Talk:French Tarot

}}

Proposed merge with Tarot

• I don't think the two should be merged
• Neither do I; there seem to be notable differences - oppose. RedvBlue 17:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I support the merging of the section Tarocchi as a Game into this article; though there seem to be differences in the cards, the rules of the game are exactly those described in this article. The rest of the article could perhaps be merged into Tarot. Pruneau^talk 13:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• oppose: I don't feel that the 2 should be merged either - as above there are diffeneces and depending on which game someone wants to look up they should be told the exact rules/game play/traditions/styles/ (and anthing else!) for that game. Having a see also allows readers to see the other game and all things related to it. --Zarief 19:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• In the German Wikipedia, currently articles for all the games of the Tarocchi/Tarock/Tarot-family are created. I think it should be done the same here. If this is not wanted, however, the Tarot (game) article should be merged into Tarocchi, not the other way round, as Tarot is a member of the Tarocchi family! To the merge as suggested, I strictly oppose. --KnightMove 10:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• I support an introductory page with all of the tarot family of card games listed. Ideally this should be under tarot, but there you run into the conflict with the occultists. The name in the English language for the family of card games is Tarot, and since this is the English version of Wikipedia, the term in English should be the prefered one. In other languages it is Tarock, Taraut, Tarocco (Tarocchi), etc. They are all related trick-taking card games with a common origin. That is why they are all included in Michael Dummett's book The Game of Tarot . They do not use identical cards of course. That is because of divergences in playing card fashions and suit signs in each region. In german speaking areas of Switzerland, they use the 1JJ Tarot pack with Italian suit signs. In Sicily, they use the unique Tarocco Siciliano pack. There are also Tarocco Piedmontese, Tarocco Bolognese, and other packs from Milan, etc. There are at least three distinct versions of the Austrian-style Tarock pack. Then there are the French tarot versions with the arabic numerals on the top. These are all tarot playing cards, and are used to play related games. The question is, why are Tarock and Tarocchi on the same page, while French Tarot is on another? Tarock and French Tarot have french suit symbols, while Tarocco uses Italian suit signs. There should be one introductory article for the family of tarot games (similar to the presentation in the Tarocchi article), then individual main articles on each regional variation (with cards used, style of play, regional variations, etc.). This is what is done with other cards games such as Rummy, where there are many variations and regional games. Most of the Rummy family of games are listed in a special section of the article. I think that Tarot (game) should be the general page, and perhaps a special page created for "French Tarot", Tarocco (Tarrochi), Troccas (Swiss), Austrian-style Tarock, and Minchiate. The problem with all this evidently arises due to the unique situation of one family of card games having varying playing card standards in various regions. -- Parsa 21:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• I support merging all tarot tarock game articles. As a student of Italian regional decks I have become immune to the petty differences of suits, etc. How many bridge articles are there, is there an article for contract, etc? Poker do we have one for draw, texas holdem, strip? should we? I am of the understanding, that when a section of a main article becomes too big so as to take over, it should be "spun off" to another article. This is kind of the opposite. The person above me I think has the solution. main tarot (game) page with the necessary redirects, and main article pages spun off to the appropriate regional differences. Parenthetically, how many times playing, did it take you to realize the game flinch was actually just a commercialization of already existing games, or that spades, 500, hearts and the like all belongs to the same family. Card sites, have broad categories, and Tarock/Tarot would be included with all the trick taking games such as the former. I know this is a two year old discussion LOL. But its new to me. --K3vin (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• I vehemently oppose merging this article with Tarot. Some information is redundant, largely relating to the makeup of the deck, and there are various similarities in the playing of various tarot games. However, jeu de tarot, and similar games played with tarot cards, have a wide degree of cultural, historical and practical differences. I ask rhetorically, what place does information on how to score this game have in the Tarot article? The Tarot article's place seems, to me, to provide a history of the development of the class of tarot cards, basic makeup of each deck (a paragraph for each deck type should be more than sufficient) and summary information on their varying uses. It should not and cannot be all-inclusive in detail. To put it another way, the firearms article cannot and should not have the information currently held in shotgun, which should not have the information contained in Mossberg 500. To merge game articles with an article discussing the deck is very similar and creates exactly the same type of monster pages that Wikipedia tries to avoid by branching articles. The other side of the coin is that various specific articles on regional tarot card games must specifically and totally describe the game, and the only outside references, if any, should be in discussing the deck itself. The rule that Wikipedia should not be a "how-to" must be necessarily loosened when discussing games, as it is notable, in fact vital, for most readers interested in a game to know its rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liko81 (talk • contribs) 16:27 UTC, 26 November 2008

Things that aren't clear

• What does the term chief mean? I assume it's the person who wins the bid.
• What's the order of the cards? I assume 2-10, Page, Knight, Queen King Ace?
• I'm not clear on the significance of the bids. The first bid sounds like you're just bidding to make the 56 points, then doubling the stake you could lose, and then increasing the stake but improving your odds by adding the dog to your score, then upping the stakes further by having the dog count for whoever wins the hand.... I'm not clear on what the advantage is to making a bid or what the disadvantages are for making the last two higher bids.

--BigCow 05:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Good questions, BC. I've inserted an explanation of the ranking. In tarot card games, Aces do not rank high. "Chief" is somebody's idea, not mine, of translating the word "preneur" You've guessed correctly. It is the person winning the bid. I think "taker" would be a better translation.

The number of points needed depends on how many of the oudlers (excuse, petit, #21) one has gained in his won tricks.

With 3 bouts the taker needs at least 36 card points to win; With 2 bouts the taker needs at least 41 card points to win; With 1 bout the taker needs at least 51 card points to win; With 0 bouts the taker needs at least 56 card points to win.

