where it wouldn't change, or astronomy, where they actually use all 13 constellations the planets pass through. DanPMK 00:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a huge debate, and I've read so many different (and equally convincing) arguments.

Were the astrological calculations based on the assumption that it was one large body, and hence inaccurate and should be corrected? Or were they amazingly accurate (like the Dogon with Sirius B) and we should not adjust astrology at all? Does anyone have a reliable resource for the origin of the original Mars->Pluto changeover in Scorpio rulership? (oh, she's called Eris now - Goddess of Discord? superb!)AndrewGenus 10:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Pluto, definitely. Pluto is a dark and cold planet, kind of like Scorpios. Yes, some astrologers beleive that Scorpio and Aries are a lot alike, but the astrologers who say that probably aren't Scorpios. So take it from a REAL Scorpio, the only thing that Aries and Scorpio have in common is their competitive drive, which makes them natural enemies. Sharing a planet with an enemy isin't a smart thing to do. I know this really doesn't have anything to do with science, but people today are more familiar with Pluto the DOG. And dogs, like Scorpios, are way more loveable than big-headed, quick-tempered, close-minded Aries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.186.213 (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it's all in people's heads (where other people have their brains?), this is actually very valid reasoning. But, I don't think this is the only bit of astrology that "really doesn't have anything to do with science"?! lol.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.65.85 (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, the Sun and the Moon aren't "planets" but yet they rule Leo and Cancer? So why is everyone freaking about Pluto? It's still the best "planet", whatever that is nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm1119 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

~I believe it is Scorpios who live in their ambitions and desires are ruled by the planet of Pluto. The eagles and Phoenixes who seek a path of spiritual transformation through suffering and strife fall under the rule of more bellicose planet of Mars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.143.82 (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether a person "believes" Pluto rules Scorpio or "believes" that Mars rules Scorpio. This kind of high degree of subjectivity is useless; we could go round and round forever with no hope of any hard-headed reason or consensus.  The most important material we need to document is not our personal beliefs about what Scorpio "means" or Pluto "means" -- but instead what has been the working notion for 2,000 years of history -- including today.  Astrology is interesting to people, yes, but it is mainly of interest to Wiki because it is a very central and influential doctrine that has been deeply involved with civilization for over 2,000 years.  During almost ALL of its considerable history, Mars has been the "ruler" of Scorpio.  Now somewhere in the first half of the 20th c., the idea was suggested that Pluto "really" rules Scorpio.  It's a very recent notion, inspired by Pluto's awesome discovery.  There never was the slightest astrological reason for this whimsy, but I am not here to fight about it.  Mention it, giving the history.  But it's not reasonable to EVER say that Mars does not.  Clearly in astrology's long and influential history (which should be of the utmost concern to us Wiki editors), Mars was Scorpio's lord. NaySay (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

question
why do some places, like the external sites, have scorpio (October 24 to November 22) and wikipedia (oct23 - nov22)? What's the deal?

-Well, they consider it a cusp date, along with 12 other dates, because sometimes people may add in an additional day because it's never exactly sure. However, most sources generally consider starting with the earlier dates (Oct.23rd- Nov.21) as opposed to (Oct.24- Nov.22) for example.


 * What's a "cusp date"? I still don't understand, but I'll take your word for it. Maybe this bit of information should be listed in the page or in the astrology page? 04:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A cusp date is when you're born in between a Zodiac.
 * Oct. 18 to Oct. 28 is the Libra/Scorpio cusp
 * Nov. 17 to Nov. 27 is the Scorpio/Sagittarius cusp
 * DanPMK 14:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * let's cut the Gordian knot here. The Sun sometimes enters the sign of tropical Scorpio on October 23.  Simple as that.  (It did, for example, on the day I was born, October 23, 1948, early in the morning.)  It isn't the same every year.  That's why we have leap years.  So yeah Oct. 23 is correct -- sometimes  :-)  NaySay (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to the unqualified statement above about using Oct.23rd to Nov.21st, that actually only applies to a limited range of North American astrologers, and even the more reliable (reknowned) American ones still use an end date of Nov.22nd (check the links from the existing External Links on the wikipedia page, or Linda Goodman's books, or Astro Dienst [] for an example. AndrewGenus 10:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Physical Description?
Other sign's pages have a physical description of people under this sign, but this page doesn't! Could someone add it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.233.150 (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Physical description; seems tainted by vanity of editors
For the physical description a book is cited as the source. Unfortunately changes have been made which I think are not in the original work (the addition of 'curvy', the addition of a strange remark about blue eyes). These additions to me seem to be out of vanity; I have a sneaking suspicion people adapted the article to (better) describe themselves, but of course, I cannot prove this. Is there anyone who can tell with a bit more certainty what the characteristics of a Scorpio are, according to astrology, or who, even better, actually has the cited book at their disposal?

195.240.229.19 (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As a scorpio, i'd say that my eyes are my strongest eyes, since they're a very deep brown and even sometimes have a bit of green. The medium build sounds right for me, and even the broad shoulders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.157.253 (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, not ALL physical traits will match up for ALL scorpios. I am a Scoprio and I have dark burnett, wavy/curly hair, blue-gray round eyes, thick eyebrows, my voice is a little on the high side but sometimes is comes out low, like a boys, even though i'm a girl, and I hate to admit it, but I'm on the short side. So some things, like my hair, eyebrows, voice and height is true, but my eyes are a different color. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm1119 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I myself, as a Scorpio, posess deep penetrating eyes. My Face: I have brown wavy hair, brown eyes. My eyebrows are thick and dark (because I'm part Syrian) and have a pronounced arch. My face is a round, oval shape. My forehead is slightly flat, although not exaggerrated. My nose is slightly a Roman, with a lifted point (I give credit to my part Anglo-Saxon heritage.) My neck is strong, but it's not thick, neither too skinny. My Body: I have a medium build, medium-tall height (5' 6"--and yes, I'm a girl.) I am slightly muscular, well proportioned, hourglass-shaped and I have a sturdy frame. I do have to admit, my shoulders are slightly broad, but not signifficantly. My voice is not too high, not too deep--but I guess, shrill. Also, my biological organs work well--this corresponds to the Scorpio's role in medical astrology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.180.76 (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect, whatever appearance traits you approve for Scorpio, it means very little to your Sun sign. In astrological theory (ALL astrological theory), it would only affect people whose rising sign was Scorpio.  So this is either moot, or needs explanation.  NaySay (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Compatibility with other signs
"Yeah, not only is the physical description lacking, but so is the signs it's supposedly compatible with. Someone please address this."

Response: Scorpio is a water sign. It is a forgone conclusion that a Scorpio will always gravitate towards another water sign. Cancer and Pisces are most compatible with Scorpio, as they are prominent water signs. Capricorn and Virgo are Earth signs and follow the water signs concerning compatibility with Scorpio. A Scorpio is also an excellent match with another Scorpio. Two Scorpios can have a very deep and complex understanding between them that only they can understand. As far as fire and air signs go, they are all a very poor match with Scorpio, encompassing squared compatibility at best (air signs), and incompatibility at worst (fire signs). There is great tension between a water sign and a fire sign, and an air sign compliments a fire sign the way an Earth sign compliments a water sign.

NO, NOT TURE! Why does everyone think that Water signs are most compatable with other Water Signs?!? Just because they have a lot in common doesn't mean that they are the best match. Astrology and compatabliliteis are like puzzle pieces. You have to find the match that fits, the one that has the sides that you don't have. You can't create a whole puzzle with just 2 equal pieces. Water signs may get bored with how emotional and senistive each other can be. They need someone to bring them down to EARTH, not make them get caught up in more sensitivity and endless emotions. I'm driving myself crazy just by thinking about it! And same with earth signs. Earth needs water to grow. Water + plant = pretty flower. It's simple kindergarten junk! Not a match you up with a person wo has the same things in common with you high school valentine's dance survey! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm1119 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My best friend of nine years is a fellow Scorpio. We have a bond, never have gotten into a really bad fight. Our minds work the same way. We always agree on something. We have the same sense of humor, and we are both very intelligent. I've been great friends with a Pisces in the past. I am very influenced by Virgo. My mother, sister, ex-best friend, and crush are all Virgo. I work well with Virgos and am very familiar with them. In general, I'm just comfortable around them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.180.76 (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

FISH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.106.170 (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think referring to astrological theory rather than personal experience is the only way to settle questions like this. In astrological theory, compatibility is tough to determine without looking at all the factors in the chart.  But just speaking of how compatible one sign is with another (whether it's the sign of the Sun or some other planet), it's perfectly true that water signs are more compatible with water and earth signs.  Fire and air signs are also more compatible with one another than with either earth or water.  This is not rocket science.  Look at the zodiac.  Earth and water signs are all trined or sextiled to one another.  Similarly, fire & air signs are  trined and sextiled to one another.  It's just very basic astrology.  So yeah, Scorpio is, everything else being equal, more "compatible" with Pisces, Scorpio, Cancer, Virgo, Capricorn and Taurus.  Doesn't tell you a whole lot.   NaySay (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Scorpio
I came on to this topic too see the names of the stars which comprise Scorpio. Is this a valid heading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.64.219 (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Try the astronomical article, called Scorpius or Scorpio (constellation) . NaySay (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Compatability
(this counts for every sign article!)

