Talk:Ascot tie

Commercial links

Yes, I linked to a commercial page or two for the knot pictures. No, I'm not associated with any of them. Yes, I'd appreciate it if someone links to non-commercial pages which are just as good.

Jabot knot

If anyone has any information about how to tie a Jabot knot, that would be great

tie the fourinhand but don't pull all the free length all the way through at the final step, instead tighten the knot around the neck and the around the free length so you leave the little extra pouf at the top. 68.122.2.212 02:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I think a picture would be a very good addition to this article, if anyone has an ascot. I certainly haven't ever seen one. Peter T.S. 00:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I'm short on time at the moment, unfortunately. Whoever kindly put in the picture of the Jabot, many thanks, but that's a different piece of neckwear, which Wikipedia apparently doesn't have any info on either. I know there's information on the 'Net, and I've retained the picture link here so that when someone has time to write up the Jabot, the pictue will be here.

,

Incidentally, the last link on the page contains a picture that fits every description I've read of an ascot. But it's probably copyright, so I'm not just nicking it.

The picture right now doesn't even look like an ascot. --71.111.30.10 04:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

Could anyone add some pronunciation help here? Rogerdpack (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

honor guard

Where the article says "United States Navy Ceremonial Guard" the "Ceremonial Guard" link pointed to an article on the Canadian Ceremonial Guard. I changed this to the general Honor Guard article to which I think it was meant to refer. 131.229.103.169 (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US Army

The US Army calls this a branch scarf; the colors have specific meanings.[1] -- Gadget850^talk 16:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Hanker-tie" really?

I can't seem to find this term in use, only in various pages quoting Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 16:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 2 links to ... itself?

Neither reference appears to be correct (as of March 11) but Ref 2 is nothing but a link to itself, in this very Wikipedia article. IAmNitpicking (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second reference actually pointed to the book cited in the "Bibliography" section. However, because the article is so short, you really couldn't tell. While this type of citation is very useful in longer articles (especially where a long source is cited repeatedly) its use here was confusing. I reformatted it here for clarity. Now let;s see what's up with the other one. - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your concern with ref#1 is, IAmNitpicking. The link works and the sited page does say what we say it says and it seems to support the material in question it is cited for. The only thing I'm left with is the question of the site's reliability, which does seem to be a bit of an open question.[2] Please clarify what your concern is. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is formatted as a reference, in that you can't tell by looking what it links to. And again, 2 just links back to itself as a link within Wikipedia. References are supposed to be outside Wikipedia. IAmNitpicking (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing what you are saying. Clicking the [2] within the article takes me to the footnote under "References" which reads, "'Uniform Regulations for the Army' (PDF). Army Operational Command (in Danish). DK: parawings.com. September 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 October 2016. Retrieved 19 October 2016."

Within the footnote, clicking "Uniform Regulations for the Army" takes me to an archived copy of the regulations, in Danish. Clicking "Army Operational Command" takes me to Army Operational Command, explaining what that is. Clicking "the original" takes me to a file not found page. All of that seems appropriate.

[1] also leads to the footnote under "References" with a link to the article, with the relevant section quoted. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Forces

Regimental ascots were worn with workdress uniform in the late 1970's to the mid 1980's. I realise this is OR but I wore the RCD "dickie" at that time.206.172.40.210 (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC) CDNGunner[reply]

Olive green in THIS picture?

I have no time to put a better one over the description: "President Saddam Hussein of Iraq wearing an olive green ascot as a part of his Iraqi Army field marshal's uniform" but please you do; exempli gratia this one (but you can find better ones… no one worst than the one now on the page!): https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1091390335178153984/CH36frsZ_400x400.jpg GianMarco Tavazzani (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

US Navy ascot?

The US Navy formal neckerchiefs are well described in neckerchief. I am having trouble seeing how these also fit the way an ascot is defined in this article (a narrow cloth, with wide wings, fastened with pin). If those knotted Navy neckers are rolled square cloths, doesn’t that make them thick, with wings not especially wide? Is this a problem of an ascot definition phrased too strictly? Should a wide variety of neckcloths fit within the ascot article? Or might some neckcloths be better covered within scarf or another article? Egmonster (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]