Jump to content

Talk:Playing card suit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initial topics

[edit]

I edited out the reference to poker. Suits have extreme relevance in many forms of poker, since a straight flush beats a straight, and a straight flush is unique in that all the cards are of identical suit. There are plenty of better examples of "suitless games" such as blackjack, war, go-fish, etc. --Rhett Aultman

There is, or at least was for a while, a 5-suit scheme, with i think Eagles as the 5th suit. I don't know that it deserves a mention, let along an article, but on the other hand, i don't think it should be flatly said that there are only 4 suits. I'll take a try at something eventually, if no one who knows at least a little more about this aspect does so first. --Jerzy(t) 03:24, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

There is now information about the fifth suits you are referring to. Took a while to research the information and report on it. The suits referred to came from bridge and in the 1935 to 1938 time periods became popular. Included is all the infomation I was was able to gather from various sources including my own collection, Hochman's and historical references to playing cards. (no copyright infringements.) Some information came from actual decks for sale and copies of rule sets available online. --Killerbee 10:30, 2006 Nov 19

Removed the line about Hamilton Playing Card Company, as it was not a separate producer of cards. According to Hochman's and as listed at RUSJoker, Hamilton Playing Cards were made by Russell Card Playing Co. which is also the US Playing Cards Co., later on. The Eagles suit in the United States came about in 1938. I have references on demand. I had planned on cleaning up the articles I rewrote a number of times, in the section about adding suits and commercial suits, as I have researched and found more information. How is the standard requested to be applied to clean up that section? I saw at least two comments that some did not like the many suits and commercial decks. They are historical and in many cases contemporary and relavant to additional card playing suits. Suits are evolving, and will continue to do so. How does Wikipedia or the owner of this topic wish to have the items reorganized? --Killerbee 20:37, 2007 Nov 21 (Original text: "For a brief time in the 1930s, the Hamilton Playing Card Company produced a five-suit deck for ladies' social clubs; the fifth suit was green and its icon was the eagle.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerbeeinvest (talk • contribs) 01:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The names listed under "Italian suits" are actually the Italian names for the French or American suits and are mainly used for games played with an American deck, such as poker or canasta. There are many regional designs, but the most common Italian deck is made of 40 cards, with the following Italian suits: Cups (coppe), Coins (denara), Clubs (bastoni) and Swords (spade). see [1]

Suits Translated

[edit]

The following information was attained from the television show Tilt on ESPN

In the show, the different card suits are said to be related to the classes of society as the following:

Suit Relation
Clubs Peasants
Diamonds Aristocrats
Hearts Royalty
Spades Military
I was going to ask if anyone knew the origins of the suits... If we could get a source, I think it should go up. Troubleshooter 11:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- using Latin suits, it would be slightly different:

Suit Relation
Clubs(bastoni) Peasants
Diamonds(denari) Commerce
Hearts(coppe) Clergy
Spades(spade) Military/Aristocracy

Mfrasca (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latter makes more sense to me. In feudal times there was no separate military class: the officers were noble or royal (and there was no clear line between "royalty" and "aristocrats"), the foot soldiers were peasants. —Tamfang (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Individual pages for the four suits?

[edit]

Are they really necessary? They're such little stubs, and even if they ever grew into anything more (which doesn't look likely) they'll probably be heavily redundant. The information can easily be contained on Suit (cards), and mentioned on heart (symbol)], diamond, etc. -Silence 19:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad redirects

[edit]

"Trumping" and "trump" should not redirect right into Bridge-related articles. The OED has 3 noun and 3 verb variants of "trump", only one of which deals with the card game... Yeah I should do it myself, but I'd rather an admin who knows how to do these things neatly do it. JDG 06:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this hasn't already been dealt with: it's probably more likely to be if you outline which of the 6 "variants" you see as more than dict-defs. E.g. trump in the sense of trumpet arguably deserves a Dab entry aimed at Trumpet, and maybe even one to a section of Book of Revelation if it explicates the "last trump". But dict-defs are not articles, and the existence of a dict-def is often no indication of an potential article topic. (This is far from the ideal time for me for undertaking a reconstruction of some kind. But this may suggest the direction you may have to go in to have a reasonable expectation of seeing your insight acted upon.)
--Jerzy•t 03:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suit in-text symbols?