First, I think the difference should be noted in these articles that signs are 'romantically compatible' with trine signs of their own element, while only 'complimentary' to those of 60 and 180 degree aspects.

Second, more emphasis should be placed on the potency of ninety degree square aspects. The pair of respective polar signs have the power to transform the individual of a given sign, depending on which diverging path he or she chooses to follow. Water/Fire and Air/Earth pairings represent mutual self-realization on the level of individual potential, while Air/Water and Fire/Earth pairings represent a potent cosmic alliance between two individuals who share the same unique power to reshape the universe.

=
====
 * There is no dispute that there is a connection between signs which are squared or opposed to one another. But, all things being equal, it is often an irritating or difficult one.  That's just straight theory. However, you are quite right that real incompatibility -- that is, no connection -- is between signs which are 30 or 150 degrees from one another.  But these can have elemental compatibility, like Taurus and Virgo; then there's the whole complicated topic of antiscia and contra-antiscia. It's best to keep things simple and classical. NaySay (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been a major update on the compatability between the scorpion and other signs. I have done my best to be clear and concise though my grammer sometimes may be a little run of the mill. It was a bit of an undertaking though I believe the infromation provided is useful and may be translated into all of the other Zodiac relationships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christineadsherry (talk • contribs) 07:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

House Astrology
I think detailed discussion of the 8th house is off-topic for this article. What do you guys think? Maybe it should be moved? --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is somewhat tangential to your question, but that discussion appears in many if not most of the house-specific astrology articles here. If you were going to do some cleanup, looking at the structure of other house articles would probably help in cleaning this one up.  I do think at least a reference to the 8th hous should be retained.  Aisa0 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There is nothing about the 8th house that house anything to do with Scorpio.  This is just a contemporary idea that was promulgated a decade or two ago, as far as I know, by Zip Dobyns, and is found nowhere else in 2,000 years of astrological theory.  It's controversial, at best.  NaySay (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My response to Mr Nathanael ,corcerning his astrological beliefs along with his biased and bossy behavior in wikipedia
The problem with Mr Nathanael is that loves to act like a self proclaimed Administrator here in wikipedia and deleting even reliable sources from other members that contradict his own personal beliefs (or his friends) from his picked sources and i am not talking only about deleting Astrology-online but other sources too that i citated and Mr Nathanael try to delete them with some unjustified cheap excuse....

Here is one example below of Mr Nathanael bossy behavior here in wikipedia from the Scorpio History page when i contributed a reliable source from Kelli Fox (A professional Astrologer as i clearly pointed him with a url of her homepage)

FROM WHEN WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT ALLOW SOURCES FROM "NOT-ENOUGH" FAMOUS PROFESSIONALS as Mr Nathaniel stated to me in the Scorpio history page?? From when Mr Nathaniel became our boss and a judge here in wikipedia ?? --SotosfromGreece (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Pardon me, Kelli Fox. I don't know you -- and you may well be a very knowledgeable local authority -- but it's absolutely imperative that quotes from someone like Robert Hand (whom most astrologers would recognize as possibly the greatest astrologer alive) would trump Ms. Fox as a SOURCE. Sources should be from unimpeachable experts -- from Robert Hand, from William Lilly, Bonatti -- even Ptolemy.  Otherwise, people can always find competing "authorities" to counter one another.  And suddenly it's the OJ trial.  I hope you realize this is absolutely no put-down of Ms. Fox's credentials.  But being competent is one thing; being a source is quite another.  23:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Compatibilities
Why are all of the same element "generally compatible"? That doesn't make any sense. Slowish guitar (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Does this need to be updated in light of the new Zodiac sign dates, or is nobody in the Zodiac community taking those seriously? http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/13/horoscope-hang-up-earth-rotation-changes-zodiac-signs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. Frederick (talk • contribs) 02:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * because we're talked to death about it!!! I was even called by the local TV network and made an appearance to explain this because it's so misunderstood!  It's amazing that this silly idea keeps hanging around.  Let me try to make this short.  The stars are actually moving.  Over a century they've moved a degree backwards.  This has serious consequences because the night stars that appeared in springtime 500 years before the Common Era no longer were there 1,000 years later.  If you keep track of the stars to help you to decide when, for example, to plant crops, you could be in serious trouble.  The first days of spring and fall are the days when day and night are of equal duration.  But this was no longer true.  The calendar was becoming more & more useless.  When this became understood, Western calendar makers switched to a solar calendar.  They no longer made the constellation point of 0 degrees of Aries the first day of spring.  0 Aries was now, rather, the day when day and night were perfectly equal.  To keep the seasons in sync with the calendar, Western astrologers decided to use a "tropical" zodiac.  This means is that we arbitrarily call 0 Aries the place in springtime when the Sun is right at the halfway point between the first day of winter and the first day of summer.  We are positive of these dates because those are the days when the Sun is furthest north when it rises, or furthest south.  On the first day of spring, the Sun is exactly between those points on the horizon (which can be easily measured with rudimentary instruments.)  But this is now a long way (24 degrees or so) from the constellation point we used to call 0 Aries.  All the other signs are simply pro-rated in 30-degree segments from that point.  So, yeah, this means that the star Regulus ('the heart of the Lion') which is iconic for the constellation Leo, is now in Virgo.  Aldebaran, the great red star that is the eye of the bull, Taurus, is in Gemini.  What astrologers in the West call "Gemini" is a 30-degree segment of the zodiac located 60 degrees from the Sun on the first day of spring, which is always now 0 Aries -- regardless of where it was last year or last century.  Astrologers have been using this tropical zodiac for 1,500 years.  And we're perfectly well aware of it!  The whole idea of there actually being 13 signs is, therefore, ludicrous.  The constellation Gemini isn't in the sign Gemini!  What difference does it make?  The notion that there are 12 signs may very well have been a numerological one.  But it doesn't matter.  This is the trouble with getting too invested in mythological lore to help delineate signs -- or, indeed, making too much of the picture the constellation seems to form in the old Western imagination.  It's essentially irrelevant.  NaySay (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Content accounting for difference between tropical sign of Scorpio & sidereal sign of Scorpio & constellation of Scorpio
Editors ItsmeJudith and Johnuniq have removed this material without justifying its removal. The objection seems to be based only on the fact that it uses templated information. However, the use of this template has been formerly discussed, so it shouldn't be removed again without proper discussion which establishes that it is in the interests of the article to remove it.

The information establishes the distinction between the tropical sign of the western zodiac and the sidereal sign of the Indian zodiac, and the constellation Scorpio. This information is directly relevant to the article and leads into the detail about the different dates, having explained why those differences exist, and the arguments that lie behind the sign differentiations.

Most readers will come to these pages to read about their own sign. We cannot give them two different sets of dates without explaining why there are different dates involved, and how alternative schemes offer different perspectives. So we need that information on each page because it is necessary for each sign. It is not the case that information presented on one page of WP cannot be presented again on another page where the same information is also relevant. We do template information, and we do aim for consistancy of approach across articles that are part of a connected series. Also, we should not direct them to the zodiac page for the information because that is necessarily detailed content, whereas what is presented here is summary information of zodiac issues that are relevant here (a see further link might be useful, however).

