Talk:Tarot reading

Improving this article

This article obviously needs a lot of improvement. Here is my suggestion for how we should structure this article:

• History of Tarot reading - factual, speculative, perhaps even debunked histories where they are interesting
• Types of Tarot reading - describes the purposes of Tarot reading e.g. spiritual, psychological
• Common card interpretions - for each card, a one-line summary of the usual interpretation
• "Spreads" - definition of a spread; diagrams and descriptions of different spreads;reversed cards
• Deck-specific symbolism - overview of deck-specific features e.g. the use of colour in the Rider-Waite Deck

--Surturz 01:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Have added to the the card interpretations by padding out the correspondace between the kabbala and the trumps. Pendodecahedron 12:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)pendodecahedron

I have added a paragraph under the psychological heading about Leary's work on the Torot being a map of human development. I may add to this later. I like the idea of deck specific features and will probably add to it in the future reguarding the thoth deck. Other than that i like whats been done so far good one. Pendodecahedron 13:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)pendodecahedron

The font

I'm curious. Why the use of such a large font for the bold face type? Smiloid 06:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words/PoV?

I don't understand. It says there's a dispute, but I see none. What's the issue? Seems pretty neutral to me... kaiti-sicle 17:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of POV, but one of references. The section makes several claims, and therefore needs a reference to at least one reliable source. --Surturz 07:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Then, if that is the case, it should not have a POV neutrality dispute tag. I'm removing it as there have been no dispute comments for nearly eight months. Also, if one has a personal belief system that recognizes tarot as a divination tool, the references are reliable.--P Todd 03:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

spread image

I have found this image at Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Keltiskkors.jpg Since I have never before worked with Commons, how does one go about importing these images into the articles here? Smiloid 03:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC) never mind. I went over to sandbox and discovered it was easier than I thoughtSmiloid 03:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, images from the Commons are automatically available to other Wikipedias. :) — Sam 12:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Celtic Cross reference

The link to Celtic Cross describes the icon that inspired the name, but has nothing to do with the spread of the same name. Perhaps there should be a new page "Celtic_Cross_(Tarot)" instead? --Mozai (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

External links cleanup

All the external links currently in the article are heavy with advertising. I think they should all be removed per WP:SPAM and WP:EL. --Ronz 19:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Tarot page

I would like to suggest merging this page with the Tarot page. Some of the information on this page could be moved to the divination section of the main Tarot article. There is no information in the divination section of the Tarot page except a link to this. This makes no sense. The amount of citeable information on this page is not enough to justify a whole article and should be edited and then moved to the Tarot page. If there is eventually enough information about divinatory uses of Tarot to justify a stand alone page then it should be considered then. Much of the material on the Tarot Reading page should be on the Tarot page in the origins section, as well as much information which has been covered in other places, most notably the Tarot page. The opening statement for example is clearly erroneous and fallacious and has obviously been written by someone with only a cursory knowledge of the subject. The section on the use of Tarot as a mnemonic device is not related to the use of Tarot as divinatory tool and should be moved to the Tarot page, not be in a 'Types of Reading section'. Moreover the article is clearly deficient in references. There are a total of four references, one seems a plausible source, one is a broken link, one is a link to a non authoritative source, and the final one is a commercial site. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose. Tarot reading, like gaming, is a specific application of the 78 card deck. Why not merge all the articles on tarot gaming in the tarot article? It would be biased to give tarot reading or any specific application a priveledged place within the tarot article. Tarot reading was given its own article to address some NPOV issues and also because the Tarot article was very long. I think they did the right thing by having Tarot be about the cards themselves and any applications should have their own articles.Smiloid (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Merge. This is not about privilege, it's about avoiding repeating information and doubling our editorial workload. And merging a section into its parent shouldn't give it more visibility: if a section is split out of a main article to become its own article, there should still be a section summarising it in the main article. This summary is somewhat deficient for the Games section of the Tarot article (which links to the Tarot card games article), and should be improved. I note, however, that the Tarot article is not actually that long, and the Tarot card games article could probably also be merged with its parent, since it seems to again repeat the discussion of history. The only section that really belongs there is the discussion of the rules of the game, and that's not much text on its own.

I think it's safe to start merging a few sections already, just moving out the repeated sections, i.e. those sections on history, etc., and keeping only the items of history that are directly relevant to the topic, such as early mentions of divination in this article. Once we cut out the repeated sections we can better judge what to do with what we have left. Fuzzypeg★ 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Merge. both Tarot reading and Tarot card games with Tarot I can agree with this proposal if both articles are mergedSmiloid (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Qualified Merge In January 2007 I split the original Tarot article to resolve an ongoing edit war between tarot card players and tarot fortune tellers (see discussion here). If these issues are now resolved, then I support a merge. Make sure you get consensus at the Talk:Tarot first. --Surturz (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have created a section on Talk:Tarot for voting on the proposed merge of Tarot reading and Tarot games into Tarot. Please go there to vote or comment further. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tarot reading/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== WP:OCCULT Assessment == C Class - well structured, acceptable refs, but few. Top Imprt - Well known concept within general readers outside of occult studies.

Last edited at 07:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)