This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
On 13 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Suit of goblets to Suit of cups. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Many of the suit articles seem to be thin on information and I am suggesting merging all of the card articles for the cards in the cup suit with this one. Tetron76 ( talk) 16:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to change the capitalization to Suit of Cups. This matches the usage within the article, in the namesake category, and seems to be common usage on the web. Chapters of books and songs in an album are both capitalized as formal nouns and I think this section of the deck of cards is equivalent. There is already some verbiage at that redirect so I'll need a WP:RM to make this change. Any concerns before I do that? RevelationDirect ( talk) 08:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I propose a merger of this page with Cups (suit). These articles both cover the same playing card suit. One is simply focusing more on the esoteric use of tarot cards that bear this suit. Tarot cards are actual playing cards, regardless of their subsequent use in cartomancy. — ★ Parsa ☞ talk 20:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I support the deletion of this article and redirecting it to Cups (suit). The majority of these occult tarot articles seem to use Paul Huson as its sole source. There is no reason to favor his interpretation over any other occultist. There is nothing encyclopedic of advocating a specific interpretation which is not externally verifiable. -- Countakeshi ( talk) 02:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Currently the 'Suit of goblets' is the only page that makes both notes a pre-modern name at the start of the page AND uses that pre-modern name in its article title. I see this as a result of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cups (suit) discussion? I suggest that the page be renamed to 'Suit of cups' so to match the other article naming conventions / modern name usage as this is better for the average user. TheJackMcConnell ( talk) 04:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal ( talk) 02:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Suit of goblets → Suit of cups – I can't find any strong sources for this article name. There are many, many references to it as the suit of cups, but "goblets" does not seem to register on the internet much. We don't call the suit of wands "batons" in the article title, regardless of who called it that in the 1500s. We should go with the name people know this by. Mike Selinker ( talk) 07:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
On 13 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Suit of goblets to Suit of cups. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Many of the suit articles seem to be thin on information and I am suggesting merging all of the card articles for the cards in the cup suit with this one. Tetron76 ( talk) 16:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to change the capitalization to Suit of Cups. This matches the usage within the article, in the namesake category, and seems to be common usage on the web. Chapters of books and songs in an album are both capitalized as formal nouns and I think this section of the deck of cards is equivalent. There is already some verbiage at that redirect so I'll need a WP:RM to make this change. Any concerns before I do that? RevelationDirect ( talk) 08:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I propose a merger of this page with Cups (suit). These articles both cover the same playing card suit. One is simply focusing more on the esoteric use of tarot cards that bear this suit. Tarot cards are actual playing cards, regardless of their subsequent use in cartomancy. — ★ Parsa ☞ talk 20:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I support the deletion of this article and redirecting it to Cups (suit). The majority of these occult tarot articles seem to use Paul Huson as its sole source. There is no reason to favor his interpretation over any other occultist. There is nothing encyclopedic of advocating a specific interpretation which is not externally verifiable. -- Countakeshi ( talk) 02:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Currently the 'Suit of goblets' is the only page that makes both notes a pre-modern name at the start of the page AND uses that pre-modern name in its article title. I see this as a result of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cups (suit) discussion? I suggest that the page be renamed to 'Suit of cups' so to match the other article naming conventions / modern name usage as this is better for the average user. TheJackMcConnell ( talk) 04:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal ( talk) 02:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Suit of goblets → Suit of cups – I can't find any strong sources for this article name. There are many, many references to it as the suit of cups, but "goblets" does not seem to register on the internet much. We don't call the suit of wands "batons" in the article title, regardless of who called it that in the 1500s. We should go with the name people know this by. Mike Selinker ( talk) 07:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)