User talk:Scion
From Tarotpedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
Hi Scion!
It's great to have you here. Talking about diving in! You've done an amazing job getting up and running, it's wonderful to have your contributions.
Regarding the "image.jpg", I checked to make sure you had uploaded another copy with a descriptive name, and just deleted the image.jpg from the system. This is exactly the kind of thing I am hoping someone would catch, not sure what we can do about it but watch. The difficult part of using a wiki-based system is that so much of the functionality is prebuilt... that makes it easy to use. When it comes to changing the "workings" however, it's somewhat tricky.. or at least for me it is.
Please let me know any ideas or thoughts you might have. And again let me say thanks for your contributions... you've got the hang of it, and we're pleased you're here.
best,
robert
le pendu 11:56, 5 February 2006 (PST)
p.s., signing with three or four tilde "~" marks let people know who left them the note (I could tell by looking at Recent changes. Also, when you want to "start" a "new" post on a talk page, click the "+" next to the edit tab, it allows you to enter a header, and does the formatting for you.
Don't forget, you can leave information about yourself on your User Page if you want to let others know a bit about who you are.
best,
robert
[edit] Waite-Colman Smith vs Waite-Smith
[edit] Waite-Colman Smith vs Waite-Smith
Greetings Scion,
just thought I'd let you know personally, rather than only altering the Style Guide, given your recent input.
Seems like our decision, which was the result of mainly my 'push' in this matter, was based on an incorrect assumption: Pamela Colman Smith's surname is not both of the last names, but only 'Smith'.
The Style Guide is therefore being altered to reflect this, and formerly written 'Waite-Colman Smith' (deck/s) will be changed over time to 'Waite-Smith' (deck/s).
Also a brief thankyou for your significant contributions to building Tarotpedia.
--Jmd 15:09, 9 February 2006 (PST)
[edit] Tarot Books page
Hello Scion,
a small reply to your 'evolution of the Books section' in le pendu's user_talk page.
The list of authors already exists by the Category:Authors link (for pages in existence - so this will grow with time), as does an alphabetical listing of titles (with a few additional pages) from the Category:Tarot Books link. Each of these I have also added to the top of the Tarot Books page in order to further assist.
With regards to re-organising the page from what is essentially a timeline to subdivisions into book-type, by all means go ahead. The problem I foresaw in this is in the 'proper' allocation of many books, but if you are able to come up with groupings that caters to those from various perspectives, it would indeed be great.
Instead of entirely removing the current page as timelined, I have created a new page with books by dates only up to the 1970s (most books on Tarot, in any case, are more recent). This also permits an easy access to seeing how early books may have been influential on later ones. The new page is Tarot Books: timeline. This, incidentally, also provides a resource not anywhere else found (to my knowledge).
--Jmd 23:44, 16 February 2006 (PST)
[edit] 777 decks
Hi Scion ... There are 2 different 777 decks which I've given links for on the Qab theme page. But I'm not sure which is GD vs. Thelemic (or even something else). Can you help? Thanks. --Aquarius Rising 17:14, 20 February 2006 (PST)
[edit] Major arcana pages
Hi ... May I suggest that any card images be placed in order of discussion on the page, e.g., Visconti, Marseille, RWS, and modern. It will be easier for readers that way, I think. --Aquarius Rising 08:34, 22 February 2006 (PST)
P.S. I also suggest that it would also line up better if all images were coded at the top of the wiki code page, before coding of text. See what I did at: http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/index.php?title=Tarot_Decks:_Occult_and_Hermetic&action=edit
--Aquarius Rising 08:40, 22 February 2006 (PST)
- Yes, I think that's a good idea. Also, maybe we should keep it to two images a page (e.g. one old/traditional and one modern), at least for now? I think that would keep it less cluttered. - Spoonbender 08:54, 22 February 2006 (PST)
- It may confuse readers if the page discusses RWS imagery but the modern deck image departs dramatically from that RWS imagery. I would suggest at least Marseille and RWS images on each page, with an optional modern deck image. --Aquarius Rising 08:59, 22 February 2006 (PST)
