Talk:Zodiac/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Meaningless References

References 3 and 5 - 10 are completely meaningless. Whomever is responsible, please provide more complete information so that those of us who are interested may search for more information. As they are, simply a name and a year, could be real or just as easily be made up - there is no way to tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.211.200.197 (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article does not follow any discernible citation style. But it does follow the general concept of shortened citations, which are recognized in one form or another in all the major citation guides. The name of the author, the year, and the page are given, and the reader is expected to look at the list of works near the end of the reference section to find the full details on the source. The advantage of shortened citation is that when several different pages from the same source are sited in different spots in the article, the reference section is much shorter than it would be if the full details were given every time.

Do you have any particular citation style in mind that you think would be suitable for this article? Jc3s5h (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Name, year, and pages are perfectly acceptable as long as the details are given at some point. I suggest a citation style in which all relevant information is included the first time the reference is cited. Then for citations from the same work, immediately following in the reference list, then the name, year, and page number is acceptable.

Smith, J. D., Doe, F. U., & Larry, J. G. (2013), Book Title, Publisher, p. 1 - 5

Smith et al., (2013), p. 10 - 20

Smith et al., (2013), p. 50 - 60

Also acceptable is "Ibid" following the first full detailed citation.

Smith, J. D., Doe, F. U., & Larry, J. G. (2013), Book Title, Publisher, p. 1 - 5

Ibid., p. 10 - 20

Ibid., p. 50 - 60

If the article cites a separate work in between the Smith et al. refs, the most clear way is to restate the full detailed information; however, the author, year, and pages are still acceptable (though if there are more than one work from the same author, this can lead to confusion).

Smith, J. D., Doe, F. U., & Larry, J. G. (2013), Book Title, Publisher, p. 1 - 5

Smith et al., (2013), p. 10 - 20

Smith et al., (2013), p. 50 - 60

Frank, M. W., & Sampson, Q. P. (1999), Book Title, Publisher, p. 20 - 30

Frank & Sampson (1999), p. 45- 50

Smith, J. D., Doe, F. U., & Larry, J. G. (2013), Book Title, Publisher, p. 15-16

Smith et al., (2013), p. 40 - 42

The reason I ask, is that I am interested in the historical perspective. The statement "The division of the ecliptic into the zodiacal signs originates in Babylonian ("Chaldean") astronomy during the first half of the 1st millennium BC, likely during Median/"Neo-Babylonian" times (7th century BC)" is terribly interesting. I would like to know more. Unfortunately, for me, the reference is Powell (2004) which is meaningless without more detail. Looking it up, all I found was an aerodynamics professor from the University of Michigan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.211.200.197 (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Use your browser search capability to search for the string "Subsequent Defining of the Zodiac" and you will find the article by Powell, which is available from the WayBack Machine. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Please define the signs

Signs of the zodiac differ from constellations, not in being found on the ecliptic, but that each sign is qualified as being fire, earth, air or water; as being cardinal, fixed or mutable, and as being positive or negative.

It is essential to know this as it explains why the zodiac is of twelve, and not eleven or thirteen or any other random number.

The list:

Aries: Cardinal fire, positive

Taurus: Fixed earth, negative

Gemini: Mutable air, positive

Cancer: Cardinal water, negative

Leo: Fixed fire, positive

Virgo: Mutable earth, negative

Libra: Cardinal air, positive

Scorpio: Fixed water, negative

Sagittarius: Mutable fire, positive

Capricorn: Cardinal earth, negative

Aquarius: Fixed air, positive

Pisces: Mutable water, positive

The above table should definitely be included in the main article.

You'll find all of this already, and more, at Western_astrology#The_twelve_signs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Please start by defining terms

A sign of the zodiac is composed of an element - Fire, Earth, Air or Water - and a state of energy, commonly known as cardinal (having energy), fixed (resisting energy) and mutable (seeking energy). Thus, Aries is Cardinal Fire. Scorpio is Fixed Water. Gemini is Mutable Air, etc.

