Card games in PCDB? What about tarot?

[ecNate]

My previous assumption was ONLY standard playing card decks should be added to PCDB, defined as 4 suit decks with A/1 to 10, J, Q, K that can be used for multiple games. This would include 52/54 card decks as well as 32 card decks, etc.

However, I noticed that this card game from USPCC is in the database which brought up some questions for me and wanted the community's take on it.
https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=637 ... no-bicycle

Let's tackle card games first. Perhaps this example above can be argued as being a collector item since it's from USPCC, but it's clearly just dominoes in card form and not really playing cards. What about old maid, slapjack, uno, phase 10 decks, etc? I think definitely no on those, but this will come up again for those that also fall under USPCC decks or vintage decks. My take is these don't belong since they are single game playing cards and as a result are just a card game and not true multipurpose decks. Note that certainly decks made or advertised for Bridge, Pinochle, Canasta, etc would still fit the definition here.

Then there are alternate suit decks like Pilatch or Zont I suppose would fit as they are just alternate forms of playing cards, similar to the 32 card formats. Even more so would be card games like Tichu or Wizard which really are just standard decks of cards with additional cards added, similar to alternate Jokers. Then there is the Pairs decks which really focused on great artwork with 11 different decks of the same base game, but they also include multiple games that can be played with them. The earlier examples fit more than Pairs, but I'm not sure on this one.

Finally, what about tarot cards? This would seem a natural expansion and there could easily be a new category now made for it and in the future that be a new checkbox attribute. I think this could go either way since adding it could make sense, but the added clutter for non collectors and potential future need for more categories and features to support them being included might get out of hand.

[dazzleguts]

I think Tarot, and particular deck forms like Jass, could be a designation in the title the same way as Reproduction. That way they will be searchable as a group and can still be placed within their publisher/brand.

[nECr0MaNCeD]

What Dazzleguts said.......

[montecarlojoe]

Yeah - until we have an appropriate field for "specialisation" (for example - could include, say, Standard/poker, Bridge, Pinochle, Jass, Tarot, etc. ), I think Dazzle is right - just adapt the naming convetion and adjust to fit.