Talk:Suit of coins

NPOV
Parsa and myself have been have been placing the NPOV tags on the cards. See the talk page at Talk:The World (Tarot card) Since tarot cards were not designed for the occult, the placement of "occult" stub tags does constitute POV and ignores tarot's gaming heritage. These individual card pages offer nothing more than occult speculations and perhaps should be deletedSmiloid 00:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd think that being used for occult purposes would justify the categorization, regardless of what the cards were designed for. Because pages can have multiple categories, I would expect categories for gaming _and_ occult to be used. Or am I missing a point completely? Thanks. CSWarren 18:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that a page called "Suit of coins" contains 14 images of coins cards from a pack used for divination, and none from any pack used for card-playing. I guess I ought to scan in some cards from normal packs - maybe I'll get round to it. Maproom (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge From
All articles in this subcategory could be merged with into this single article Tetron76 (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the individual card articles are more useful; the information is easier to look through on smaller individual pages, and having a page for each card does not detract from the article for the suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cghsci (talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with minor arcana
The individual cards themselves need not have entire articles; each article can be summed up by a paragraph in this article. Most of the articles on cards consist of a boilerplate lead that's already in this article, a few sentences on the symbolism of the card, and an image. Not really enough for a whole article. p b  p  20:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization
I would like to change the capitalization to Suit of Coins. This matches the usage within the article, in the namesake category, and seems to be common usage on the web. Chapters of books and songs in an album are both capitalized as formal nouns and I think this section of the deck of cards is equivalent. There is already some verbiage at that redirect so I'll need a WP:RM to make this change. Any concerns before I do that? RevelationDirect (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose a merger of this page with Coins (suit). These articles both cover the same playing card suit. One is simply focusing more on the esoteric use of tarot cards that bear this suit. Tarot cards are actual playing cards, regardless of their subsequent use in cartomancy. — ★ Parsa ☞ talk 19:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. The only connexion is that they use the same name for the suit. Most cartomancy packs are tailor-made for fortune telling, the designs are not the same and their usage is completely different. Furthermore cartomancers give a whole raft of meanings to the cards that have nothing to do with gaming and are meaningless to card players. Furthermore many playing card packs with a suit of coins are not even tarot packs - they are ordinary 40 or 48-card Spanish or Italian playing card packs used solely for playing card games. What this article needs is expanding, not conflating with an article on fortune telling which will simply generate confusion. Bermicourt (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. I agree with Bermicourt there is no need to make worse what is already an inconsistent approach to one of the five suits of a Tarot deck. The cards of all the other 4 suits have individual pages on wikipedia allowing for a deeper exploration of their history, purpose and discussion of their symbology. NPOV should mean just that. Any attempt to devalue or subvert the occult use of Tarot cards, and argue that they are playing cards only, is contrary to what the vast majority of cartomancy card collectors and enthusiasts believe. By all means include playing card details too but you must remain neutral in not dismissing anything that isn't within your own personal beliefs. Seoras (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. At the moment this page is terrible.  The vast bulk of it is poorly reference text that looks like it has been copied straight out of a fortune telling book.  Part of some of the descriptions devolve into a second person reading such as "This is a time when you need to be able to apply careful planning in order to manifest your dreams and achieve your goals." etc etc!  That obviously has no place in an encyclopaedia.
 * As Bermicourt states, "cartomancers give a whole raft of meanings to the cards", so I don't think it's appropriate that this article lays down one specific interpretation as if this is irrefutable.
 * I have no objection in principle to there being a separate page for the cartomancy version of the suit, but it must use encyclopedic language and be properly referenced. There's so little here that can be justified that merging does seem the only sensible option. Phunting (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)