A simple definition such as this would prevent the current misunderstanding of 13th and 14th signs, as the system is based on a 4 x 3 grid. As long as that works out to 12, nothing else matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.119.52 (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Signs of the zodiac have been used by astronomers to indicate the location of objects in the heavens, as a celestial coordinate system. Although that usage is archaic, when that use was prevalent, it didn't indicate any belief in four elements or cardinal energy. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This request is unnecessary as the astrological aspects and elements are thoroughly explored in the article Astrological sign which is also referenced very early in this article under the link "sign". This article serves both astronomy and astrology communities and needs to contain only what is in-common with each other.Volpane (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ophiuchus?

The fact that Ophiuchus is in the main table is absurd. The concept of that sign started as recently as 1970 with Stephen Schmidt, and is used by almost nobody. The table should reflect the standard Zodiac dates used by millions, not some foolishness that leaves Scorpio covering one measly week of the year. At best, it should be a footnote with Cetus.108.161.124.204 (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The table demonstrates the relationship between zodiac signs, as a way of roughly locating the position of the Sun along the ecliptic, and the position of the sun in currently recognized constellations. Whether astrologers think there is any significance of the sun or other solar system bodies being in the constellation Ophiuchus is not the subject of the table.

Perhaps the table could be rearranged so that the name and symbol for Ophiuchus do not appear under the columns of the table labeled "Sign", so that it is more clear that hardly anyone, whether astrologer or astronomer, regards Ophiuchus as a sign. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the unicode symbol for Ophiuchus (HTML: ⛎) is not present anywhere on the page ? KirkeCypris (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That would most certainly be appropriate on the article dedicated to Ophiuchus, but not here besides the mention it has already.Volpane (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ophiuchus, what is 13 signs? Megacahyanikai (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Gemini?

What your zodiac Gemini? Megacahyanikai (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it what is seems?

Well it seems that all those who added and shared their knowledge about Zodiac and Zodiac signs had no Idea why they start at 21,22 0r 23 rd of each month. seeing Vernal Equinox (Now rouz) even then never mentioning the Persian calendar system.

All others " The Babylonians, Chaldeans, Romans, Greeks nor Chinese nor Arabs had a Solar based calander. My sign is Balance Mehr or Mizaan starts from 1st to 30th and so on. Not mentioning the contribution of Persians in setting The New year starting point with Vernal Equinox from 2575 years ago till to day, is simply too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.140.231 (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Should the zodiac even be part of wikipedia? Is there even one reliable source on the subject? You tell me. Stuffed tiger (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the "References" section? Some of the sources are highly reliable. It's common knowledge that the zodiac is a concept used by both astronomy and astrology. Even if you think astrology is useless, it has been a significant cultural phenomenon for thousands of years, and until roughly the time of Isaac Newton, a driving force in the advance of astronomy.Jc3s5h (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if I took your position, which I don't, should mythology, spiritual knowledge, fiction, fantasy, games, TV, metaphysics, esoteric knowledge, religion, among many others be part of wikipedia by that token? What is a reliable source by your definition, something that can trace back where the zodiac originated, if so we have several. Taien101 (talk)

Of course this page should be here - the banner above shows this subject to be a vital article in science. But the page content is very poor. I have just joined Wikipedia specifically to improve the unsourced content that previously appeared in the "modern astronomy" section, but really the whole page is a bit of a mess. Does the page really need what looks like a big astrology advert that appears top-right of the article? Unicorndh (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zodiac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astrologer.com/aanet/pub/transit/jan2005/babylonian.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090409073139/http://ns1763.ca:80/equinox/eqindex.html to http://www.ns1763.ca/equinox/eqindex.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Scorpio w/ Ophiuchus - Correspondence

∗∗∗ Corrected ∗∗∗

I think this also corresponds to Astrological sign.Rip Van Winkle, Humpty Dumpty and Frankenstein's Monster (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I saw Antares for 7 days and Rasalhague for 18. It looks like a subset of Scorpio Tropical/Sidereal considering IAU Antares & Rasalhague.

I was trying to correspond Ophiuchus. I had heard a new planet was found or something. I This is what I came up with:

Constellation			Days	Zodiac
IAU	Sign			IAU	Tropical	Sidereal
	Tropical	Sidereal
Antares	Scorpio		7	23 November  − 29 November	24 October  − 30 October	16 November − 22 November
Rasalhague			18	30 November − 17 December	31 October − 17 November	23 November − 10 December
			5		18 November − 22 November	11 December − 15 December

It could probably use a little cleaning up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.161.151 (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

O.k. Thanks. 2604:2000:E94B:5C00:B10D:2F2A:49BC:39DC (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Rip Van Winkle, Humpty Dumpty and Frankenstein's Monster (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Was I replying to myself?