The reason for using a template is that if there is need to change the content presented, one agreed change is easily implemented across the 12 pages, whilst each is also showing the information on the dates that are specific to that sign. The purpose of having a page dedicated to each sign is that each one can be developed to become an encyclopedic point of reference for that sign - we should be looking at ways to develop the information on the page, so that there is more substantiated factual content and historical information that will be of value to researchers. This information is one step towards giving a little more than just what the sun-sign writers have to say --  Zac   Δ talk! 00:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Zac, in all seriousness, have you considered starting up your own "Astropedia"? A lot of the material you are trying to insert on WP just doesn't belong here. Your mission is largely incompatible with the aims of WP. On your own Wiki, you can place anything you want and use any sources you want without constant interference from other editors. You can make the rules to suit yourself. You might even be able to get some funding for it. In any case, you would make a lot more progress more rapidly. Something to seriously consider. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll give your suggestion the attention it deserves. --  Zac   Δ talk! 03:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely. I support a reasonable coverage of astrology at Wikipedia, but the current situation where articles are unduly padded with gloss is not satisfactory. Action at ANI or Arbcom may be required before the matter can be properly handled. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The matter can be properly handled by you defining "gloss". I'm going with the assumption that WP does actually want content on pages, and does want that content to be relevant to the title of the page. --  Zac   Δ talk! 03:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One option would be to attempt the maintenance of a walled garden of articles dedicated to astrology, and to provide content that enthusiasts would like to see on a website dedicated to that topic. Another option would be to make the best of the situation that, whereas anyone can edit, ultimately the standards of Wikipedia will be applied to all articles, even those covering astrology. If everyone worked towards that end, the result may be more mutually satisfactory. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Zac, I am just going to explain my objection so it is quite clear. Then you can take time to consider it properly. The objection is this. Articles need to stay on-topic. The difference between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs is an important concept for this encyclopedia to cover but the information should be in one appropriate article on that question and/or in two articles, one on the tropical zodiac and one on the sidereal. It should not be repeated in each article on the signs of the zodiac, but there should be links so that interested readers can quickly find it. This is standard practice in Wikipedia. Here are some precedents. Articles on manga comics do not all repeat standard information on what manga is. Articles related to France do not all repeat standard information about the location of France. Articles on American universities do not all repeat the distinction between a university and a college in America. If you don't understand this objection, or would like me to explain it further, simply ask here and I will be happy to oblige. If you do understand, and don't agree, I suggest you get your policy-related arguments together, and also you will find it useful to have a number of pertinent counter-examples to hand. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Itsmejudith has a very good point above. Information on sidereal and tropical zodiacs is probably best presented at least to some degree in the main articles on those topics. Maybe the best way to proceed, once the astrology article guidelines are set up, would be to have people look up to see what the most standard and most frequently cited "reference" books on the subject are, and use them as an indicator as to what kinds of content belongs in each of the relevant articles. If, for instance, James R. Lewis's Astrology Book (choosing one reference work at random) mentions in articles of roughly similar length to our own articles on the zodiac signs information on sidereal and tropical zodiacs, then it would very clearly make sense for our articles to reflect that. If not, then it might make sense to store such information elsewhere. However, in general, we are best served if we follow to at least some degree the precedent established elsewhere regarding article structure and content.
 * Maybe, after the article structure guidelines are set up, we might make an effort to review the relevant "reference" books, particularly for the titles of the various articles they have, to help decide where to put specific information. But I would think that would probably best come after deciding the astrology guidelines. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The difficulties with including sidereal and tropical zodiacs together are several:
 * first of all, the sidereal dates keep moving
 * secondly, there are absolutely no differences in sign interpretation between the Western tropicalists and the Western siderealists (such as, say, Addey.)
 * thirdly, it's compolete duplication to present Vedic astrology information on these Western astro. pages. The Indian Vedics themselves have a huge number of pages dedicated to their art, which is quite different from Western.  I know!  I spent several months of my life trying to whip some of those pages into shape (I'm a Vedic expert, too.)  Leave it to them!  They're very, very jealous of their own content, let me assure you.
 * It just makes no sense.  NaySay (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've suggested we relax a little, because when things are 'tight' it's not easy to recognise the best solutions. So although I have some comments that I would like to make in response to that, I think it will be better to get this discussion going on the astrology project page and keep the issues together there. I'll come back and add a link to the discussion (it may not be immediately because I need to go out, but I'll do it as a priority). Perhaps I should add that I had it in mind to add some extra references, but for now I think that would be unwise. I'm sure we're all comfortable with the idea of developing or amending content in line with consensus generated to make sure the content is reliable and informative. Tensions arise when editors don't know the boundaries or understand the motives for content being added or deleted. So if we need to slow this down a little we should, because considered responses/content changes are usually more helpful in complex situations than immediate (possibly knee-jerk) reactions. --  Zac   Δ talk!
 * If it is being discussed here why would it need to be discussed elsewhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
I'm about to go on a Wikibreak, but the article is clearly written from an 'in-universe' perspective, ie most of it is written as though this is factual. That's clearly not NPOV. Please don't remove the tag again unless we get consensus that the article meets our NPOV policy. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the problematic text has been removed - I've left the referenced text which gives us something to work on. A few of these sign pages have been overhauled and brought up to a better standard of information - this is one of those waiting to be done. The material in this page now (apart from the 'mythology' which needs references), should be left to be consistent with the development of content across other signs.  I don't think anything that remains is presented as if it is factual or in WP's voice. If anyone percieves problems please specify them here (or fix with a copy edit/ addition of refrences !) --   Zac   Δ talk! 21:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See discussion on RSN, too. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Zac, appreciate your positive attitude on this. I see you re-added the heading on the zodiac. Is that really relevant to Scorpio per se, or should it be in zodiac with a link? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the readers of this page want to know about their sign and what it means; they also want to know what their sign is - what the whole thing is about. So the information is best here where it is directly relevant. I'm not in favour of blanking content such as this and reducing it to nothing, I would like to see the content developed and improved to give a much broader scope of the subject, to cover popular use, history of the sign, the technical basis of the sign, and its inlfuence in culture. Lots of potential here to build better quality content on a page that attracts a lot of visitors--  Zac   Δ talk! 01:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The solution is to write zodiac sign article guidelines in WikiProject Astrology, with advice on appropriate sources. Only 12 signs of the zodiac, so it should be straightforward to get the articles into a common pattern. Much easier than with universities throughout the world, or Indian villages, two categories of article to which people frequently add chunks of unsourced and unstructured material. