Jump to content

Talk:Punched card/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Merge with punched tape?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Oppose- Paper tape and punch card are completely different media: different shape, thickness, hole size character encoding, readers and writers, history, time frame, etc. The only thing they have in common is paper (and some paper tape was made of mylar). --agr 16:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose and comment- While they share some heritage back with weaving looms, cards went for a lot of information on single discrete units, tape went for information spread across one long unit. Ronabop 04:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose- I added link to Punched tape in See also, which seems to be much more useful than merging disparate articles. Slark 07:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose- I agree. User:Ray Van De Walker

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How many punch cards are needed to store the same amount as a DVD?

I read this somewhere, and it was some ridiculously high number. I've forgotten what it was. Does anyone know? That could be an intersting fact to add to the artical. --Richy 15:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A 4.7 GB DVD, with 80 characters per card, would require about 58 million cards, or a stack about 10 km high. Using binary format you could do a bit better, 120 bytes per card, but most punch card systems would have trouble dealing with them. --agr 19:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

French customs story

I removed the following story. There are many good stories from the punch card era. This one may even be true, but it doesn't belong in the article unless it can be verified and it is notable in some way. --agr 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A story that has made several rounds involves a French company that had a program written for them on punch cards by a US company. The story says that whenever the French company tried to use the program it wouldn't work, even though the programmers said it worked for them. After several tries, which involved sending a new shipment of cards each time without success. Finally someone accompanied the cards along the way. It was discovered that as was common practice to remove samples, French Custom Officials were removing a few cards at random from each shipment thereby causing the program not to function.

Intro and recent edits

I edited the intro to add a statement as to what punch cards were and to eliminate bullets, which aren't good style for an intro. I would also question moving "programming in the punch card era" to computer programming. Computer programming is a big subject and the punch card story is is a detail of history that doesn't deserve that much coverage in the main computer programming article. I think it fits better here. Finally, I have some 5081 cards and a Remmington Rand card that I will scan and add to the article. --agr 02:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the intro improvements, looking forward to seeing your images.

I moved "computer programming in the punch card era" to "computer programming" because it had little to do with punched cards, didn't deserve that much coverage here! Think about the prospective readers: someone reading about computer programming might find "the old days" interesting; but for someone reading about punched cards, there is very little in the story. I'd be distressed to see it return here without more discussion. And if it's not in the best "computer programming" place, people editing those articles can take care of it as they see fit. The Punched Card article is now about punched cards; non-Hollerith history move to History of computing, keypunch text has been moved to keypunch, unit record text to unit record, cryptography text & such deleted, and computer programming moved to computer programming.

There are some things still missing:

  • the Hollerith formats between 24 and 45 columns
  • a description (list) of the things that punch the cards
  • references/pointers to ISO standards for card size, card codes
  • a Charlie Brown cartoon where the tooth fairy has left an IBM Card check for $.10 - do not fold spindle ... and Charlie makes some comment about modern methods.

(btw, I did leave a "See also" for the computer programming text) (and, almost 70, the old days were my days too -- I recognized the story - so it wasn't moved by someone who didn't appreciate the story)

thanks again, 69.106.232.37 08:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The FOLDOC footer is currently inserted like this:

In part, {{FOLDOC}}

Which renders like this:

In part, This article was originally based on [...]

The problem is that the word "this" is capitalized when it shouldn't be, which is ugly. We need to SUBST the template and decapitalize the 'T', or we need to just remove the "In part," portion (possibly rewording the template itself to allow "partially based" content), or we need a new template. I'm not sure which would be the Right Thing. - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jacquard's Loom?

Why does the article credit Hollerith with the invention when the textile industry had been using punched cards since 1801? Hollerith must have been aware of these machines since they were in common use in his time.