- TOTALLY Agree, the only reason I haven't been doing it wholesale is that I felt weird removing people's uploads etc. Would MUCH prefer to keep things standard with regard to TdM & WS images in the appropriate sections. Will follow yur lead on this. Thanks for the heads up. Scion 12:31, 22 February 2006 (PST)
- Actually, I really don't agree. I find that focusing on the TdM and RWS solely would be very restrictive and repetitive, and would do no justice to Tarot's incredible diversity and creativity. I honestly don't think that readers would be confused that easily. The link to the Waite-Smith Tarot on each of the pages shows the entire Major Arcana anyway, and it is the deck that you most come across online and in books. So for now, I would much prefer to see one traditional, one modern - it would make the pages much more appealing, IMO. - Spoonbender 00:26, 23 February 2006 (PST)
- Well isn't there some middle ground? There are about 100 WS clones, and enough decks are based on the Marseiles that we could at least place images that reflect the text to the left. I do find it confusing to read about the symbols inherent to the TdM Star while the Cosmic Tribe Star (to take an example) is there beside the text... which, while an excellent modern Star Interp, does nothing to illustrate the information being presented. Hence Aquarius Rising's suggestion that the additional cards to follow in the modern section. Scion 03:57, 23 February 2006 (PST)
- I have been thinking for a while about dividing the sections of the cards in something like (1) historical (Visconti-Sforza, Rosenwald & Cary Sheet, etc.), (2) standard/traditional (TdM, RWS, Thoth), (3) modern. If you think that's a good idea, maybe we can have a card image for each of these sections? Because I still think that the historical and modern decks deserve to be illustrated as much as the TdM and RWS - perhaps even more because the latter are already well-known as it is. - Spoonbender 22:24, 23 February 2006 (PST)
- Spoonbender ... I would suggest that it would make more sense to treat TdM in a separate section from RWS and Thoth, rather than together as you suggest. Thus, there would be card images for both the TdM and the RWS card in the article. For example, the iconography of the RWS Sun card (not to mention the Thoth) is a lot different from the TdM Sun card. In the Sun article, it would certainly make sense to have card images of both the TdM card and the RWS card, rather than the TdM card to the exclusion of the RWS card, or vice versa.--Aquarius Rising 22:32, 23 February 2006 (PST)
- Nah, I don't think so. The TdM, RWS and Thoth are the most used decks and generally form the basis for modern decks, so I think it makes sense to have them in one category (at least for now). Creating a different category for the TdM doesn't strike me as necessary, because the iconography of the Visconti-Sforza, Cary Sheet, Rosenwald Sheet and Thoth cards is even more different from the RWS than that of the TdM is. - Spoonbender 03:04, 24 February 2006 (PST)
- Hey y'all... I don't mean to be dopey. But we're talking about maybe 4 megabytes of data total. Who cares? I do think TdM and WS imagery description shouldn't be muddied with confusing reinterpreted modern decks, but adding a third image to each of 22 pages is such a minor thing. And further, if we go back to the idea of embedding each image directly under the title of each section, we don't have to worry about the image floating up into a differing description. We can use "clone" images so long as they reflect (and don't conflict) with the description they accompany. It seems likely that people looking for info or images from the historical decks will go to the Historical deck pages. The point of the illustrating images should be to augment and support the text. It's an encyclopedia that has the advantage of instantly transporting to user to any crosslinked info, so I think keeping it clear and direct is the better part of valor. Scion 06:29, 24 February 2006 (PST)
[edit] Tarot Books page
By all means replace the existing books timeline page with the existing tarot books page prior to the update - if it needs updating (as I'm sure it does).
and looking forward to the new page.
--Jmd 03:49, 25 February 2006 (PST)
[edit] Middle Eastern
I noticed that you created a Middle Eastern page. The Eastern page already lists Middle Eastern decks, as well as Oriental and other Eastern decks. If you think that Eastern is too ambiguous a name, perhaps we could just rename the Eastern page to make it more clear what geographical areas it covers? --Aquarius Rising 14:49, 26 February 2006 (PST)
[edit] External Links
Hi Scion,
First: THANK YOU. I'm amazed at the amount of content you have added, it's wonderful. The pages you have created are intersting, informative, and a huge asset to the site.
