Talk:Soul patch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Photo Please
Can we have a photo of this?
- Now we have a photo - but due to the lighting used, the soul patch itself isn't clearly visible. I suggest Robert Pires.JPG as a better photo.
- Except that's not a soul patch. wbm
Looks like a cool soul patch to me.
[edit] Alternate Names
Do we really need all the different names for a soul patch? Names like ball-tickler, taint-brush, and flavor-saver are just sexual jokes, not actual names for the beard. No barber will ever offer to trim your ball tickler. --Dr.Worm 15:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Are they needed? Not for raw communication, but those terms are common & are therefore relevent. I should know - as a wearer of a soul patch, I've heard most of those many times over. wbm 15:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
From what I knew, it was called flavor-saver because it retains the flavor of what you've just eaten (like in the Italian saying "to lick your own mustache"). I don't think it's sexual - or is it?
hahaha there is nothing common about those synonyms. PLEASE DON'T DELETE THEM.
What is the reference to "youth pastor"? The point of an encyclopedia is the passing on of information. The "and we all know why" reference is unprofessional & immature. We don't all know why. It needs to be explained. wbm 15:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
> crab-catcher, soup catcher, flavor stripe or flavor-saver.[citation needed] You will get those citations when homer simpson get one!
Every one of these terms should probably have a citation. Just because you heard somebody somewhere someday refer to a soul patch as a skipadeedoo doesn't make it relevant for the article. --Onorem 11:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Womb Broom
[edit] Cookie duster?
I thought that was a moustache. If your soul patch is dusting your cookies, it appears that you're trying force them into your chin and not putting them in your mouth.
[edit] Famous Wearers
Is there any real reason to keep expanding this section? I could be mistaken, but I thought the point of sections like this was to provide a few examples. If the point is to list every famous person that has a soul patch, would it make sense to put it into list form. It's turning into a pretty ugly paragraph the way it is.--Onorem 12:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are right, that section is pretty ridiculous. Everyone seems to put their favourite crush object. What's the point, anyway? Unless someone is known primarely for wearing a soul patch it doesn't make sense to list them here.--345Kai 06:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think that it's interesting have the name of famous users, but I think tha would be better just people who have a article in wikipedia, like this guy "Gary Dropcho" I have never heard about him...
[edit] why soul patch?
Could someone please elaborate on where the name soul patch comes from?--345Kai 07:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Old name?
I was in line at a store today, and a man in his 50s asked me what I called my tuft (a soul patch). I forgot the term "Soul Patch," so I said "Flavor Saver," which I was able to remember better.
He said, "we used to have a different name for that back in my day."
I said, "oh yeah? What was it?"
Him: "It's not really appropriate these days..."
Me: "Really? What was the term?"
Him: "The N-word. I'm not really sure why."
Adam Rock 05:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Possibly because of the following (currently from the article): "It came to prominence in the 1950s and 1960s, when it was a style of beard common among Black men, most notably black jazzmen." In his time it was more associated with black men. Probably why we call a big fuzzy mop of hair an afro because, even though I've seen white people with it (especially in the 1970s), it is more associated with black people. And, for the record, I'm with those who think the article would benefit greatly as to why it is called a "soul patch". --Canuckguy (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Notability
According to wikipedia guidelines: Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines.
Therefore given the Notability of the soul patch overall any postings related to the soul patch need not be noteable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.129.106 (talk)
- OK...Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."
- Has a reliable source published anything about this blog or its project? --Onorem♠Dil 16:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
