Talk:Pisces (astrology)

	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.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I organized the article into different sections

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

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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).[reply]

ok

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Toyama Prefecture anyone?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Dustbin of the Zodiac?

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

Charateristics and related sections, removal

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Other Famous People

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

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)[reply]