Talk:Business card

CD-ROM business cards

Regarding:

  Recent technological advances have made possible CD-ROM "business cards"
  containing 35 - 50 megabytes of data. These cards may be square, round or
  oblong but are approximately the same size as a conventional business card.
  They are playable in most computer CD drives. Despite the ability to include 
  dynamic presentations and a great deal of data, these cards are not in common
  use.

What is the foundation for the final sentence of that paragraph?

  Despite the ability to include dynamic presentations and a great deal
  of data, these cards are not in common use.

I'm inclined to delete that sentence as I don't see it as definitive nor relevant to the article. Comments? Bevo 00:07, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Missing parts

On current usage there is no description on proper conduct on handling business cards, is there a reason for that? This is an all too common source of unintended insult when westerners attempt to do business in the Far East, particularly in Japan. There is no description on standards for digitally encoded information in a 2D barcode, any reason for that? Finally, in Japan it is not uncommon to see business cards printed on phonecards encoded in such a way that when you swipe it through a cardphone it automatically also dials the person who had the card printed.

I think it would be good to remove. I think the link to business card articles should remain as I see it as an excellent resource on the topic of business cards.

70.250.214.100 External Link additions

Hi 70.250.214.100. I'm sorry I had to remove your links again. Greatfxbusinesscards.com is blatant spam and Nedbatchelder.com/text/cardcube.html is neat information but irrelevant to this article. Monkeyman 21:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

worldwide view

I understand that personal/social cards are very much a US practice -- friends who've been to America say they get business cards at parties, which almost never happens anywhere I've been in Europe. Can anyone confirm/deny this? 81.1.73.247 21:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm this is not a US practice. Appearing at work or in social settings without a card is in the Far East a bit like appearing in public without clothing. You might also want to check earlier discussions on this very talk page. Somehow this has been offloaded into the meishi article but fails to describe proper etikette in other parts of the Far East. Until that is rectified I suggest checking The Economist for information. --21:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Dimensions for business cards

That table of sizes seems unrealistic to me. I have business cards from four states (Texas, California, Arizona and Maryland) and most cards are about 1.5" x 2.75". 69.99.137.54 (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Dimensions for social cards?

Here in the south, I have always preferred to use at-home cards, or social cards when exchanging personal info with acquaintances. Do we have proper dimensions on these? -- Thanks.

Digital Business Cards/contactbar

I do understand that the text about contactbar may be viewed as too much marketing. However, the technology should be relevant and I will try to return with a more neutral text. Regards UrbanP

Can I suggest you put it on this talk page first so other editors can discuss changes before it gets added to the article? Thanks --Richmeister 11:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparison article

Is it permitted to create a comparison article, reviewing the different online business card companies, listing their pricing, features, types of cards they can provide, online design system, etc. Been working up some of this information for my own use, and was thinking i could put it online where everyone can keep it up to date. Would this fit into this article or should i start a new article?66.181.16.82 00:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that would be considered encyclopedic, too much like a directory and inherently original research (see what Wikipedia is not). There may be other wikis where it would be encouraged though. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Weight?

What weight or type of paper is used for business cards? Like If I were to go to Staples and buy some paper to print my own at home. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.206.80.66 (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Precision of metric measurement

The U.S. business cards that I was issued by my employer appear to be exactly 3.5 in by 2 in, which implies a definitionally exact measurement of 88.9 mm by 50.8 mm for U.S.-style business cards rather than the approximate 89 x 51 mm given in the article. Is there any reason not to give the metric value to full precision? Schoen 08:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure an accuracy of 0.1 millimeter is even possible with inherently flexible materials like paper. How did you measure the 3.5 by 2 in value? 69.244.92.246 15:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at my business cards and they're 3 5/16 by 2 3/16 inches. I'm in the United States. Kevin chen2003 (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

UK Standard

The standard for the UK is 85mm x 55mm - should we mention that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.2.222.108 (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Card stock section

The section we have on "card stock" seems to be entirely unencyclopedic - written like an advertisement ("add durability and a feel of superior quality to your business cards!") and, at least at the moment, the normative opinion of (apparently) one printer. I propose incorporating the section into the printing section and rewording along the lines of

"Business cards are printed on some form of card stock with exact parameters dependent on national or local norms, the desired effect and method of printing, and cost. Business cards are normally printed on stock at least 200 gm² (weight) or 10pt(thickness)."

