Talk:Pisces (astrology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of the Astrology WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the astrological content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.


Someone edited the page and put "they suck" at the top.... I don't know if it's already fixed, but if it hasn't been can somebody do it for me please? It isn't fair to anyone that is a pisces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.201.40 (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] older entries

Hmmm, it looks like a large section of the article was taken out. The comment was that it read like a horoscope, which, while true, contains information about Pisces, that someone might be looking for. I would think that it would be better to add such information into the other articles, rather than removing it from this. Any thoughts? -Todd 06:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • If it's that table you're talking about, I think it should be removed - or fixed so it doesn't break the page. The same problem seems to be on a few other astrology pages, if not all of them. Sosei 18:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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 Pisces. If you want to add a notable person go there. --Carmelita 21:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning Date?

I always knew the beginning date to be February 19th, not 20th...was there a change?--Tainted Drifter 10:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Pisces has always started on February 19th and still does. However, people often add an extra day because they're not exactly certain. Most official sources generally use the earlier dates (eg. Sept. 23rd-October 22nd) as opposed to the later dates (eg. Sept. 24th- Oct. 23rd). 81.98.160.254 12:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I organized the article into different sections

--Alpha774 04:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable persons?

(I'm gonna cross-post this): there is absolutely no need to have a "notable persons" section. What about cuspers (people born between two signs), what would they be? If they went under both that'd take up more space. You can't list EVERY single person ever born under one sign. If you want to know what a famous person's zodiac sign or birthday is, just look up their separate article on Wikipedia. If they are famous, they should be on Wikipedia. So yeah, I'm taking out the notable persons section and I'm warning people not to readd it.

Also, I don't think it should say "this sign is compatible with ____, ____, and ___" because that's like bending NPOV. 75.27.185.204 03:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Then re-word it to say, "this sign is said to be compatible w/ ___ and ____. It really doesn't have anything to do with POV- compatablities are established just as much as traits are. I think this is a misunderstanding of NPOV in regards to this type of article.

208.53.104.68 (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)amyanda2000

[edit] Sign of the fish in Christianity

This article claims that early Christians used a Pisces symbol to identify themselves to each other, but this is not accurate. The symbol was indeed that of a fish, but it was the ichthys, which is discussed in this Wiki article in detail: [[1]]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.156.231.55 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

ok

[edit] Jesus' birthday was in March

Christmas was historically celebrated in March for a whole millennium until the holy day was shifted forward by papacy to December.

[edit] Three pairs of dates: Solar?

On all Wikipedia's pages on astrological signs, there are three pairs of dates, with links under Tropical and Sidereal and nothing under Solar. Is Solar a whole other Zodiac? As regards calendars it seems to mean the same as Tropical, but obviously that may not apply to zodiacal systems. Further explanation would be much appreciated. (This comment applies to the other 11 pages too; I picked this one arbitrarily.) Boris B 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chages I've noticed (through all the signs)

I was extremely unsure as to where to post this, but I've decided that since it relates to the signs and only the signs, I'd post it on the discussion for the last sign.

While going through the articles recently, I'd noticed that there were A LOT-and I mean A LOT-of changes from the last time I'd read them. I noticed this mostly in that a lot of trts were changed-for example, in this one, the "Pisces being the reatest friend" was removed, "small and dainty feet" was changed to "large albeit dainty feet", etc. Hoever, what I noticed most was that the places signs are linked to were exchanged for drastically different places, most of them being places I've never heard of before. Most of the stuff I'm reading that's been changed disagrees with what I've read, well, everywhere else. Can we see if this new stuff is what's actually considered correct? Such as citations, etc?

For our purposes, the person doing all this seems to be one person, "Slowishguitar". Ellethwen 00:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Toyama Prefecture anyone?

[edit] Wait, what?

I hate to nag, but what happened to all the...other information? Was there a reason most of the page was deleted? Some sort of new rule or whatever?

This hardly seems like a useful article now. Ellethwen 20:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


I came here expecting something useful, but this article was rather useless --Reader of Wikipedia 76.175.139.132 07:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's back. No references though. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 Refill/lol 01:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dustbin of the Zodiac?

Uh...yeah...someone explain that one?--Tainted Drifter 00:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but as a Piscean myself, I find that a little offensive. I think a better wording is in order. Ellethwen 03:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really would like an explanation rather than an edit. Hmm, perhaps whomever wrote it had in mind our sign is the last of the zodiac...so it's placed at the bottom, so to speak. Or, despite being the best sign of the zodiac, we also have a tendency to be...saps? -- Sometimes, anyway.--Tainted Drifter 23:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it means, that since we (I'm saying we, as in I am a pisces myself) are the very end of the zodiac, we are the result of the all the other zodiac signs being mashed-up together. And, being the end of the zodiac, we also represent death (aries in turn represent birth), so we have a bit more spiritual quality in us.

[edit] Uh...

I don't know why...but how come the Pisces sign of the Chinese astrology is... the Rabbit? I'm an Ox myself, and a Pisces, but the Chinese astrology is by year, not by month, like the Western one. I would love to delete it myself, but I need to know if others agree with me. Then I could delete that part.--Fushy 7:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Might want to read the Chinese astrology page first. Also, I think we're talking in characteristics, not dates :-) Ellethwen (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charateristics and related sections, removal

Notice Relevant discussion of inclusion or removal of Charactistics, Compatibility, Sexuality, Exaltation and related sections is taking place on Talk:Aries_(astrology)#Trimming. Since this an issue which relates to all the astrological sign articles, please direct relevant comments there.

