Talk:Suit of cups

Merge from
Many of the suit articles seem to be thin on information and I am suggesting merging all of the card articles for the cards in the cup suit with this one.Tetron76 (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization
I would like to change the capitalization to Suit of Cups. 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 Cups (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 20:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. The suits don't even have the same name. The playing card suit is not usually called "goblets" - that's clearly a cartomancy term. In any case, 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 cups 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) 21:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW You currently have the proposal in 2 places which will cause confusion. Please delete one of them and link both pages to the same discussion. Bermicourt (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I support the deletion of this article and redirecting it to Cups (suit). The majority of these occult tarot articles seem to use Paul Huson as its sole source. There is no reason to favor his interpretation over any other occultist. There is nothing encyclopedic of advocating a specific interpretation which is not externally verifiable. --Countakeshi (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Diving into that source (Paul's Mystical Origins of Tarot), it appears that Paul documents many other occultists' interpretation of Tarot cards throughout history while giving his own (often very different) interpretations separately. The text in most of the Tarot divination sections (including this article) appear to be a summary of the common elements of historic usage as documented in Paul's book (which was surprisingly well sourced) instead of Paul's actual personal interpretations. I do think this summary has encyclopedic value along with a stipulation along the lines of "common interpretations have been...". Haiben (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This article has no standing of its own, in my opinion. There is no suit of goblets, it's near-universally known as Cups. The meanings given are also quite interpretational. The suits of divinatory Tarot can easily fit into the articles for the Latin playing card suits, which is what they are. AnandaBliss (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This proposal has just been rejected for all the right reasons at Articles for deletion/Cups (suit). Occultists and fortune tellers may use cards whose suit symbols were inherited from Italian playing cards, but their use and interpretation of the cards is entirely different. Card players play games with the cards as they have done since they were invented for that purpose; they do not talk about "Major Arcana" and "Minor Arcana" nor do they assign esoteric meanings to the cards; nor do they even use the same packs, with the exception of the Tarot de Marseilles which is sometimes still used by occultists ever since Court de Gebelin saw some French ladies playing a game with them and thought "aha, I can make money and gain status by inventing a hidden meaning behind them".Bermicourt (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Naming convention - Suit of cups
Currently the 'Suit of goblets' is the only page that makes both notes a pre-modern name at the start of the page AND uses that pre-modern name in its article title. I see this as a result of the Articles for deletion/Cups (suit) discussion? I suggest that the page be renamed to 'Suit of cups' so to match the other article naming conventions / modern name usage as this is better for the average user. TheJackMcConnell (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2024

 * 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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Suit of goblets → Suit of cups – I can't find any strong sources for this article name. There are many, many references to it as the suit of cups, but "goblets" does not seem to register on the internet much. We don't call the suit of wands "batons" in the article title, regardless of who called it that in the 1500s. We should go with the name people know this by. Mike Selinker (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * See also the comment above from User:TheJackMcConnell which was the basis for this request.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, but just eliminate the disambiguation page and use a hatnote to reference the other sense. BD2412  T 13:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed on that point as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)