[edit]

Am I the only one for whom the card symbols used as & code in-text (other than diamonds) do not show up for? Any suggestions as to why they might not show up? Thanks TheHYPO 07:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give us all your details (what kind of computer, operating system, web browser, etc.) and maybe we can help you find your problem (often it's something like installing a typeface or a browser setting). --LDC 10:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
XPsp2, IE6. I've found this very occasionally in other articles. In one someone used what I assume to be the 'approximatly' symbol, but it shows up as the 'unrecognized symbol' square. These card symbols don't even give me the square - it's just blank where they should be. Thanks TheHYPO 23:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone with info on this issue? I've also found that people have put Japanese text in some articles which I assume other people can see that doesn't show up for me. Is there an option I might have unset? TheHYPO 14:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondence of Spanish to Anglo-French suits

[edit]

Do we have a source to confirm this? There's been a lot of discussion of this topic in our house over the years, oddly enough. As an English-speaker, I would have thought that bastos, being clubs, would correspond to clubs and espadas, sounding like "spades" would correspond accordingly, as indicated here in the article. However, my Spanish-speaking spouse, who grew up using a Spanish-style deck, always insists that these are not the correct correspondences (but, being asleep, can't be consulted right now as to what they supposedly are). So again, do we have verification? Lawikitejana 05:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- As an italo-spanish native (spanish mother, italian father) I can confirm that bastos/bastoni is clubs and espadas/spade are spades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.157.120.24 (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- as a Neapolitan, I can tell you that I had never associated "it:fiori" (i.e. flowers, our way to call "en:clubs") with "it:bastoni", nor "it:picche" (Italian name for "en:spade") with "it:spade" until I heard of the English names of these suits. In other words, we using Latin suits do not see any obvious link between French and Latin suits. If the translation Club/Bastoni is not enough for deciding, I assume you should ask some Northern Italian, they use both French and Latin suits. Mfrasca (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the correspondence according to what we "latin" speakers feel correct and so that each suit is associated to one , but my edit was rolled back by HelenOnline based on note #7. Mfrasca (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. Your unsourced edit contradicting sources cited, which I reverted, directly contradicts your previous statement above: "I had never associated "it:fiori" (i.e. flowers, our way to call "en:clubs") with "it:bastoni" ... until I heard of the English names of these suits. In other words, we using Latin suits do not see any obvious link between French and Latin suits". So why did you change the correspondence to Clubs/Bastoni? Helen (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of the current "usual" suits and symbols

[edit]

If anyone can provide authoritative information, I think that how long the suits shown in the graphic have been in use would be of interest. I saw an old painting... 1500s???... in which the "French" symbols are clearly visible. Prado, Madrid, I think.

82.20.63.64 22:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a dictionnary

[edit]

Especially in the table of Anglo-Hispano-French suits, there are lists of translations of the names of the suits into variuos languages. The languages are not identified, and the relevance of these translations is not clear. This is not a dictionnary, so unless the names in other languages somehow shed light on the suits as such, I think they should be removed. Names that are simple translations of the English names (like Sewdish "Hjärter" for Hearts) are not interesting, and names that are NOT simple translations (like "Klöver" for Clubs) should e.g. be translated back into English to (show why they) warrant inclusion.--Noe (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual suit articles

