Talk:Business card

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.


[edit] 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. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman 21:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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.)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)