Talk:Major Arcana

message: I'd like to remove this section entirely; it seems comparable to creating a similar section on the paganism article, which would be entirely out of place. It's not a specific event or group being referenced 'in pop culture'; the references here give nearly no context or useful information regarding the usage of the major arcana in the relevant works. Some examples (Shin Megami Tensei series, for instance) could be re-introduced in a similar section, but would need to be fleshed out to have any meaning in the context of this article. Thoughts before I make a change? Jacotto (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm adding the word "erroneous" back in in the context of attributions of the tarot to gypsies. Nobody believes that is true anymore, and they haven't for some time. That was pure fantasy on the part of the tarot patriarchs (See Dummett, 1980; Decker and Dummett, 2002).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs) 12:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: added back all the material mistakenly removed as original research. There is no original research here, its all cited properly. In fact I'l be adding further citations later today in all places identified as "citation required"Mike Sosteric PhD 14:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello again. I notice you still havent got signing working. Did you see my last post to your talk page about this problem? You really do need to attend to this as it can get you banned. Also when you add something on the talk page pelase make sure you put it in the appropriate section, or make a new section. Your most recent comments arent about trivia/pop culture but are in a section so named. Also I'd liek to eocourage you to [put page numbvers in your citations as otherwise they are hard to verify. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia / Pop Culture Section 

message: I am going to preface this by saying I admittedly know nothing about Tarot. I have, however, read a great deal of Wikipedia and it feels like the author of this section has never read an article on Wikipedia before and most certainly is not following the style guide.
"An encyclopedic style with a formal tone is important: straightforward, just-the-facts, instead of essay-like, argumentative, or opinionated. The goal of a Wikipedia article is to create a comprehensive and neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge about a topic."
Almost immediately, this article fails to satisfy most of these criteria. This section is needlessly wordy at best and completely inappropriate most of the time. It reads as if it were ripped from an "academic" article intended to be read by an audience that was already completely familiar with Tarot, and concerned with extremely niche minutiae. A good encyclopedia explains the subject at hand in a way that can be read by anyone without having to have prior knowledge of the subject. The language should be kept straightforward, the content centered around mainstream facts and its relevance to the greater part of history. The author takes extreme liberty with word choice in places that he or she should not and continually wanders off on completely tangential information that most readers would not consider relevant whatsoever. At the end of this article, I still feel like I know very little about Major Arcana or why they are significant. To those out there who are knowledgeable on this subject: I challenge you to please update this article to the modern standards of Wikipedia.
Some examples:
What the fresh hell is this? How is this even related to the previous sentence?
No one knows what the "cartomantic tarot that occurs in parallel with the imposition of hermetic mysteries" is.
What?
I could go on, but you get the point. Please, someone versed in this fix this mess. 162.232.216.110 (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fortune Telling" needs serious work 

message: :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: no consensus. 4 commenters on either side. Good arguments on both sides, this is a sticky one with inconsistency in the literature and MOS guidelines. This discussion has reached an impasse, but does not meet the criteria for a second relisting. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: WikiProject Board and table games has been notified of this discussion.  — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

text: WT:MOSCAPS was also notified. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * Specialised-style fallacy is an article you wrote to support your own style campaign that frequently flies in the face of the real world. Even the title makes no sense - subject matter style exists - it is not a fallacy - for example, the use of Latin names for fauna and flora which is specific to those fields. Wikipedia has long accepted that. You are writing the rules and then pointing to them as an authority! Bermicourt (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

text: *Thinking of how the project presents itself, lowercasing this would literally make Wikipedia look stupid. Which, if needed, is where WP:IAR would come in, but that's not even needed as counting titles and headings seems fine in this instance as they reflect the common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If four major dictionaries use it in lowercase and in a subject specific context, then I think it is OK for us to look as stupid as them. And I do believe that the OP listed a string of subject specific sources that used l.c.  Shouting, by highlighting something in a bold font face does not make an incorrect statement true. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But it does highlight correct statements. The dictionaries topic is 'arcana', a word which means 'secret'. When attached to Major Arcana (major secrets) it becomes a proper noun in most instances (n-grams show its use as a proper name in the mid-70's to 80%, well within standard uppercase range for Wikipedia) and the casing that has been used since the article's 2002 inception. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't  per Oxford Learners Dictionaries and Collins Dictionary, it is quite clearly and  explicitly in lowercase for the complete noun phrase "major arcana" and "minor arcana" and not just in reference to the cards.  Your argument is disproven. To say:  only goes to prove the point that it is a descriptive noun phrase and therefore not a proper name.  It is overly generous to say that the n-gram usage rises to 80% capitalised before considering headings and like but even so, if it were "necessary" to capitalise it, then it would be done almost always.  It isn't done almost always (when you yould expect tit to be greater than 90% or higher) therefore it is not necessary.  Sorry but ... Cinderella157 (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Where you have to hunt and search for examples in lowercase the use in uppercase is everywhere on search engines, in sources, and in almost 80% of general use. The use of uppercase in occult tarot predominates. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Skepticism has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Paranormal has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 August 2021 

message: The whole of the popular media section is uncited and reads like a list of every novel, song, video game or TV series that mentions MA or the names of the individual cards. Most, if not all, appear non-notable, so I'm proposing we delete this entire section. It can always return if and when notable, cited material is available. Bermicourt (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove Popular Media section