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was I did the merge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there still a need for the individual stub articles spades (suit), hearts (suit), diamonds (suit), clubs (suit)? It seems all that's in them is duplicating information here. —Blotwell 03:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and made a formal merger proposal. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and we tend to discuss several small topics together in a single article. Even articles such as A on individual letters don't have much potential, although letters are of course much more important and better researched.
The translations of the words into other languages don't belong into Wikipedia anyway (except for foreign terms of which the English term is a translation), and they attract IP edits based on thoughts like: "Spanish, French and German are there already. I can contribute Italian!" – "Spanish, French, German and Italian are there already. I can contribute Russian!" – "Spanish, French, German, Italian and Russian are there already. I can contribute Finnish!" – etc.
The number of suits is sufficiently small to cover them all in a series of sections in the present article. E.g. we could have one section each on hearts, cups, diamonds, bells, coins, clubs/acorns, spades/swords/leaves and the two unique Swiss suits. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Ehrenkater (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. —Tamfang (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At least in the fact that I like seeing illustration of the full suit, with every card displayed on the individual suit pages. There would not be room for that on a combined page. I also like getting to the unicode without having to wade through the entire chart, or being distracted by cups and swords. I would hope that individual suits could be expanded more. I agree that the dictionary part is not helpful; On the Hearts (suit) page, what does"Turkish: kupa - cups (originally cup only)" mean? When playing with a western deck, do they call the "heart shape suit" cup? Or does kupa mean heart in Turkish? Or is an analogous deck more typical in Turkey? The translation parts should be removed.--Knulclunk (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a handbook of very specific programming information, or whatever it is you need this for. Like the translations, the card images are excessive, misleading detail anyway and will be removed sooner or later. (Misleading because the graphics are very atypical and only suitable for technical information on specific games, not for information on playing cards.) If you need these regularly I suggest using commons:Category:SVG_playing_cards_2. The only reason I haven't done the merge yet is that with all the incorrect information that we currently have in this article, it takes a lot of work to do it right, and it's not my top priority at the moment. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the graphics are not atypical, and, in fact, quite suitable. Are you concerned about the direction sensitive face cards?--Knulclunk (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the face cards are the problem, but not because they are direction sensitive. (A few classical designs are also direction sensitive, and for our purposes that's often appropriate.) They are completely atypical in that they don't look like any of the classical designs I have seen. The traditional French, English, German and Swiss designs of French-suited playing cards are all quite distinct from each other but much more similar to each other than to these graphics. In the absence of a better solution these graphics are suitable for illustrating things like hands in card games but not for any articles that touch on the arts and crafts aspect of playing cards. Card players are quite conservative, and if you'd print cards in this design you wouldn't sell many. Hans Adler 19:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as they are currently perhaps the articles should be merged, but the articles could and should be expanded and include discussion and sources for the suits beyond traditional western playing cards (e.g. what the suits mean in tarot, etc.)Flygongengar (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the suits mean in tarot (I am assuming you mean divinatory tarot) clearly falls under WP:UNDUE. Occult nonsense is not supposed to get more space than necessary in encyclopedia articles on mainstream topics. We don't usually optimise our coverage of mainstream topics to allow maximal accommodation of fringe aspects. And even for meanings in tarot I would expect it makes a lot more sense to discuss them all in close proximity in a single article than to spread them over 4 pages. I guess what one suit really "means" can only be fully "understood" when you know what the other three "mean". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Encyclopedias treat connected topics together in a single article. Some readers print an article to read it on paper. A reader who is interested in divinatory aspects of card suits should not have to print 4 suit articles; printing a single article suits in tarot should be enough.
Besides, is anyone doing divinatory tarot with French-suited tarot cards? That's news for me. And generally the translation between different suit systems is not always obvious and in fact depends on context. Hans Adler 19:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a merger. The current information on the pages is sparse, largely unencyclopedic, and would benefit readers more as subsections of Suit (cards) simply because the information would be more centralized, see more editors' work, and would flesh out the insufficiently expansive Suit (cards) article. Honestly, I'm a little bit confused about why these pages even exist. I recall merging them all into Suit (cards) 4 years ago, in 2005, and they seem to have been recreated without any justification, and without enough contents to warrant it. Merging improves all merged articles (by centralizing efforts and not hiding information from readers), except when one of the pages is either (a) irrelevant, or (b) excessively long. -Silence (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

8 Suits

[edit]

