Template talk:Credit cards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Finance (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

German networks[edit]

@prohibitonions, for your information:

Girocard/electronic cash and Maestro on German debit cards are not identical, they are two different systems on one card. The girocard/electronic cash function is used for paying within Germany. The Maestro function is only ever used when a German card is used abroad.

Besides, certain banks in Germany offer debit cards which have the girocard function, but not Maestro. For example: - http://www.raiba-suedhardt.de/privatkunden0/konto___karten/karten.html OR http://www.vb-bad-saulgau.de/privat/konto___karten/karten/vr-bankcard_c.html (Girocard + Cirrus for ATMs abroad) -https://direktbank.cortalconsors.de/girokonto/faq.html?mkz=684486959#q26 (Girocard + V Pay)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.175.44.17 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2008‎

Credit/Charge distinction[edit]

While I do not in anyway dispute the difference between traditional charge cards and credit cards, part of me is wondering if it's correct to list AmEx (particularly) separately. There's only one article for the company, and it has both charge and credit cards available. It seems listing it as just a charge card is a bit inaccurate. I'm wondering if a better focus would be on the branding/acceptance networks, which often support multiple types of cards, would be a better focus, or at least should be mentioned at the top of the navbox. Thoughts? oknazevad (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll add AmEx to the major credit card list if there are no objections. Sbliman (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your arguments, Sbliman and Oknazevad, but I think it is just fine to list AmEx once, in the charge card list. Yes, the company, brand and acceptance network also operate credit cards in some countries (and traveler's checks, bureau de change, financial advice and so on) but worldwide, charge cards form the major line of business.
By contrast, Visa Debit gets its own entry as it has become a major card series in its own right, and has its own Wikipedia article.
Thinking further along the lines that brevity is beauty, I wonder if it might be even better for readers if we merge the first three lists (major credit, major debit, and charge) into one. We might call it just 'major cards' or 'major brands', and drop the direct links to the four debit card articles related to Visa and Mastercard. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, and it would fit in rather well with the next two entries, 'regional cards' and 'defunct cards'. The debit cards links don't have to be dropped; they could become parenthetical references after the main brand. Sbliman (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Here is a mock-up:

which will be marked up like this:

{{Navbox
|name  = Credit cards
|title = [[Credit card|Credit]], [[charge card|charge]], [[stored-value card|stored-value]], and [[debit card|debit]] cards
|listclass = hlist

|group1= Major cards
|list1 =
* [[American Express]]
* [[Diners Club International|Diners Club]]
* [[MasterCard]] (including [[Debit MasterCard]] and [[Maestro (debit card)|Maestro]])
* [[Universal Air Travel Plan|UATP]]
* [[Visa Inc.|Visa]] (including [[Visa Debit]] and [[Visa Electron]])

|group2= Regional cards
|list2 =
* [[BC Card]] ''and so on ...''
}}

Looking at this, I think it would be easier to navigate without the debit cards (even for a reader specifically interested in the debit cards.) Maybe the debit card articles deserve their own navbox. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

On first glance, the number of items is overwhelming, but if as you say, brevity is beauty, then your mock-up does seem to me to be the most concise way to present the current information. I would argue against creating a new debit nav box as debit cards are too similar functionally to the other cards. If more emphasis were placed on the brands/networks, then the debit card links could be dropped. In that case, I think it would be important to rewrite the main Visa and MasterCard pages to make clear the variety of products/cards/networks they offer (they are not currently). Sbliman (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I like it, mostly. I don't think we need to actually include the word "include"; just placing the debit links adjacent between <small> tags would impart the same info with a more compact layout. I'd also then move UATP to minor; it is accepted at a whopping 250 merchants according to its article. They may be around the world, but they are very specialized.oknazevad (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So I went ahead and made the changes, with my additional changes. Thinking on it, maybe the "regional" name should become "regional and minor" or "regional and specialty", as it'd be more accurately descriptive; UATP does have too large a geographical area to be called "regional", but is too specialized and has too few accepting merchants to be called "major", but Discover, JCB and China UnionPay are to large to be called "minor". I think I'll go with the "Regional and Specialty" name. oknazevad (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

JCB[edit]

