Template talk:Zodiac

message: I've just reverted another attempt to merge the astrological and astronomical zodiacs in this template. User:Barticus88's edit comment in March 2007 was very apt.  We need to be clear on whether the template is talking about the astronomical or astrological zodiacs.  If just one, we need to be very clear which one; if both, fine, but then well-meaning editors will attempt to "fix" it by combining the two.  Even as it stands there's some inappropriate mixing, since the template lists astrological symbols for the astronomical constellations, to which they don't really apply (hence the conspicuous absence of a symbol for Ophiucus).  I'd like to remove those, but will wait for consensus before doing so because, as I said in my own edit summary just now, the current state of affairs is a delicate compromise.
The reason this is important is that there are political implications.  Opponents of astrology are fond of claiming that the zodiac "really" contains 13 signs (and, by implication, that astrologers are stupid for saying it has 12).  On what basis such people think they know better of the technical details of astrology than its professional practitioners do, is a question seldom visited.  Meanwhile working astronomers have a legitimate claim of their own on the word "zodiac," their zodiac really does have 13 constellations (not signs) in it, and they're probably sick of hearing about the whole mess.  The bottom line is that if you display a list of 13 constellations with astrological symbols and call it "the zodiac," you're equating the two zodiacs and taking a position on a political issue in a way inappropriate for Wikipedia.  It would be as inappropriate as displaying a list of The Twelve Imams under the heading "Successors of the Prophet Muhammad" with no further comment. 67.158.72.135 (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "political implications" are minor in relation to the geometrical discrepancies between constellations and signs. The constellations and the signs share a common heritage from Babylonian astrology. We cannot claim that the Babylonians were astronomers proper, since they didn't model the solar system in a geometric way, like the Greek did. The astrological signs are factually a 12 parts subdivision of the ecliptic in 30° sectors, starting with Aries at 0°/Vernal Equinox. DOT. That's the definition. The astronomical constellations on the other hand, are areas that have successively evolved from star patterns that perhaps 600 BC coincided with their eponymous astrological signs very approximately. Although once being in Aries, because of the precession the Vernal Equinox is now in the first half in Pisces. That poses no problems, and is no argument against astrology per se, because the astrological signs and the astronomical constellations are unrelated. This Ophiuchus constellation is also irrelevant, because that is a Greek constellation, not a Babylonian astrological sign. Besides astrology is a heavily modified sole remnant of the Mesopotamian religion. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 18:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

text: To clarify: the constellations and signs should be separate, since the only relation between a sign and a constellation is the mythic image (symbol), i.e. the figures used to concoct myths. Otherwise the myths are separate: the astrology attaching a functional-cosmological myth describing personalities, while astronomy uses myths restrictively as folklore only. F.ex. the astronomical myth about Aries is a flying ram with golden fleece, saving two children from mortal schemes from their step mother, while the Astrological myth instead tell us of a "choleric" kind of personality, slightly egoistical by neglect, who is fast, forceful and impatient in attacking problem, although not too persistent. The only thing in common is using the Ram as a symbol. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 20:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Now all constellation articles use the new template :Template:CZodiac. I'm going to make short sections in the zodiacal constellations (not Ophiuchus) that links to the astrological articles, and advice similar short sections from the astrological signs to the relevant zodiacal constellation. 12 isn't easily matched to 13, and however we may redesign the template, it won't look nice because 12 ≠ 13. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 20:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Ophiuchus now has an astrology article, Ophiuchus (astrology).  Should it be added to the astrology section of this template?  Currently the page includes the template but isn't linked back. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be included in the template because the 12-sign zodiac is by *far* the most standard one.  Differences between, for instance, the tropical and sidereal zodiacs, usually concern where the signs start, not how many there are.  Only a very few astrologers use Ophiucus at all, let alone giving it the status of being a 13th "sign"; listing it as part of "the astrological zodiac" without a detailed explanation would cause massive confusion.  Maybe the template, then, shouldn't be on the Ophiucus page either.  I don't have any strong feelings on that point.  But including Ophiucus in the template on other pages as an astrological sign would be like including "The Republic of Texas" on a template listing of "Countries in North America"; yes, some people feel strongly that Texas should be or already is an independent country, but that is by no means a standard view of the subject. 129.97.58.107 (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: astrology/astronomy

message: The debate whether to include constellations beyond the standard accepted 12 (e.g. Ophiuchus) is simple. Have a second sub-section called other signs or something, and list them there under the main 12. The other signs are important to some researchers so should not be removed, but this way also satiates the people that only want the main 12.24.190.34.219 (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just add two separate sub sections...