[edit] Weakest sign of the zodiac?

I've read it many times in horoscopes and zodiac websites saying that pisces is the weakest sign of the zodiac. Is it true? I've seen many Pisceans to be emotionally unstable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.154.255 (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strengths

Suitable occupations are where compassionate and intuitive qualities are needed; such as caring for the sick, needy and animals, religious, social workers, hospitals and institutions, poets, writers, actors, psychics.

Yeah "physics" fits right in there with social and hospital workers, actors, poets and writers. At least you found a way to fit Einstein in there, huh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.177.138 (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


It's PSYCHICS, not physics. They're very different. Please double-check the spelling of the word before pointing that sort of thing out. Ellethwen (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Famous People

What about melina perez wwe wrestler chingy or bowwow march 9 is pisces so y arnt tthey on there

Because we can't include every single famous Piscean, nor would it be a good idea to. Ellethwen (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictions and such

I have several problems with this article.

There are no big problems until the section labelled 'Explaining House Astrology'. Is this section really necessary? And if so many sentences need to be restructured seeing that there are fragments and parts I can't decipher myself. ('People born under this house have the personality traits as an a natural Piscean'?)

There are contradictions in the Characteristics section. One example: The negative attributes section says that Pisces can sometimes be goal-less but one of the dislikes says that they dislike 'having no goals to move towards'. These characteristics are alien to me. I've researched the mysticism behind Pisces heavily (being one myself) and I expected Wikipedia to have something at least similar to what almost every other article on the sign had but this article is quite off the wall compared to the others.

I also agree that 'physics' doesn't quite fit in the suitable occupations list.

The physical traits section should be removed if it can't be cited. I've never heard of any kind of physical characteristics of any of the signs.

Anyone want to re-haul this article? It needs to be reworded and restructured quite a bit. I could do some changes but I wanted to consult before doing anything. My biggest problem is with the Characteristics section. The descriptive words are not the best and I think that many different sources should be used in this section to provide a more accurate portrait of the Pisces.

Rockerflutist1 (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's psychics, not physics. And yes, this article does need some work. However, there are so many different interpretations in astrology, it's difficult to pin down what exactly should be said here. (There's an article going on at the Aries talk page concerning this.) I think we really need to narrow down that famous Pisceans section, however. We don't need to point out every single famous Piscean. How about just the really really famous Pisceans? Ellethwen (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article is poorly written. Incomplete sentences. To me it does not matter so much what is said since astrology is very much open to personal interpretation, but I feel that it should at least follow the conventions of proper English. As an piscean I am very sensitive to these kinds of things. 24.22.59.213 (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable people who share this sign section

Notice Relevant discussion of inclusion or removal of notable people who share this sign is taking place on Talk:Gemini_(astrology)#Notable people who share this sign section. Since this an issue which relates to all the astrological sign articles, please direct relevant comments there.

[edit] Major Overhaul

I did a pretty major overhaul of the article.
Hopefully no one will object since it was in dire need of some work, and I think that it's looking quite good.

I've only included two citations, but they're both excellent resources with extensive information on the subject matter. Also, I'm currently studying astrology and happen to be a Piscean myself... not that it matters or anything, but I figured it might be worth mentioning. :)

pixiequix (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could open you up for allegations of conflict of interest... :D
Seriously, though, I have to question some of the changes you made. Why did you remove a source from the lede, for example, or change the interwiki links from things like Mutable sign to Mutable, planets in astrology#classical planets#Jupiter to Jupiter and so forth? I also wonder if you personally checked all of the characteristics listed against their source, because as somebody who watches this article I can tell you things are added to and removed from that section all the time.[2] If you didn't, then the Checkcite template needs to be in place. Pairadox (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to remove any specific sources or interwiki links, I must've just overlooked them... Sorry about that.
And no, I didn't sort through the characteristics. Hmmm... I'll go back over some of this stuff if you haven't already.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention though, I appreciate it.

pixiequix (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm still working up the courage to dig through the history to discover when the source was added for the characteristics. (I think it was around Nov 1 last year based on talk page comments at Talk:Aries (astrology).) I suspect that will provide the only clear, sourced version of them for the article. Anything without a specific citation that varies from that list will need to be cut. Pairadox (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, I totally know what you mean! I'm not feeling up to that task either.
Maybe I can piece together a new characteristics list, complete with citations. I"ll see what I can come up with.

pixiequix (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read all the comments but i just want to say that this article still needs ALOT pf work, not only in wikipedia standards but also because almost every single article is written better than this one. I mean come on guys we can't let the rest of the zodiacs show us up >.>. As a fellow Pisces I agree that yes we are the best, but in the future lets try to keep the article as neutral as possible. Even I can read the article and tell that some of the people who have been editing it have been self bragging on ourselves. Also there are multiple books printed that would be reliable sources for zodiac stuff. --Diaboli (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC) ps. also guys I KNOW we are lazy as fuck but come on we have to..well...stop being lazy! Get some work done XD --Diaboli (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)