Hollerith developed their use for data processing. I tweaked the article to make that clearer.--agr 15:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes - but this article is about punched cards - not about data processing. I've researched further and even Jacquard was not the first. To give credit to Hollerith is to miss out on a two hundred years throughout which punched cards were in regular use for textile looms! I've added a few sentences to the top of the 'History' section - but the introductory section is still grossly misleading. Even that misses out on yet earlier applications for punched paper disks in musical boxes. SteveBaker 00:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the Hollerith punched card, not about punched cards in general. See the very 1st line of article, beginning "This article is about ....". tooold 17:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
And, if you'll look at the "08:43, 5 October 2006" version, you'll see that trying to have some history in punched card card and some in "History ..." didn't work. Neither was a summary of the other, neither had all the details that were present. The image that you've added here is not present in "History ...", so were back to those same problems. It looks likes I had, at that revision, left a pointer to "History ...", now gone. I really wish that you'd remove the history additions, getting it right in one place is hard enough. If "Punched Card" expands its scope, then we get edge punched cards, ... I forget what all got cleaned out.
If you want an article about a limited subset of punched cards then make one - but don't call it "Punch(ed) card" - call it "Hollerith card" or something. An article named "Punched card" needs to be about ALL punched cards - and that's really not open for debate. The FULL history of the punched card doesn't remotely start with Hollerith. The way the article was before I added to it suggested that Hollerith woke up one mornining and had the bright idea of storing data by punching holes in bits of cardboard - when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. He had known of the use of card technology in looms, musical boxes and player pianos. Omitting those from the history of the punched card is to do a terrible disservice to all who preceeded Hollerith. So - let's tell the whole truth. SteveBaker 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you accept Hollerith, IBM, and UNIVAC Punched Cards for the title? That is, I believe, exactly what the article is intended to cover. Given that title would you allow the article text to note that other manufactures could make those same cards? If "Yes, Yes" then make the change, fine with me.
Well, I would - but then I'd have to start a whole new article about punched cards in general - copying all of that material over. Why do you think Hollerith cards need to be discussed to the exclusion of all earlier punched cards? It's not at though the article is overly long or that adding the discussion of earlier forms of punched card distracts from the Hollerith stuff. The reason I arrived here in the first place is that I've been doing a major re-org of the article Computer and needed to link to an article about punched cards (in the context of the Jacquard loom and how punched cards from the textile industry fired off the Hollerith card concept - which in turn lead to IBM, etc. When I arrived here (as anyone naturally would if looking for that kind of information) - I was horrified to find an article that essentially said that Hollerith invented the punched card in 1890 - which is utter nonsense! We need an article that's called "Punched card" and which describes the entire history - from 1725 all the way up to the late 1970's (I was still using them as late as 1977 - so they probably didn't die out everywhere until the early-1980's). To slice off just the last 80 years of the history seems strange to me. But - as I said, if you strongly feel that you have so much to say about Hollerith cards that it would stretch to a really long article - then you should make the 'fork'. Personally, I think there is room in one article for Bouchon, Jacquard, Hollerith, the IBM 029 - and everything in between. SteveBaker 22:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"Why do you think Hollerith cards need to be discussed to the exclusion of all earlier punched cards?" Because this article is one of several relating to Electronic Data Processing, (EPD), not about the history of punched cards in general.
General punched card history is in History of computing hardware#1801: punched card technology. The relationship between Jacquard and Hollerith cards belongs at that level. Someone reading about Hollerith technology doesn't need to know details about Jacquard; someone reading about Jacquard technology doesn't need details about Hollerith.tooold 01:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
But what do you think someone who types "Punched card" into the search box expects to find? It could be either the Jacquard or the Hollerith variety - or they could be concerned with the overall history of punched cards, needing discussion of both. You have no idea which...so an article with this name absolutely must cover all of those things. If the information is duplicated in History of computing hardware then there is a case for slimming down that article (which at 42Kbytes is WAY too long already) and sticking a {{main|Punched card}} in there. With these very long articles, we need to push the details out into daughter articles like this one - not pile more and more text into an already overly large article. I've been working for months on slimming down the main Computer article in this way (and it's still too long) - but pushing data down into yet more detailed articles is the only way to go. SteveBaker 18:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

btw, thank you, thank you, for the name change! It wasn't American's, I'd never heard the term "punch card" until this article and have no idea where "punch card" came from. My guess had been the English! I've renamed a lot of articles, mostly adding "IBM" or other vendor names ("System xyz" is not informative), but was reluctant to change this one for only the reason that I would like my name better. tooold 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No - I'm British (although I live in Texas) and we Brits hate the tendancy to drop the 'ed' in these cases. I've been seeing it more and more over the past 10 years - another example that comes to mind was that I was at a Chinese restaruant last night - and right there on the menu: "Fry Rice"...ack!...it's "Fried Rice" for chrissakes! SteveBaker 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
there is a "09:42, 9 June 2003" edit, "punched back to punch" by a user "212" in superscript -- might ask that user why.

article name change

Hollerith, IBM, and UNIVAC Punched Cards

Proposed name seems too long to me. How about "Punch card (data processing)" or "Punched card (data processing)"? Then have a disamb page "Punch card" (or "Punched card") for pointing to "Punch card (textile industry)", "Punch card (data processing)" and any others anyone dreams of. -- RTC 06:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
But this article isn't overly long - and the topics are definitely related - why on earth do we need to split it? I simply do not understand why you feel the need to hide the prior history of punched cards from readers who are interested in Hollerith cards. This is ridiculous. SteveBaker 13:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I didn't propose splitting it... I was just commenting on the proposed title made by someone else... a name that long will be totally non-obvious and impossible for someone that doesn't know the subject to even find. -- RTC 01:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

EAM cards

When RCA was in the mainframe business they referred to punched cards as "EAM cards" (Electronic Accounting Machine cards). Should "EAM card" redirect here? Nibios 16:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Merge Aperture card