JCB is accepted in "190 countries and territories" [1]. We should move it from 'regional' to 'major'. What do you think? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In absence of reply, I moved JCB back to major. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
But it's only issued in two or so countries. That makes it regional by any standard. oknazevad (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Good point. By major, I was thinking about the scope of the acceptance network, not the issuing network, in much the same way that AmEx is mostly issued in North America, but (unlike Discover for example) has a network in most continents. Is my thinking consistent or helpful to readers? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to think of three things in categorizing: how widespread the issuance is; how widespread the acceptance is in terms of territory; and how widespread the acceptance is in terms of number of merchants. The first and third are what keep JCB regional in my mind; there may be merchants in 190 countries that accept it, but that says nothing about what percentage of all card-accepting merchants in those countries accept JCB. I know that acceptance in the US has long severly lagged Visa and MC, with only a small percentage of merchants accepting JCB cards. The cross-acceptance deal with Discover may have changed that a bit, though.
Speaking of Discover, you do know that they bought the Diners Club network a couple of years ago, and along with the acceptance deals with JCB and China Union Pay, are now accepted far and wide? Still, the brand is limited in issuance to North America, so I'd still call it regional, until if/when they phase out the Diners Club name. AmEx, on the other hand, is issued worldwide, even if the majority of cardholders are in NA. oknazevad (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(Revert massive, undiscussed changes; oppose as the categories are just incorrect. And navboxes never use external links in place of redlinks)[edit]

I'm new here. And I don't know all rules. Am I wrong about this that in South Korea, them ATMs accept...

  • Diners Club
  • Discover
  • China UnionPay
  • JCB
  • MasterCard
  • Visa

In addition... (UATP) is a global corporate travel payment network issued by 17 major airlines and accepted by over 250 merchants around the world

and... in addition... here http://amex.via.infonow.net/locator/cash/ you can find huge list of ATMs located outside USA what support American Express cards.

For all of rest alternatives discussed in Wikipedia, for all of them is claimed in them corresponding article that they can be used only inside some country. Like example , Girocard can be used only in Germany and this is claimed in the Girocard article. ("German Girocards are usually co-branded ... allowing cardholders to use them in other European countries.", but without the alternative brand, they're unusable outside Germany)

For rest cards in group 'Defunct cards', I believe that there will be no user interest where they was used. While in same time, it's by the huge user profitability he to know where can be used in now that some debit cards and it will be not usable outside limited territory. 'Defunct cards' are usable in nowhere.

There are and other debit card brands in the world what are simply use incompatible hardware or software with the already listed brands. They deserve separate web-pages here (wikipedia), but it's not profitable for me to write for each missing brand, own article.

For me , wikipedia is great library tool, but not advertisement tool. Like result, after some visitor in the library inform himself about various famous brands, may be he'll no need to read links to empty pages.

I do the divide in interest of the average citizen who wonder what type of card to get. If he see template in this way:
good cards: 1,2,3 ;
bad cards: ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ;
then he'll increase the market share of this limited list of 1,2,3 cards.

But if he's by India, and know the advantages of RuPay... he'll definitely will lose time to read all other information for all other cards like Girocard , even if he'll visit Germany never.

My proposed divide in groups of this three areas:
3) can be used in locations placed on several continents
2) can be used only inside some government's territory
1) can be used nowhere

Please, share your thoughts

By my private opinion, many Chinese will think that 'Major cards' must include China UnionPay, while in same time people who haven't touch with the unique culture in South Korea, Japan, China and other countries in same area will think that China UnionPay is used only in China and haven't influence outside China. While in same time China UnionPay can be used in 1.2 millions ATMs. China UnionPay is simply not region-dependent.

I believe that the user will need to know for the special cards, after they're special... where they can be used.

Thank you for your attention and your opinions(comments). Open world is build by open-minded people.

I'm agreeable that the category-names are incorrect, let be proposed better variants.

Three issues with your comments. Firstly, Wikipedia's purpose is not to give advice, but to simply describe things in a neutral fashion. :Secondly, it must take a global perspective, as best we can. So, while China UnionPay may seem majorly important to a Chinese, its not issued outside China, and so isn't truly a global brand, just as Discover, not being issued outside the US, isn't one either. (That each is accepted in the other's territory is because they have a cross-acceptance deal.) See the previous talk section where I explain why a large number of countries for acceptance alone isn't enough to call something major. (UATP is, at only 250 accepting merchants, so small as to be insignificant.)
Thirdly, a navbox is just for linking articles, and shouldn't contain a ton of detail; the detail is left to the articles that are linked. So your proposed version was too detailed.
Lastly, less about the proposed idea and more about the way you edited. While there's no requirement to do such, when embarking on a major overhaul of a template or other item used on a lot of pages, it would be advisable to read the talk page. Here, for example, you would have seen that the restored version was based on multiple discussions involving which cards go in which categories, what those categories are called and why cards are in a given category. In short, you would have seen that the issues have been carefully considered, and most of your concerns have been addressed. If you still wanted to comment, that'd be more than welcome, but sometimes being bold is not the best way to work. Just some friendly advice.oknazevad (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you're correct about 'So your proposed version was too detailed.'... it was happen so... because in that time when I was done it, I was haven't a lot of ideas. I found you to be highly knowledgeable in this subject, and while I read your reply I get one new great idea, so I'll like you to help me with my new idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/comparison_of_cards