Out of curiosity? Are there any being that can match any of the constellations to the actual zodiac symbols from any regions of the planet without having to torture them to do so?

I was drawing similarities between the symbols, like mirror images or reflections or repeating or crossing over on itself or directional. However, when I looked at simple drawing, I noticed they were different. Then, when I looked at imagines that are supposed to be from space, they looked totally different.

In my "spare time", I was hoping to rework the unit circle or oblique with this addition. However, it won't be as pretty. I noticed this with phong shading and the Archimedean spiral. I thought the shading looked funny, so I tweeked it. I also had to use a +1 or -1 one before or after the main formula to get the spiral to render properly in php. I was not sure if it was the function or the math. Also, working on Chinese Zodiac which I think corresponds to Lunar Year. And, maybe the charts at some point.

Opening paragraph

The article begins "The western zodiac is centered upon the ecliptic, the apparent path of the Sun across the celestial sphere over the course of the year"- but you make no other mention of another zodiac. This is astronomy and I think there is only one zodiac. The signs are mere labels and all are given equal space on the ecliptic. chami 14:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck.mitra (talk • contribs)

I agree that since this article touches both on astronomy and astrology, the former, which is science, should receive greater emphasis than the latter, which is pseudoscience. The lead paragraph currently reads

The zodiac is the circle of twelve 30° divisions of celestial longitude employed by western astrology and (formerly) astronomy. The western zodiac is centered upon the ecliptic, the apparent path of the Sun across the celestial sphere over the course of the year. The paths of the Moon and visible planets also remain close to the ecliptic, within the belt of the zodiac, which extends 8-9° north or south of the ecliptic, as measured in celestial latitude. Because the divisions are regular, they do not correspond exactly to the boundaries of the twelve constellations after which they are named.

I suggest the paragraph be rearranged as follows:

The zodiac is an area of the sky centered upon the ecliptic, the apparent path of the Sun across the celestial sphere over the course of the year. The paths of the Moon and visible planets also remain close to the ecliptic, within the belt of the zodiac, which extends 8-9° north or south of the ecliptic, as measured in celestial latitude. In western astrology and (formerly) astronomy, the zodiac is divided into twelve signs, each sign occupying 30° of celestial longitude. Because the signs are regular, they do not correspond exactly to the boundaries of the twelve constellations after which they are named.

Jc3s5h (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

How do you define 'sun entering a sign'?

You usually don't watch the sun and the stars at the same time, do you? At least the ancients didn't. So I'm reasonably sure I misunderstand the concept entirely. Can someone help please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.14.72.229 (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

From what I've read, the ancients kept track of which stars were visible just before the light at dawn made stars invisible. I don't know exactly what allowances they made to determine which stars were behind the sun.

Today the sun enters a sign when its apparent ecliptic longitude (with the center of the Earth at the center of the coordinate system) is a multiple of 30°.

Western Sun sign tutorial

A large number of incorrect edits are being made for western Sun sign dates, not so much in this article, but in the various articles about individual "astrological" signs, such as "Aquarius (astrology)". I put "astrological" in quotes because it isn't just astrology; as recently as the 1800s astronomy sometimes used signs to indicate positions of celestial objects, and the times and dates can be computed objectively.

The first point is that a statement with a citation (usually a footnote) is not only asserting a claim, but also that the claim is supported by the cited source. Every edit that changes a claim so it is no longer supported by the source, but doesn't change the source, is a false edit and should be reverted, even if the edit is otherwise correct.

The second point is that in Western astrology the Sun enters a sign when it crosses an apparent celestial longitude that is a multiple of 30°, and this happens at the same moment in every time zone. But the date will not be the same in every time zone. The dates in the Table of dates are from a source that does not mention any time zone; other sources might compute different dates based on a different time zone.

Also, the date shifts a bit because of the way the calendar aligns with the earth's orbit. It gets off a bit, then we bring it back with a leap year. So the date can change depending on how long it's been since a leap year. There are other smaller variations in the Earth's orbit too.

