Talk:Visiting card

Copyvio

Moved from Wikipedia:Copyright problems:

Visiting card partially from [1]
- The problem seems to go back to the earliest revision of Business card. No copyvio notice on either page yet. --rbrwr ^± 07:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

End moved text

The offending paragraph has been removed. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Business card

A Visiting card was (is) a quite another thing than a Business card. The articles should not be merged. /B****n (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; they are distinctly different documents used for different purposes. Ray Trygstad (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

They are similar, but distinctly different and should not be merged. Business cards are given to advertise a business or provide contact information to an existing client. Visiting cards are much more an aristocratic etiquette ritual than a simple dispensing of information. With this consensus, I am removing the merge suggestion. TransUtopian (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition?

What is a visiting card? A definition is needed for this article. Explorer09 (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following definition to the first sentence:

A visiting card, also known as a calling card, is a small paper card with one's name printed on it. They first appeared...

Jeff Muscato (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My correction of grammatical number (i.e. "their" to "his" and "her")

I changed this:

Visiting cards became an indispensable tool of etiquette, with sophisticated rules governing their use. The essential convention was that one person would not expect to see another person in their own home (unless invited or introduced) without first leaving their visiting card with the person at their home. Upon leaving the card, they would not expect to be admitted at first, but might receive a card at their own home in response. This would serve as a signal that a personal visit and meeting at home would not be unwelcome. On the other hand, if no card was forthcoming in return, or if a card were sent in an envelope, a personal visit was thereby discouraged.

to this:

Visiting cards became an indispensable tool of etiquette, with sophisticated rules governing their use. The essential convention was that one person would not expect to see another person in her own home (unless invited or introduced) without first leaving his visiting card with the person at her home. Upon leaving the card, he would not expect to be admitted at first, but might receive a card at his own home in response. This would serve as a signal that a personal visit and meeting at home would not be unwelcome. On the other hand, if no card was forthcoming in return, or if a card was sent in an envelope, a personal visit was thereby discouraged.

My corrections were not just for correct use of grammatical number (i.e. singular pronouns for singular nouns) but also for specific clarify: By using one masculine character and one feminine character, we make the writing clearer by distinguishing whose card and whose house we're discussing at each point.

Confusion

Can someone do something about a confusion in interwikis with the followings:

Thank you. Bertrouf (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading use of feminine pronouns

In the history section, the use of feminine pronouns leaves the reader with the impression that women often left visitor cards, or as frequently as men.

There is no support given in the article for the bottom that women of the time period engaged this kind of etiquette at all, and Victorian society had very different norms along gender boundaries so there is no reason to give this impression without evidence. This feels like inappropriate and possibly misleading use of politically correct language.