In case my objection to the description of the 8 Suits™ deck (User:Blfeaster's sole contribution to Wikipedia) is not self-evident: It's badly formatted (excess capitalization, no Wiki-standard markup, punctuation errors) and overlong; it reads like an advertisement. Most readers will probably guess, without being told, that each suit comprises "Ace,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,J,Q,K" (this, by the way, is the correct usage of the word comprise) and that the deck also includes hearts, spades, diamonds and clubs. The encyclopedia reader (I hope) will not care much that 8 Suits™ is American-made and Fat Pack is European-made; feel free to emphasize that on the sales site. The advantages of 8 Suits™ in euchre and other games are presumably shared (if not to the same degree) with all the other extended decks mentioned in the article, and so need not be mentioned explicitly. The website that sells the deck is cited in the External Links below. That it (and the other double deck?) originated in "the 1970's" is irritatingly vague. If we could say "Mrs Janice Wilberforce of Springfield conceived an eight-suited deck in 1977 to make her weekly euchre game more flexible," or the like, that could be interesting enough to include. (Hm, I'm now curious to know why a deck said to have been designed for euchre has 13 cards per suit when euchre commonly uses only six.) —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent way of handling this.
Thanks. As a hint for anyone who wants to use this article for marketing purposes: Try to find a way from which the encyclopedia profits as well. E.g. if you put a photo of a typical hand including some cards in the new suits on commons.wikimedia.org – you will have to release it under an acceptable licence, which may or may not be easy (I am not a lawyer) – then I am sure most editors will be very happy to use this to illustrate this article. There is no guarantee though, and you can't undo the release of the photo if it isn't used here. Or, as Tamfang said, publish background information about your product that is sufficiently intereseting that we want to cite it here. (And tell us about it.) --Hans Adler (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, Thank you for the input, there is more background information which I will be adding shortly as well, I will modify the formatting. For as small as this entry is, I am surprised at the amount of scrutiny it’s getting. Although I had every intention of updating, I apologize if what I have added does not meet your requirements, however, I’ve had quite a few comments to add this detail (to Wikipedia) by people who live by it and I guess as a new member, I need to understand the Wikipedia formatting. To answer the question of 13 cards per suit (for Euchre); It is true, Euchre is the main reason we created this deck, but it didn’t make sense to limit this deck to one use, so we created full sets of each suit. Concerning the “originated in the 70’s” (this will be updated in detail), however, this date (at least (until update) gives the reader a start timeframe for one who may wonder how long these have been around. As far as the use of “American made” or “European made”, it can be very significant for an art enthusiast or if one is interested in the (additional) symbols or artwork on these cards (European tends to be more of a Victorian style). Quite frankly this is exactly the kind of information one would expect in an encyclopedia and I am surprised at the concerns, especially considering what was previously listed (or the lack there of). I will update shortly (and upload pics). Thanks again, any help is greatly appreciated. Oh, and by all means, you need to try out a deck (8suits.com), It’ll surprise you, it’s not for the simple minded.
Brian 22:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

On Talk pages, please sign your entry with four tildes ~~~~ (there is also a button to do this above the edit panel). And please don't use <br>; blank lines do the job just fine.
Generally you shouldn't add information to Wikipedia that concerns yourself or your own work (unless you're correcting biographical info or the like), because of the appearance of bias.
Thank you for explaining why national origin might be of interest. Personally I can't see a difference in style between the one designed in the U!S!A! and the one designed in England. —Tamfang (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from User talk:Blfeaster

[edit]

I (Tamfang) wrote a shorter note in User talk:Blfeaster, resulting in this response:

Be it that it may (that it strikes you), however, the purpose for an encyclopedia is exactly that (Detail). I can not help if it bothers you, an included link to our site, but if I were looking into an eight suited deck of cards, I would be grateful of links to where I can find the item. This NOT advertising as I have included all of the information on this card deck.

I apologize for the initial overwrite of your info, however, choosing not to disclose information about "Fat Pack" is at your discretion and I ask that you do not change the information about "8 Suits".

en-cy-clo-pe-di-a
1. a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject.

com-prise
1. to include or contain: The Soviet Union comprised several socialist republics.
2. to consist of; be composed of: The advisory board comprises six members.