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The text in Aperture card is redundant with the more complete text in Punched cards. This merge request is so that the Aperture card article can be deleted, replaced by a redirect to Punched card. tooold 13:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If anything, aperture card should merge to Microform. The most important aspect of this technology is the film, not the punch card. I think there is enough to say about them that a separate article can be justified, however. They are still in use, you can still buy equipment for making them, there is a lot of conversion to digital going on, claims of better archival quality, etc.--agr 13:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If machine processing/retrievability is not important then there are other technologies that people use. Microfiche, microfilm. The proposal is about the articles as they stand (redundant), not about some future article. The punched card article itself might be split up someday if non-IBM machines were to be described in the same level of detail, or if ... or if .... tooold 13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - The previous comment raises a good point. Since an aperture card combines the two technologies, it ought not be merged with either. I improved the aperture card article a bit to illustrate the combination and provide some references. It should be able stand on its own now. -- Austin Murphy 15:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If "combines the two technologies" is the criteria for separate articles then mark sense cards should be in a separate article. So should punch cards used as checks, bonds, ... Punched cards and financial instruments are very different technologies. Punched cards were used for a lot of different technologies - remember their use as ballots? What advantage is there for the Wikipedia user in breaking the article into multiple paragraphed-sized articles. All that would be accomplished is to make a coherent understanding of punched card use almost impossible. Or do you have some rule, or rules - if the technologies have property x, y, ..., then separate?
Is there some problem with the punched card article? Confusing? Too long? Disorganized? If no problems, then shouldn't Occam's razor apply - the simpler organization is better. Is maintainability a Wikipedia concern? In the absence of identified problems, a single article is more likely to be consistent than two articles are to be consistent with each other.
What advantage did you gain for the Wikipedia user by making the Aperture article an almost copy of the punched card article text? If the claimed advantage is only that opening the aperture article positions you immediately at the aperture text, then you would seem to be arguing again for every topic in every Wikipedia article to become a separate article. tooold 09:52, 15 November 2007
I removed the merge tags. The Aperture article is no longer copy of the punched card article text.--agr (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is the punched card the size of the 1887 US dollar bill?

I see quite a number of assertions in discussions around the web that the dollar-bill-size association is an urbam legend. Does anyone have an authoritative source? snopes doesn't say anything on this; I'm going to characterize it as possibly a legend until someone comes up with a cite, not seeing any discussion here to the contrary. Baylink 02:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about this, giving the two most commonly cited reasons, and stating that there is no real evidence for either of them. T-bonham (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I added a third reason, the availability of handling equipment for that media size, that I heard in my punch-card-handling days, the mid-1960s. John Sauter (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I redirected an entry on dimpled and hanging chad here because this was better written, but maybe we should move the hanging chad section of this article to that page and refer to it? RJFJR 02:38, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The first punchcards were used by the french weaver Basile Bouchon in 1725, and improved by Falcon a few years later.

Image: A CTR census machine, utilizing a punched card system

The image at beginning of article is identified as a "CTR census machine" which, of course, it is not. How can the source be located so that both the source and the Wikipedia entries can be corrected? Thanks, 69.106.242.20 (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

When did card size standardize?

The Columbia history site says that Hollerith used 3.5 by 7.375 inch cards in the 1890 census. This appears to be contradicted by Hollertih's 1889 and 1895 articles. In particular, the card format in the 1895 article has a very different aspect ration than the standard card. Also the standard punch card is a little bigger than a large-sized note, which puts the currency box claim into question. (Hollerith produced over 60 million punched cards for the 1890 census--ordering custom containers does not seem like a big issue.) The version I heard was that in 1928, T J Watson pulled out a dollar bill to settle a dispute among his engineers as to what the standard size should be, but that may well be legend. Does anyone have sources as to when the punched card size got standardized? --agr (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How about the size being standardized several times?
Trusdell reports a different size, 6 5/8 by 3 1/4, as planned for the 1890 census. "Planned for", of course, is not the same as "used". The early cards were punched with a modified ticket punch and holes were set near the edges (Trusdell p.39). For obvious reasons Hollerith developed better card punches and did so before the 1890 census processing: the Pantograph and the Gang Punch. Truesdell p.44 reports the pantograph still in use in 1920. Thus the 1st answer to your question: when Hollerith built the pantograph that iron standardized card size for about 38 years: from 1890 to 1928.
"To 1928" assuming the 80 column 3 1/4 by 7 3/8 was not the same as the prior card. The 1928 IBM card set an informal standard.
Then there is ISO 1681:1973 (and likely a corresponding American standard) setting a formal standard. I do not know if their were earlier ISO or ANS or ANSI standards.
Found an IBM 010 description in Gille. The 010 had a selective feature: 80, 66 or 51 column fixed feed. A 66 column card is new to me. 69.106.242.20 (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, to be clear, I'm talking about IBM's internal standard set in 1928. That was the big event. This standard was later adopted by others, e.g. Remington Rand and is still in use today. I have an American Airlines ticket I used a few weeks ago that is exactly punch card size and stock, but has no holes (mag stripe and 2-D bar code). Formal standards for punch cards came much later (ANSI X3.21 - 1967, FIPS 13 & 14) and simple describe long existing practice. I suspect that early on, Hollerith may have been willing to alter card size to meet the needs of large customers. The pantograph design could have been modified pretty easily by replacing the punch die, guides and index plate. Again the story I heard long ago was that IBM engineers were arguing about what the standard size should be and Watson settled it by pulling a dollar bill out.
I too remember the 010. I suspect that the 51 and 66 col feeds refer to 80-col cards with detachable stubs. The 010 seems have been used with older round-hole cards, see http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/ljc-machines.jpg which I believe shows an 010 at the top. It comes from our article's ref 8 which shows the 45 col cards as well. The 010s may have been upgraded when rectangular holes became the standard. --agr (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pre-IBM Cards