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So you'll have seen that I deleted the Zodiac section again, because it is simply off-topic. If it's in Scorpio it will have to be in all the other 11 sign articles, and that is unwarranted repetition. I said on the talk page of Zodiac that it is the most obvious article to try and get to featured article status. The concept of the zodiac has been important in many historical contexts, although I don't think it has always been the same concept of the zodiac. I found this book through Google. Am I right in thinking it is as good as any for describing the tenets of the more "serious" end of contemporary astrology. Kevin Burk, Astrology: understanding the birth chart: a comprehensive guide. 2001. If so, I suggest it can be a source for all the articles on the signs of the zodiac, so long as we do not present its opinions in Wikipedia's voice. Needs to be complemented by sources on Hellenistic, medieval, Islamic and Hindu astrology, but that requires more searching. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It is on every page Judith; as it needs to be (explained above). I suggest you make these quick checks in future before rushing to delete whole sections of page content. If you feel you are able to contribute to some of the sections that need text and references, please do --  Zac   Δ talk! 17:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't good practice at all. I can't at the moment think what rule it breaks, but I'm sure it does break at least one. I have never seen any set of articles where the same information is systematically repeated. This is the kind of question you really need to work out properly in the wikiproject. I'm in too many projects already, so won't join, but may join in some discussion. You want to work out guidelines for article content and structure - usually that means guidelines that discourage people from adding repetitious stuff, not guidelines that encourage it. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with itsmejudith above. The most reasonable course of action to take in this regard would be to work with the WikiProject Astrology, and possibly other interested groups, to create some sort of general guidelines for content of articles of this type, including the various articles in other astrological systems, like Tiger (astrology), for instance. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you check the astrology project pages and other pages of these sun-sign features you will see I have been doing that. These articles are not of great interest to me, but I have been trying to do what I can myself, between other projects. However there are 12 of these pages, only one of me. Unfortunately, lots of editors want to talk about these pages and mass delete or vandalise the contents (inc many anon IPs), but there doesn't seem to be anyone willing to invest their effort into actually improving the content and supplying references. What we have instead is lots of time given to scattered discussions (some quite shameful and expressing a desire to see all astrology information blanked or deleted), so I'm of the opinion now that many editors prefer the controversy of poor quality content than the benefits of putting that time into constructive additions. I've also noticed that the first thing to go is usually the referenced information, rather than the unreferenced poor quality information and that none of the editors who are keen to remove information, whether referenced of not, are willing to add something useful which might give the reader something of interest to read about the sign. --   Zac   Δ talk! 05:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, not a place for tidbits of related information to pad out articles. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The information that was removed was all based on reliable sources. So why is related, explanatory content not relevant here? Does WP have a word limit which means these articles have to be blanked on a regular basis, until they present nothing of interest to anyone? Easy way to see what the readers think is to look at the difference in page ratings. This is a fringe topic which many editors simply don't like. For the sake of time, let's assume that there will be no shortage editors approving the deletion of content. Unless an editor does something to demonstrate a real interest in improving or developing that article (ie - adding reliably sourced content to the article and not just blanking reliably sourced content from the article) reasons for suddenly coming to this page to add support for the removal of content are going to look odd to me. --  Zac   Δ talk! 09:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We can either have something like this - which shows the format I have been working on to give each sign good quality referenced information that explains what the signs means, why it means what it means, and the distinctions between western zodiac signs and those used by siderealists and Indian astrologers (and what this means);
 * or we can have something like this - which shows what the editors that complain about the content seem to really want: basically nothing of any value at all.
 * That is a gross violation of WP:AGF, WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS. The relevant policy here is WP:BURDEN. It is YOUR job to convince your fellow editors that the material you want to insert belongs here on WP and get concensus for the ADDITION, not the other way around. You have failed to do so. Therefore, the material can be deleted by any editor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you check the policy. WP:Burden concerns the addition of material lacking a reliable source. I am not concerned about the removal of controversial unsourced material, though even if we were talking about that, the policy says "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself".
 * The more relevant policy here is WP:SS "In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions". This is talking about content that has the potential to be improved, and it makes the same point as I am making: don't just delete it; develop it --  Zac   Δ talk! 12:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of the policies is grossly in error, and patently absurd. No one has any obligation to do your sourcing work for you, especially when it's apparent that adequate sourcing will probably never be found. Or to "develop" material that is patently worthless. That is solely YOUR responsibility. You may not shift the burden to other editors. If you fail to fulfill your responsibility, there is no place on WP for your proposed contribution. Period. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Perhaps the reason you think sources will never be found is because you don't pay attention to what has been explained. If you have anything else to add, why not make it content for the article? --  Zac   Δ talk! 13:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been very patient in reading your posts, and have done PLENTY of time-consuming research on your proposed sources. The fact that I find them uncovincing and inadequate is a failure on your part, not mine. To accuse me of "not paying attention" is disingenuous and a violation of WP:AGF. I have no obligation to add any content to this article, nor does anyone else, in "exchange" for deleted material. This isn't a "trade-off" situation. Again, the burden for sourcing any material you want added to WP and ensuring that it complies with WP policies is YOURS and YOURS ALONE. You may not shift that burden on others. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PATIENT?? you haven't been patient at all!  You haven't even been CIVIL.  To the disinterested expert who just wandered by today (ME!) all this sneering seems fairly useless to me.  If you want someone to do a really good job overhauling ALL the articles, why don't YOU do it, rather than having a hissy fit in that manger of yours? NaySay (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please indicate one source you object to. If I agree I will provide another more suitable; if not I will explain why I believe it is reliable. To suggest that all sources are worthless and no reliable source is likely to exist anywhere is daft. --   Zac   Δ talk! 14:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to Zac for the attempt to clarify this information, I think that maybe our best approach might be to factually, formally, work with the Astrology project, possibly through an RfC, to develop some guidelines to the structure of these articles, and, maybe, to arrive at some consensus regarding what are and are not reliable sources for this information. From what I can remember, the personality characteristics of the various signs tend to remain basically constant across books, and to not have changed markedly in recent years. So, maybe, something like Linda Goodman's Sun Signs, which I think is counted as among the better and more influential of the recent works of astrology, might be but forward as a reliable source? John Carter (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That could be a good approach, or a discussion on the RS noticeboard. The problem remains that no one has identified a reference that they consider unreliable. I've just taken a reference off the page to a book that listed no author. It wasn't necessary anyway because there was another good reference to the same point. I also removed the tag suggesting that the references were unreliable. This article needs work and the content here is pretty poor, but the references that are given are reliable sources to qualify the information that exists. If anyone disagrees they need to specify which point they consider to be controversial and not suffienctly supported by a verifiable reference. The sources given here are:


 * Oxford English Dictionary.
 * Joanna watters, Astrology for today. London: Carroll & Brown, 2003.
 * Sasha Fenton, Astrology for Living, p.12. Readers Digest, 1999.
 * Manilius, (c.10 AD.) Astronomica 2.270-295. Harvard University Press, 1977.
 * William Lilly, (1647) Christian Astrology. London: Regulus, 1985.
 * Deborah Houlding, ‘the Scorpion'. The Mountain Astrologer, 2006.
 * Steven Forest, The Changing Sky: A Practical Guide to Predictive Astrology, ,Acs Pubns, Chicago, 1993.
 * Linda Goodman, Linda Goodman's Love Signs. Harper Paperbacks; 1st edition (1991)

All the authors are well known and trusted. Although Sasha Fenton has a very good reputation I'm not sure if the Readers Digest gives coverage of the subject to a level that is sufficient to be used as a reliable source. An article published by a well known and influential astrologer in a good, reputable astrology magazine or journal should be fine, but I would rather not give reference to a popular magazine that does not have a established reputation for reliable astrological information. (Personally, I would be OK with her on the strength of her own reputation but only here because the point it is supporting is not a controversial one - it should be quite easy to replace that ref if someone wants to suggest that it is - in that case, actually, the onus is on the disputant to question the reliability of the content based on a source that is considered more reliable). --  Zac   Δ talk! 10:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For describing what modern astrologers say, I am happy for the article to use any of the ones you mention: Watters, Fenton, Houlding, Forest, Goodman. Or the book by Burk I mentioned above. This is on the understanding that every statement is clearly attributed to astrological belief and not presented in Wikipedia's voice. OED, Manilius and Lilly are primary sources. I don't think it matters in the case of OED but we must use secondary sources to interpret Manilius or Lilly. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I must disagree, I'm afraid, Judith. Burk's book, one among several recent textbooks published to help explain the more traditional techniques, is, to a large extent, a personal take on the tradition,  and involves controversial techniques such as maps of the various rulerships.  This is just his own idea and maybe it's a nifty one, but it's just a notion that occurred to him and can't be called a legitimate, established part of astrological theory. But I am mostly just puzzled that you would prefer to use some modern person's notion of what the great primary sources or rather than the primary sources themselves?  Especially since some of the best of these are in English.  I would point out that the only way I know that some parts of Burk's work are his own rather than classical theory is because I've read the primary sources.  And that is why I would argue that it's vital to include the primary sources themselves, as much as they are comprehensible to modern readers.  Furthermore, for a more accurate and very readable overview of the source material, a textbook such as Joseph Crane's excellent "Astrological Roots:  the Hellenistic Legacy" is truly secondary, and not subject to personal POV.  For that matter, even the recent book by another fine authority, Demetra George, "Astrology and the Authentic Self" (ignore the silly title) which includes asteroids in her methods, is a more accurate representation of the classical primary sources.  NaySay (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say that Burk is less well known that the astrologers listed above, but I cannot see a problem with quoting him, because if he is giving reliable information it won't be disputed, and if it is controversial then the point can be disputed by a review of other references.
 * Re Manilius and Lilly, secondary source are only necessary if there is a need to interpret the meaning of what they are saying. Manilius has been translated as a text, so where his meaning is clear and not subject to possible alternative interpretion, ie, where we are simply quoting him on a non-controversial point, we should use the primary source.  See WP:RS - ""To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original)".
 * This is the same for Lilly, who wrote in English. His original work is still used as an important textbook for astrologers, and many astrological courses require techniques to be learned from his work. We don't need a secondary source to report what he wrote - a secondary source is only needed if there is dispute over his meaning, which is not the case here. --  Zac   Δ talk! 11:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You and I are in agreement, Zachariel. There is no better primary source for astrology in English than Lilly, of course.  And few astrologers would disagree with you.  It makes no sense at all to quote someone who has read Lilly in preference to Lilly himself.  I don't see the sense of that.  NaySay (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree. I've been reading about Lilly's recent discovery and adoption by astrologers. The scientific/esoteric/religious/political thought of the English 1640s is an incredibly complex area of historical enquiry and there is no way that an article like this can venture into that territory without referring to several recent mainstream historical works on it. Proposing a direct connection "Lilly said this and we say the same" would be original synthesis of a very dangerous kind. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there seems to be a misapprehension about Lilly here. The astrological theory in use before Lilly had many facets to it, but with Lilly, all this was codified into a number of techniques that received such widespread acceptance and were used in such a widespread way in the Western world that it is difficult to overestimate his influence.  His recent so-called "rediscovery" (not so recent, btw) is of the books themselves.  The theories (with the possible controversy about modern sign rulerships) are absolutely the backbone of all astrological theory.  You have only to compare with Lilly, for example, that great textbook that was so long in print and trained so many modern astrologers, Llewellyn George's "The A to Z Horoscope Maker and Delineator," hugely read and in continuous print since 1910, to see what I mean.  In any case, there has probably never been a professional astrologer of Lilly's equal (with a few nods to Morinus and Gauricus) in the past 5 centuries.  I am quite puzzled at your remarks about the intellectual culture of the 16th century.  Why is that relevant?  Do you think astrology was invented in 1945?  Do you think there's much that difference in the astrology? People came up with all kinds of ideas of their own then as they do now.  The great backbone techniques remain. This is the historical and intellectual corpus that Wiki should concern itself with. It must be remembered what a hugely influential intellectual concept this was over the past 2,000 years.  I mean, Dante's Divine Comedy, for example, is entirely structured upon it.  That's the intellectual stream we need to clarify.  NaySay (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ?? "Lilly's recent discovery and adoption by astrologers" ?? "scientific/esoteric/religious/political thought of the English 1640s is an incredibly complex area of historical enquiry" - (it's a straightforward astrological text Judith) "original synthesis" ???  Lilly is a reliable source because his text presents the traditional principles that are found in the older sources and remain in the new ones.  So where the article says that the related body part is the genitals, we can use Lilly as a source, or older sources, because this is a traditional attribution that was not just made up, but is part of well established astrological knowledge. It is no more necessary to have a secondary source report what Lilly wrote himself in English, than it is to have a secondary source report what Linda Goodman wrote herself in English.  We simply reference where the information is given so others can verify it if necessary. --   Zac   Δ talk! 11:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If Manilius and Lilly aren't primary sources, what is? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything is primary source material if you we quoting directly from the source. This only becomes an issue of definition if someone is composing a broad-perspective review on a matter that requires interpretation of meaning. If the question was "did Lilly influence the outcome of the English Civil War because of the charts he cast about it?", then WP would require us to report the views of scholars who have studied "the scientific/esoteric/religious/political thought of the English 1640s" because, as you say, that's a complex area of historical enquiry. Here we are only reporting what astrologers believe to be the correct sign associations. Most associations like this are consistently reported through all the main historical sources. Lilly's work is still widely available, and still influential, and trusted for recording reliable astrological principles. It is probably the standard reference for correlations such as this. So if anyone wants to know why this page presents an association between Scorpio and genitals, they can easily check that this reliably reports what astrologers believe by going to the page number of his text and reading it for themselves. (We could in fact use any number of reliable historical authors: Sahl, Bonatti, Raphael, Charles Carter - anyone whose work is still available and being used by contenporary astrologers as a source of reference and study into what astrologers teach and believe). --  Zac   Δ talk! 12:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Some tasks that need addressing for all the star sign articles, through the wikiproject, for consistency. A dedicated infobox star sign, to go on each of the 12, with entries for all the info that should be listed in infobox form, and then after that no more tabular information in those articles' mainspace. Structure and content guidelines for star sign articles. Advice on sourcing. At some point astrologers and sceptics will find a modus vivendi, and I strongly suggest the best way to get there is by thrashing the questions out one by one on the project discussion page. It will be painful, but worth it in the end. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing last reversion of information that could have been improved, I give up and will only revert and remove, not try and be positive and find encyclopedic sources or add anything. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem you still have, Zac, is that you have not demonstrated that the statements of these authors are generally held, or even widely held, in the astrological community. What are your criteria for selecting these authors as representative, and not any of the myriad authors that say the complete opposite? The in-universe astrological literature is hopelessly inconsistent. Every one of these authors is first and foremost a self-promoter and presents themself (and is presented by their publishers) as an authoratative expert on the subject, if not THE most authoratative expert. Are you deducing "notability", "reputation" or "authority" from book covers and reviews? That would be a big mistake because they are essentially advertising, and thus we can assume that they are manipulative to the point of being useless. Forget about Google hits, too. If anything, significant coverage in third-party news outlets may be helpful as long as it is clearly not of a promotional nature. Book sales figures would be somewhat reliable, too, as long as they come from a source independent of the author or publisher. As for fanzines and pseudojournals, forget it. The fanzines are for entertainment purposes only, and the pseudojournals have a proven track record for dishonesty and are generally published by organizations that quite clearly state that they are eltist and most certainly NOT representative of the astronomcal community at large. In other words, we need SOME kind of verification from out-of-universe sources that these authors are notable or authoratative to fulfill the requirements for inclusion in WP. It's simply impossible to do this using only in-universe sources.

As for Manilius and Lilly, they are, as Judith said, primary sources and any interpretation of them has to come from reliable secondary sources, and not from in-universe sources or the interpretation of WP editors. I'd be EXTREMELY careful about quoting them.

Also, as Judith said, none of this material can be presented in WP's voice unless it comes from high-quality mainstream scholarly sources. Every single piece of information from in-universe sources has to be individually attributed in the body of the article, and it has to be made abundantly clear that they are the views of of the individual authors: "Astrologist Joanna Watters writes that....", "According to Astrologist Sasha Fenton,...", "Astrologist Deborah Houlding states that..." and so on. This is going to be stylistically clumsy in the table, but without clear and totally unambiguous attribution, there is no way to include any of this in WP.

Finally, your statement "the onus is on the disputant to question the reliability of the content based on a source that is considered more reliable" is vastly at odds with WP policy. Any material that is not backed up with reliable sources that comply with WP:RS can be remove by any WP editor with no obligation to do anything else, including finding better sourcing. The onus is solely on the editor who wishes to add or restore material. Further statements of this type will be considered a demonstration of bad faith, and could lead to a block or topic ban. Nobody has any responsibility for the material you want to add besides YOU. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lilly is a reliable secondary source. Almost everything in Lilly's Christian Astrology, and especially Book I is a synopsis of medieval astrologers writing in Latin, most particularly Alchabitius, whose order of presentation and substance is followed closely by Lilly.  For a more contemporary presentation, Alan Leo is probably a go to guy.  He was one of the originators and the first great popularizer of contemporary sun sign astrology.  Lilly obviously and much of Leo is in the public domain in the USA, and as such available for wholesale importation.  Lilly's importance to classical and  Leo's importance to contemporary astrology has been recognized in scholarly and popular books by Nicholas Campion and Benson Bobrick.  Were this a different subject, we'd have already cannibalized and edited their available texts; these source texts don't really require a great deal of editing to be made into encyclopedia articles, and either of them pass the usual tests for being reliable sources.  Lilly writes like a seventeeth century Wikipedian at times, especially in his descriptions of signs, houses, and planets, which are the parts we'd want to grab and adapt. They express the conventional understanding or influential viewpoints at their stage in the history of astrology. It's the fact that they treat astrology as a body of truth worthy of attention that offends. [For the purpose of clarification this comment was added by Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! (05:21, November 25, 2011) --   Zac   Δ talk! 11:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)]
 * Dominus, I find your comments confused. Saying that all astrologers can't be trusted as sources because after all they are merely self-promoters is the sort of self-fulfilling prophecy that isn't worth arguing about--not to mention the very obvious bias such splenetic sentiment displays.  Clearly, whatever you may think her motives were (or I may think of the content, which isn't much), Linda Goodman has been of huge influence in the latter decades of the 20th c. on English speakers.  Steve Forrest has been read by absolutely everybody, and I imagine, in the UK, Fenton has as well.  But frankly, you can dismiss them all, if you want.  There are plenty of outstanding primary sources, and, of course, there is always Robert Hand's "Horoscope Symbols," the supreme astrology textbook of the past 100 years, by a great intellect and Latinist who is just now finishing his Ph.D. in medieval history.  Line up any really prominent astrologers you like and ask them.  They'll all agree.


