Talk:Standard 52-card deck

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GamesWikipedia:WikiProject GamesTemplate:WikiProject GamesGames articles

Board and table games Mid‑importance

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gambling Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling 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.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Merge

Should this page be combined with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_card#French_design ?

No. IMHO, duplication should be eliminated, Playing_card#French_design should be much abbreviated and refer to this expanded article. Newwhist (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion to merge; khhuahigduathis article only has any relevance in the context of the playing card article and the name here is somewhat of a misnomer, implying there's some sort of standard. The French deck is simply the most popular, it is not the "standard". Owen214 (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But why it is not a duplicate of French playing cards? --Infovarius (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One is a subset of the other. French playing cards, or more correctly stated, French-suited playing cards are any cards using the four suits: Clubs, Spades, Hearts and Diamonds. They come in various pack sizes, for example, 20- and 24-card Schnapsen packs, 32-card Piquet or Preference packs and 36 Jass/Tapp packs as well as various configurations of 52 cards - single and double packs and various numbers of Jokers from 1 to 6 per pack. Then there are the various Tarot packs, typically of 54 and 78 cards. I suspect there may be 40- and 48-card packs too. So they're related, but not identical. Bermicourt (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaves and Bells

At the end of the sentence referring to these extant suits it says "See below" but there is no other information. I have deleted it because it's unclear and non-existent. 174.44.147.145 (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"No citation needed"?

I removed this hidden text leading to the assertion about the weight of an average card/deck: ". Any explanation as to why this is here? --EEMIV (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is original research that I did, but I don't know why the hidden text was there. --Pan·da·mo·ni·a 21:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I've flagged it for citation/substantiation. --EEMIV (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it titled Standard 52 card deck?

There is no standard, there are usually 54 cards, and deck is referred to as pack in some countries. When I buy a pack (deck) of cards I always get at least 54 cards (4 suits of 13 cards plus two Jokers). Depending upon the game being played zero, one, two or more cards are removed from the pack to make up the playing deck. Reading the Playing card article you see that there is no standard deck. There is a deck that is more popular in some parts of the world and in online games. This article could be merged with Playing card however it might be better being renamed to something like "Common Playing Card Deck" with more detailed explanation of what makes up such a deck and differences in decks for certain games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GR8DAN (talk • contribs) 09:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the correct name French deck (which redirects here)? Shouldn't that be the main article name, since Playing card is the general topic? --145.226.30.44 (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, a French deck can be 32 or 36 cards and even 78-card Tarot packs are French-suited. This is about the standard pack in Britain and America which always comprises 52 cards plus any Jokers and 'marketing' cards; it is also the standard international pack in many parts of the world. And it's about the pack, not the games played with it which may use some or all of the cards supplied. Bermicourt (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’d still challenge it being referred to as “standard” in any context, which implies a standardization process, not merely a commonality or popularity. Which governing bodies (even private entities) have standardized this particular arrangement of cards? What makes it “standard”? Louie Mantia (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citation needed but I think the claim to be standard is weak. I would prefer it to be a "typical" deck in English speaking regions, casinos and online card games. GR8DAN (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets and cowboys

The article says 2's are nicknamed deuces and 3's are nicknamed treys. That's fine. But then it says aces are bullets and kings are cowboys, and I've never heard this. In the specific context of pocket cards in Texas hold'em, yes, AA can be called "bullets" and KK can be called "cowboys". But hitting your ace on the flop is just a pair of aces, not bullets; same for pairing a king and cowboys. I've also never heard anybody say something like, "a bullet fell on the turn", nor would AK ever be called "bullet cowboy", whereas 32 might certainly be called "trey deuce". I'm removing this unless somebody can provide examples of more general usage. - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Left handed ?

Perhaps there could be some addition to note that generally playing cards with just 2 markers for rank and suit are intended for use by right handed people. I know this, as I fan my cards left-handed, and all the numbers are obscured.

Is this why some designs have rank/suit on all 4 corners ?

Who knows? I'm left-handed, but I fan the cards so they're visible. Equally many packs have no indices or are even single-headed - you just have to know them, it's no big deal after a while. Try playing Scopa! Bermicourt (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I don’t think fanning cards in either direction is inherently left-or-right-handed. Which hand you hold them in is separate from which way you fan them. Holding cards in your left hand but fanning to reveal the top-left index doesn’t seem uncomfortable or inconvenient. It generally has me suspicious that any left-handed decks (with opposite index corners) are purely a marketing scheme. Louie Mantia (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes

So many hatnotes; there are probably 30 or 40 different playing cards that redirect here and could (eventually) justify disambiguation pages. Is there any way around this? power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Having seen the Queen of Clubs article up for deletion, my thought is that with most cards we could have sections e.g. on the four suits and cards listed as bullets with any special facts about them. Queen of Clubs would be a good starting candidate. The hatnotes could be deleted and replaced by disambiguation pages (some of them already are). Meanwhile I'd restrict descriptions to card playing; occult stuff should be dealt with elsewhere. Bermicourt (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make any sense to merge all the existing disambiguation pages into a single "list of things named after playing cards" article, and have a single hatnote pointing to that? --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nine separate hatnotes linking to various disambiguation pages at the top of the page is terribly awkward at best. I like your suggestion, User:Lord Belbury. Peacock (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed the terms mentioned in the hatnote to their respective suit articles and removed the cluttered hatnote. But that results in similar hatnotes at those articles. To be frank, it's doesn't make all that much sense to have four of diamonds redirecting to Diamonds (suit) and Four of Diamonds being an article about a band, especially as a number of card game authors use the capitalised forms for the cards anyway. I'd make a single dab page in each case called "Four of diamonds" with "Four of Diamonds" as a redirect. One link can then point to the suit article and one to the band. Where only the card is referred to that can of course just redirect to the suit pages where, in due course, we can have information relevant to individual cards. Bermicourt (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Four of Diamonds (group) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Four of Diamonds (band) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deck of cards how many things are there

How 103.148.138.32 (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SVG cards

Adrian Kennard has placed a high quality SVG set of traditional/standard playing cards into the public domain. I believe they are far superior to those currently included in this article. They can be found at https://www.me.uk/cards/ (I have no connection with Adrian Kennard other than being a customer of his ISP and reader of his blog). 217.169.17.163 (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The card nobody talks about

In every fresh deck I've ever opened, there's a card with the manufacturer's information on it (that usually gets thrown away). Does it have a name? 63.156.219.125 (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Few of us call it Jubilee card 84.71.105.49 (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are many packs that don't have this or any other non-playing card. There are also those that have extra cards with the rules of popular games e.g. Italian packs with Scopa and Briscola rules; German Skat packs with tables of Skat bidding; and Bridge packs with Bridge information. Often the manufacturer's information is on one or more playing cards e.g. the Ace or 7 of Hearts. Bermicourt (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

honour cards in bridge

honour cards in bridge are: ace, king, queen and jack. Not the 10! Chrisdecorte (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]