I started programming on the Lyons Leo towards the end of its life in 1962: it used a 20-column card of the same height as the IBM cards, but thicker. This machine was the first non-military commercial computer anywhere and predates IBM's foundation. The 20-column cards had a row of round chad-holes punched about a quarter of an inch down from the top edge which were cut into by scissors to create a binary sort using a thin wire, in case you ever dropped the deck. The slope was there to ensure you put them back the right-way round before sorting: there's no use sorting 01101 into 10110 just because you picked the card up the wrong way round! The first 80-column cards were pre-cut with the entire set of platelets tacked by their corners: the card was placed on a plastic mask to support it while you punched out the code removing the individual holes you needed by hand. The problem was that after 2 or 3 runs, the bending of the card started popping other platelets out, so you had to redo the entire thing. Naturally, card-punch machines came along soon afterwards. --Jel 4 July 2006

Those sound like Royal McBee Keysort cards.[1]. I think there was a British equivalent of Keysort, and it may have been that system. --John Nagle (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Other variations on punched cards

There were a few other types of punched cards not mentioned. One was a "Kimball tag" (see U.S. Patent #4,602,151 for an example), which was a small round-holed punch card used in retail systems. Stores used these on merchandise before bar codes. System 3 punched cards had the same hole spacing as Kimball tags, but were bigger.

UNIVAC supported "160 column cards" on a few machines. The UNIVAC 1004 and some UNIVAC computer peripherals could read both 80 column (80x12, rectangular hole) and 6-bit coded 90 column (45x12, round hole) cards. As a side effect, they could use the 6-bit code with 80x12 cards, resulting in a "160 column card". This never caught on. --John Nagle (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Punch card

Why were all references to "punch card" removed from the article? That is an established usage and according to WP guidelines probably is the proper name for the article. But even if not it needs to be mentioned. Apparently it's because someone thinks it "should be" punched based on some linguistic gobbledygook? Gr8white (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

One could also reasonably argue that it's not really a "punched card" until it actually has holes punched in it, as opposed to the established usage of "punch card" to refer to the cards themselves. Gr8white (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Gr8white is correct. Rwwww, I know that your changes were in good faith, but they are imposing prescriptivism onto usage that has already long been established (nearly a century). Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary under the entry "punch card" gives 1919 as the date of first attestation. So for the past 91 years people have been calling them "punch cards" as well as (and probably more often than) "punched cards". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, also has an entry for "punch card". Regarding (as Gr8white put it) linguistic gobbledygook, in fact no linguistic scientist would agree that natural language vocabulary can be revised by fiat to the degree shown here. Your analysis of participles is fine; it's just that natural language doesn't always act according to the way that any prescription would predict. It does in fact evolve according to natural rules, but they are usually more complicated and additive (multifactorial) than prescriptive rules. The fact that "punch card" and "punched card" are synonymous and both acceptable must be restored to the article. Regards, — ¾-10 02:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I've restored "punch card" to the article's first line but, I hope, only temporarily. The Wikipedia requirement is Use clear, precise and accurate terms. That is not the same thing as English as she is spoke. "punch card" has certainly been used, even in the title of a few books, notably in Truesdell's "The Development of Punch Card Tabulation in the Bureau of the Census, 1890-1940". However, ill-formed, missing the English language's required "ed" or "ing" suffix (and thus ambiguous) it is overshadowed by the extensive use of the correctly formed "punched card"
Just to be sure, I pulled out some of the serious histories (not popularizations) and checked their indexes:
  • Aspray, Computing before computers
  • Cortada, Before the Computer
  • Fisher, IBM and the U.S. Data Processing Industry
  • Willams, A History of Computing Technology
  • Randell, The origins of Digital Computers
In each case, the only term indexed is "punched card". So, is the term "punch card" used elsewhere? Of course. Is it appropriate for encyclopedic use, for Wikipedia? No, "used" is not the only criteria. Wikipedia is serious history; the clear, precise and accurate (and widely used!) term is "Punched card"; the casual "punch card" should simply be noted. tooold (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I am OK with presenting "punched card" as the preferable term and using it consistently throughout the article, as long as "punch card" is kept in the lede as an established variant (as opposed to it disappearing). Here's why. I understand your argument, but I disagree with your opinion of Wikipedia's balance point on the descriptive-vs-prescriptive spectrum. By your argument we would have to annihilate the following well-established terms from the English language. It can't happen; even languages that have academies cannot stop the populace from using natural language, which is certainly influenced by prescription but never totally controlled by it. And even if it could happen, Wikipedia is not a language prescription or enforcement tool; it reflects all established usage and does not tell the reader that one form is mandatory. We need to show "punch card" as a common variant. I am fine with the footnote arguing that "punched card" is superior. But "punch card" must not disappear.
Well-established term Supposed prescription for total replacement Comment
punch press punching press Both OK
roll pin (pressed-in fastener) *rolled pin Only the first is in prevalent usage
press fit *pressed fit Only the first is in prevalent usage
permanent press clothing *permanently pressed clothing Only the first is in prevalent usage

— ¾-10 01:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't omit pertinent information from an article because it conflicts with your preconceived notions of linguistic correctness. Period. Gr8white (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The term "punch card" was widely use (e.g. Organick, A Fortran IV Primer, Chapter 13 "Preparation of Punch Card Program Decks."), as was "punched card". The problem with the later term is that some cards might not, in fact, be punched. In particular, what do you call the contents of a box of blank cards? I believe punch card felt more natural for this reason. They were cards designed for punching, whether they had holes in them or not. To this day, some airline tickets are printed on punch card stock, but they have no holes.--agr (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"Do not fold, spindle or mutilate"

Does anyone have an image of a punch card with the exact words "Do not fold, spindle or mutilate", or is it an iconic phrase that never actually appeared on any punch card? I have seen images of punch cards with similar warnings, but not that exact warning.Anthony717 06:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

An example, but not quite meeting your needs, is a Peanuts cartoon strip. The tooth fairy leaves a punched card check instead of the usual (at that time) dime, the phrase (I don't recall exact wording) is quoted and the character observers that modern times require improved methods. tooold 18:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The warning was mostly printed on cards that were issued to the general public for later return, such as time card, bills and checks. Examples of these are harder to find, since they were returned and destroyed. Cards used by programmers and the like did not have the warnings. It was quite common, though later usage was often shortened to just "Do Not Mutilate." Fifty years from now, it might be hard to prove that 404 messages really appeared on the Web. Who saves them?--agr 20:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The Lubar external link is to a paper where note 12 identifies a document with such examples. Let us know if you can get a copy of that document.tooold 02:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
This collection has a card with "Do not fold or mutilate". http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/cards/collection/i-applied.html tooold 02:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just added a book ref (in See Also) that might have such an example. Would be nice to have a review here or possibly added to the book ref. tooold 03:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________


Oh the joy, the primal fun, the liver quiverin' delight of our anti-establishment hippie-type endeavors when the ever-present punch cards filling society back in the 1960s and 1970s were firmly grasped and using a sharp razor blade or x-acto knife-type device additional holes were cut into the punch card before sending it on its way.