 * Now as to this "interpretation" stuff. Do you think we make up these translations of Manilius' Latin?  You're kidding, right?  I don't speak Latin.  I open up the Harvard Loeb Classical Library translation by the excellent Latinist George P. Goold.  I don't read Dorotheus in Latin!  I read the definitive translation of "Carmen Astrologicum" by one of the greatest multi-lingual scholars of the 20th century, Brown's David Pingree.  Now to be honest, great scholars such as Dorian Gieseler Greenbaum, (Ph.D. from the Warburg), who is recognized by other scholars as one of the very best historians of astrology in the world, assures me that there are errors in both these translations because the scholars themselves did not understand the astrology of what they were translating.  But I listen to her.  And, by the way, Dr. Greenbaum has also given us one of the best translations of a Hellenistic astrological treatise into English, the Introduction of Paulus Alexandrinus, with commentary by Olympiodorus -- this from the classical Greek.  I don't know if the fact that these translators (with the exception of Dr. Greenbaum) are pretty much in ignorance of astrology bears great weight with you -- because it is actually quite a drawback.  But there you are.  I can keep citing great works and their great scholarly translators, but let's call a halt.


 * Lastly, ignorance about astrology's techniques is NOT helpful to the scholar. There is a small but very good coterie of academics who make the history of astrology their province, and increasingly they are realizing that they must be better-educated about the techniques themselves.  I believe Dr. Greenbaum has been influential in this realization, but it is there.  Scholars have had to recognize that the concept was nowhere near as simple as they had been led to expect.  They have also realized, since the great scholar Otto Neugebauer in the mid-20th c., that the study of this concept is immensely helpful to understanding to the history itself.  But the astrology we do (or scorn) today is an organic part of that whole system.  It haunts us, much like Marx's "spectre", like Jung's archetypes, like the "Wasteland" of Eliot's images and snippets.  Maybe that's why Jung did charts of his clients.  Or perhaps just because it's very beautiful.  NaySay (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Medieval, Hellenistic, and contemporary astrology are all objectively important subjects in Western culture. Like any such cultural tradition, it's going to have elements of continuity and elements that change. I do get the impression that some people would rather have every article on astrology insist that astrology is pseudoscience and superstition unworthy of your time. To take astrology is to write "in universe"; it is assumed that astrology is fiction and that astrological articles must conform to the rules of writing about fiction. This is offensive nonsense and scientistic bias. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Constellation naming
"The constellation was named by the ancient Greeks, as part of the mythology of Orion."

The constellation figure is well known in Babylonian sources. It wasn't named by the Greeks.

Also I removed the one comment on mythology earlier because it is unreferenced, is not very informative by itself - a little misrepresentative, in fact, for the editor earlier to remove all the ancient mythology references except that one, and rename this section so that it only refers to Greek mythology, as if the sign was not known and used by ancient Babylonians. Now that it has been replaced can we have a reference for it?

Also, for reference 9, can we have a page or section number? (Just referencing a book is not helpful for anyone who wants to get to the source of that information). --  Zac   Δ talk! 17:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It has a Greek name, I think. The Mesopotamians identified it but they gave it a different name. I will look for a reliable source on Mesopotamian astronomy/astrology. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As the section is, it is poorly sourced. The CURA site that Zac added to the external links on the main astrology article may be a good place to look for sources. [] and []. Try these sources: [], [], [], [], and []. They are all published by academic presses. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * DV - as you know I recommended the Cura site to you. Yes the books you have recommended here are known to be good sources for particular points. I possess and have studied all of these along with many many more of similar academic standing, and have made several references to these on other pages. They can be used here of course, but this does not suggest that these are the only sources that are suitable for the report of the topic of this page. An editor with good knowledge of this subject - which requires breadth as well as depth of knowledge of its details, and can take decades to aquire - is able to qualify a comment like "As the section is, it is poorly sourced" with a reasoned argument about any specific reference and why it might not be reliable. Can you do that? We need a better argument for why references are not deemed reliable than because they fall outside the list of sources that you have recently become aquainted with. --   Zac   Δ talk! 11:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Need for discussion of issues has been put to WP:Astrology project members
I have made a call for the WP Astrology project members to be aware of these discussions and begin the process of creating consensus-approved guidelines for the development of the series of all entries in the zodiac sign articles. The discussion is here. --  Zac   Δ talk! 13:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Table has a bad style and is not exactly accurate Zac. Also the phrase you added to this sign about being -Mute (or slow of voice)- is P.O.V or should i dare say it is racist nonsense and not everyone agrees with the beliefs of Deborah Houlding. Not all astrologers have the same opinion about this. I vote for the table to be deleted from here 46.177.5.67 (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How can this content be deemed 'racist'? Nonsense, we are presenting the well known and established principles of astrological theory. The table listed this as a "traditional definition" - this implies that it is a definition that can be found frequently in well known traditional texts. I can easily demonstrate that it is presented in Hellenistic, Medieval and Renaissance works, besides the reference to a more modern secondary source.  Which would you prefer - or do you require all three?  If you have a source that disputes this (I doubt it) then please present it for discussion. --   Zac   Δ talk! 11:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The underlying assumption from some editors seems to be that our astrological articles are not allowed to take the claims made in astrological texts seriously. This is not constructive. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that I necessarily agree with the last statement above, although I do agree that there might be a tendency to underplay some of the personal characteristics which texts ascribe to the various signs. There are however a rather large number of books and articles out there which describe these characteristics, and it makes sense to me that we might only include those characteristics which are most commonly attributed, or are attributed to the most reliable of the various sources, whatever those might be. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

79.167.17.222's edits
I undid this IP's series of edits because they introduced a number of problems. Some points were made on the removal of content which were difficult to understand, and personal opinion was introduced into the Leo text, with rewrites that presented information as fact rather than astrological opinion. It also created innapropriate emphasis (for example, placing some words in full caps). It seemed simpler to undo back to a fairly non-problematic version. --  Zac   Δ talk! 19:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Scorpion mythology
An excellent source is given for the scorpion-men myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh. I assume it has been correctly summarised. However, without a source explicitly linking this myth to the constellation Scorpio, it is off-topic for this article. The mention should stay out until this is found. I will make a quick search for such a source, but only quick because there are so many other issues in astrology-related articles demanding attention. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, it comes from Lewis Spence, Myths and Legends of Babylonia and Assyria, 1916, pp.182-183. Probably counts as scholarly but definitely very out of date. I suggest for the time being it can be included but must be attributed to Spence and the date also given. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting on RSN about this and the current source, Gavin White, Babylonian Star Lore: An Illustrated Guide to the Star-lore and Constellations of Ancient Babylonia. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is this discussion? I am not able to find it. Also, because it is directly relevant to the astrology project concerns, I suggest you give a notice about this on the astrology project discussion page, so that the editors who are most affected by this discussion are able to contribute to it. --   Zac   Δ talk! 12:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? It's found in a second if you go to WP:RSN and search for "astrology" or "scorpio". Please alert the WikiProject. You are a project member and I'm not, so you should do the alerting. You could make Scorpio (astrology) a Collaboration of the Month. And then we could post on the Wikipedia Signpost to get more people involved. The RSN thread is essentially resolved though. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think, that since the last time I followed your recommendation to do something like this, it resulted in me being accused of canvassing, it would be better if I did not. If something involves a policy on astrology sources it seems only sensible to let members of the astrology project know - especially since you suggested they should be creating guidleines for these pages. Not being a member does not prohibit you from commenting - I'm sure you realise this since you recently added text to the project pages to define the astrology project's 'structure and content guidelines'. How can you reason that it is fine for you to do that, but then suggest that I should be the one doing the alerting on your requests for noticeboard comments?
 * I may comment on the thread although the point does seem to be a mute one now. To ensure there is no problem I have added two additional references to the comments about the Gilgamesh myth. --   Zac   Δ talk! 18:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still hoping that WikiProject Astrology can start working properly and promoting article quality. If you really care about it and want to work through it, you could get advice from the WikiProjects Council. I note, for example, that the project proposed Tetrabiblos for FA without even assessing its importance and quality. Some WikiProjects are really active and on the ball, WikiProject Military History, for example. Lots of others are inactive or didn't ever get off the ground. The worst kind are ones that try and act as cabals, maintaining articles as walled gardens. I don't know what is the right thing to do when most members of a project haven't edited for years, which is the case for WikiProject Astrology. I suggest you ask the WikiProjects Council about that. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you are quite wrong. The project had no involvement in the nomination of the Tetrabiblos article for FA review; nor did I mention that the article had been nominated to the project, not being sure whether such might be taken as canvassing support. But that is irrelevant to this page.--   Zac   Δ talk! 02:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So your extra sources are 1) a scholarly translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh, fine, but doesn't support the point about scorpion-men = Scorpio. And 2) a book called ... Mindsteps to the Cosmos. Mindsteps to the Cosmos by Gerald Hawkins. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your recent deletion was obviously unwarranted, and appears to be a deliberate attempt on your part to deny the Babylonian history of this sign and its mythological associations. You seem quite determined to ensure this page refers only to the Greek myth - why is that? And by what rationale does the addition of references qualify you to remove the Babylonian references entirely? I can only assume that you did you do no more than look at the title of Hawkin's book and decide you didn't like the sound of it. Gerald Hawkins - Professor of Astronomy and Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Boston University - is well respected and certainly qualifies as a suitable source of reference for the fact that the Gilgamesh myth has been referred to the zodiac. I think you need to step back a little from the astrology articles because you are losing your sense of proportion; having shown yourself, on the one hand, willing to add mythological information without any reference (here), information from "rubbishy websites" (here) and spurious information  about the constellation being named by the Greeks as part of the mythology of Orion (here) (again unreferenced and apparently based on your misunderstanding of how the transmission from Babylonian to Hellenistic sources occurred). In what appears to have been a hissy-fit over that content being marked with a "dubious" tag; you then declared that you  "will only revert and remove, not try and be positive and find encyclopedic sources or add anything". Well yes, you are holding to that promise to only revert and remove and not be positive, but this is not in line with the aims of Wikipedia --   Zac   Δ talk! 23:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Any book published on Babylonian astronomy in 1916 is severely dated now, even were it published by an expert in the field then. Too many tablets have been dug up and read since.