Thanks, Bret Hren 16:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Brian's long paragraph above may make the following partly redundant (edit conflict) ....
See What Wikipedia is not, particularly "Wikipedia is not a directory". The claim that 8 Suits™ is useful for euchre is not itself a branch of knowledge. There is no limit to the detail that we could include if we choose to compromise Wikipedia's usefulness by making it an indiscriminate collection of miscellaneous data. The External Links section does point to 8suits.com among others. (I wouldn't object to linking it in a footnote instead.) I don't understand the logic of the assertion that more clutter makes it not advertising.
Information about Fat Pack is not mine to give or conceal. I trimmed both Fat Pack and 8 Suits™ to what I find interesting as a reader.
Note that neither of the sample sentences for comprise contains the phrase is comprised of. Do you see the difference? One wouldn't say The USSR was included or contained of fifteen Republics.
If you feel that a shorter entry unreasonably leaves out information interesting to the reader, please work with us to find compromise language. That's what Talk pages are for.
A passage such as "these cards can be used to add extra players and/or extend play time" can go in the lead paragraph of the "Adding extra suits" section. It does not belong in a subsection which ought to be about what makes 8 Suits™ different from the other extended decks.
—Tamfang (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can only add to this that Wikipedia's tolerance for people who want to promote themselves, their business or their product is close to zero. If you (Blfeaster) continue this confrontational course there is a real chance that 8suits.com will be added to the spam blacklist, making it technically impossible to link to 8suits.com from Wikipedia. If you don't want this, you need to cooperate with experienced Wikipedia editors and follow our rules. The idea that you can dictate the description of your product is hilarious. In fact, the opposite is true, see WP:Conflict of interest. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict

[edit]

The line:

"The Italian-style suits are the original suits (which is why the English term 'spade' refers not to the tool, but is derived from the Italian word espada = "sword", which this suit represents)"

(#1 of the second set of bullets in the "Traditional Eastern suits and decks" section)

conflicts with this line in Spades (suit):

"It is often stated that the suit is named after Spanish espada (sword), but this is not likely. In Germany and Scandinavia, Spanish playing cards were not in use, and Spanish loanwords in these languages were rare. It should also be noted that the Spanish name for the French suit is picas - not espadas."

(5th part of the opener)

Neither one is cited.

Anyone have a source, can correct this conflict, know the answer" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

Discussions merged in from the suit articles

[edit]

Hearts

[edit]

Unicode and HTML symbols not displaying properly on a Mac

[edit]
  • For whatever reason, the Unicode and HTML symbols for heart are not displaying properly on a Mac. What I'm seeing is a capital U with an umlaut followed by either a bullet or a degree symbol. I will check on my PC when I get home. Is there an alternative that can be used? 12.233.146.130 (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds

[edit]

Clubs

[edit]
  • Question : In the example card layout of the playing cards with clubs the small clubs symbol in the top left corner on every card is upside down.

Is this deliberate, an error or ambiguous ? 145.53.251.165 15:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War or Agriculture?

[edit]
  • This article contradicts itself in the meaning of the suit. It states in the intro that it stands for war, but later down it says that Spades is representative of the military class and Clubs is representative of agriculture. To be honest, I think the former makes more sense, with Spades representing agriculture instead.nf utvol (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting from an About.com article on the subject: "In French decks, the suits represent the four classes: Spades represent nobility, hearts stand for the clergy, diamonds represent merchants, and clubs are peasants." This seems to make considerably more sense to me than even the military / agriculture version. Would a games historian like to comment on this? Dcook32p (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Spades = Nobility" reference is correct; however, when the suits were first invented, the Nobility essentially were the Military. Hence, Spades (Swords) = Nobility = Military = War. It's not a contradiction, it's a logical progression. Likewise, remember that "Clubs" were a development from "Staves," which were the sort of tool/weapon that a common Peasant would carry when traveling; and the suit's association with "Agriculture" is merely because that was the business of Peasants. FireHorse (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polish name

[edit]

Spades

[edit]

Meanings in other languages

[edit]

