Talk:Jack of plate

message: Says the article:
The jack is similar to the brigandine, the main difference is in the method of construction: a brigandine is riveted whereas a jack is sewn.
So there is no justafiable reason why this article should be redirected to brigandine. Please leave me a message on my talk page if you have any objections. Thanks, Airplaneman (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Undoing redirect

message: No. The two types may be similar, but they are distinct and from different periods. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. The two are completely different. They are even from different time periods! Please help expand it if it is too short for your liking. Thanks, Airplaneman (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The construction is indeed similar, it may even be identical, but focusing on similarities of construction is to miss the point. This article describes a type of armour that has a particular historical context and it should no more be merged with coat of plates than lorica segmentata should be merged with plate armour. The difference is more subtle in this instance, of course. I am not an expert on armour, but as I understand it coat of plates historically preceeds plate armour and is transitional towards it; whereas, jack of Plate is later and part of a transition away from plate armour. That is a very fundemental difference that would only be confused by meging the two articles. On the other hand, it would be very helpful to make the distinction and the reasons for it clear in the articles in question. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. It is like merging the Airbus A320 family with the Boeing 737 family. They are the same basic concepts, but they have design differences and are made by different companies. I'll see what I can do to help distinguish the two, but they do not qualify for a merge. I'm quite busy in real life right now, but I'll see what can be done. Anyone can help, too! Thanks, Airplaneman (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These types of armor are not unique to a particular manufacturer or country. By contrast the English were known to use both and incorporate plates from damaged brigandines into jacks. So your argument is invalid Airplaneman.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.196.91 (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: According to Thom Richardson, in Veronica Fiorato et al. 2007, Blood Red Roses: The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton, p. 144, "during this early period [late fourtheenth and fifteenth centuries] it took the form of a quilted doublet composed of many layers of fabric or leather, sometimes stuffed with tow." 72.66.33.206 (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So what about the description of the jack of plate in this article is dubious? The only objection you seem to have is against the term "jack" being used interchangeably with "jack of plate". In that case, the tags are misleadingly placed. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tags this user placed but added one after the first use of "jack" as a synonym for this piece of armor. It's still ugly, but this seems like a good point to me. Does anyone object to striking "jack" as a synonym for this particular piece of armor? Or would it be better to mention that "jack" is used this way, but it may also be used in the way this user suggested? 72.200.151.13 (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: A jack of plates is only one late kind of jack

message: This page and Coat of plates seem to describe the same object; they both include the same image of the same artifact. Note that coat of plates is not brigandine. The other article seems to have more detail, and has all of the information in this one, so I suggest redirecting this one there.
‎Unsigned comment added by Collabi (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2013
:Gaius Cornelius made a cogent argument against merging in the previous discussion (see above), but unfortunately none of that information is indicated anywhere in the article's content.  Maintaining separate articles may be appropriate, but a rewrite of this article may be necessary in order to indicate just what is different between the two, else I would anticipate the merge proposals to keep coming in from time to time. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I move to drop the proposal to merge this article with coat of plates. Jack of Plates is a different object, as stated in the last merger proposal, and should be given its own article. I'll remove text related to this article from the coat of plates-article and redirect here Oslomin (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another merge proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Jack of plate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080511235642/http://www.historicjamestowne.org/news/jack_plate.php to http://historicjamestowne.org/news/jack_plate.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified