Jump to content

Talk:Trading card/Archives/2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pre-History?

Is that really the best term to describe the section of trading cards before they were popularized? When i first saw the heading i thought it was going to talk about neolithic trading cards or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.142.22 (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The Avengers

To stop it from linking to a disambiguation page, can someone figure out whether the link to "The Avengers" should go to The Avengers (TV series) or The Avengers (film)? Dpv 09:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

trade card and trading card, there is a big difference

Trading cards have to be bought = were bought = are for sale in sealed packages and are edited in sets mostly related to sports events or "playing" games.

Trade cards on the contrary were a gift from a Company and are really 50 to 150 years older, these days it is to costly to give away cards, so only an illustrated visiting card or postcards from a company, printed with their address AND/OR product publicity, could be called a trade card. Furthermore a trade card has printed information about the Company on front AND reverse As always there are exceptions : if the printer used the cards ( which he printed ) for other purposes. Then we can find the trade card without printing on the back and call it a printers proof. If there is NO printed advertising on the card nor on the front nor on the reverse side then it is called a stock card.

Most trade cards were produced in sets ( mosty 6 cards ) by very big international Company's, those were the first multi-nationals. Good examples were the big Tobaco Companies beginning 1880, big tea and coffee distributors (Arbucles), chocolate ( Suchard, Van Houten ), meat extract company Liebig's CompanyLiebig, Cibils and many others. Serials ( series, sets ) were edited sometimes on 100.000nds from each set. And the biggest collection is that from more than different 2000 sets ( +7000 variations in many languages ) by Justus von Liebig's Fleish extrakt Kompagnie. The earliest lithographic color card ( stone press print ) I have is a Rimmel Parfume card from 1862. Of course there are known earlier cards ... porcelain cards : ... but those were individual name cards from shops AND not editied in sets, this was around 1837 ( my oldest ). Trade cards are mostly found glued in very old albums or iserted in albums especialy edited for that purpose by the company's advertising department.

I just wanted to make clear the difference between

  • ---trading cards :newer ( mostly after WWII, smaller, coated, offset = 3 colors or laserprint printed, no publicity for an editing food-, drug- or product company )

AND

  • ---trade cards : older; smaller sets of 6 or multples of 6; litho, litho chromo, chromo litho = real color up to 8 (sometimes 17 colours ); always advertising a product somtimes lifted, floating, playing in the scenic image; mostly stories ( first comic stories ); sometimes with pricing or real misleading, suggesting topic to buy the product !

victorian advertising trade cards Albert180307 11:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Albert Van den Bosch Comment placed on article in this edit. Uncle G 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

These pages have been the source of great controversy. I got slapped on the wrist for adding links and then accused of vandalism for removing them. In an attempt to put an end to it, before adding any external links it sounds like there should be a discussion. How many external links are appropriate and what types of external links would people like to suggest.Tecmobowl 09:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To further a point, although i was originally in favor of having external links on this page, i realize the pros and cons. I believe that this topic is too broad for external links. Specific pages, like Sports card, Cigarette card, and a handful of others are specific enough where directly relevant content can be provided through external links.Tecmobowl 09:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Direct links to selected content with further reading on the topic, for example educational essays from libraries, would be fine. Links to commercial "resources", none at all.
The Tuffstuff.com is nothing more than an advertisement and in no way contributes to the encyclopedia. WP:EL is clear, end of discussion. Those who falsely accuse others of vandalism for removing it will provide a good reason to override the guidelines, or kindly stop the harassment and edit war. Femto 11:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have found some non-commercial links and added them~. Ponch's Disco 20:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of those are not relevant and/or not worth a link, the wiki site was very relevant however. Cheers. --Tecmobowl 21:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I have put them back until we can reach a consensus. Ponch's Disco 04:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not how it works, it's the other way around. "Non-commercial" is not the criterion (besides in my opinion some of those links already fit the "objectionable amounts of advertising" criterion anyway). Forums should generally not be linked to. We also don't do affiliate programs with other Wikis, they're no exception just because they use the Wikimedia software. If their licensing is GFDL compatible, include the content directly in our articles instead of linking to it, otherwise, avoid links. Femto 11:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind having a discussion, but the idea is that you talk about them before you add them. Removing them for that reason. --Tecmobowl 06:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What am I, chopped liver? Please take a look at WP:EL. Then explain why a link to a forum is "mandated by the article". Tradingcardcentral.com is a commercial site full of ads and surely not a unique resource. We're supposed to prefer open directories, why link a specific webring? There's an article on Wacky Packages to which is already linked internally, so wacky-packages.net is not appropriate in this general article. Though I see some relevance in the other Wiki, here at Wikipedia we're supposed to create content, not link to that of others. Femto 18:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Femto and I have had a long discussion about this. A site that I believe provides very useful content (a site with checklists) that does not have any advertising and only requires you to pay if you want to get prices was considered outside of appropriate links. I did not add the SportsWiki, but it would be somewhat usefull although the site is not really used at all. I am in fact a registered user of both of those forums, and i see no reason why any forum should be linked to. Inline with what has previously been said, those sites are not unique resources and are splattered with ads.--Tecmobowl 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Please explain what invalidates my reasons given above. The links should not be added per Wikipedia's content guidelines, and I fully endorse their removal. So I'm a problem user too you say? Femto 19:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a vandal, you can just get over it. I don't ignore WP:OWN, people just don't understand the term. I have contributed to a number of articles and as long as people submit usefull information, then I don't have a problem. TBTA started it by filling up an article with biased information. It got the point where I went in and had to redo much of the article because of it. I could careless about these accusations, just get the information right. --Tecmobowl 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Please keep personal references out of this. They have no place and I'm sick and tired of discussing the matter. I am here and not going anywhere. End of topic. As for the matter on hand, please elaborate on why you feel these sites are valuable enough to include in the external links. Please keep in mind that while I am a participant on all those sites, others involved in this discussion might not be as familiar with them. We in fact had a discussion about CardPricer.com, a site I think should be included in this and on other relevant pages. The majority of people felt it should be removed despite the fact that there are no advertisements and all of their information (sans pricing) is available without the need to even register. I yet to see why the sites you have propossed offer a greater benefit. Logically, if the most relevant site is not appropriate, then neither are these. --Tecmobowl 23:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Your insistence on getting personal, combined with your inability to speak to the issue at hand is further proof that you are not in a position to add unbiased content to the article. I think this issue should be considered closed. Anyone else? --Tecmobowl 23:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
An account that three days after its creation calls another user a troll should be more careful about who accuses who. Either you can substantiate your accusations with concrete evidence, or you will abide by the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. In any case, your personal grudge against Tecmobowl is irrelevant to the topic of these links, as I'm still here. Femto 12:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete list