Conflict

[edit]
  • The line:
    "It is often stated that the suit is named after Spanish espada (sword), but this is not likely. In Germany and Scandinavia, Spanish playing cards were not in use, and Spanish loanwords in these languages were rare. It should also be noted that the Spanish name for the French suit is picas - not espadas."
    (5th part of the opener)
    conflicts with this line in Suit (cards):
    "The Italian-style suits are the original suits (which is why the English term 'spade' refers not to the tool, but is derived from the Italian word espada = "sword", which this suit represents)"
    (#1 of the second set of bullets in the "Traditional Eastern suits and decks" section)
    Neither one is cited.
    Anyone have a source, can correct this conflict, know the answer" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. I was just about to post about that myself. I wish I knew a playing card expert. Zell Faze (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This might be helpful. It says that the English "spade" comes from the Italian "spada" and that the cards' symbols were changed in order to reflect the different meaning of spade in English (also here and here). I'll add it to the article. Regards SoWhy 21:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? If spade is derived from Italian espada and not from Spanish espada, what's the problem? (Espada is not an Italian word, that's what, but it's not a contradiction.) —Tamfang (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bay eichel.svg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Bay eichel.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baraja-40-cards.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Baraja-40-cards.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect translation of Waite's tarot deck in the translation table

[edit]

It seems that the translation table is incorrect about the translation of Tarot Marseilles/Rider-Waite to modern cards.


According to Waite's own words:

... Wands or Sceptres--ex hypothesi, ..., the antecedents of Diamonds in modern cards ...

... Cups, corresponding to Hearts; ...

... Swords, which answer to Clubs ...

... Pentacles--called also Deniers and Money--which are the prototypes of Spades ...


The article mistakenly relates:

Pentacles to Diamonds

Wands to Clubs

Swords to Spades

In other words the article is mostly incorrect on this matter and can in fact do harm rather than help. Hopefully it will either be corrected by a responsible and knowledgeable person or removed.


Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/pkt/pkt0103.htm


I don't agree 100% with Waite's theory. I agree that Batons/Wands are the antecedents of Diamonds (Huson, 2004) and Cups correspond to Hearts but I disagree with him on the other two suits. Waite is by no means the primary or only authority on playing card history. The French playing card suits were established long before Waite's Tarot deck based on the Italian suits.
I have revised the translation table in line with the Huson source cited. HelenOnline (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Individual suit articles (part 2)

[edit]

I propose the individual suit articles be reinstated. The merge discussion occurred in 2009. I believe the articles were deleted partly due to lack of interest. I think there is definitely enough info out there to warrant individual articles. I also propose a new article entitled List of cards in a standard 52-card deck should be created, which would - just like the articles that list pokemon - take all the relevant information from the various articles on individual cards and summarise them in a comprehensive and concise list.--Coin945 (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go a bit further than that: Let's make articles for all individual suit symbols on each card. E.g., on a seven of spades there are seven spade symbols. If our readers need to read the entire article on the seven of spades when they just want to get some quick info on the fifth spade on said card, we are seriously letting them down. Hans Adler 20:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm aside, what is your take on this issue?--Coin945 (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedias are not dictionaries. They discuss related things together. I don't believe that there is enough noteworthy info for separate articles for the suits. If there is, it should be added to the present article until it gets too long and needs to be split. At the moment this is not the case, even though a lot of bizarre information such as tarot symbolism and unexplained 'feudal classes' has accumulated. The idea of a list of individual cards is so strange that I don't even know what to say about it. I wasn't even sure that you meant it seriously. There would be very little, if anything, to be said about them beyond trivia. We don't do articles like List of letters in Shakespeare's works or List of entries in the New York telephone directory. Hans Adler 15:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant Picture next to Metaphorical uses

[edit]

Picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aa_inspades_roadworks_00.jpg has nothing to do with playing card suits, as the context for the picture is construction and the word spades in the picture is referring to the spade digging implement and not the playing card suit. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GR8DAN (talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pun exploiting the different possible meanings of the word. HelenOnline (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basing the correspondence of suits on Tarot and Chartomancy

