Deck Families?
With earlier decks it is easy to see whether they are Rider Waite based or Thoth based... but in recent years I think we've seen quite a few that take leaves out of both these decks' books. So, how are we defining "Rider Waite based" and "Thoth based"? Must imagery be the deciding factor, or card meaning, or something else? Kiama 18:14, 28 January 2006 (PST)
- not sure how to best reply to this, Kiama. We faced the same problem when trying and create 'sensible' groupings, and thought to leave it to see how this may get resolved when the problem arose.
- Part of the 'solution', I would suggest, is that 'card meaning' not form part of criteria, for it could be argued (by some) that, as an extreme example, that a Marseille-based deck was created with combined Waite, Crowley and Etteilla meanings in mind.
- Card imagery, numbering, and overall 'sense' would seem to be the best guidiing principles, with some ambiguous decks that would need to perhaps be discussed here and resolved... or listed in both groups.
- --Jmd 20:17, 28 January 2006 (PST)
- And does the grouping make sense anyways? I think it does when trying to get a collection of TdM decks for example, but maybe not so for the more modern ones? Should we create a new Category for decks that make sense like TdM? I'm open to anything.
- le pendu 20:23, 28 January 2006 (PST)
I'm not sure how to reply either. It's definitely not easy trying to classify 20th century modern decks. Making a quick taxonomy, there are about 11 groupings that must somehow be combined into a smaller number (i.e., smaller than 11) of categories:
- RWS and clones (i.e., Rider-Waite deck proper, plus decks whose cards closely follow the Colman-Smith line drawings, e.g., Universal Waite, Radiant Waite)
- RWS “cousins”: Decks that more or less follow the designs of RWS, with varying degrees of liberties: e.g., Morgan-Greer, Mountain Dream, etc.
- Thoth deck
- Thoth deck art-twist cousins: There are only three. Love is in the Earth Crystal Tarot, Via Tarot, and Lo Scarabeo’s Liber T.
- Golden Dawn decks: Decks that seek to represent Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn decks made by inner-order members of the Golden Dawn during the Order’s existence (e.g., Wang’s deck, Cicero’s deck) or follow, to a large degree, Golden Dawn Book T design specifications (e.g., Hermetic Tarot deck, Gareth Knight deck, etc.)
- Golden Dawn spinoff-group occult decks: e.g., BOTA, Servants of the Light
- Postmodern, non-occult Golden Dawn decks with fully illustrated pip cards
- Postmodern, non-occult Golden Dawn decks that don’t have fully illustrated pip cards but have either pip-card keywords modelled after RWS/Thoth/GD card meanings or have major arcana that have indicia of RWS/Thoth/GD influence.
- Postmodern, non-occult decks with fully illustrated pips that illustrate Etteilla meanings: e.g., Egipcios Kier deck
- Postmodern, non-occult decks with fully illustrated pips that do not illustrate RWS/Thoth/GD meanings, nor Etteilla meanings
- Postmodern, non-occult Golden Dawn decks that don’t have fully illustrated pip cards and that don’t have neither pip-card keywords modelled after RWS/Thoth/GD card meanings nor major arcana that have the indicia of RWS/Thoth/GD influence.
Caveat: This is a quick listing. It has its problems and gaps, of course. I'm providing this listing for discussion sake.
--Aquarius Rising 22:24, 28 January 2006 (PST)
further note by Jmd:
Great to have more of a discussion about this!
I would suggest that some of these do rather belong to the same 'family' in terms of a broader category, which can then be separated in the page they link to. For example, we (provisionally to make a start) decided on the term 'Tarot Decks - Golden Dawn and other Orders type decks', as this would include decks used or designed for possible use by not only by the GD but also by its derivatives (SOL, BOTA, etc).
Likewise, the broader category of WCS-type splits, in the linked page, to decks that are directly WCS (such as the RW and kept art lines but different colourations) and 'cousins' (Morgan Greer, etc).
