Talk:Tarot

No wonder Scarlet O'Hara had such a bad time of it, her "estate" was all just a house of cards! CЯacke ®

I remember High School, sitting in an empty classroom during lunch with a couple friends, playing Hearts with my tarot deck. The accidental demon summoning never happened, goshdarnit, and we moved on to more secular entertainments such as Car Wars and Cosmic Encounter.Pere Ubu (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps should be called "Tarot reading"
If the focus of the article concerns divination with these cards, then I think the article should be called "tarot reading" Tarot is just a deck of 78 cards which were really made for card games. The Tarot has no authentic basis in woo practice. Many game players would not consider tarot card reading to be authentic tarot. The practice of tarot reading is rightly categorized as pseudoscience here. Because these cards are also the subject of a lot of myths and pseudohistory, there should also be a pseudohistory category for it as well.71.2.74.51 16:58, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'm in favour of "tarot reading" as a title, and i don't think we have a pseudohistory category... yet. we should have though. we could then have something about that weird Russian pseudohistory theory. Totnesmartin 17:08, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * (EC) I don't think the pagemove is necessary. I've played card games using Tarot before, & the article does mention that they can be used for games, but I think most readers firmly associate Tarot with fortune-telling.  If we were running an encyclopedia, then separate entries for Tarot divination & for the cards themselves might be justified, but since RW is only really interested in the woo aspect, then a single article with the title "Tarot", but mostly about Tarot divination is fine.   17:12, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * I think the move is an overly complex for the average wiki user. I think "tarot" for the cards and the reading.  It's incorrect, as you've taught us, but a wiki should predict how a user will "search", I think.-- 17:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * PS, Totensmartin - psuedohistory would be cool. There is all kinds of Neo-Con revisionism in the last 20 years we could include.  American revisionism (see Andy's lectures on world history as examples) that "we are the best and we won WWII" for example.  Religious rewriting of it's ugly and often bloody history.  Seems right up RW's alley!-- 17:16, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well, the problem is that the woo community will use the word "tarot" like they own it and there is no other use, like game playing, for these cards. They also use the word "runes" in that way as if the runes were created for their uses of them71.2.74.51 17:26, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * While I agree that this is a real problem for scholars, enthusiasts and historians, I don't think this wiki is that academic. Of course, in the world of "redirects" on the intertubes it's pretty irrelevant, isn't it, since my concern can be addressed with one single redirect from "tarot" to "tarot reading".-- 17:29, 25 February 2009 (EST)

54 standard playing cards?
I thought standard playing card packs had 52 cards. Why two more? Mikwee (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Two jokers. Christopher (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)