[edit]

the correspondence of suits given here is presented as the only possible correspondence, while opinions differ and sources are available for the different interpretations. in Italy we use both French and Spanish suit systems (we don't really call them like that, Neapolitans call French all decks that have cuori, quadri, fiori and picche, some call Italian the Napoletane deck, others the Piacentine one and I'm quite sure that most Italians are convinced that there are no other playing cards than their own regional ones), but we have at least one national game, namely Scopone. in this game there's a card that is worth a whole point and is called Settebello. if you play with French cards, settebello is the seven of diamonds, if you play with Spanish cards, settebello is the seven of denari. Associating Diamonds with Bastoni is very surprising for most Italians, in particular those living in these areas, where Scopa or Scopone is played with French cards. Mfrasca (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The correspondences are based on sources cited, which may or may not have been authored by cartomancers who happen to have an interest in the history of the suits. If you have any other reliable sources, please provide them. Popular belief based on the English suit names does not translate to fact, but it has nevertheless been mentioned in the various notes in this section. Helen (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the Italian SISAL publishes some rule sets: for Scopone, Briscola, Sette e mezzo; these rules are meant for all card players in Italy (Sicilian, Tuscanian, Venetian, Milanese, Roman, ...), who play the same games with similar rules, but with either the "french" or with the "spanish" cards; in these rules the suits are associated according to my edits, not as it is now. The Italian wikipedia describes settebello as either "sette di denari" or "sette di quadri". The Italian "FIGS" (Federation for Scopone) supports the same correspondence table: http://www.federazionescopone.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=70&lang=en. All Italian Chartomancy sites I checked, starting with <a href="https://www.arcanimaggiori.com" title="Arcani Maggiori" rel="nofollow">Arcani Maggiori</a>, http://www.itarocchidigabriella.it, http://www.pantakleos.com, ... (but the list is longer) also agree. Mfrasca (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will change the table incorporating some of these sources. The current correspondences attempt to reflect historical correspondences (which no one knows for sure) but practical correspondences such as are in these rule sets are also important. Note 7 will still cover the possible historical alternative. Helen (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yet an other source is the table itself, because correcting the correspondence as I had done would avoid the multiple correspondence of some of the society classes to more than one suit. According to me this need is an indication that the source used is in error. Mfrasca (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is why the nationality of the suits was included in the line item title - French, German and Italian suits are not the same suits, so the society classes only correspond with one suit within each country's system. Helen (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With the current edits, the French and Italian suit systems have the same society classes association. could the two rows be collapsed to a single one? Mfrasca (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather not, as the sources cited are not the same. I think separate lines also helps to make it clear that the systems are independent. Helen (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

association of swiss suits within their national game "Jass"

[edit]

Seems that the Swiss associate suits differently than the Germans do: image of suit associations. Mfrasca (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That particular deck comes in more than one version with different suit combinations. Helen (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source that supports our Swiss-French correspondences (not saying it is authoritative): "Das französische Blatt ist unter anderem vom Poker sehr bekannt und beinhaltet die "Farben" Karo, Herz, Pik und Kreuz. Dem entsprechen die deutschschweizer Farben Schellen, Rosen, Schilten und Eichel." Helen (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources say the correspondences are a matter of personal preference, including these downloadable playing instructions: "Die Übertragung dieser Farben auf die französische Karte ist von eigener Auslegung". Helen (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
exactly! as well as the other hint (I can't find the article where I read the statement... we have no "self-obvious"?) that puts side by side the "denari" on northern italian decks (bordering with Switzerland) and show the extreme similarity with the swiss "Rosen". do you want to add these alternatives as notes, to make clear that the current association is questionable? or shall I do so, in the knowledge that the edits will not be rolled back? Mfrasca (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a note and sources. I don't think it is necessary to mention all the possibilities (as any combination is possible). Helen (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spades = Wands

[edit]

NOT Swords! (I knew it like that... but this article and many sources don't say so!) Böri (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stars and the Rainbow

[edit]

Since when are there star suits, or suits represented by colours like blue or green?