Do we really need an incomplete list of all the films and TV shows that had cards issued? It seems more like filler than anything useful. Ponch's Disco 20:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, i'd say kill it. --Tecmobowl 20:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Too many different articles?

There are currently at least seven separate articles on these cards: trade card, cigarette card, trading card, sports card and hockey card/baseball card/football card. Do you think we should amalgamate them into one comprehensive article? --Skillymagee 18:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to fix this article.

  • plants Soviet flag on header*

Lumberjake (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Beep beep, here comes the faildozer

I removed an Xbox-huge chunk of crap from the article (which is included in this post, if needed later). Here it is:

Lumberjake (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Schoolyard games with trading cards

I looked through the articles on trading cards and collectible card games. One piece of history seems to be missing, though I may be wrong.

When I was a kid, we used to play games with trading cards. These were schoolyard games similar in spirit to marbles, where one would add cards to the game and attempt to win more popular cards.

Two games I remember were "Tops", where cards were place in a chalk circle on the ground, and the object was to throw a card from a distance outside the circle and land it at least partially on a card in the circle. If the card "topped" one or more other cards, the thrown cards and the topped cards went to the thrower. If the card did not top another card it remained in the circle. If it fell on or outside the circle, it was placed in the circle.

Another game was "Knocks", where cards were leaned against the school wall. The object here was to throw a card and knock down one of the standing cards. If one or more cards was knocked down on a shot, the thrown card and knocked cards went to the thrower (the card had to be knocked flat on the ground, I remember half-knocked, precariously balanced cards. If a card was not knocked down, the thrown card was stood up.

There were (probably ad hoc) rules for the initial number of cards in a game (in Tops I think it was one from each player) and for distributing unwon cards at the end of the game (in "Knocks" I seem to remember there was a game "host" who contributed the initial stock and took the pot at the recess bell). There were also rules governing the inclusion of valuable cards in the games. I don't clearly remember these, though.

These games were popular among elementary school students in my school days (1960's New Hampshire). They were played at at least two schools (Claremont and Hillsboro), so I suspect they were pretty widely played. Do others have experience with such games? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.152.29 (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Condition descriptors

Boy, it would sure be nice to have photo examples of card conditions! --Knulclunk (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

History of trading cards?

I have been studying early baseball memorabilia (1850s-1910s) for two decades and I have never seen "small, homemade cloth strips with players names on them" as baseball cards. I have seen no pictures or examples of these (and now I am looking hard because I am very curious). I have found no reference to this other than the citation made within this article and four webpages that were copied verbatim from the same source. If these do (or did) exist, I believe they must have been an anomaly and had no real impact upon the invention of trading cards. I have just read "Mint Condition" by Dave Jamieson, which details the invention of trading cards fairly deeply and it makes no mention of this. I think this section of the article is misleading and needs some serious revision. If no one disagrees within a reasonable amount of time, I will fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigzach1000 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trading_card/Archives/2013&oldid=737643059"