 * Lewis Spence was not an expert on this field, or any other (except modern Western occultism, on which he is a primary source, with the strength and weaknesses of primary sources); he is a tertiary source, and an unreliable one. We do not cite the historians of Atlantis alongside Neugebauer and Kramer.


 * The question is not merely whether Scorpius [stet] was a constellation in Babylonia; most of our astronomical texts are millennia after Gilgamesh. The question is whether Gilgamesh refers to it, which includes the question of when it was devised; the obvious place to look here is an annotated edition of Gilgamesh.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In universe text written not attributed
The following "in universe" text is written as if it is fact and not attributed to someone:
 * The Scorpio desires are potent and charged with the power to attain the object of their desires; but when their desires are subservient to the will, there are none more powerful or determined. In conclusion, it may be said that the Scorpio individuals that they have reached the point that they decide their own future progress.

IRWolfie- (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Discovery
There's something interesting about Scorpio and the Snake (zodiac), because they seem so mystifying and empowering, must be the lineage to Ophucius and the relationship about the center of the Milky Way.--74.34.66.148 (talk) 18:05, 1 August 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. 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 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 Talk:Astrological_sign 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. LukeSurlt c 15:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
Why was the Scorpio infobox changed to the general astrology infobox while all the other western zodiac signs still remain the same? Is there some reason for this that I am missing out on? I have not found this on any talk pages. Catstorm 16:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalespeon (talk • contribs)

Stub
Shouldn't this be included in the Scorpius page? If not, shouldn't the mythology portion go here additionally or instead of there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.98.8 (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Notable persons
I haven't heard of barely any of these "famous" people before. WHO ARE THEY? They are all 200 years old. I'm taking them off and putting down real people. You should too.


 * Just because you've never heard of them is no reason to remove them. They were still famous -- don't screw around with articles just because you're ignorant. --Feidian 20:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Is that list, and those in the other zodiac articles, really necessary? I understand those people who born under those signs, but it doesn't fit well, it's not really encyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Perhaps those persons' articles could be given categories instead of a list? DanPMK 15:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * They should all be removed. Useless.  There would be many hundreds of people in each of these articles if all the birthdays of the famous people in the world were enumerated.  72.254.12.177 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:CIVIL, Feidian. JuJube 02:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the list has some value. It obviously can't be a fully representative sample - that is an impossible task. However, as an indication of the people that astrologers claim to have similar personalities I think it has a place, provided that a disclaimer is made. That is why I restored it with the intro that The list is indicative only and makes no claim to be a representative sample of all Scorpios. Neelmack 10:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I read on a website that Edgar Allan Poe was a scorpion, is that true? I can't match up his date so far with a chinese zodiac and convert to astrology, because the ones I find only go as far as early 1900's. If he is a scorpion, he would probably be a good person to add under the list, much more lastly famous than Julia Roberts, no offense to her. (I felt this didn't need a new topic made for it, so I put it here.) 70.16.152.167 (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be Wikipedially relevant to start listing notable persons who have themselves mentioned their own sign. This way we're not "outing" Scorpios, Virgos, Leos, etc. Besides, how else would we identify the sign of people on the cusp? Cybersecurityczar (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

November 22
So, let me get this right: Since I was born on November 22, I'm both a Scorpio and a Sagitarius?Wikimichael22 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Wikimichael22


 * No, it means that you need to get your birth time, and have your chart calculated to see exactly in which sign the sun was at the moment you were born. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Or you could save a trip and just read the characteristics and see which one you are more like. You probably aren't a scorpio, they are logical enough to figure that out. No offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm1119 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

that was hilarious!!!!!!!!! (coming from a scorpio) -jenn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.7.103 (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You're most likely Sagittarius in reality. Scorpio is Oct 22nd - Nov 20th... Since each sign is 30 days long in the autumn/winter hemisphere (30.87ish for spring/summer)... Libra starts on the equinox date "Sept 22nd" and would end on the 21st of Oct (as this is also 30 days.) Thereof Scorpio starts on the 22nd Oct. The only way you might be a scorpio is if you were born on Leap year (which is still a long shot especially without birth time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.239.239 (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing dates to fit the other horoscopes
1. Note; Routine calculations do not count as original research. 2. Other members on the other pages have rightfully pointed out we should measure from the 21st of March as we know the dates shift but disincluding the leap year fraction and precession variability presents itself as the best move. 3. From a scientific point of view, Scorpio is said to start at 207.5 degrees on this page. This is very early when atleast 30 days make up 30 degrees (365.25 est. / 360) and there are atleast 5 more days in summer. 4. Sources claim that the 22nd of October is a cusp day aswell as the 23rd and this is all dependent on year. 5. We can't really agree on what sources to use, this is all mostly a matter of different people's interpretations. 6. Scorpio dates and Sagittarius' are currently clashing by a day. 7. Lastly other members have said we should fit dates so that they do not clash. So I'm going to roll with the change and leave this here.

Based on these 7 points listed, I think it's only right to date scorpio at 22-oct - 20-nov to fit aside with sagittarius and maintain 30 days. If you happen to disagree with the figures, the sentence does state on average. Lastly; Considering Aries is starting on the 21st of March on it's page... This is well syncronised enough.

In conclusion, this is simply regarding taking a scientic approach vs a random interpretation which there are a few dates that can be selected and it gets out synced. I hope people reading this agree.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.239.239 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2016‎ (UTC)


 * The footnote indicates the dates are supported by the site http://www.searcharticles.net/article.cfm/id/389534. But this site is a dead link. By making an edit and leaving the footnote, you, 94.15.239.239, are certifying that the site supports the dates you changed to. How did you verify what the site says?

