Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 01:43, 21 July 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Missouri Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. 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.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Kansas City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about Kansas City, Missouri, and the surrounding metropolitan area on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Kansas CityWikipedia:WikiProject Kansas CityTemplate:WikiProject Kansas CityKansas City Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Brands Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge

This article should be merged into Hallmark Cards because American Greetings appears to be a Public Subsidiary of Hallmark Cards. Let's talk about it. Miracleimpulse 05:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for that? Unfounded, unsourced conjecture does not belong in the article. --Transfinite 18:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• At this point, the entire article is unsourced. Miracleimpulse 14:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and your theory about a massive conspiracy between Hallmark Cards and American Greetings is a rather extraordinary claim. --Transfinite 18:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• The proof is in the cards: millions upon millions of Sweetest Day cards with nearly identical highly deceptive statements printed right on the back of every card. American Greetings was founded in 1906, Hallmark in 1910. Both were there for the first Sweetest Days which started in 1921. What's going on is obviously co-ordinated intentional deception in order to sell products. Miracleimpulse 22:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I believe you have the wrong article. You are probably looking for Hallmark Cards. --Transfinite 18:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A clarification: The merge discussion above was originally posted on Talk:Hallmark. Miracleimpulse moved it over here. --Transfinite 22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hallmark and American Greetings have already used Misplaced Pages for purposes of mass deception on the Sweetest Day page, is it such a stretch that they might be deceiving everyone further by posing as two companies? Miracleimpulse 04:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for any proof, whatsoever, of this conspiracy theory of yours. --Transfinite 05:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Let's start with: Over the past several years, Hallmark and American Greetings have issued hundreds of millions of Sweetest Day cards with nearly identical Sweetest Day verisimilitudes printed right on the reverse side of each card. Their websites also sock puppet the same verisimilitudes about Sweetest Day. Miracleimpulse 12:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's not proof of anything. Find a WP:RS that shows they have the same owner. Then we'd have something to talk about.--Isotope23 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Not proof of anything. Only that they are working in a co-operative manner to fashion the holidays America celebrates, and making big money in the process. Did you know that the former president of Hallmark Brands USA is now president of American Greetings' Carlton Cards? Miracleimpulse 13:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• ...so the guy took another job. Again, for these to be merged there would need to be demonstrable proof that the two companies had effectively the same company due to a corporate merger, etc. Unless you have some reliable source evidence of that there is nothing more to discuss and this tag is an exercise in WP:POINT.--Isotope23 14:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• The point being that Misplaced Pages is being used by industry for purposes of mass deception. It has already happened on the Sweetest day page, and it is happening here too. Did you know that the founding president of The Hallmark Channel is now director of The Hatchery, American Greetings' version of The Hallmark Channel? I guess she got a new job too. Or did she? Miracleimpulse 14:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• ...and this supports your merge reasoning "This article should be merged into Hallmark Cards because American Greetings appears to be a Public Subsidiary of Hallmark Cards..." how? You have yet to produce any evidence at all.--Isotope23 15:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• The evidence is everywhere Isotope. Co-creation of fake holidays. Interchangeable presidents. Is your paycheck blocking your ability to see these things? Miracleimpulse 15:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• And you top it all off with yet another assumption of bad faith bordering on a personal attack...with no evidence. If you can't differentiate between reliably sourced evidence and conspiracycruft, we have nothing more to discuss.--Isotope23 15:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Why don't we put this matter up for arbitration and let others figure out the motivations for your edits both here and on the Sweetest Day page. After all, it is in the best interests of Misplaced Pages to determine whether or not industry is using Misplaced Pages for profit. Miracleimpulse 15:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you want to log an arbcom case against me, by all means do so.--Isotope23 15:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As per discussion on Talk:American Greetings, this suggestion and so-called issue are nonsense. See there for further information. Newyorkbrad 18:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: Why doesn't this Hallmark article mention that Hallmark makes all Disney greeting cards?

Answer: Because Gibson Greetings used to make all Disney cards, and Gibson was bought by American Greetings.

• Every day in every way, Hallmark and American Greetings are a Monopoly. And Misplaced Pages is being used by industry for purposes of mass deception on this page, the American Greetings page and the Sweetest Day page. It is that simple. Miracleimpulse 03:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• The article doesn't mention any of Hallmark Card's licensing agreements. When you are making such a brash claim, you need to have evidence. All I've seen so far is speculation. Unless you find a source that directly claims that Hallmark and American Greetings are involved in some sort of grand conspiracy, then there is nothing to talk about. I'm tired of this "Don't you see! Make the connection!" stuff. Misplaced Pages is not the place to "Make the connection." I find two companies engaged in fierce competition a much more likely theory than a large conspiracy. I think Occam's razor applies. --Transfinite 04:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• That the former president of Hallmark Brands USA is the current president of Carlton Cards is not speculation.

• That the founding president of The Hallmark Channel is the current director of The Hatchery is not speculation.

• That Hallmark now makes all Disney greeting cards is not speculation (Gibson has been sliced up like a piece of meat between American Greetings and Hallmark).

• That the flagship American Greetings Carlton Store at Chicago's Merchandise Mart recently closed without notification and was replaced by a Hallmark Gold Crown Store is not speculation. (Note to Transfinite: Saw this one for myself.)

• That American Greetings and Hallmark promote Sweetest Day using nearly identical verisimilitudes is not speculation.

• That American Greetings and Hallmark are blocking nearly every patented new greeting card concept from the market is not speculation.

"All things being equal, American Greetings and Hallmark Cards are a Monopoly." Miracleimpulse 07:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• What are your sources on this information? I'd like to look into this myself. --Transfinite 22:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just as a reminder and so there is no confusion, you're arguing over greeting cards. Haizum 06:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:American Greetings, and now there's a thread on WP:ANI. Newyorkbrad 06:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "Hallmark Holiday" is a pop-cultural reference to the concept that certain "holidays" are created and/or glorified by commercial interests - not just the Hallmark company - in order to sell products rather than celebrate a religious or secular special occasion. While the pop-culture term "Hallmark Holiday" carries the trade name of a specific company, its meaning far transcends the fact that the term carries the tradename of a specific and highly successful greeting card company. These articles should absolutely not be merged, because despite the use of a company tradename (which, of course, should be properly credited as belonging to that company) the term, in pop-culture, has vastly transcended the business dealings of that particular company. Look at it this way: many people use machines made by many companies to photocopy documents, and a large percentage of them to refer to the process as "Xeroxing," even though a large percentage of those photocopies are not made on machines made by the Xerox Corporation. A rough anaology, I admit, but I think it gets my point across. Properly credit the tradename Hallmark to its owner, and include text about how the term "Hallmark Holiday" came into existence, but do not merge the article with that on the Hallmark company. It would be destructive to the informational/social purpose of WikiPedia, and unfairly demeaning to the Hallmark company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.38.104 (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware of how big American Greetings actually is? Look at thier corporate information and see all the characters they own, the companies they own, or acquired over the years. If anything, they would buy Hallmark! 142.167.161.78 (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

hallmarkgreetz.com

I removed hallmarkgreetz.com from the article because I'm not sure it is a legit part of Hallmark.

1. The whois records are different. versus
2. I can't find a link to hallmarkgreetz.com on hallmark.com
3. Adding the link is Hnoom's first and only edit.

If I'm wrong, I aplogize, but better safe than sorry. --Transfinite 19:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer: I can understand your thoughts, but the link to this site is located on the www.hallmark.com site.

Click on "E-cards and More", on the right side there is a banner; New from Hallmark! Make Your Own Holiday Cards. The product is fairly new, and I am not really sure how they call the product itself. It think it should be "Create your own cards.", which is shown on the site itself.

I see it now. I wasn't 100% sure either way, but they have a banner ad off to the side on thier e-cards page. Durr. --Transfinite 01:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Names

I don't know about other places, but in North Carolina, Hallmark stores have different names. They're like, Jackie's Hallmark, Debbie's Hallmark, Daphne's Hallmark, and Andy's Hallmark. The first one is in at least Laurinburg, the second and third are in Raleigh and the last one was in Asheville, last I checked. --Jnelson09 20:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

They are probably franchises. I don't know much about the company, but I think they have corporate owned stores as well as franchise stores that may have the owner's names in them.--Isotope23 20:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There are corporate owned and franchised Hallmark Gold Crown Stores. They can have any name such as "Jackie's Hallmark" but they are all Hallmark Gold Crown Stores Chris1834 (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Assistance in upgrading this article

I work with Hallmark Business Expressions' (a subsidiary of Hallmark Cards) communications agency. We are looking to update this article and make it fully accurate and more informative.

We would like to add Hallmark Business Expressions to the Subsidiaries section of this article. According to what I've gleaned from suggestions on the (WP:NPOV) and autobiographical guidelines (WP:Auto), the best way of incorporating some of our suggestions is to post them to this talk page to let the community decide how best to incorporate them. If anyone would like to work on this article further, please contact me on my talk page.

My reference for this addition comes from BtoB Magazine and can be found at http://www.btobonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061016/FREE/610160701. If the community is okay with this addition, I will post a revised Subsidiaries section here for final approval and technical review.

I look forward to working with editors transparently and in good faith to make this article better. We understand the value of Misplaced Pages and want to make sure all interested readers get a thorough, neutral view of Hallmark and its subsidiaries. We respect this process and want to update this article seamlessly and transparently. Thank you. Morningstarcomm (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an updated Subsidiaries entry that reflects the addition of Hallmark Business Expressions as a subsidiary.

Subsidiaries

Hallmark owns:

• Hallmark Channel: a television network
• Binney & Smith (now Crayola, LLC): makers of Crayola-brand crayons
• Rainbow Brite: a franchise of children's dolls
• Hallmark Cards: a chain of independently-owned card and gift stores in the United States and Canada
• Hallmark Business Expressions (HBE): Formed in 1996, Hallmark Business Expressions is a business-to-business subsidiary of Hallmark Cards, Inc. and is headquartered in Kansas City, MO. Morningstarcomm (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Hallmark holiday

Hallmark holiday is just a bit of nonnotable slang used here and there but with no solid cites to provide info that would be able to create an article that is anything but oriinal research/synthesis. Mere use of the term briefly in a couple of columns in no way establishes notability for a Misplaced Pages article. At best it should get a brief one sentence mention here. DreamGuy (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Hallmark Holiday describes a concept that is not limited to Hallmark cards as such. Any commercial entity, working for its own benefit, that manipulates public opinion to generate hype around a fictional or non-existant holiday bears this identification. Hallmark name is stuck to it because Hallmark was the first to do it. Sort of like 'Kodak moment'.

अभय नातू (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The term is widely used in various social and political contexts, and is not limited to things relating directly to Hallmark. Example: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4970855.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.222.106 (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So... any arguments that are actually based upon Misplaced Pages notability rules for articles instead of just WP:ILIKEIT claims? DreamGuy (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If there's a notability problem, you may wish to consider articles for deletion? Although just to note it has been nominated before and was snowball kept. --tgheretford (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ref. #6 dead link

Someone replace reference #6 with an up-to-date link. Bulldog73 (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Merging Business Connections

Probably the Hallmark Business Connections should just be deleted? The Business Connection has no content and it seems that people are against merging information to this page. Although the founder of Hallmark links to this page. So I would think that the page Hallmark Cards represents the business and not some other concepts. If this is not correct, then we need a disassociate page, because it is definitely conceptually mixed up; the intro IS about the company. 216.94.244.179 (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Founded

Next to founded, it should give a location, no? Simon 13:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hallmark UK

Hi,

Hallmark also serves the UK and has stores (although waning in number). I don't know how to verify this officially but maybe someone will want to investigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VariableDeclared (talk • contribs) 09:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No Maxine Article?

Is Maxine not popular enough for an article? Sure seems odd that there's hardly any mention at all on Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.118.213 (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hallmark Cards

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hallmark Cards—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 188.246.71.145 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hallmark Cards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708103622/http://www.btobonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20061016%2FFREE%2F610160701 to http://www.btobonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20061016%2FFREE%2F610160701

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Entire paragraph needs citations

The entire first paragraph under "History" seems like it could have been lifted from a company brochure. Every sentence could use a citation, and it should undergo a rewrite to make it more wiki-sounding and less like an inspiring tale from a restaurant sugar packet.

