This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fashion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The tuque is decended from the toque, a fashionable sixteenth century women's hat worn in France and generally made of velvet. The French-Canadian Voyageurs borrowed the term and applied it to the somewhat similar knit hats that were a necessity for warmth.

I'm not sure about this. My Oxford Canadian says that tuque and toque are not related: tuque is "Canadian French, ultimately from a pre-Romance form *tukka 'gourd, hill'", whereas toque is "French, apparently = Italian tocca, Spanish toca, of unknown origin," and describes this spelling for the wool hat as being "by assimilation from Canadian French tuque." - Montrealais

It might be worth precising that tuque is CANADIAN French. I was quite surprised at first to read that this word uknown to me is "French". olivier 20:13, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Touque should be considered an alternate spelling rather than being characterized as a misspelling PC -- Vancouver

1. Google toque -wikipedia in English-language pages: 842,000 results (79.4%)
2. Google tuque -wikipedia in English-language pages: 183,000 results (17.2%)
3. Google touque -wikipedia in English-language pages: 36,000 results (3.4%)

About three percent of English-language Google results (that is, sites, not pages) misspell toque "touque". For all we know, there are more sites that spell it tuk, or tocque, or something else. I don't see any reason to put an inline external link to a Google search. Nor do I see any reason to include this original research in the article (what is the average percentage of misspellings of a word on the Internet? Is 3.4% a remarkably high rate of error for an unusual word?). —Michael Z. 2005-12-7 00:18 Z

Those hit counts are pages, not sites

Google sorting by language is highly unreliable; many of those "English" sites are not.

A similar percentage of French page hits for touque, arguably not a misspelling but a variant spelling or an intentional compromise for those who have nothing better to do than to argue whether the first vowel should be an o or a u.

That rough search doesn't determine the percentage of each spelling in which the meaning is the meaning associated with this article. For example, a search in any language for both words toque and chef gives 185,000 hits, and few of them will be the stocking cap meaning—contrarily, few of the hits for tuque will deal with chef's hats (28,200 hits for tuque chef). Throwing out restaurant names including one of these spellings and things like that would also greatly affect the results. Gene Nygaard 14:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Google normally shows only one or two page results per web site. If "touque" occurred on a thousand pages in a web site, Google would still only show it once or twice.

Anyway, I agree with your assessment; evaluating these results would obviously constitute original research. I was simply pointing out that 1. we have cited no real evidence that touque is objectively a notably common misspelling; 2. it's lame to substitute such a citation with a link to a Google search in the text. At best, this can be stated as a generality. —Michael Z. 2005-12-8 15:12 Z

It shows similar pages once or twice, but all of them are counted in the hit count xxx. If not all of them are shown, when you get to some other number yyy smaller than xxx, you get In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the yyy already displayed.

If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included. (To do that, you click on the link on the last eight words starting with "repeat".)

It counts all the dissimilar pages on one site, including the ones only linked as "More results from URL".

Yes, it does only count pages with that hit, not the number of times the word is found. Gene Nygaard 17:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what you said about not using Google, I see that you have used your flawed Google search (including "chef" hits, etc.) as the basis for your claim on the article page, which I dispute, that "tuque is usually spelled 'toque'". Gene Nygaard 17:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toque is also used significantly more on English-language .ca sites according to Google, but as you outlined above, we can't make too much of Google results, perhaps nothing at all. And sorry for misunderstand the hit count.

I merely mentioned that as corroborating evidence for the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, which authoritative—it lists toque as the main headword, and tuque as a variant spelling referring back to the main headword. The Canadian Oxford is based on direct research about Canadian usage of English, so barring contradicting sources, we must accept its implication that toque is the primary spelling (p. xiii of the dictionary's usage guide, under "variant spellings": "The main headword represents the most common form in Canadian usage."). —Michael Z. 2005-12-8 21:27 Z

You've seen how hard that is to actually quantify. All we can really say is that "tuque" and "toque" spellings are both used for this word. There isn't necessarily any implication of any great difference; if two equally common spellings were used, a dictionary would still put it under one of them with a cross-reference from the other. It is probably also time-dependent. What is the time frame of the research of those lexicographers, for example?

