Talk:498

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 498 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Query[edit]

With respect to the Age of Pisces, why does this article take for granted the modern astronomical borders of the constellations, which are arbitrary straight great-circle lines drawn for astronomers' convenience (so that every part of the sky will formally belong to some constellation), without necessarily having any deep historical relevance? Very small differences in the reckoning of the edges of the Zodiacal constellations will result in very large differences in the reckoning of the beginning and end of the Age of Pisces, since 1/360 of a precessional cycle is over 70 years. AnonMoos 21:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]