The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge all 4 (as nom) using the old names, including moving
Suit of goblets back to
Suit of cups, where it was before Bermicourt made a disambig to distinguish his new from the old; they should really be one.
Dicklyon (
talk) 06:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
This copied-and-pasted rationale is visibly faulty.
Cups (suit) is not a duplicate of
Suit of cups. The latter is a disambiguation between
Cups (suit) and
Suit of goblets. And those two are not duplicates on their faces, either.
Cups (suit) is (it says) about playing cards and
Suit of goblets is (it says) about Tarot cards.
Uncle G (
talk) 09:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep but do not merge. These are two distinct topics. Although occultists based their suits on those of the Italian pattern of playing cards, they broke away over 200 years ago to produce their own packs purely for cartomantic purposes. So the article on the suit of cups is specifically about the playing cards, whereas the one on the suit of goblets is purely about cartomantic cards. They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover. The same is true of batons and wands, coins and pentacles, etc. We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do. They could all be named Foo (suit) or we could make it clear by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit). HTH.
Bermicourt (
talk) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)reply
OK, I relent and sorry I didn't find how best to do all 4 at once. Feel free to close 'em.
Dicklyon (
talk) 04:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep of all four articles, per withdrawal by nominator, above.
RecycledPixels (
talk) 08:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge all 4 (as nom) using the old names, including moving
Suit of goblets back to
Suit of cups, where it was before Bermicourt made a disambig to distinguish his new from the old; they should really be one.
Dicklyon (
talk) 06:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
This copied-and-pasted rationale is visibly faulty.
Cups (suit) is not a duplicate of
Suit of cups. The latter is a disambiguation between
Cups (suit) and
Suit of goblets. And those two are not duplicates on their faces, either.
Cups (suit) is (it says) about playing cards and
Suit of goblets is (it says) about Tarot cards.
Uncle G (
talk) 09:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep but do not merge. These are two distinct topics. Although occultists based their suits on those of the Italian pattern of playing cards, they broke away over 200 years ago to produce their own packs purely for cartomantic purposes. So the article on the suit of cups is specifically about the playing cards, whereas the one on the suit of goblets is purely about cartomantic cards. They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover. The same is true of batons and wands, coins and pentacles, etc. We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do. They could all be named Foo (suit) or we could make it clear by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit). HTH.
Bermicourt (
talk) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)reply
OK, I relent and sorry I didn't find how best to do all 4 at once. Feel free to close 'em.
Dicklyon (
talk) 04:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep of all four articles, per withdrawal by nominator, above.
RecycledPixels (
talk) 08:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.