For what it's worth, Webster's New World Dictionary (1961, additions in later editions are in a separate addenda but this is in the main part) has it under tuque with not even a mention of variant spellings there, but under toque it has as definition 1 c : TUQUE.

You can determine that Canadian Tire uses the toque spelling on its web pages.

You can find about 4 to 5 times as Google hits for "a toque is a hat" as those spelling it "a tuque is a hat", most of them quoting a Molson Canadian ad or doing take-offs from it.

There are also probably regional variations within Canada. A search on .ca sites for the words (not exact phrase) toque Alberta gives 963 hits; tuque Alberta gives 38,200 hits, or 40 times as many for the tuque spelling as for the toque spelling. Gene Nygaard 03:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now you seem to be really reaching. This is an article about a Canadian word. The 2004 edition of the Canadian Oxford is the reference on Canadian English, based on actual research by a team of lexicographers in Canada, and updated since the first 1998 edition. It puts toque in the main headword, and says, I quote, "The main headword represents the most common form in Canadian usage." Your original research using Google and a 44-year-old U.S. dictionary don't carry very much weight.

"All we can really say is that "tuque" and "toque" spellings are both used for this word"—incorrect. We can really say that toque is the "most common form in Canadian usage", based on an up-to-date, unimpeachable reference on the subject. —Michael Z. 2005-12-9 06:02 Z

Just because a spelling is common doesn't make it correct. The hat is properly spelled "tuque"; even if "toque" were a hundred times as common in English as the correct spelling, it would still be objectively incorrect, because a "toque" is a different type of hat, only superficially related to a "tuque" by virtue of their both being hats. Bearcat 00:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By Bearcat's logic, any "american" spelling of English words that, for instance, uses only an o instead of ou, is objectively incorrect If the term is only used in Canada, and the vast majority of Canadians spell it toque, that's how it's spelled

My second edition Oxford Canadian has the primary definition at toque, and a reference at tuque. Any objection to moving this article? I doubt there's a better reference. —Michael Z. 2005-12-6 01:37 Z

Keep it at "tuque". Gene Nygaard 13:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that toque is a different article. This one should really be merged into that one, since the Canadian English toque is a specific application of the same word. —Michael Z. 2005-12-8 15:15 Z

No, because they are two different hats with different histories. On the page about the French fasion / chef's hat, there should be For the Canadian wool cap see Tuque. And then this page should specify that toque is the normal English spelling but the page is at tuque for disambig reasons. Kevlar67 10:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the articles separate, as the chef's hat is ONLY a "toque" and spelling irrespective, a "tuque" is a different thing for a different use entirely. Iamvered 06:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added content to this article and the one on beanie (which is a hot mess as well, as far as terminology is concerned), and I have removed the merge suggestion. If you want to open the subject back up for debate, put it back on. Iamvered 06:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, the entry on "canadian variant" in the article toque should be all but removed, and linked here. It isn't a "variant" on the /tok/ toque, it is an entirely different hat. Since tuque and toque are both accepted spellings of /tuk/ but not of /tok/, it just makes sense to keep the /tuk/ article here. Erk 11:13, 13 November 2006 (GMT+9)

I feel that the other 'toque' page should be renamed (toque-french-hat), and this article should be the toque page. 'tuque', and 'touque' on english wikipedia, should redirect to 'toque' because 'toque' is the more common english usage referring to the knit winter hat. "merging" articles wouldn't be correct because they're two separate hats. 70.79.157.34 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is common, but in my neck of the woods, a touque and a beanie are different things. The are both knitted hats, the difference being that a touque folds up at the bottom and a beanie does not. Anyone else encounter this? I'm from Canada. SECProto 20:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about beanies, but all of the tuques I have fold up at the bottom, unlike what the article currently suggests ("All tuques are tapered and brimless"). Wonderstruck 16:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the brimless reference because I have many tuques, called tuques, with folded brims. I suspect the original author meant "without a wide brim" as in unlike a fedora, but since as far as I'm aware (I'm no millner), the fold on a tuque is also called a brim, so it was misleading. We could specify more, but I think the picture makes it clear. Regarding beanies, I have never heard anything but those silly hats with the propellers on top called beanies. A knitted, almost shapeless hat is a tuque whether it folds or not. That's in backwater B.C.... if you are from Ontario it might be different, I hear tuques are called beanies in the US sometimes so perhaps the eastern canadian slang has inherited that a bit? Erk 11:17 13 November 2006 (GMT+9)

