Talk:United States Playing Card Company

message: I propose we move this articel back to "The United State Playing Card Company" because that is the official name of the company (with the "the"). 68.35.52.95 19:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Someone should create an Aviator article as it is one of the most cost effective playing card decks out there, with high quality and anti-cheating measures (white border and plain design). 70.111.224.85 15:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviator Article 

message: :Image:Uspc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Uspc.jpg

message: :Image:Uspc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 16:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Uspc.jpg

message: Since Bicycle Playing Cards has it's own page, I think any list of decks they have produced should be presented there, if at all, instead of on the company page. It clutters the article, and is a very incomplete list without a source. I would welcome a referenced historical list of their products TabooSnafu (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They have produced so many different decks over the years, with a steady stream of new playing card releases on an ongoing basis, that a complete list of their products is unrealistic. Gregorytopov (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bicycle card list 

message: Why is Aristocrat listed as a discontinued brand? They still use this brand at several of the casinos I play at. Someone may wish to research this further, but I suspect only the retail version has been discontinued. Firebag237 (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. It is now a casino-sales only brand, positioned slightly less expensive than Bees, as it's a slightly thinner stock. The article has been adjusted (with reference) to account for that. oknazevad (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristocrat 

message: Going back and forth in edits is not going to prove valuable long-term. The United States Playing Card Company uses the abbreviation “USPC” on their own website. That qualifies as an official name. If people prefer USPCC, that’s fine, but it should not be the preferred abbreviation on the entire page. At best, it can be “USPC, also known as USPCC.”
--Louie Mantia 17:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipeida doesn't give extra credence to official names. And while that may be about article titles strictly, the spirit should be used throughout as well. oknazevad (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

text: The difference is one is overwhelmingly the abbreviation used in reliable sources, while the other is a casual nickname that almost never appears in writing. oknazevad (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

text: A good solution.  I've often wondered about this as well.  Gregorytopov (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  USPC vs USPCC 

message: I propose to merge Bicycle Playing Cards into this page. I think that the content in the Bicycle article can easily be explained in the context of USPCC, and the USPCC article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Bicycle will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Needforspeed888 (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: As the title says. For currently printed brands (all of which seem to be popular, and easily accessed), I think it's a no-brainer to have them listed, but for the discontinued products, I could easily add 20 more sections. I don't want to ruffle any feathers. I do however want to see this page properly sourced, filled out, and with reference images + links. There are a lot of historically printed cards that we could add under the Discontinued Brands section. I have at least 4 or 5 bricks worth of discontinued USPCC products. Monstarules (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A referenced list of discontinued brands might be a good addition, so long as it's referenced to reliable sources (of course) and isn't full of excess trivia. Just remember that reliable sources do not include internet message boards or self-published fan websites. oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't many good sources on antique cards, WOPC and Jim Knapp (the collector) is the only one I'm aware of. They often have the only information. USPCC and Bicycle should really release a history book. Monstarules (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, those are the sort of personal websites I was talking about. The recent Texan section you added is also in need of a copyedit to trim some of more trivial details and peacock term. I'd love to see some more additions, but we've got to be careful that it doesn't turn into a fan site. oknazevad (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll clean some of the sections up. I did just discover a good resource of the Texan's historical existence via. the United States Patent Office. I wonder why they knocked it out of production after 123 years. We'll probably never know. Monstarules (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we make a separate page for all of the discontinued brands and highlight the most popular here, or should we put them all here?