MakeMeDo (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suits are symbolic

[edit]

I read in the Macmillan multi-volume encyclopeadia (albeit a long time ago - back in the 1980s) that diamonds represented merchants, spades represented soldiers, clubs represented peasants and hearts represented the clergy. If this is accurate, it could go in the article somewhere (I had a look through this article just now and could not see this information anywhere). Vorbee (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to suit of cards or card suit

[edit]

The current title fails WP:NATURAL, suit of cards or card suit would be better. I prefer suit of cards as a set phrase. Bullenbeisser (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 December 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to a title with natural disambiguation at this time, but no clear consensus to move to any specific title. I have moved the page to Playing card suit for the time being, and a new discussion can be initiated at any time per WP:THREEOUTCOMES. Dekimasuよ! 01:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suit (cards) → Suit of cards – Sounds more WP:Natural Bullenbeisser (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Conflict of interest and notability issues in 5+ suited decks section

[edit]

This section has severe issues that make it incompatible with the scope of Wikipedia. With the exception of five-suit bridge which is a game rather than a specific deck, none of the decks are notable. Furthermore, it reads like a directory of products. There are also conflict of interest issues on several entries. Obvious ones are the Nu-Dek Sextet Bridge deck and the Toss™ Double Deluxe Decks. The editor who added the K6T deck did not even bother creating an account with a handle different than the one used in marketing it. In an earlier version, the external links used as references were simply retailers or their creators' websites. For these reasons, I propose deleting this section while adding a link to five-suit bridge in the "See also" section.--Countakeshi (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's a list of commercial products that takes up far too much of the article and detracts from its main purpose. The most there should be is a short overview section, properly cited to secondary sources. Bermicourt (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Countakeshi: another uncited multi-suit commercial example has just been added. That section's becoming a list of commercial products starting to dominate the article. Bermicourt (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and another. Bermicourt (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bermicourt: we can seek consensus and possibly vote to delete this section.--Countakeshi (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or we can be WP:BOLD and delete it anyway. No one else seems to be participating in this discussion and that would confirm whether anyone else is interested. Bermicourt (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did delete it back in 2017 only to end up in an edit war with someone who wanted to retain that section.--Countakeshi (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to create a separate article e.g. "Playing card packs with extra suits", "Non-standard playing cards" or "Commercial playing card decks" and let it takes its chances wrt notability there, leaving a short section and link here as has been done with Four-color decks. Bermicourt (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since no-one has objected since you raised the subject in April I intend to be WP:BOLD and delete it. Bermicourt (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad. I used to like watching this section here time by time. It concentrated interesting information on a topic I love. For the subjective reason of notability there is a lot of censorship on WP. Two people, 1 discussion, 2 months, and the information is gone for everyone. The most ridiculous is the accusation of being commercial, dressing your decision with morality, as a "bien-pensant". Those who commercialize 5- or more-suit decks are doing it because they know that all around the words there some excentric people like them that will appreciate getting these games. There no creator of such excentricities that can get decent earnings from that. I am the creator of K6T which is mocked in this discussion (uselessly) so I know. K6T has been sold to maybe 200 people all over the world in the last 6 years. The profit is 1 or 2 dollar per deck, this is what you call "commercial". 200 is probably not "notable" but it is not zero and if you don't like these decks, it is your right, but some are liking them. It is not a matter of money, it is a matter of freedom of information. It is the same for the other inventions which were reported here that you have deleted, some being historical. It should have been possible to remove all "commercial" links and just leave the information that these decks exist. The hypocrisy is that if one day Elon Musk or a famous brand, decides to sell such a thing and be really commercial, then you will find this notable and relevant for WP. I wish you a good day. Cazaux (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well editors had over a year to comment and no-one did, including yourself, so it's hardly surprising the text was deleted. Let me respond to your points. Firstly, WP:NOTABILITY is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and designed to ensure that information is a) properly cited and not just someone's WP:POV and b) of sufficiently wide interest and importance. K6T, by your own admission, is not notable by Wikipedia's standard. Secondly, the text read like a list of commercial products which is contrary to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Thirdly, it's clear from what you've just said that you had a WP:COI when adding your own product, something that is strongly discouraged. All this is nothing to do with not liking your decks or moralising, but to adhere to Wikipedia's standards. It is not a free-for-all where anyone can advertise their products nor a blog where editors can express their personal views. Bermicourt (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I will try to make a contribution acceptable in WP standards in next future. Cazaux (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I need to know

[edit]

I don’t know how to play 5.190.122.212 (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to play what? Bermicourt (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Playing_card_suit&oldid=1204769252"