To add to this, I'm in southern Ontario near the US border and, while I've always referred to it as a toque, 5 minutes over the border it's referred to as a beanie. In fact, at all the ski resorts within a two hour radius, the majority of people under 30 seem to commonly refer to a toque as a beanie. Urbanriot 00:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also to add to this, as an American living in the state of Washington, I have never heard it referred to as a togue but always as a beanie. Even most of the canadians who come down here refer to it as a beanie. DaftPun 17:50, 14 Febuary 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.164.147 (talk)

Also a Washingtonian, have only heard it referred to as a beanie. Never encountered term 'touque' until I stumbled upon this page.LeeRamsey (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite Canadian and I've never seen it spelled tuque until this very moment. I think that this is a mis-reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.202.12.184 (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to burst your bubble, but not all Americans call this a beanie - that's a baseball cap with a propeller on top (in 50 years, I've only seen them in cartoons). Stocking cap is most common term - watch cap if you want to have or feign a naval background. Jmdeur (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a native denizen of a state where people frequently wear these things (Colorado) the only acceptable term is "beanie". Nobody uses the word "knit cap". The first time I heard "tuque" was out of the mouth of a Canadian. The only people who confused the term "beanie" with a propeller-head hat were generally over the age of 50. I would strongly suggest amending the exiting article to reflect that "beanie" is used by Americans as well. Tarcieri (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Oklahoma we refer to knitted hats in general as "stocking caps". I know a few southerners who call it a "toboggan" (which in my mind is a kind of sled). A "beanie" is almost always the multi-colored felt hat with propeller - sometimes seen in organized science fiction fandom -or possibly a yarmulke. As far as I can tell, "tuque" is a purely Canadian regionalism. Not sure how it got promoted to be the standard term in this article. Bouncey (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These terms are covered in other articles (toboggan and beanie at least). A stocking cap is not a tuque - it's described in the dictionary as "a conical knitted cap, often with a tassel".[1] A tuque does not have a tassel[2].--Quartet 18:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always heard of a toque as a "toboggan" or a "beanie," but toque is a new name for me. I've also heard them called skull caps or watch caps. Halofanatic333 (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Bill Murray's tuque in The Life Aquatic... a parody of Jacques Cousteau? I always remember him as wearing one very often. If so, perhaps the article could mention him, just to push the tuque reference as far as it can go. I might be wrong. Bog 05:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me (from the pics and description) that a touque is what in the UK is called a 'wooly hat' or, if it has a pompom on top, a 'bobble hat'. Mention of these words would clarify what you were describing for UK readers (and any other nationalities who use these terms).

As for a beanie - don't they always fit close to the head where a wooly hat needn't (but may). As for a brim, well I would have thought that was to do with the size of your head vs the size of the hat and was purely optional! It would seem that people are trying to create too much of a rigid definition for what is, after all, a simple knitted hat. Surely it is possible for beanie and touque definitions to overlap, or even for beanie to be a subset of touque?Ewan carmichael 03:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+1 vote for woolly hat and bobble hat from the UK. 86.163.245.106 (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what: Walk around on the open prairie when it's a breezy minus 50, then tell me whether the extra wool of the brim is 'optional'. Heavenlyblue (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who came up with the idea a bobble cap is British? And then who came up with that it's supposed to have ear flaps? https://www.google.com/search?lr=&as_qdr=all&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=%22bobble+cap%22&safe=images&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinr6SlvNrsAhUE16wKHZi0DK0QjJkEegQIBRAB&biw=1100&bih=566 (no ear flaps on most of these.) In the rural area of Washington state us kids (and some grown ups when it was cold and snowing) wore bobble caps (usually knitted by one's grandma). The difference between a hat (like a church hat, fedora, or a Stetson for instance)and a cap, is that a hat sits on the head loosely and usually has a sun-shade brim all round whereas a cap fits on the head rather tightly. Compare a fez (hat) to a kippah (cap). Or compare a straw hat to a baseball cap. I don't know when beanie made the transition from kids' fabric or felt cap to a knit cap, but it wasn't so in the fifties and sixties. The beanie was not with a propeller earlier, I think that came from a fad that was picked up in cartoons. Anecdotally first I heard beanie for knit cap was in the 80s. Another term people used interchangeably with bobble cap was pompom cap. Both were used at the same time an area and sometimes by the same people. But definitely not just British. 2600:1700:1C60:45E0:54E9:6846:32CE:E00E (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The English spelling touque is not mentioned in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Let's find a reference for this, or remove it. —Michael Z. 2009-01-26 22:38 z