It was the groovy thing to do at the time and we in the crash pad oft-times wondered to what extent our efforts "messed with 'the man' and if our efforts ever caused any despair within the evil corporate structure. Obbop (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Punched card → Punch card — Relisted Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC) clearly the more popular term. "punched card"==400k ghits; "punch card"==633k ghits. 65.94.71.179 (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose. I'm not convinced that either is "clearly the more popular term". I see a lot of hits in the "punch card" g-hit results that have nothing to do with the computer cards (like a bunch of stuff on the musician Old Punch Card and information about U.S.-style "punch card" ballots). Since the name of the article has been stable since 2006, the difference is so minor, and they both seem to be acceptable and in wide use, I would hesitate to move it at this point (though it probably could be without it being a big deal at all). Other WP articles also use "punched card", such as computer programming in the punched card era (though this hasn't been consistent over time, but now it seems to finally be). Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Try adding some terms to your search to eliminate the false positives. I did (see below) and punch card still came out on top. --Kvng (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes. Thanks. Not overwhelming, but it does seem to be "more" common on the internet. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Though Tassedethe has some interesting google scholar results below, which flip the results completely. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Article name should adhere to WP:ENGVAR. Punch card is the American term the rest of the article uses American English. It is not unusual for technical articles to be untidy for 4 years. It is not too late to fix. --Kvng (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. IBM, an American company, used "punched-card" in its manuals here in America, so this is not an English-American spelling issue. As I pointed out above, "punch card" was widely used (it was just easier to say and by the way "punch card" ballots used the cards we're talking about) as was "IBM card" (even if they weren't made by IBM) and both deserve mention as a variant, but IBM invented punched card data processing and dominated the industry, so its spelling should be considered authoritative.--agr (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • If you can offer a citation for your IBM "punched-cards" claim, that may convince me. Google says +IBM +"punch card":462,000 results, +IBM +"punched card":294,000 results. --Kvng (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
      • From WP:NAMES: "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." Most of the sources we cite in this article use "punched card." All the IBM manuals I looked at use "IBM card" or "punched card" (and I have quite a few). There are hundreds more at "Bitsavers.org." --agr (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. It's the name normally used; "punched card" is a slightly illogical hypercorrection. −
  • Oppose GScholar hits has about 14,600 for punched card vs about 11,800 for punch card. If you limit it to titles only it is 591 to 266 in favor of punched card. If you add IBM to the search term 'punched card' still comes out top: 5070 to 3420. The article has been stable at the title for >4years and I don't see anything to suggest that punch card is more obviously the 'correct' name. Tassedethe (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose very strongly, with a great source My source is "FORTRAN IV Programming" by Robert Steven Ledley, published by McGraw -Hill in 1966, pages 30 and 31 for the first mentions. It was my first programming textbook. (And yes, I'm a hoarder, so I still have it!) This is from the time when such cards were used. The ONLY names used were punched card, or simply card as an abbreviation (as in card reader). Obviously punched card is the term I have personally used since that time. I have never used punch card. I suspect punch card is just a distortion based on people mis-hearing the correct name. I'm happy to add my source to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It's easy to find sources either way. Try Googling 'site:ibm.com "punch card"' versus 'site:ibm.com "punch card"'. The latter has slightly more hits. −Woodstone (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I know that I have more such sources. I can dig them up if you like. The real point is that what I have posted completely negates some of the Support posts above, such as "I've heard it as "punch card" for my entire life, and had never heard "punched card" before this discussion", "It's the name normally used; "punched card" is a slightly illogical hypercorrection" and "Punch card is the American term". Doesn't leave many valid supporting arguments at all apart from "more common", and that is always difficult to prove. HiLo48 (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Would it not strike you as odd to place an order for a box of "punched cards" for punching your program into? That's why the name "punched card" is slightly illogical. The cards may be punched or not, depending on their life cycle state. Before and after punching they can correctly be called punch cards. −Woodstone (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
No, it certainly wouldn't strike me as odd, because punched card is the only name I have ever known them as. But I will agree with you that the English language is sometimes (often?) illogical. When I want to bathe I use a bathroom, but Americans go there when they want to relieve themselves. (I use a toilet for that purpose.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Peeing in the empty bathtub has a long and noble history. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Which ignores my post (and others) above that show the application of such logic to language to be irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Seeing that Googling shows a 4 to 1 majority for "punch card" over "punched card" together with the illogical name should tip the balance for the move. −Woodstone (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Google hits are a very sloppy way of measuring common usage, and languages ARE illogical. I suspect mis-hearing, and an attempt to apply logic where it may not exist are the real problems here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Languages are sloppy. Google hits are a very good way of measuring common usage, what else do they measure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs)
They measure the number of articles where Google reports that search string to be found. Interpreting that number to mean something else can be very dangerous. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Aka "common usage". Interpreting that term to mean something else can be very dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs)
As mentioned above, in this case it's a very sloppy measure if just the raw google data is taken, since many of the google hits are referring to U.S. election "punch card" ballots and retail "punch card" loyalty cards, which are different topics entirely. For example, a google search for "punch card"+election gets over half a million hits. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It is the same technology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs)
Well, sometimes it is, but often not—especially for retailers, for example. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I had a job once where we clocked on and off. The card we put in the machine was called a punch card by some. It didn't have holes in it and never went near a computer. HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The term is a holdover from the prior technology which had holes. They didn't call it a punched card because no one ever called anything that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs)
If you are going to comment, could you please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end? I grow tired of doing it for you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I get a bit annoyed with narrow perspective, pure OR posts like that once a discussion like this has been going for some time, and considerable material has been presented showing that the expression a poster personally has "never heard of" has been widely used. It says more about the poster than the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
One could argue a response like that says something about you as well... Also, is OR really banned on talk pages? Wouldn't even traffic statistics, which are very relevant to move discussions, be considered OR? –CWenger (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