There are very FEW decks prior to 1970 that seem to have a problem 'fitting' (one example may be the Dali deck). So it is really post 1970 that we have to consider other means to 'classify' decks that do not fit into those categories, without at the same time wanting to mention the date (which most users of Tarotpedia would in any case not know, and if known, would be able to use the dating classification)
Reflecting on Aquarius Rising's classification, then, there is one clear very broad distinction that seems to also emerge, and that perhaps may suit this wide classification:
- Other modern decks with scenically depicted pips
- Other modern decks with non-scenically illustrated pips
And STILL keep the classification in case of other cases, such as word-only-based decks
- Other decks
--Jmd 23:17, 28 January 2006 (PST)
- For further discussion...
- What about, taking the above suggestion:
- Other Decks:
- Modern decks with scenically depicted pips
- Modern decks with non-scenically illustrated pips
- Other Decks:
- I realise this opens sub-headings, which may not be desirable on this page
- --Jmd 02:17, 30 January 2006 (PST)
Given the manner in which the 'Theme' structure has developed, I would suggest DELETING the 'Other Decks' from the Family subheading - I will do so unless other feedback is received here. --Jmd 19:15, 31 January 2006 (PST)
- jmd ... I think that the 'Other Decks' from the Family subheading still has a useful function to perform and therefore should be kept. Althoug a tarot deck can be categorized by Theme, that deck must, at the same time, also either belong to some 'family' or be 'unique/one-of-kind' as to family origins. The family subcategory listings aren't exhaustive; hence the need for 'Other Decks' in the Family subcategory where the deck doesn't belong in a particular deck family. --Aquarius Rising 19:31, 31 January 2006 (PST)
- P.S.: I've added some more decks to 'Other Decks'. I suggest that it be renamed something like "Tarot Decks by Family: Other" so if a Tarotpedian sees this article come up on Recent Changes or in a Category, he or she knows that it is a list in the Families subcategory rather than a list in the Theme subcategory. --Aquarius Rising 20:20, 31 January 2006 (PST)
ok - I can see that - thanks for the feedback... my concern is more trying to continue to establish to most useful overall structure in this developmental phase. Once established, it can of course further change, but the 'feel' and 'sense' will in many ways determine further development. Thanks again for this feedback (and the incredible contributions already entered!) --Jmd 15:14, 1 February 2006 (PST)
 Decks by Theme
I've noticed that Tarot Decks is the only one among the six Key Pages that is protected. Would it be possible to unprotect it so that non-sysops can edit it when necessary? For example, I was thinking of starting another subheading on the page: i.e., Decks by Theme with links to a mythology themed deck list, a goth deck list, etc.
--Aquarius Rising 18:42, 28 January 2006 (PST)
Hi Aquarius Rising, the page has been unprotected.
le pendu 19:55, 28 January 2006 (PST)
I like the idea of a listing of decks by theme. It allows people to use Tarotpedia to find decks they want to buy, for instance, and would be more useful to those people who don't want to look at Tarot historically (like me!) Kiama 05:26, 29 January 2006 (PST)
I've added some ideas of Tarot Decks by Theme in the appropriate section, but am wondering if "Mythology" should become "Mythology and Mythical Creatures", to subsume "Fairies" and "Dragons" into it?
Kiama 11:25, 29 January 2006 (PST)
- I am not sure that a theme titled 'suitable for children' is appropriate. In some way, one could argue that MOST decks are suitable for children, depending on where one is and social context - perhaps a renaming of this to either 'decks with fairy-tale type themes or image rendition' would give a better sense... --Jmd 19:05, 31 January 2006 (PST)
- But you have to admit that there is a qualitative difference between the decks we've got in that section and, say, decks in the Eastern section or decks in the Goth section. I personally think there is a definite 'children' theme, and also can see advantages to having separate fairytale category and children category. The Children Tarot, for instance, wouldn't fall into any other category than one specifically for/about children. And I also believe that just as one could argue MOST decks are suitable for children, there is also a case (on the other side) for arguing that NO decks are suitable for children - it all depends on context and personal belief. I don't know what "Suitable to Children" can be changed to, but I do hope that some semblence of "Children" remains in it. Kiama 03:49, 1 February 2006 (PST)
- I agree with Kiama. A discussion of suitable decks for children and deck suggestions is encyclopedic information suitable and useful for a tarot encyclopedia. --Aquarius Rising 06:51, 1 February 2006 (PST)
I totally agree about the 'qualitative' and 'child-oriented art' aspect of the decks you have listed there... I suppose in my rush to make a quick comment in this section I probably sounded as though I was against the idea of the class: I am in favour of it.