I was going to add a citation template, but wiki rules page said templates can be contentious--thus a discussion on the Talk page should ensue first. Wiki also says "break all rules", too. So I'm at a loss about what to do and am posting here first out of an abundance of caution.

Since I doubt Hallmark is high on anyone's list of priorities, why do I have the sinking feeling I'll be the one to put up a Citation template when no one responds to this discussion? Come on people, PROVE ME WRONG! Say something, already. Thanks, and cheers to everyone for helping improve entries. Kinkyturnip (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Since sourcing is more important than noting the lack thereof, and it wasn't hard to find, I replaced that first paragraph with sourced content. —ADavidB 09:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Muchas gracias! Kinkyturnip (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No support for this move. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 22:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hallmark Cards → Hallmark
• Hallmark → ?

– Primary topic. The brand has become popular and the page has attracted 31.986 views. Similar to that of the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon pages, anyone who search the word "hallmark" is looking for the company. 198.58.112.202 (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Then what should the current Hallmark article be called instead? That also had to be decided too if we want to base the primary topic with respect to current usage instead of what is now apparently long-term significance/usage. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – Hallmark Cards isn't even the "primary topic" as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC #1, as the page views are basically comparable; meanwhile, "Hallmark" clearly is the "primary topic" as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC #2. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose but... I think there is a good case to be made for WP:NOPRIMARY. pageview stats are one indicator of this, but an even stronger piece of evidence is the source links to Hallmark. At time of writing out of the first 20 pages linking to ], I count:
  • 11 correct links
  • 5 referring to the generic dictionary definition (i.e. "a distinguishing characteristic")
  • 2 that were meant to refer to Hallmark Channel
  • 2 that were meant to refer to Hallmark Cards

That's a pretty appalling accuracy rate. Moving the dab page to Hallmark means that errors like these can be immediately detected and fixed. Colin M (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment I don't think Hallmark Cards should be moved, and seeing this about the Hallmark article, I'm in agreement with moving it to something like Hallmark (characteristic) and making Hallmark (disambiguation) the page one reaches for Hallmark. —ADavidB 12:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The primary topic is the distinctive mark. The company brand is too US-specific. Walrasiad (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

According to the Google Trends' stats, many people who is looking for the company is searching the word "hallmark" which has more searches than the word "hallmark cards". Also, it is now the most popular brand around the world, mainly due to its greeting cards and its television network Hallmark Channel. 172.105.20.42 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The US is not the world. I doubt anybody outside of it has ever heard of it. Walrasiad (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Due to historical precedent/significance._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm personally a fan of using legal names, minus corporate incorporation abbreviation identifiers, as opposed to trade names. Additionally, though, in this case, there's already a disambiguation page. I would be amenable to a move to, say, Hallmark (greeting card company), but that'd be the extent of it. Doug Mehus (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Founding Year Clarification

What year was Hallmark founded?

The year Hallmark is founded is written as 1910 in the second sentence of this page but in the History section it shows the Hall brothers started Norfolk Post Card Company in 1907, bought out another business in 1908 and renamed to "Hall Brothers", and the business didn't become "Hallmark" until 1928. The only time 1910 is mentioned in the history section is in regards to a move to KC that year. Why is that the year listed as the founding? It would make sense to me to use either 1907 as the founding of the company that would become Hallmark, or 1928 when it was officially named.

Which is it?

PS. I have rarely posted to a thread before so please forgive me if this is the wrong place for or way to ask this question 2601:441:4C80:5860:11F3:9142:A0B2:379F (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Checked through the source for 1910 as the start year and its from a random about.com article with no credible sources. Not sure how to propose an edit but will try now, sorry for redundant messages it is my first time proposing an edit. 2601:441:4C80:5860:11F3:9142:A0B2:379F (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Start-Class company articles
• High-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• Start-Class Missouri articles
• Low-importance Missouri articles
• Start-Class Kansas City articles
• Low-importance Kansas City articles
• Start-Class Brands articles
• Low-importance Brands articles
• WikiProject Brands articles