To me, rather than being an OR problem, it's the purely-personal-experience-anecdotal-evidence type of comment that I find unhelpful. Users are free to say whatever they want, of course, though I find some comments more helpful and persuasive than others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, I admit it is a lazy argument, but given all the discussion above I just went with a personal opinion rather than trying to rehash points that have already been made. I personally think people should be allowed to just vote if they want without explaining their opinion. –CWenger (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree that sometimes we get sloppy in our "voting" especially in extended discussions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am old enough to remember when they were used and they were always called "punched cards". Peterkingiron (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per agr's reference to WP:NAMES above. --Waldir talk 19:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm always surprised when I come to discussions like this one where common naming is at issue and analysis of search result numbers is almost entirely focused on web searches, when books and news archive searches are far more weighted toward reliable sources. Searching Google Books returns 46,000 results for <"punched cards" ibm> over 14,100 results for <"punch cards" ibm>. Without ibm it's 203,000 to 91,600 favoring punched cards. This disparity is something of a wash with the new results, which favors the target, though not by so clear a margin (669 vs. 1,400). If you restrict the Google Books search to books published between 2000 and 2010 to see more current usage, the results are about a wash (with or without ibm): 2,230 to 2,200, and 7,910 to 9,580. <"punched cards" eniac> verses <"punch cards" eniac> also favors the current title 4,440 to 1,110. I personally have never heard of punched card though I bet my father has, and I am ignoring that irrelevancy in favor of reliable sources, as all the I've never heard of it grounds for the move should be entirely ignored. The usage arguments also appear of topic. We are not here about a descriptive title. So based on Scholar, Books and News results, the current title is favored, and with the disfavored web search put in the mix, the best you can say is that it's a wash. Certainly punch card is not shown to be "obviously the most frequently used for the topic".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Very persuasive arguments. For the benefit of consensus, I can come around to this. --Kvng (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Comment—this article started at "punch card" and was renamed to match British spelling apparently... which seems to violate WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN. 65.94.71.179 (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment—The usual usage here in England is "punched card" for the computer card, "punch card" for a means of clocking-in and clocking-out at factories. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment—65.94.71.179 is correct that this article started at "punch card" or "punchcard" (I forget which—I could dig it up, but it's not worth it), and in 2010 or so it was renamed "punched card" by a well-meaning person whose epistemology of language falls strongly on the linguistically prescriptive rather than linguistically descriptive end of the spectrum. I'm with the people on the middle of the spectrum. It's OK to enforce useful precision in language, but there's a limit once you're trying to tell (half or more of) the world that their normal, innocuous natural language is "unacceptable". In my opinion, the choice among "punched card", "punch card", or "punchcard" is a mere coin flip; they're synonyms, and the distinctions don't matter enough to worry about. Whichever pagename we choose, someone else will wish that we'd chosen the other. So it's not worth worrying much about; may as well pick one and stick with it. As for which one you guys pick, I'll leave it to you. — ¾-10 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Perhaps a bigger problem with the earlier "prescriptive" edits was the removal of the synonyms from the article lede. I put them back. I left out "punchcard" which is less common and still mentioned in the nomenclature section. If anyone objects strongly, they can add it.--agr (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't object to your change, but why was it problematic having the "(also known by [[#Nomenclature|various synonyms]])" jump-down link? Maybe people feel that it gave less weight to the other names? I don't feel that way, but it's fine either way. — ¾-10 01:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
        • It's standard Wikipedia style to give common synonyms in the first sentence. See, e.g. traffic light. And where there seems to be strong attachments to particular variants, having them up front is best.--agr (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note Google numbers are often misleading, partly because they treat terms as synonyms sometimes, partly for unknown reasons. The massive 300k/100k results for IBM + given above reduce to 780/710 if you actually list the hits. Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC).
  • Comment I'm in Australia using Australian English and my "history of IT" textbook says "punch-card". (Not voting support or oppose as I think either name works.) Orderinchaos 13:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears that more recent sources prefer "punch card". Perhaps this has changed over time and there is no right answer. In which case I would think, as a service to modern readers, we'd bias towards convention used in modern reliable sources. --Kvng (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking at the many survey entries. I know some of the discussants here won't want to hear it, but here it is anyway: if you're searching for the "right answer", there isn't one. Natural language is only a plurality of conventions. Nothing more carved in stone than that. If "chazwozzers" became a widespread synonym tomorrow, and stayed that way, then "chazwozzers" would become one of the synonyms listed, too. I know it breaks hearts to hear it, but it's the truth: it doesn't matter whether we name this page with the "-ed" ending or not. It simply doesn't matter. The only thing that would matter would be if someone tried to remove one of the synonyms and pretend it didn't exist. As long as they're all listed, there's no point in changing which one is "honored" with the pagename. It's the same reason why the WP:ENGVAR guideline exists, and why we don't change "labour" to "labor" and back again 5 times per year. I'm not saying that this example is equally regional—I'm pointing out that it's equally arbitrary. You say /təˈmeɪtoʊ/, I say /təˈmɑːtoʊ/, Let's Call the Whole Thing Off. You could play ping-pong all day changing the name back and forth. No one's more correct than the other. Adieu, — ¾-10 02:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • That's all true. I have expressed some strong feelings here on what the original term was, based on the fact that I'm in my 60s and actually used punched cards daily in my profession for probably 10 years. It would be an interesting exercise to learn the ages of other posters here, and what they were doing when punched cards were all the rage. Of course that's unlikely to happen, or make any difference to what we finally do here. I know language evolves. But it's kind of odd to think of it evolving to change to name of something that's no longer in use. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, I'm 61, and have punched punch cards extensively in my younger years. I have travelled around with decks of punch cards in my luggage to implement programs abroad (later with tapes). I never used the name punched card. So the naming does not seem to be age determined. −Woodstone (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Language changes all the time. Probably changes more on the dead than the living because the dead are not around to correct you. Do we want to title the article based on what the cards were called in the 1950's or do we go by what they're called now? --Kvng (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm still alive and my printed source (quoted above) still exists, and that source and my experience were from the 1960s and 70s, not the 50s. But, as I also said above, it's kind of odd to think of language evolving to change to name of something that's no longer in use. Surely that would simply mean that people today have got it wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Point well taken about that. It's interesting because their name (well, their various names) are still part of a living language although the cards themselves are basically just museum pieces now (albeit non-rare ones, that is, plenty of people have examples left as mementos of earlier days). Which is different from a dead language/living language divide. (For example, whatever the Latin word for wheat was, an Italian today with Roman ancestors uses a "different" word for wheat (although probably cognate descended from the Latin root); but that example is a different animal, because there's a divide there between one language and another (Italian vs Latin), even though the one is the cognate successor of the other. It would be linguistically interesting to study other examples closer to this one, within the same language, stemming from technological obsolescence. How far of a retrospective horizon can retronymy have before most speakers would make a clear-consensus distinction between "what they called it then and what we call it now are as apples and oranges to each other" (on one hand) versus "it's all just a pile of synonyms" (on the other hand)? A deep question with no easy answer, no doubt. "Horseless carriage"/"car" and "phonograph"/"record player" are other instances that are in the same neighborhood linguistically, although each instance has a certain amount of unique angle to it (e.g., one can't necessarily say that any lesson extrapolated from the "phonograph" instance applies, ipso facto, to any other instance). In the instance of "punched card" versus "punch card", both of those variants were around "back in the day", so they're both "vintage" names; although it's a good philosophical question whether we could ever accept a neologistic name like "chazwozzer" as the "main" name. I think it depends on each person's epistemology of language. Someone who feels in their bones that linguistic prescription represents True Correctness (which many people do) would never accept it. Anyway, I realize that none of this is applicable to the pagenaming discussion (so no need to point that out in exasperation, anybody). I'm just riffing on the linguistic question posed by HiLo48. Fun to ponder regardless of whether it's "academic or applied". — ¾-10 23:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
And some interesting riffing it is too. I'm no fan of linguistic prescription, but I cannot help myself responding when folks suggest that my recollections, for which I have printed backup, are wrong. I know they are right for my little part of history and the world. There may have been contemporaneous usage of punch card. I wasn't aware of it. The question remains. Do we change a genuinely correct name from the time, to what people now wrongly think it was? HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Your stridency is showing. Punched card indicates state; punch card indicates use; the latter is a better name, regardless of chronology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs)