Editors should not expect the dates in this article, or the articles about the various astrological signs, to agree with their favorite source exactly. The dates in Wikipedia should not be disturbed unless the source is replaced with a superior source. It would be wise to discuss the alleged superiority of the new source on the article's talk page before making a change. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Name

The "Name" section seems disconnected from the rest of the article. I would suggest adding more information connecting the origins of the word to the overall topic or possibly removing this section. It could also be condensed into a sentence and added to the introduction. Angelina1209 (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Angelina1209

Haleema IDRIS Ibrahim Haleema IDRIS Ibrahim (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

New user questions date for "Capricorn (astrology)"

In these edits to "Capricorn (astrology)" a new user, Love 957 (talk · contribs), changed the dates of the Sun's entry into the Capricorn sign, both in general, and for the year 2018 (the latter being displayed in the infobox). I reverted because the existing dates are supported by the sources cited in the article. Love 957 then placed the following post on my talk page:

All the sources have the duration of capricorn as: 22nd December to 19th January. Only the Wikipedia showing 21st December to 20th January, that's not right. So kindly change the duration of capricorn. Love 957 (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I have invited Love 957 to discuss "all the sources" in accordance with the verifiability policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Cetus

I did a bit more research on the issue of whether or not the sun (i.e. the ecliptic) passes through the constellation of Cetus. If you just look at the constellation itself, the sun definitely doesn't pass through it. If you look at the IAU boundary (which is much larger than the constellation itself), it looks like the sun might just touch the corner of the constellation boundary, but again doesn't pass through it. You can confirm this by examining the IAU's own map of Cetus. This article also disputes the claim: "As for Cetus 'dipping' into Pisces (a strange description, as Cetus is south of, i.e. below, the Fishes), or for the Sun transiting Cetus (which would make him part of the zodiac – Dr. Tyson’s so-called 'fourteenth sign'), one look at a star map shows that it just ain’t so. The ecliptic does come close (below the cord of the West Fish of Pisces) but nonetheless does stay clear of the Sea-Monster’s domain (here the IAU astronomers got it right, taking care to keep the most northerly point of Cetus just below the ecliptic line)." Thus the suggestion that the sun passes through Cetus is both a FRINGE claim and not accurate, so I don't think there's any reason to include Cetus in our table of dates (and I've removed it). Kaldari (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. If we were listing the constellation partially within the zodiac that would be different. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

zodiac- cancer,

it means your such a cool one of the names is jimmy hes so cool like hes rad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.143 (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Gates I know About Zodiacs

1st Gate Love 9th Gate Travelling 11th Gate Friends Hope and Dreams 12th Gate Ending and Beginning Unknown number Gate of Self and Items(Wealth) Izenrex (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the few I know and remembered hope I contributed I still come up gate a new remembered gate of pleasure and family Izenrex (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Horoscopes of zodiac signs in this article?

Would it be innapropiate to add information about the horoscopes of the zodiac signs to this article or would horoscopes be considered more of a myth rather than something that has been scientifically researched? Petragatata (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a horoscope of a sign is; I thought horoscopes were for people. In any case, there are individual articles, such as "Aries (astrology)", for each sign. Those articles seem to contain what Petragatata is interested in. This article concentrates on astronomical matters, or matters that astronomy and astrology agree on. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I know about some gates but I don't how to put it there on the article Izenrex (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Aries 1st Gate is Love Izenrex (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Horoscope star sign shom my tarot card reading and the meaning Lukecrayden 00:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukecrayden (talk • contribs)

Please add IAU boundaries dates at Zodiac article - table of dates section and fix some dates

Hi dear Wikipedia users!

Please can you add dates about IAU boundaries which were missing and fix some dates for example IAU boundaries of Taurus (14 May - 21 June) - 39 days, IAU boundaries of Gemini (22 June - 20 July) - 29 days, IAU boundaries of Leo (10 August - 16 September) - 38 days, IAU boundaries of Virgo (17 September - 30 October) - 44 days, IAU boundaries of Sagittarius (18 December - 20 January) - 34 days, IAU boundaries of Capricorn (21 January - 16 February) - 27 days

I added IAU boundaries dates and fixed some dates but I don't know why changed only the solar stay, not the dates. Please fix the typo of IAU boundaries. RejsHajredini95 (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The dates and time in the sign are built into the template Template:Zodiac date IAU. You would know this if you read the template documentation. The information built into the template comes form the cited source by Lee T. Shapiro. By changing the information so it differs from the cited source you have misrepresented the views of Shapiro.