The 200 gsm measurement is what I believe most of the "free" business cards in the UK are printed on, which seems like a good starting point for the bottom measurement, not sure about the 10pt - seems thick to me for a bottom measurement. I'm pretty sure the Avery print your own ones are thinner than this. Would be nice to use a range instead of just a lower range. (This might also be something that varies by nation, I've been wondering if a table would be useful to address the size measurement issues, might be worth adding this in if there's any significant variation.)

Business card thickness cited in the article is currently at 12 pts and was at 10 pts. But both are far too thick. 10pts = 3.52mm = 139 mils (0.139"). These are way too thick and wrong. I have measured dozens of business cards that I have recently received. The thinnest is 210um (8mils) and the thickest is 540um (21.3 mils). What is the actual measure? nivek (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Since attempts to change the section by editors have been reverted, I wanted to gain consensus here. -- Siobhan Hansa 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. The current section is quite ridiculous. I'm doubtful about the 10pt measurement. As there are 72pt to an inch, 10pt is almost 1/6 of an inch. Maybe it's a different point measurement (I don't think so). If it was different, that should be referenced. peterl 22:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe there are 1000 pts to an inch in the US system. -- Siobhan Hansa 02:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends what you're measuring. Printers often measure distances on the surface of a page in "points" with 72.27 (not exactly 72) points to the inch. Some computer systems use a unit they call "points" defined as exactly 72 points to the inch; TeX calls those "big points" to distinguish them from the traditional ones. But when paper thickness (also called the paper's "caliper") is measured in points (as is common in the US), neither of those units is ever used... instead, it's measured in thousandths of an inch, as the previous comment says. For clarity, those points are only for paper thickness; if you print 12-point type on 12-point card stock that does NOT mean the type size is the same as the paper thickness! 67.158.72.135 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am new, but I agree also. Just to note for you all, 10 pt. is definitely the minimum. 12 pt. card stock is more and more common now, especially online if you browse several of the retailers. Many have reverted to only 14 pt. card stock, which I can look up if you want me to. This is all for US, after a little research on UK websites they are an average 400gsm. --Psionic 13:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Perhaps an "average" would be better. Does anyone know of any industry magazines or other places that might make good sources for these figures, I think we really need something that at least doesn't have a direct interest in selling business cards or card stock? -- Siobhan Hansa 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the change using the figures Psionic quoted. A suitable source would be great to add if anyone can find them. If you feel strongly that we should have different figures, please post. -- Siobhan Hansa 02:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparison Chart

I don't really see a comparison chart between various printers offerings as very useful or encyclopedic. Any other opinions? Leuko 17:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As it stands it doesn't add any insight into the history or impact of business cards - it simply serves as a consumer reports sort of service (which fits into the things we are not). It also seems to be designed primarily for US-based online printers, which is inappropriate for this article. I think it should go. -- SiobhanHansa 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the table (again). May I suggest that the table is first created, then posted here for review. Also I do not see how this could be allowed per 'what we are not'. I would even suspect that these type of lists are a nice spam magnet. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

See also

I have removed a link to Lyro -- that article is not about business cards. It has additionally been nominated for deletion because "Lyro" presumably lacks notability. (The brand name refers to a web 2.0 startup created only last year, with no neutral source giving any evidence of any significant market share) . -- 158.232.2.64 15:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Western-centric bias

The article states China was the first to use business cards but there is hardly any information in this article with regards to its usage in China. Instead, the article jumps right to business cards in the west. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.25.246 (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The last paragraph in § Construction was

For non-English locales, cards can also be printed with English on one side and a local non-English language on the other.

I've changed this to

Cards can also be printed with a different language on each side.

--Thnidu (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Visiting card

See Talk:Visiting_card#Merge_with_Business_card

/B****n (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Visiting cards are distinctly different from business cards. An explicit protocol for using visiting cards for both male and female evolved during the 18th and 19th centuries was described in etiquette books of the time. Visiting cards could be used to invite, announce, or snub, depending on how the card was given out. Please keep the two pages separate.Vsanborn (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Spam Magnet

I removed the External Links section. The one link there does have a few free templates but also has many ads on the page, as expected. Free templates are easy to find through Google or other search engines.

