Talk:Capricorn (astrology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astrology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


This article clearly does not have a neutral point of view, being written entirely from the point of view of those who believe in astrology, and using language which portrays those beliefs as facts. Lurker your words/my deeds 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that it is only explaining the astrologers' position. I don't think anyone would believe this to be anything other than descriptive.

Nevertheless there should be a disclaimer. - Plasticbadge 07:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Disclaimers are unencyclopedic, in part, because they are not NPOV. That these are the views of the profession should be written into the article itself organically, that is part of what good writing is about, not having to put up separate disclaimers et al. 06:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This all seems quite unscientific to me. Where are the references to the relevant studies? User — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Notable persons[edit]

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 Capricorn. If you want to add a notable person go there. --Carmelita 21:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a link to the category then? Or else just leave the "notable persons" on this page? Someone looking for notable people would not look for or be able to find a category like that easily. Irish Pearl 19:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(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. 03:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

i could not disagree with you more and whats with the threat at the end. since when do you make the rules b/c in this forum it is 3 to 1. you dont even have a name your just using your ip address . Peppermintschnapps (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


I've put the bit about physical appearance and complexion back in; despite the claims of the editor who deleted it, many astrologers describe a person's sun sign as resulting in certain physical characteristics, not to mention that it keeps this article consistent with all the other astrological sign articles. I don't have any references handy on this, but i'll dig them up soon.... Lucky number 49 21:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there are many articles about this subject. has a section on this subject. Meojive (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sign's symbol[edit]

apparently Capricorn has an "american" & "european" variant, at least according to programs like astrolog that allow you to choose which one to display (in the "obscure settings" on the right side). Nagelfar 07:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the symbol currently gracing the article is not a good rendition of either of the variants. It looks like an attempt at compromise between the two. (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't be perfect for everyone on earth. If it bothers you so much, do something! I think compromise is good on a world wide access. If you choose the american one, europeans get insulted. If you choose the european one, americans get insulted. if you compromise, you get a couple people scratching their heads. I personally have never seen the sign before, So I can care less. -Andromoidus —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A "Symbology" category, as model by the Sagittarius (astrology) article, should be made to give both their face time and background. Meojive (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Characteristics and related sections, removal[edit]

Notice Relevant discussion of inclusion or removal of Characteristics, 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.

Notable people who share this sign section[edit]

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.


which parts are disputed? Meojive (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a reference of Pluto associated with Capricorn? KyuuA4 (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Capricorn is actually a masculine sign... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

-- on the main astrology page, it lists Capricorn as a masculine sign; therefore we have two contradictory messages being disseminated by Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Earth and water signs have always been considered "feminine" by astrological literature. That notion has a particular meaning in astrology and supposedly reflects an introspective quality. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How can you talk about "feminine" signs, "water" signs, disputed or undisputed since all of this stuff is total BULLSHIT anyway? You all know that, don't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Pluto in Capricorn"[edit]

I noticed, major political events occurred every time Pluto entered Capricorn? Would it be worth noting of how Obama was elected this year, the same year Pluto entered Capricorn? Probably just a crazy ideal, but hey, who knows? - JWhitt (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, better off ignoring my question, I checked the history of the page and I see its been reverted every time its been added. - JWhitt (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
There are always major political events :-) just as the first black US president was nominated when Pluto was retrograding back into Sagittarius. Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this entire topic is foolish. There's nothing political about the birth of Christianity or the rise and fall of the Vikings. The fact that a minority was elected as a public official seems insignificant compared to the other examples. Where was Pluto during the U.S. Revolution or World War I and II? Isn't that just as significant or coincidental? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think ,that world wars and capricorn are irrelevant about the meaning of this topic. Capricorn is considered to be controlling force in the universe , so that's why this is the main subject... the world war energy would be much issued about Planet Mars and Aries constelation...

i would like that this topic is alive again about capricorn —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that why?[edit]

For some reason I am attracted to a full moon and whenever I look at it I go into some sort of trans and I can't get out of it until something interrupts my thoughts. I am a Capricorn born on January 15th, 1998. Does anything have to due with this attraction of mine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Capricorn (astrology)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Capricorn (astrology)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "encyzodiac":

  • From Aquarius (astrology): The Diagram Group, The Little Giant Encyclopedia of The Zodiac,Leo p 171, Sterling Publishing Company, New York, 1997
  • From Virgo (astrology): The Diagram Group, The Little Giant Encyclopedia of The Zodiac, p 171, Sterling Publishing Company, New York, 1997
  • From Taurus (astrology): The Diagram Group, The Little Giant Encyclopedia of The Zodiac, p 171, Sterling Publishing Company, New York, 1997.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 00:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


Why are all of the same element compatible? That's not right. Slowish guitar (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's one of the fundamental beliefs of astrology, that signs of the same element will generally do very well together (as compared to signs that are not of the same element). The only exception to this is of course is the compatibility between the exact same sign of the exact same element. Possibly spend five minutes researching astrology before you post and you'll learn these sorts of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Just passing through, but I've removed the 'citation needed' in regards to the precession of equinoxes. Both the wiki links to the sidereal zodiac and the link within the sentence go into detail on the topic. It's a fact that any star gazer would be aware of. Common knowledge. Modern star charts that they hand out in schools all show it. No citation needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2010


Is it really necessary to have a romanitic compatibility chart in this article? This reflects an extremely superficial understanding of astrology, imho.

Why not have a similar chart for say....anthropologists? I.e., anthropologists are compatible with Physicists but not so much with mathematicians and engineers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Capricorn#Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. -- (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Capricorn which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirection of Western Zodiac signs[edit]

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#Western zodiac signs. 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#Redirection_of_Western_Zodiac_signs 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. LukeSurl t c 15:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

and the mind created god?[edit]

and the mind created god?