 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Under Astronomy, who put in the text "Sagittarius (constellation), corresponding to the astrological sign" ? or more precisely, why? The constellation has nothing to do with the astrological sign, and under the Astronomy section "Sagittarius (constellation)" is sufficient.
The reverse issue exists under Astrology "a Zodiac sign corresponding to the constellation."
If no-one disagrees within 30 days I'll make the edits, cheers. Cathi M (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is a connection in peoples' minds - and are both part of teh zodiac. YEs it's illogical and woo-ey but it exists Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Surely Wikipedia should educate rather than allow misconceptions to continue? The two objects are quite different, take up different portions of the zodiac for example. Both entries are there on the disambiguation page, distinguishing between them is what disambiguation pages are for. Both sets of people will be able to find the Sagittarius they're looking for without the entries having to be cross-referenced in this misleading way. Cathi M (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- So why not have a sentence/footnote that points out the misconception and non-alignment rather than just delete it wholesale? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Surely Wikipedia should educate rather than allow misconceptions to continue? The two objects are quite different, take up different portions of the zodiac for example. Both entries are there on the disambiguation page, distinguishing between them is what disambiguation pages are for. Both sets of people will be able to find the Sagittarius they're looking for without the entries having to be cross-referenced in this misleading way. Cathi M (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)