If you did not verify that the site supports the dates you added, the verifiability policy requires that you find and cite a new source that supports your claims. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Rarely, facebook posts are allowed to be used but this facebook post denotes the exact figures stated and I'm also listing other links; you must also consider that the other figures collide with surrounding zodiac signs as previously mentioned; No links are carved in stone for giving figures as others have argued and agreed to on these pages since there are many; hence basic calculations come into the question.

https://www.facebook.com/ZodiacRdTable/posts/306540482820935

http://www.horoscopedates.com/real-dates/ - See Scorpio; Saint-Germain5 	October 22 - November 20

http://www.totalbeauty.com/content/slideshows/beauty-horoscope/page8 94.15.239.239 (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You admit that you have changed the dates without consulting the source cited in the article. This constitutes academic dishonesty. You must immediately correct this dishonesty or I will seek to have you blocked. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

AS previously mentioned, any source used is not a verifiable source as quoted by members of wikipedia to which I can agree. I haven't admitted to anything, you've inferred (without arguing a case) that the source is verifiable alone. We're not going to delete the page for lack of sources. The 2nd source I listed shows in great detail many different authors referencing different times for constellations if you would care to read them. As said to my case earlier, I took the calculous approach to settle the matter (towards a scientific basis where upon the sun would be transitting... Basic calculation not being OR as stated there within it's own policy) So no, I do not concur with respect to have been violating policy whether specific or not as there are no valid sources. We have yet to prove otherwise. 94.15.239.239 (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Searching through the history of the article, I see that the version before 94.15.239.239 changed it was October 24 to November 22, and was introduced by User:Brainiac Adam in 2014, before the source by Jackson Swift was added. So, more likely than not, the Jackson Swift source only supports the part about the actual time the Sun is in the constellation, not the time the Sun is in the sign. Brainiac Adam has not offered any source to support the dates that user prefers.


 * Sources only count if they are used as citations in the article. Sources mentioned on the talk page don't count.


 * There are problems applying WP:CALC to this set of articles. WP:CALC says "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." It seems to me that if a calculation is routine, obvious, and correct, then any numerate person presented with the same sources and trying to obtain the same kind of answer would indeed get the same answer. But that doesn't seem to be happening here. (Once again, the calculation should be obviously correct to the reader who confines his attention to the article; the reader can't be expected to pay any attention to talk pages.)


 * Another problem is that WP:OR and WP:V must be satisfied by each article on it's own. You really can't harmonize articles with cross-references because talk pages and Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, so can't be cited within an article. The harmony should come from a reliable source that gives a table of dates for all the signs. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a reliable source. Since I'm not a follower of astrology, I'm not in a position to evaluate which, if any, astrology source is reliable, and astronomy sources just don't seem to be interested in giving dates for astrological signs. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

To all of that, I do not dispute, but a remaining question stands and hope you can analyse to reach a full agreement... what do we put inplace of all of this? Since something must be selected as we can't leave the content blank since anything put will be without consensus to a degree. I put the findings because they fit with all signs, the basic calculation simply was; The spring equinox generally starts on the 21st of march, the autumn equinox usually starts on the 22nd of september... I divided the autumn and winter signs by 6 (30 days each as the 21st of march - 22nd september backwards is 180 days) and did the same with the summer and spring signs (30.87 days in each sign but rounded to the closest day). There are currently no sources "scientifically" that give precise dates of the sun entering each constellation. This just seems the quickest and less complicated calculation available until someone can provide valid sources or an even quicker/reasoned calculation otherwise (I think anything otherwise just tends to a bias personally since an inequal distribution would be made appealing to personal belief on the matter). I request that you could give consensus to this calculation until perhaps a scientific article comes along giving more precise details. Also to note, this is all on "average" as stated in every article so room for error has been made clear. I hope you agree that I am attempting to make a pragmatic and honest approach to this. Your consent should fully resolve the issue until such sources exist.94.15.239.239 (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * When dealing with astronomical calculations "average" is not a figure of speech, it is a calculation. Dates for sign transitions are not trivial to find or calculate, but the solstices and equinoxes are; for example the US Naval Observatory's Multiyear Computer Interactive Almanac (MICA) will tables of these for whatever years you wish between 1800 and 2050. I created a table for 2003 through 2050 (48 years, or 12 leap year cycles) and found the average date and time for the northward equinox is 20 March 11:36 Universal Time (UT). The average date for the southward equinox is 22 September 21:09 UT. It isn't obvious to me how to find the intermediate dates, considering that some years are leap years and some are not. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

hmm, you may also have to factor into consideration that for the "180 average" which was the goal division, every march 20th on a leap year still adds up to 180 days backwards to the 22nd september equinox. It's not easy to pin-point which to go on but you find that half the time currently it lands on the 21st of march and the other half the 20th. If you're going for the 180 days the best answer is the 21st considering that between equinox dates exactly and yearly (when say you do it from 2016 march backwards to 2015 september... There is on average 180 days "+ or -" 3 hours 47 minutes but I can't remember which. If the leap year day did start after febuary then we would see the estimates ranging to the 21st march and 22nd sept. I safely assume that this would be where the difference lies. The 21st of march and 22nd of september are 180 days for 3/4 of the years. We could set all these dates a day backwards but either way makes no difference is my guess. For an average, we do assume a small standard deviation sometimes I think would be fair to comment, we try to pinpoint the smallest though if possible I will add. In a sense, the 21st is more appropriate since "Year 1" of a leap year is the general starting point, and 94.15.239.239 (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, you are correct with the spring equinox being the 20th more on average. So it is a matter of which should be picked when they're seemly showing even results. As September 22nd would fit with the one current whereas March 20th fits with the alternative. I guess the fairest answer to this is examining sun-rise and sun-set times. Within the spring equinox period, an equal sun-rise is usually a day after an equinox (March 21st) whereas in autumn an equal sun-set is usually sept 22nd. There are articles on equinox's not actually determining half a day. I'll try and find it. 94.15.239.239 (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Here; http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/equinox-not-equal.html 94.15.239.239 (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Corrections to dates, date and citation format in sign articles
I have created a module which encapulates values for the dates the Sun enters and exits the various signs; the data is taken from the U.S. Naval Observatory's Multiyear Interactive Computer Almanac and covers 2015 through most of 2050. The Template:Zodiac date produces some erroneous results, so I hope to implement the change this week.

It is only practical to implement one date and citation style for the module and infobox, so it would be helpful if we can agree on what format to use for the various sign articles. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 March 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. It appears that the disambiguation page has already been edited as suggested by SnowFire. Dekimasu よ! 01:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Scorpio (astrology) → Scorpio – The astrological sign is definitely the most common usage for "scorpio". The constellation is named Scorpius, and all other usages are much more obscure. Kaldari (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The constellation is named Scorpius, but it is commonly called Scorpio and is only titled that to disambiguate. It is unclear whether the constellation or the zodiac sign would be primary topic, so best to remain as is.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * While it's true that the constellation is often called Scorpio, the astrological sign is certainly the most common topic that people are looking for. Pageviews for this page are 5 times higher than for Scorpius.|Scorpio_(astrology) Thus, per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, it should easily qualify as the primary topic. We can always use a hatnote link for the minority of people who are looking for the constellation. Kaldari (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't think Scorpius should be considered when determining primacy since this is arguably a sub-article of it in the first place. That leaves the car and the weapon, which both get a reasonable amount of traffic but are utterly dwarfed by the astrological sign. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Zxcvbnm (the constellation is too important), but the disambiguation page should be modified to pop up both Scorpio (astrology) and Scorpius the constellation to the very top, as they are the most likely uses of "Scorpio." SnowFire (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Can someone add the Scorpio symbol?
I tried to add this:  (♏) ( Skorpios; )

but I can't add it to the article because this warning "Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive.It is almost never appropriate to add emoji and other unicode icons (e.g. ♥, ☺, ☢, ☮) to Wikipedia articles. This is often an indicator of vandalism. If your edit is clearly vandalism, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.New and anonymous editors are prevented from adding such icons to Wikipedia articles. If this edit is constructive, you may report this erroneous warning or request that the edit be made at this article's talk page." comes up.

Does anyone know how to add the symbol? The other Zodiac articles have the symbols in them. I don't know why Wikipedia considers that vandalism. It's a Wikipedia error I'd say. it's falsely assuming this symbol is an emoji and or vandalism. Can someone help?--2601:340:4201:A8F1:20D4:D41F:112E:25F4 (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The symbol is already in the infobox. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Axial precession
The sun is actually in Libra for most of this time period. AMCKen (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring
Numerous IP editors have been edit warring to add the sentence "Scorpio is associated with three different animals: the scorpion, the snake, and the eagle (or phoenix)." Some of the editors who reverted this complained that it lacks a reliable source. I searched the article history and found that the snake, eagle, and phoenix were first added in March 2018 by and mentions a source:



I do not have access to this source, so I can't check it. The publisher is Visible Ink Press which appears to be a reliable publisher. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)