Talk:Smart card

Smart card vs. Draft:Complex Cards
Need your thoughts on whether a separate article should be created for Complex smart cards. I have not seen this term "complex card" or "complex smart card" used at all, but see it as an extension of the next generation of cards.

Pinging WP:TECH and other projects for input. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

In their general sense, smart cards are based on a single chip. Thus it makes sense to make a new article about complex smart cards as they include more than one chip and peripherals such as displays, keypads, fingerprints sensors, etc. Of course, the complex smart card article is to be referenced in the smart cards article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marseil (talk • contribs) 15:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It's important to show at least one concrete example of a "complex" smart card; seems a bit hypothetical without that. Also, there should be at least one RS that formally defines the term "complex smart card". Finally, it's not clear why a complex smart card would necessarily have multiple ICs; it seems like it could have just a single IC plus peripheral. When these issues have been addressed then it could make sense to split it into a separate article. Lambtron  talk  15:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the title is quite right but that can always be changed and the draft does appear to offer a reasonable start on an independently notable subject (smart cards also that include displays, buttons, etc.). We could insist that this material be merged into this article but someone has to do that work before the draft expires and I think that would create an WP:UNDUE issue. Why not accept the draft and let editors work on improvements of the two articles and the relationship between them here in mainspace? ~Kvng (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, I could not find much references to "complex cards" or "complex smart cards" as most players in this field tend to define their cards by their core functionality: either a simple display, a DCSC (Dynamic Card Security Code), an OTP (One Time Password), or a fingerprint sensor. However, as technology and manufacturing methods between these functionalities are the same, I think it makes sense to have them all on a single article. More globally, a taxonomy for these topics can be:

Cards ---+--- magstripe cards +--- smart cards --+--- regular smart cards (one chip) +--- complex smart cards (more than one chip and peripherals aboard the card)
 * As complex smart cards constitute a topic in themselves (same set of technologies, same manufacturing methods, same players), it seems clearer to describe them as an independent article athn to merge them in the smart card article. Marseil (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I renamed the article "Complex smart cards (Smart cards with peripherals)" to make this more explicit. A reference to the wording "complex cards" can be found at https://www.nagraid.com/en/solutions/complex-cards, at NiD, formerly NagraID, which is one of the major players in this field. Should this reference be included in the first lines of the article?
 * Other sources refer to "powered card technologies", "battery-free solution for payment cards", "battery-free display cards", "fingerprint cards", "OTP display cards", "chip-embedded power card", "power card", "display card", "biometric card", "biometric payment card", "biometric smart card", "payment display cards", "dynamic code card", "fingerprint biometric cards", "EMV biometric card", "Motion code", "F.Code", "powered display cards", "multicomponent and other complex cards".
 * None of these expressions is satisfactory as they are too specific, generally focusing on only one function. In fact, cards can be powered or not, they can include displays or not, they can support biometric functions or not, etc. What all these cards have in common is to be more complex both in terms of functionality and of manufacturing than regular smart cards.
 * So do you think the title "Complex smart cards (Smart cards with peripherals)" is more explicit? Marseil (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I just changed the title to "Super smart cards" as this is the wording used by IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) in this publication: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/76117 to describe cards with peripherals. Do you think this is inline with the requirement for evidence in independent, reliable, published sources? --Marseil (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This citation is quite dated at 32 years old and I am not sure that terminology ever caught on, or is still used by IEEE. Are there any other sources, particularly more recent ones, confirming use of the terminology "super smart cards"? ExoticViolet (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * the current split proposal is not clear - there is a mix between smart card with multiple chips and smart card with more capacity . at the end Id on't understand the objective Tech Dir (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thus the HatNote atop the Smart card article has timed out ... it's now about 18 months. Nuts240 (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Page doesnt mention about Laser cards https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_disc#/media/File%3ADREXLER_LASER_CARD-01.jpg its also mentioned on BBC Micro Live S01E01 (5th October 1984). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.172.52 (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of smart cards
I suppose I'm not quite an expert on smart cards, but isn't monitoring access just as valid of a use for smart cards as controlling access? I would think the first sentence would be better written with 'control or monitor access' instead of 'control access' but it's probably best to get a second opinion. Kelvinnkat (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)