Quick reflections (never a good thing, I suppose) brought two aspects to mind: on the one hand the engagements which the Flornoys and Pierrick Pinot in their actual employment by the French education department(s) to have artistic and historical classes on Tarot with children (using the Marseille); and on the other hand the precise kind of 'qualitative' artistic difference that exists in the decks you group together: the title and the group do not totally 'gell' (for me at least)...
Trying to sense into what that class is, and giving it an appropriate title that will not generate this kind of discussion once Tarotpedia gets out of Beta developmental phase (it will of course always be in development, with discussions) is what is here discussed.
Would something like 'Child oriented decks' be perhaps a more appropriate heading? This would exclude, for example, the Marseille (which is suitable for children, bu not child oriented)
--Jmd 15:28, 1 February 2006 (PST)
- "Child-like artwork", "Child friendly artwork", "child-sprited" ???? le pendu 15:37, 1 February 2006 (PST)
I have renamed "Suitable for Children" to "Children oriented" partly for the reasons mentioned above, but also for the word 'Children' to be alphabetised in the series, rather than 'suitable' - it seems to make more sense to look for a 'children' theme than a 'suitable' theme name. Please let me know if this is not what you had in mind, or it somehow goes against the intent... in which case we'll need to consider another solution. --Jmd 06:54, 4 February 2006 (PST)
oops - this is now 'Children friendly'. --Jmd 07:00, 4 February 2006 (PST)
I really like having the decks by theme, great suggestion and addition. I wonder does it make sense for us to consider adding the themes as categories so that we don't have to keep adding decks into lists? Does the same hold true for families?
le pendu 19:47, 29 January 2006 (PST)
- I'm of two minds regarding lists vs. categories. It's true that with categories, we wouldn't have to keeping adding to lists; however, we'd have to remember to add the category to the deck article; so it may be six of one, half a dozen of the other. For me, one of the benefits of lists is that we could do a write-up on the theme itself, i.e., on the Mythology-themed list article, we could a synthesizing essay on Mythology-themed decks. It's true that such an essay could also be put on the Category page itself, but generally, Category write-ups are shorter in length. As well, for lists by family, if you have a list article, we'd be able to do a synthesizing write-up on the family. --Aquarius Rising 20:03, 29 January 2006 (PST)
- P.S. Another advantage of lists over categories is that a deck could be put on the list even if the deck article hasn't been created, whereas a deck name can't appear on a category page unless an article has been created already. There are many decks around, and it will really clutter up Tarotpedia (and create frustrated readers) if we create placeholder articles for each deck. I think we should be wary of creating more placeholder articles than necessary. With a list, we can list all relevant decks, even decks for which it is highly unlikely an article will be written in the foreseeable future. Such decks would show as a red link (of course), next to which we can (and I've done this for a couple decks on some of the lists) a link to an outside site that has scans of the deck, to help identify the deck and give some information to the reader in the absence of an article for that deck. --Aquarius Rising 20:44, 29 January 2006 (PST)
Personally, I prefer that categories also be included within the pages, and suggest that whatever is used as a 'theme family' becomes also a category - this, however, becomes useful for ease of cross reference from within one of those pages (perhaps reached by a books page, for example, or a google search). As an organisational page designed for user reference, I would suggest continuing the lists started and further suggest developing or discussing the started themic groupings. --Jmd 00:58, 30 January 2006 (PST)
 Tarot Decks: Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Arthurian, Germanic and Scandinavian
There is currently a namespace called Tarot Decks: Celtic which services Celtic and Arthurian theme decks. I noticed that we also need to cover Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and Scandinavian. Because various tarot decks mix mythologies, I was thinking of moving Tarot Decks: Celtic to a new namespace called Tarot Decks: Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Arthurian, Germanic and Scandinavian that would combine these various regions, to make the grouping easier to use. Any views on this combination of regions? Any views on whether that new title is good, or other suggestions as to a better title? Thanks. --Aquarius Rising 23:12, 9 February 2006 (PST)