Reading template documentation and the sources given in footnotes is mandatory if you wish to avoid being blocked from Wikipedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2020

I need to tell peole that they dint need to knkw there ziodic signs 2001:8003:E44E:C400:BC06:5F44:275B:754 (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't really give that sort of advice. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Constellations ecliptic equirectangular plot.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2020

Islamic Zodiac

Astrology emerged in the 8th century CE as a distinct discipline in Islam, with mix of Indian, hellenistic Iranian and other traditions blended with Greek and Islamic astronomical knowledge, for example Ptolemy’s work and Al-Sufi’s Book of Fixed Stars. A knowledge of the influence that the stars have on events on the earth was extremely important in Islamic civilisation. As a rule, it was believed that the signs of the zodiac and the planets control the destiny not only of people but also of nation; The Zodiac has the ability to determining physical characteristics as well ones intelligence and personal traits.

The practice of astrology at this time could easily be divided into 4 broader categories: Genethlialogy, Catarchic Astrology, Interrogational Astrology and General Astrology. However the most common type of astrology was Genethlialogy, which examined all aspects of a persons life in relation to the planetary positions at their birth; more commonly known as our horoscope.

Astrology services were offered widely across the empire, mainly in bazaars, where people could pay for a reading. Astrology was also valued in the royal courts, for example, the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mansur used astrology to determine the best date for founding the new capital of Baghdad. However, whilst horoscopes were generally widely accepted by society, many scholars condemned the use of astrology and divination; linking it to occult influences. Many theoligans and scholars also thought that it went against the tenets of Islam; as only God should be able to determine events rather than astrologers looking at the positions of the planets.

In order to calculate someone's horoscope, an astrologer would use 3 tools: an astrolabe, ephemeris and a takht. First, the astrologer would use an astrolabe to find the position of the sun, align the rule with the persons time of birth and then align the rete to establish the altitude of the sun on that date. Next, the astrologer would use an Ephemeris, a table denoting the mean position of the planets and stars within the sky at any given time. Finally, the astrologer would add the altitude of the sun taken from the astrolabe, with the mean position of the planets on the persons birthday, and add them together on the takht (also know as the dustboard). The dust board was merely a tablet covered in sand; on which the calculations could be made and erased easily. Once this had been calculated, the astrologer was then able to interpret the horoscope. Most of these interpretations were based on the zodiac in literature. For example, there were several manuals on how to interpret each zodiac sign, the treatise relating to each individual sign and what the characteristics of these zodiacs were. Georgia125 (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Georgia125: You want this to be included in the article? I will suggest you rather than requesting it here you should try to talk with some users who are familiar with this article. You can find someone from the [page history]. -ink&fables «talk» 11:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Already done by Georgia125, who added the text themselves. Georgia125, please use named references and do some linking next time. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Coalescing both November tropical dates of Zodiac#Twelve_signs into 1

Currently the Scorpio and Sagittarius entries say:
2021-OCT-23ʳᵈ…2021-NOV-22ⁿᵈ (∆𝑡 = 30 days): ˢᶜᵒ
2021-NOV-23ʳᵈ…2021-DEC-22ⁿᵈ (∆𝑡 = 29 days): ˢᵃᵍ
All other months in the table however have one same single date whether they begin or end the zodiac sign, so…
let's discover which November date is correct?

1ˢᵗˡʸ, it's important to remember that Earth moves the fastest around the Sun at our perihelion (closest position to the Sun) ≈2021-JAN-03ʳᵈ; 13 days after our December solstice 2020-DEC-21ˢᵗ.
2ⁿᵈˡʸ, it's equally important to remember that Earth moves the slowest around the Sun at our aphelion (farthest position from the Sun) ≈2021-JUL-04ᵗʰ; 13 days after our June solstice 2021-JUN-21ˢᵗ.