Also, the page now has two new business card images, which show what I assume to be current phone numbers, e-mails, website addresses, etc. Does this mean anyone can add their own business card to the page now? I doubt it, but I don't want to remove them without some discussion first or a 'higher-up' making the change.

Psionic (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There were previously no examples of modern business cards in this article. I can upload another version of the business card I made (the Pure Sounds one) with the contact details blurred if you like, to remove suspicion of advertising. I think that would ruin the image though, since it's got contact details all over it. I don't see anything wrong with having the two modern examples in the article as they help illustrate what a modern business card should look like and what contact details they should include. I don't see this as an invitation for other people to add their business cards, and agree that a gallery or something of business cards could be excessive and could be seen as an advertising exercise. In saying that though, since business cards come in many shapes, styles and sizes, perhaps it would be a good idea to have a gallery of several different types of modern business cards.

Scarlet23 (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's see Charles M. Wright's card

The citation for the graphic is provided on the file's page. Beyond that, substituting "Let's see Charles M. Wright's card" for the disputed text is not a constructive way to address the problem. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A List of Business Card Software

A list of business card software is quite relevant to the topic of software for the creation and printing of business cards. All external links were removed quite a while ago. You can see other examples of lists at file synchronization, desktop publishing, 3D Computer Graphics Software and the list goes on and on. I request that the removal of these lists by undone. I agree that Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. There were no external links there. Thanks. --RayJazz21 (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Images of cards

May I suggest that the images of actual business cards are anonymous, or of organisations/people who 'do not exist anymore', the pictures now seem a hidden way to spam Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

History?

A History section would be nice. Rees11 (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I am very curious to know when and where the first business card was created, or at least the first historical record of one... User:CielProfond 13:28 UT, 2013-06-11 (from unlogged address) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.29.254 (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Information Regarding "Business Cards Known as Drop Cards or Sizzle Cards"

I'd like to object to the removal of this contribution based on false information provided in the removal justification:

...one or more of the external links you added to the page Business card do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bdb484 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Triptych1" Hidden categories: User talk pages with Uw-spam1 notices

First, the information provided is factual, relevant to the "business card" topic, and not written in a promotional context. Secondly, the removal justification referred to "one or more of the external links you added..." when in fact, there were NO external links provided throughout the entire submission... NOT ONE. The removal further discusses "nofollow tags" and "a collection of links" which are also irrelevant to my contribution. Third, there was an illustration submitted that is relevant to the content of the submission. If anything, perhaps the image was too large. This was due only to my lack of experience/knowledge of how to create a thumbnail version. However, the content of the text copy was relevant to the "business card" topic, and the illustration was a perfect example of the information provided. This was done in the same manner as other business card illustrations that are contained within the wiki and are allowed to stand. I would like to resubmit the relevant text copy as well as the illustration. Prior to doing so, I will find the method by which to reduce the illustration to a thumbnail image so as not to be too obtrusive on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triptych1 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The problems here are that the work appears to be original research, unverified by reliable sources. You'll need to address that problem to make the text acceptable.

The problem with the picture is that it appears to be designed to draw traffic to your website. That should also be addressed before it is reposted.

Thanks, and happy editing. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

looks like OR to me as well - remove on sight. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Consider WP:MERGE. Although Meishi may have some cultural differences in its handling, an also difference in physical shape, it is otherwise the same concept as business card, and usage context is the same. I don't think it grants for special treatment as how Katana may be differed from Sword. How about a new section in the article, noting its usage and difference in Japan? Syockit (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Both points are the same; information about a company or individual. not enough The split.　I have not complaints this proposal.--Chiether (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Like you said, the concepts are essentially the same. Therefore, I agree and support your proposal to merge the two. A big reason why to merge the two would be Rationale #2 - Overlap. Yes, a new section in the Business Card article to note the difference and such is a good idea.XXXpinoy777 (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a merge, especially because the current business card article seems mostly to be about the physical object and how to print one, so merging with a conceptual article will balance this out.Infojunkie23 (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Although it doesn't really matter to me, I think merging the two articles makes a lot of sense because they really are just the same thing with some slight cultural differences on top. There are many other articles for general purpose things that have subsections describing differences around the world, and that seems 100% appropriate here. Quillaja (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does Membership Card redirect here? They are entirely different in usage, form, and format, with membership cards usually being about the same size as debit/credit cards or drivers' licenses, and containing minimal information. It is not used for identification (except by the issuing organization) and is never used to convey contact information (which membership cards frequently don't list anyway). It may also have a barcode or magnetic strip to carry information. Mention of Membership Cards is rightly contained originally under Magnetic Stripe Card. Therefore, the redirect should be removed. 17:51 26 August 2011 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.168.127 (talk)

