Talk:Shoulder mark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A total mix-up of things[edit]

During my many years in the military I was taught that the difference between a shoulder mark, a shoulder board and an epaulette is that a shoulder mark is soft while both a shoulder board and an epaulette are hard, with the difference between a shoulder board and an epaulette being that a shoulder board has a square end at the shoulder and does not extend noticeably beyond the shoulder seam while an epaulette has a rounded end at the shoulder and extends beyond the shoulder seam. Unfortunately I don't have any references to link to... Allan Akbar (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Put a pictures of the 3 here below! --Nicola Romani (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This is my understanding of the difference. A shoulder mark, on shoulder loops, are cloth loops which slip on the shoulder straps. The shoulder board is hard (not sure how it is fastened to the uniform). The epaulette has a fringe which hangs over the top of the arm. -- 70.57.157.45 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Pls. categorize properly[edit]

The supercategory "clothing" is an inappropriate for this article. That supercategory once contained every article of clothing known to man, and has now been systematically broken out to sub-categories. How odd it would be if this one minor article were the only one to qualify for direct listing under this category heading.

If it belongs on Wikipedia at all (and if it doesn't violate WP:NOR, which it probably does), it belongs only under the two three subcategories to which it is presently assigned. --TheEditrix2 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read and understood your comment but the fact of the matter is, the term "slip-on" describes any item of clothing that has no fastenings, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be in the "supercategory" of "clothing". Certainly, "shoes" and "military uniforms" are far too narrow. I'd say that your opinion of the importance of an article is not a basis for its categorization, and if it happens that it's not just a matter of your opinion then there's something wrong with the system of categorization.
And by the way, since the relevant information comes from the Oxford English Dictionary, I don't see how it can violate NOR policy.
86.147.87.85 (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd propose that shoulder loops -- the primary focus of this article -- don't qualify as a "type of clothing." One can hardly go about dressed in shoulder loops. They are, at best, an accessory. I've therefore changed the categorisation to "Formal insignia," which falls under the accessories category. -- TheEditrix2 13:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename[edit]

It appears that the article name is ambiguous and needs to be refined. Propose rename to shoulder mark. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Discuss:

"Shoulder mark" may be a better name for the principal subject of the article, but if "slip-on" is used as an alternative name then in the normal course of events, the current page entitled "Slip-on" will be used as a redirect to "shoulder mark". The renamed main article would then still need a qualifying statement to the effect that "slip-on" in its wider sense refers to any article of clothing having no fastenings and so, the issue of categorization will not be avoided. To satisfy the current troublesome subjective importance placed on the "Clothing" category, "slip-on" would need to be a disambiguation page. 86.147.87.85 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What other articles would a "slip-on" disambiguation page link to? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't need to link to any other articles. I'm suggesting it as a way of expressing to anyone who looks for "slip-on" that it's not necessarily fitted to a shoulder strap and without needing to categorize the article as "clothing", as discussed above. 86.149.242.66 (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That can be worked out. You should take a look at WP:MOSDAB in the meantime. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Any objections or comments? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 02:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You make a compelling argument. --TheEditrix2 14:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)