Now if we assume the later 2021-NOV-23ʳᵈ date is correct, we get this asymmetric, spiky, non-sinusoidal, double-peaked, double-troughed table:
2020-DEC-22ⁿᵈ…2021-JAN-20ᵗʰ (∆𝑡 = 29 days): ᶜᵃᵖ
2021-JAN-20ᵗʰ…2021-FEB-19ᵗʰ (∆𝑡 = 30 days): ᴬᵠᵘ
2021-FEB-19ᵗʰ…2021-MAR-21ˢᵗ (∆𝑡 = 30 days): ᴾⁱˢ
2021-MAR-21ˢᵗ…2021-APR-20ᵗʰ (∆𝑡 = 30 days): ᴬʳⁱ
2021-APR-20ᵗʰ…2021-MAY-21ˢᵗ (∆𝑡 = 31 days): ᵀᵃᵘ
2021-MAY-21ˢᵗ…2021-JUN-21ˢᵗ (∆𝑡 = 31 days): ᴳᵉᵐ
2021-JUN-21ˢᵗ…2021-JUL-23ʳᵈ (∆𝑡 = 32 days): ᶜᵃⁿ
2021-JUL-23ʳᵈ…2021-AUG-23ʳᵈ (∆𝑡 = 31 days): ᴸᵉᵒ
2021-AUG-23ʳᵈ…2021-SEP-23ʳᵈ (∆𝑡 = 31 days): ⱽⁱʳ
2021-SEP-23ʳᵈ…2021-OCT-23ʳᵈ (∆𝑡 = 30 days): ᴸⁱᵇ
2021-OCT-23ʳᵈ…2021-NOV-23ʳᵈ (∆𝑡 = 31 days): ˢᶜᵒ
2021-NOV-23ʳᵈ…2021-DEC-22ⁿᵈ (∆𝑡 = 29 days): ˢᵃᵍ
2021-DEC-22ⁿᵈ…2022-JAN-20ᵗʰ (∆𝑡 = 29 days): ᶜᵃᵖ

Otherwise, if we suppose the earlier 2021-NOV-22ⁿᵈ date is correct, we get this symmetrical, smooth, sinusoidal, single-peaked, single-troughed table like we should expect:
2020-DEC-22ⁿᵈ…2021-JAN-20ᵗʰ (∆𝑡 = 29 days): ᶜᵃᵖ
2021-JAN-20ᵗʰ…2021-FEB-19ᵗʰ (∆𝑡 = 30 days): ᴬᵠᵘ
2021-FEB-19ᵗʰ…2021-MAR-21ˢᵗ (∆𝑡 = 30 days): ᴾⁱˢ
2021-MAR-21ˢᵗ…2021-APR-20ᵗʰ (∆𝑡 = 30 days): ᴬʳⁱ
2021-APR-20ᵗʰ…2021-MAY-21ˢᵗ (∆𝑡 = 31 days): ᵀᵃᵘ
2021-MAY-21ˢᵗ…2021-JUN-21ˢᵗ (∆𝑡 = 31 days): ᴳᵉᵐ
2021-JUN-21ˢᵗ…2021-JUL-23ʳᵈ (∆𝑡 = 32 days): ᶜᵃⁿ
2021-JUL-23ʳᵈ…2021-AUG-23ʳᵈ (∆𝑡 = 31 days): ᴸᵉᵒ
2021-AUG-23ʳᵈ…2021-SEP-23ʳᵈ (∆𝑡 = 31 days): ⱽⁱʳ
2021-SEP-23ʳᵈ…2021-OCT-23ʳᵈ (∆𝑡 = 30 days): ᴸⁱᵇ
2021-OCT-23ʳᵈ…2021-NOV-22ⁿᵈ (∆𝑡 = 30 days): ˢᶜᵒ
2021-NOV-22ⁿᵈ…2021-DEC-22ⁿᵈ (∆𝑡 = 30 days): ˢᵃᵍ
2021-DEC-22ⁿᵈ…2022-JAN-20ᵗʰ (∆𝑡 = 29 days): ᶜᵃᵖ

∴ Therefore we should WP:Be Bold and fix the inaccurate 2021-NOV-23ʳᵈ date by replacing it with the correct date 2021-NOV-22ⁿᵈ; QED ∎. Thecurran (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:OR, since calculation of when the Sun moves from one sign to another is not simple arithmetic, we must support the dates with a reliable source. Near the top of the table we see a citation to the following book:

• Powell, Robert (2017). History of the Zodiac. Sophia Academic Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-1597311526.