Smiloid 22:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Trump symbolism

Smiloid has been fighting the good over in the general tarot article. That page is a real mess. It really should be general, but what it turns out to be is a distasteful melange of fact and fantasy. It's full of weasel words and phrases, and their are few references for the good reason that the divinatory origins of the game are false. Personally, I have no objects to having a section on divination on the main page. It's a fact that the cards are used for this purpose. I don't even have an objection to a section on belief in esoteric origins, but it needs to be stated as originating with 18th century occultists, and clear references need to be given to these individuals and their works.

I agree that from the main article there should be two separate articles: Tarot (game) and Tarot (divination). Divination is largely an Anglo-Amercan bias. I also agree that Tarocchi and Tarot (Game) should be a single article.

All that being said, the sad thing is that the true symbolism of the cards is lost in all the esoteric hooey. The triumph cards really do feature interesting symbols, and this cultural symbolism should be addressed in a scientifically historical manner. I've been doing the same with Japanese Hanafuda cards. Those cards are fairly recent, but the symbolism in them goes back hundreds of years to China. In fact, the Hanafuda cards are like a time capsule of the most popular artistic symbols in Japan. I've been collecting images of old paintings from Japan and China that show the same symbolism found in the Hanafuda cards. For example the January cards show a pine tree and a crane. This combination of a crane on a pine is very ancient, and I've found a great many paintings from Japan and China showing the pair.

Although I've just obtained a copy of The Game of Tarot and started reading it, I've already read Dummett's two other books on the history of the occult tarot. I'm not sure what if anything he says about the card symbols... it is a big book! I would be interested to see a Wiki article on the true origins of the triumph symbolism. It's not related to game play, but it is interesting from an artistic and cultural standpoint. -- Parsa 19:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive me in advance for any lack of proper formatting - I am new to Wikipedia editing and I don't have a good handle on all of this yet. However, since this topic - Tarot, especially as a card game - is one I feel passionately about, I would like to get involved in this discussion.

• Parsa - I agree with you that there could (should?) be more information on the symbolism behind the Trumps. Could this be a spin-off page from the main Tarot page, parallel to the discussions of Tarot for divination and Tarot as a game? There would be a lot of openings for links here, especially to iconography, Renaissance history, Italian and French history, etc.

• I don't agree with merging the Tarocchi and Tarot pages - at least, not based on how they are currently written. The Tarocchi article is more a discussion of the deck itself, whereas the Tarot page is a discussion of a game variant using that deck. What I would propose would be leaving the two articles separate, but adding more articles discussing the other variants. Then the Tarocchi page could become a 'parent' page with links to separate 'child' pages for each individual game variant.

• I would also like to see some information on the history of Tarot usage in literature - from my own experience, I'm thinking of Williams' 'The Greater Trumps,' Dorothy Dunnett's 'The Game of Kings,' and a few others. Just a point of personal interest. Piano-one 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

French Tarot and French Roulette

French Tarot and French Roulette can be corelated as follows:

 0-+
 1-1
 2-2
 3-3
 4-4
 5-5
 6-6
 7-7
 8-8
 9-9
10-10
11-V
12-C
13-D
14-R
15=1
16=2
17=3
18=4
19=5
20=6
21=7
22=8
23=9
24=10
25=11
26=12
27=13
28=14
29=15
30=16
31=17
32=18
33=19
34=20
35=21
36=*

That permits to use French Roulette as random modifier while playing French Tarot. Zero can be used as special modifier. CBMIBM (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Different uses of the word "value"

In the section titled Main phase, "value" is used to describe the rank order, but then the section on scoring uses "value" for the number of points of the card. I would like to suggest using the word rank instead of value in the Main phase section.128.2.5.212 (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

redundant categories

This page is placed into two categories which are redundant. I've tried to edit the page to remove them, and I can't seem to find these redundant categories. Does anyone know how to delete them?Smiloid (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

links

tarot-en-ligne.com is a divination link not a french-tarot game tarotenligne.com is a fake link (no game on-line behind the button "jouer en ligne")

You can add www.webtarot.fr and www.objectiftarot.net who are the historical french tarot online game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.125.234.15 (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 April 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved as proposed. The rest of the project can catch up (or reverse this) in their due time. BD2412 T 05:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

French tarot → French Tarot – This is the proper name for the card game per editor Bermicourt and the leading authority on Tarot games, Sir Michael Dummett, who always used title case, for example, "Four-handed Chambéry Tarot" and, specifically, "French Tarot". The requested title-case form is more common than the current sentence-case title. Please see also the Tarot Nouveau. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Not only does Dummett use title case for the names of card games, but so do most card game authors and historians. Exceptions are very common games e.g. poker and blackjack in single-subject books or in the media. In addition I would add that "Tarot" is the generic title of the game in France. In English we add "French" to distinguish it from other Tarot games, of which there are several, e.g. Swiss Tarot. Bermicourt (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I think this should be taken up by Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games. In Wikipedia, sports and most traditional board games are in lower case with exceptions of those that have a name of a person, place, or people. Until we establish a convention at the WikiProject, this article should stay as is. I should have requested it earlier but BTG sorely needs a style guideline. Here is an example we can emulate: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Cue sports.--Countakeshi (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There would certainly be merit in putting together a convention on card games, so I'm glad you've proposed that and I'd be willing to help; not least because I have access to some two hundred sources and expert advice. However, I think that's a separate and much wider exercise that could take a while to achieve consensus and I don't think that we should put this particular one on hold while we wait for that. Linking the wider aim of a convention for all card game articles to single-issue, one article discussions could lead to paralysis. That said, I also don't think it's wise either to make mass changes in advance of proper consensus. So I think we have some fertile common ground. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.