Support Merge. Although WP is written by anime nerds, geeks, and losers so of course the outcome will be keep.-WikiSkeptic (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Do not support merge. Business cards and calling cards ARE different and distinct things; in the calling card heyday it was considered rude to use/leave a business card in place of your calling card; thus they are recognizably different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.222.4 (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Who makes them?

Are there any well known business card companies? Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

meishi qr code

I would have fixed this myself, but the page is edit locked. A study from 2007 shouldn't be used in something about qr codes, either a newer study should be used it this part should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.137.73 (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2014

The standard size for Business Cards in Denmark is 85 x 55 mm 188.120.77.114 (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Article needed: modern trade cards

An unlinked mention of "trade cards" in Nudism had me looking at Trade cards, but that article is entirely about an early type of business card, used from the early 17th to the late 19th century, now a collectible. However, the term is in current use for something distinct from both the early trade card and the modern business card. Apparently the modern trade card is a card, typically issued to professionals in specific trades such as building, entitling them to discounts and special deals from sellers of equipment and supplies.

A "trade+card" web search turned up, along with the WP article, a number of sites about modern trade cards. Apparently at least some of them may also be used as credit cards.

• Builders Trade Card (South Africa)

  "The Builders Trade Card is suited for a trade contractor, home owner or builder who makes frequent purchases."

• BuildStore Trade Card (UK): builders and renovators

  "The Trade Card scheme gives you access to savings and special offers on over 400,000 products, including plant and tool hire, roofing, insulation, white goods, electricals, flooring and specialist products - absolutely everything you'll need to complete your new home or project."

• n3 Trade Card (New Zealand): businesses of all kinds

  "From milk delivery to fuel supply; everything your business buys at a lower cost."

• Motor Trade Card (Australia): automotive industry

  "The new way to do business for Suppliers and Buyers within the automotive industry around Australia!"

• Halfords Trade Card (UK) independent auto repair technicians

  "The Trade Card is free and means irtec Licence holders can purchase thousands of Halfords products at very competitive prices. Halfords stores offer car parts, oils, workshop equipment, consumables, tools and body repair products."

• SuperCheap Auto Trade (Australia and New Zealand)

  "Car Care & Cleaning | Auto Accessories | Batteries & Electrical | Parts & Maintenance | Oils & Lubes | Tools & Storage | Paint & Panel | Touring & 4WD | Car Audio & Connectivity"

• Jaycar Electronics Trade Card (Australia)

  "Cat 5 cable and other networking consumerables/tools, TV antennas and cabling, burglar alarm gear, etc."

To discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggested correction

Xxxxx do we want a global exchange book 172.56.28.104 (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Advertising added to the article

Product advertisement has been added by user Phillycodehound on September 24, 2016. There is no problem mentioning new technologies, but this edit is publicity of a hardly related product. It should be removed.

Mik8s (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Business card. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508235837/http://japan.internet.com:80/research/20070626/1.html to http://japan.internet.com/research/20070626/1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Contradictory wording, beyond my capabilities as a writer.

The introduction to the page has a sentence that reads "Before the advent of electronic communication business cards might also include telex details." This is a contradiction, as telex is an electronic communication method, but I don't know what a better phrase would be. 130.245.192.6 (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

Mehroob (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2024

Add this link to the page as a reference article for the key term mentioned on the page "professional business card will often include one or more aspects of striking visual design" Article Link: - Key Elements of a Professional Business Card Design - Article discussing the essential elements of a business card, including design principles and best practices. This article provides valuable insights into the key elements of a professional business card design, including design principles and best practices. It offers practical tips and advice for creating effective business cards that leave a lasting impression. Adding this link to the Wikipedia page would enhance the resources available to readers seeking information on business card design. ShubhamSkad (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per WP:EL and WP:PROMO. M.Bitton (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)