[edit conflict]

[replying to HiLo48]

Well, evolving from indifference to a qualified opinion, I would agree with you then that no, we should not move this page to a different pagename. Not because the term "punch card" didn't exist in the 1950s through 1970s (Google Books and Google Ngram Viewer show that it did, although it may have been a mostly colloquial-register variant at the time, making it into writing only when no prescriptive editor was around to change it to the -ed form). My reason for agreeing on "no move" is that moving it will not result in any "more correct" result, and it would grate on the nerves of those who feel that the -ed form is a better choice for the pagename (if not the only acceptable choice). And there's no good reason to grate on anyone's nerves like that, given that there's no compelling value in a pagename move at this point. By the way, I think that Pantergraph may have been being facetious/sarcastic with his "because no one ever called anything that" comment. And I get the impression that CWenger probably commented without reading the existing discussion closely enough (a bit of RTFA/RTFQ there). So I wouldn't take those comments to heart as an insult to your intelligence or anything. (Some things that the internet never lacks are sarcasm and "drive-by opinions" (chiming in without giving due attention to the original post/article/question/discussion.) Water off a duck's back! :-) — ¾-10 23:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, reading now Pantergraph's recent comment ("Punched card indicates state; punch card indicates use; the latter is a better name, regardless of chronology.") A perfectly fair logical angle. But I still think no pagename move is needed, because there can never be consensus on which one is "better" (each side has its own logic). So may as well not play ping-pong with it. Ta, — ¾-10 00:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW, one would think from all my commenting here that I cared deeply about which pagenaming choice "won" the discussion. I actually don't; I just find it interesting to analyze the elephant in response to the various comments here. — ¾-10 00:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not doubting anyone's recollection or sources. I'm just suggesting that the more appropriate title may be the terminology used by today's sources; the article is, afterall, written for the benefit of today's readers. We can even write this into the lead e.g. Punch cards, originally known more commonly as punched cards... Of course what I suggest is WP:OR and we can't do this until it can be WP:VERIFYed. --Kvng (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
In response to that I will again ask the broader question (which could apply to any topic)... Do we change a genuinely correct name from the time to what people now wrongly think it was? HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
For the specific case of "punch card" (="punch-card"), I would point out (as I think you also agree) that the "wrongly" part doesn't apply, because the name "punch card" is vintage (not a recent coinage) (as shown in the corpus by Google Books and Google Ngram Viewer) and has never truly been "wrong"—just considered wrong by some people. As for the broader level ("could apply to any topic"), I would say two things: (1) We would never change a Wikipedia pagename to a neologism that was clearly known to be a recently invented, made-up name. (2) But if it were a neologism that genuinely became a valid name, then yes, I believe a day would come when we might do so. However, the very existence of the internet and widespread literacy makes it very unlikely that that will happen going forward. I'll give a real example from the linguistic history of English. The singular form of "pea" was once "pease". But there came a time when it ended up changed to "pea" by way of back-formation because people thought that the "s" sound was tied to the plural "-s" (although in the case of "pease" it actually wasn't). So it was that a pease came to be called a pea in English, on a majority, consensus basis. (This happened hundreds of years ago, mind you.) And today the Wikipedia pagename is "pea"—as it ought to be, based on what the word is today by universal consensus. The difference between the "pease" case (which happened hundreds of years ago, when most English speakers were not literate) and any such change that might happen today, is that today most English speakers are literate, so a case like pease-to-pea is very unlikely to happen anymore (because most people would see it happening and stop it), whereas back then, it could happen over a generation or two with few people realizing that a neologistic change was taking place. Hope this is found interesting. Regards, — ¾-10 03:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll attempt to answer HiLo48's question directly. I can't make any claims about what things were like in 1919 or are like in countries other than the US. I can make a claim about what all my dictionaries say. Simon & Schuster's Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition lists only "punch card." The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition Unabridged lists "punch card" as the main entry, and then says "Also, punchcard, punched card." My Merriam-Webster (Encyclopedia Britannica) dictionary, also reflected at Merriam-Webster.com, has "punch card" as the main entry, and then says "called also Hollerith card, punched card." Only my Chambers 21st Century—a British English dictionary—has "punched card" first, and then it says "(especially U.S.) punch card." So from the dictionary point of view, in the United States, right now, this thing is called a punch card. Whether we want to reflect that is up to us. But it's not "wrong," because all of my U.S. dictionaries say it's right.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks, Mike, for providing the dictionary citations. I agree completely with what you said. IMHO, the pagename and opening sentence of the lede as they now stand already reflect the best that can be done on this topic (include all synonyms in the opening sentence; list the two most important ones first; pick one of the first two arbitrarily to be the pagename), other than to take some of the info and citations here at Talk and cite them as refs in the article's nomenclature section. I may do the latter (nomenclature section beef-up with refs) if the spirit moves me. Cheers, — ¾-10 18:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Punch card

Category:Punch card has been nominated to be renamed. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Punched_card/Archive_1&oldid=1148573018"