Talk:Mastercard

Some proposed changes
What happened to the ATM lawsuit from 2011? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.150.41.206 (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Information to be added or removed: At the end of the Prepaid debit cards section please add – Similar multi-currency card programmes are used by fintech companies like Centtrip, Caxton and Metro Bank, utilising Mastercard’s credibility and global acceptance.

Explanation of issue: Mastercard supports multi-currency prepaid debit cards for many companies, their leadership here should be expanded upon.

References supporting change:.

Danainlondon (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Reply 5-FEB-2019
Regards,  Spintendo   12:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BALASP.

Total amount of transactions
It is not written how many card transactions and their total amount that take place yearly. Has to be near 100 billion worth more than $1 trillion yearly? --37.3.20.164 (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Old AfD merge consensus
A couple years ago, Articles for deletion/Brighterion, about a subsidiary, ended with a consensus to merge to Mastercard. How exactly should this article be merged in here? Or does the AfD need to be revisited? Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * My apologies, looks like it was merged and the redirect undone by a possible paid editor. I've restored the redirect. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Not work in Iran
Who can use MasterCard in Iran ? SepehrMomayezAdel (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That level of detail is not needed in the infobox, and the word 'Worldwide' does not mean 'every single place in the world'. There's no place to use a MasterCard at the north pole, either. But we don't need to list that. MrOllie (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

MSCI KLD 400 Social Index
An IP user has been trying to edit war in the fact that Mastercard is included in a certain stock index (MSCI KLD 400 Social Index) and sourcing it to an index fund promotional page at Blackrock. Given the Blackrock is both a company listed on the index and a seller of a fund based on that index, they are not an independent third party... and even if they were, this is database information from them, which thus shows no sign of significance. I am (again) undoing the insertion; if it is to be included, consensus should be found first. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to assume good faith - but I just can't. It's the classic case of moving the goalposts every time. The category is completely uncontentious - very clearly defined, etc. First the category is removed as "unsourced". Then a source is added, and it gets removed as "promotional". Then an independent source is added, but removed as "a sales page". Will you ever stop or am I just pissing into the wind here?


 * A simple Google search turns up pages of results, from all the usual players (MSCI, FT, Yahoo, etc). I'm not going to attempt to read your mind. What you're now going to do is SPECIFY EXACTLY WHAT TYPE OF LINK YOU WILL DEEM PERMISSABLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.190.234 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The category is clearly not "uncontentious" -- at the moment, the discussion on deleting that category has four editors weighing in, and all three of the ones who are not you are seeing it as a category that should be deleted. You are acting as if you've tried source after source, but in every edit here, it's Blackrock. The sort of source that we'd be looking for for inclusion is a reliable independent third-party one that focuses on Mastercard and mentions the Index in a way that suggests that the Index is significant in discussing Mastercard. And given that you've now had your attempt to add this information undone by more than one editor, you should raise your suggestion addition here on the Talk page first and find consensus for its addition before inserting it into the article.


 * Might I also note that making demands of other volunteer editors, even if you do so in all capitals and bold lettering, is not the best way to draw cooperation here. I nicely gave you what you were looking for here as if you'd requested the information politely. Next time, I shall not be so sanguine.
 * I will also note in response to your edit comment that my reversions are actually already indicating an alternative... said alternative being to not mention this information. That's an alternative that this article has survived with for many years now. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)