Second: Can I ask a favor regarding external links? Personally, I feel that once a "page" has been created for a deck, we should remove the external link from the directory page, since external links really belong on the actual deck page itself. (I've asked Mr. La-luna the same in the past.) I think of the external links on the directory pages as a "temporary" link until an actual page has been created. Eventually, I'd love to see all of the external links on the directory pages removed, as the actual pages themselves will have that content on them.
I'm open to discussion on this, as this site is a community site, and as one of the main contributers I greatly value your opinion, but to me, keeping the external link on the directory pages once an actual page exists is a disservice to the deck page itself.
let me know your thoughts.
best,
robert
le pendu 20:49, 1 March 2006 (PST)
Hi Scion,
THANKS a bunch. They are omnipresent aren't they? ... and I kind of hate it. They seem like such a "make-shift" solution. On one hand.. I think it's good to be there because the main purpose of the site is to help others find the information they look for. On the other hand... having them only makes it look like Tarotpedia itself doesn't have the content to answer the questions that visitors may be looking for, and that is, I think, the goal of the site in the first place.
Ideally, I hope that people will come to the site to find information, and to make discoveries... hopefully in a year's time there will be enough content that we can justifiably say that it is a TRUE resource for those interested in learning more about Tarot.
I have to keep reminding myself that the site is in its infancy and that it will grow as more people find value in its worth. In the meantime, I am SO thankful for the contributions that you and the other "regular" members have been making... I honestly feel horribly guilty.... I worked hard to get the site up and running.. but have contributed so little to it in comparison that I can't help but just be in a deeply thankful place for the contributions that make the site.. even as it is.. a great place to learn more about tarot.
I've said it before.. but honestly... if there is anything I can do to help you.. please let me know. The site is infinately better because of your participation.
I've been working hard behind the scenes as well to get the search engines to index and rank the pages. I'm thrilled that the efforts seem to be paying off. Google has now indexed over 750 pages!!! If you visit google and enter "site:www.tarotpedia.com" you will see what has been indexed. MSN and Yahoo are also now indexing it. I can easily imagine that in a while, tarotpedia will start showing up for many searches, and the results will undoubtably lead to the many pages that you have so wonderfully created. Again.. thanks.
best,
robert
le pendu 21:20, 1 March 2006 (PST)
I'm just glad you've liked what I've been doing in your absence... The Book changes were pretty sweeping. LOL Truth be told, it's partly selfish; I figure the more substantive the content is here, the more other folks will come looking and add what they know... (like that old story about stone soup). As you say, a resource like this should exist already, so I'm psyched to help make it happen: a clearinghouse of information that could be a one-stop shop for info and review links and history updates etc etc. So when in doubt I just keep thinking: if I was looking for info what would be the simplest cleanest path to that info?
And just so you know, I can really tell you've been working on the Google indexing. In the past week, as I've been creating book pages, as I'm doing searches for reviews & articles relevant to the titles, I keep finding OUR content in the searches... and that will only increase with time. On my own webpage it took ages... but your proactive mojo is paying off already. Which in turn is spurring me to get more subpages organized and up, like bait.
Per your suggestion re: those redundant links, I just removed a swath of those makeshift placeholders where the subpages have been created, and will keep chipping away at them.
And that being said, thank YOU for taking the time and initiative to create this. I'm excited to see how it will evolve as more people get involved. Scion 21:32, 1 March 2006 (PST)
[edit] Tarot decks - Majors only
Hi Scion ... Please see my attempt at an explanation on my talk page. Sorry for any misunderstanding caused. --Aquarius Rising 14:05, 12 March 2006 (PST)
[edit] Freemasonry and Tarot
Thanks for the note, Scion, I agree entirely with your comment, and will address it over the next week. Jmd 04:53, 14 April 2006 (PDT)