So if you want to change a date, either you can obtain the book, look on page 11, and demonstrate that the article does not correctly reflect the book, or you can provide a better source and revise the whole table. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, I doubt You have even taken 5 minutes to thoroughly read what I've written because You still haven't noticed that the table contradicted itself. Look at it; these 11 dates all matched up and aligned with one another, since each beginning date matched the previous end date:

2020-DEC-22ⁿᵈ…2021-JAN-20ᵗʰ (∆𝑡 = 29 days): ᶜᵃᵖ
2021-JAN-20ᵗʰ…2021-FEB-19ᵗʰ (∆𝑡 = 30 days): ᴬᵠᵘ
2021-FEB-19ᵗʰ…2021-MAR-21ˢᵗ (∆𝑡 = 30 days): ᴾⁱˢ
2021-MAR-21ˢᵗ…2021-APR-20ᵗʰ (∆𝑡 = 30 days): ᴬʳⁱ
2021-APR-20ᵗʰ…2021-MAY-21ˢᵗ (∆𝑡 = 31 days): ᵀᵃᵘ
2021-MAY-21ˢᵗ…2021-JUN-21ˢᵗ (∆𝑡 = 31 days): ᴳᵉᵐ
2021-JUN-21ˢᵗ…2021-JUL-23ʳᵈ (∆𝑡 = 32 days): ᶜᵃⁿ
2021-JUL-23ʳᵈ…2021-AUG-23ʳᵈ (∆𝑡 = 31 days): ᴸᵉᵒ
2021-AUG-23ʳᵈ…2021-SEP-23ʳᵈ (∆𝑡 = 31 days): ⱽⁱʳ
2021-SEP-23ʳᵈ…2021-OCT-23ʳᵈ (∆𝑡 = 30 days): ᴸⁱᵇ

Now look closely, this 1 pair and this pair alone didn't match up and self-align:

2021-OCT-23ʳᵈ…2021-NOV-22ⁿᵈ (∆𝑡 = 30 days): ˢᶜᵒ
2021-NOV-23ʳᵈ…2021-DEC-22ⁿᵈ (∆𝑡 = 29 days): ˢᵃᵍ

The citations at the top of the table also specifically say that the dates are liable to move by 1 day from year to year, which is primarily governed by our over-accounting for time in a leap year and our under-accounting for time in all other years. It actually is simple arithmetic that has been perfectly well-understood for over 400 years. Perhaps You do not understand the difference between the sidereal and tropical systems because You have not yet read Sidereal and tropical astrology. 1 reason I made this edit was that I had discovered an internal discrepancy between this table and itself. Another reason was that I had also discovered discrepancies between this page and other Wikipedia pages, so I used simple arithmetic to discern which 1 was correct before simplistically copying 1 error to cover another.

Mathematics is universal. The dates of our circumsolar cycle follow a particularly simple sinusoid that has been understood ever since the early 1600s when Johannes Kepler used the detailed observations of Tycho Brahe to calculate the elliptical orbits for each visible planet alongside their speeds at each perihelion, equinox, and aphelion, which he published with Kepler's laws of planetary motion from 1609 to 1619. In 1687, Isaac Newton further used those data with his invention of calculus to develop Newton's law of universal gravitation.

This is not Wikipedia:original research and it's not brain surgery. Some astrologers simply get it wrong because they're too negligent to take the time to consider leap day aberrations and instead lazily copy the astronomical dates from 1 year of the 4-year-long leap cycle and expect them to be correct in another part of those 4 years. I'll correct this again to the most correct date possible. Next time, please take a few minutes to read the handful of lines of reasoning before You jump the gun and declare "Original research" again. Thecurran (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You have read the citations at the top of the table. You know that the tropical dates are a from the following source:

• Powell, Robert (2017). History of the Zodiac. Sophia Academic Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-1597311526.

To change the date from November 22 to November 23 you must read the book, and see that it really says November 22. Since your actions to date suggest you have not done so, I now request proof that Powell wrote November 11 in the book. As for your original reasearch, I didn't read it and I will never read it because it is not allowed in Wikipedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, please look at the change You've made. Before your last edit, Sagittarius began when Scorpio started. Can You recognize that it itself must be a typographical error in transcription?

Do You think it makes sense for every single sign to begin exactly when the previous sign ends except for Sagittarius?Thecurran (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of tables of zodiac dates around. If you think the one of the article was not transcribed correctly, and you aren't willing to obtain a copy of the book to check it, then find a better source and change all the dates to agree with the better source. You can't cite what you haven't read. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Please answer the question; do You think it makes sense? I wish that I lived near a city like You where I could travel and check out that book, but I don't and I can't; it's not a question of my will. There's a clear mathematical error on this page and a clear solution. Rather than thinking scientifically, are You really willing to bring down the reputation and reliability of Wikipedia itself just to publish and replicate an obvious transcription error? Thecurran (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I refuse to discuss a source that I do not have access to. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

So then, does it make sense for 1 to differ but the rest to align, regardless of the source? Thecurran (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This needs to be split into two separate pages

The individual constellations are split into separate astronomy and astrology pages. Yet, they are combined here. This is both confusing and may lead readers to think that the two are equally scientifically valid. I strongly recommend this being two separate pages with the primary page being the astronomy Zodiac page as the astrologic signs are roughly based on the constellations and their relation to the sun's position two millennia ago. SEKluth (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

For astronomy and western astrology, the signs are the same. Astronomy has gotten away from using signs when describing the position of celestial bodies, but as far as I know, the practice has never been formally renounced. It was used in almanacs from the Royal Greenwich Observatory as recently as the late 1700s. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't care if this is split into two pages, but the real positions of constellations in the sky and the IAU dates of the Zodiac should take precedence over the silly nonsense propagated by astrologers. Prescottbush (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Degrees?

This statement:

The convention of measuring celestial longitude within individual signs was still being used in the mid-19th century,[66] but modern astronomy now numbers degrees of celestial longitude continuously from 0° to 360°, rather than 0° to 30° within each sign.[67]

is just plain incorrect. In the equatorial coordinate system, modern astronomy now uses hours of right ascension for "longitude", not degrees. That also invalidates the whole discussion about dividing up the zodiac sections by degrees. Logically they would be divided up by 2 hour ranges in RA. I attempted to fix this but it was reverted. Praemonitus (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Praemontus's statement is incorrect. For example, The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2017 issued by the US Naval Observatory and H. M. Nautical Almanac Office, p. C6, has headings as follows:

SUN, 2017

Date	Julian Date	Geometric Ecliptic Coords Mn Equinox & Ecliptic of Date		Apparent R. A.	Apparent Declination	True Geocentric Distance
		Longitude	Latitude
	245	° ′ ″	″	h m s	° ′ ″	au
Jan. 0	7753.5	279 44 32.97	+0.09	18 42 21.85	-23 04 38.6	0.983 3553

It is true that equatorial coordinates are more commonly used than ecliptic coordinates these days, but ecliptic coordinates are still used, and when they are, the longitude is generally expressed in degrees. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so that's it. Well please could you point out in the article where it mentions ecliptic coordinates? The section specifically mentions equatorial coordinate system, which uses hours of RA, not degree. To me the description in degrees is being obtuse. If ecliptic coordinates are still used, it must be very rare because I never see it used in scientific papers; it's always equatorial or galactic. Praemonitus (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

In thinking about it, ecliptic coordinates are probably used for asteroid polar orientations. They wouldn't be used for stars though. I still think this usage needs to be clarified in the article. Praemonitus (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Praemontus asks where the article mentions ecliptic coordinates. It states "rather than the ecliptic-based definitions of celestial longitude and celestial latitude." This is a mention of ecliptic coordinates, although not using the exact phrase "ecliptic coordinates". Jc3s5h (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: Okay, but that paragraph is making the point that those are no longer in use in astronomy. How is this supposed to make sense? If you're going to use it in the paragraph before, you should at least explain/link it there and then clarify that it is still in use for certain applications. Praemonitus (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't quite understand "but that paragraph is making the point that those are no longer in use in astronomy." Exactly what do you mean by "those"? A combination of signs and degrees within a sign? Ecliptic coordinates? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I misread the statement. Sorry, it was late at night. Praemonitus (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)