sure, the Canadian Government referred to this hat as a 'touque' at http://www.cic.gc.ca/ENGLISH/department/media/multimedia/video/waking/waking.asp 70.79.157.34 (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Also, you can find several other references to 'touque' at gc.ca 70.79.157.34 (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went to grade-school in Ontario about 30 years ago, and I was taught to spell the word 'touque'. I have polled all of my friends and family members, and they all learned exactly the same thing. My girlfriend attended grade-school in Alberta roughly 25 years ago. She and her friends and family also learned the form 'touque'.

A Google search means nothing. Many web-published materials have been spell-checked, and this automatically roots out any 'non-official' variants. As well, words that people tend to find difficult - 'touque', for instance - are often looked up in the dictionary. And on most Canadian desks, this means the Oxford Canadian Dictionary. And of course schools, newspapers and businesses also rely on this one source as the last word on spelling. Thus the fact that this form is being drowned in a sea of 'toques' and 'tuques' has no bearing whatsoever on its legitimacy.

Why the OCD has disparaged an extremely common and traditional Canadian usage is beyond me. I strongly suspect sloppiness, regional bias, and/or a persistent leaning toward American usages.

Heavenlyblue (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for Wikipedia to make pronouncements about what spellings the OCD should consider valid; our only job here is to reflect what is listed. If you disagree, contact the OCD to make your case; this isn't the place to raise the issue. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove the article about 'Wikipedia'. I can't find a reference to 'wikipedia' in the Oxford Canadian Dictionary anywhere, therefor it must not exist. 70.80.95.9 (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for smartassery, either. Proper names of organizations or companies wouldn't be expected to be in a dictionary anyway. Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we even entertaining this guys POV? A poll of his friends and family or what he remembers being taught in the 1980's does not qualify as a reliable source. Plain and simple. Per WP:VERIFY, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth - it's one of the The Five Pillars of Wikipedia and one that is way too often overlooked these days during content disputes. The Oxford Canadian Dictionary spells it "Toque" and "Tuque" and wether we all think it's the right or wrong spelling of the word is irrelevant when creating this encyclopedia. Unless a consensus is reached that the OCD is no longer a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, what we all think is nothing more than original research. --Quartet 16:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Why are we even entertaining this guys POV?" Why is it impermissible to have a full and open discussion on a Talk Page? Let's all remember that books are written by human beings, not handed down from on high!! "Touque" is an established usage of at least 30 years standing (yes, that's my own experience!), even if it has yet to enter the revered OCD.

Here are are a few examples of it in common use:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=touque

http://www.cupstuff.com/nhl/vancouver/vctouque_m.htm

http://10foottouque.ca/

http://touque.ca/

Cheers! Raise your touques to the Canadian Men's Hocky Team gold medal win!!! Heavenlyblue (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For every website you pull up with "touque", another editor could pull one up with "tuque". Even my spellcheck as I'm typing this says your 'touque' spelling is wrong. This discussion has gone beyond suggesting improvements to the article, and now centers on your own personal campaign to debunk a dictionary used by millions. I don't doubt you use "touque" where you're from, but it's not the spelling in the dictionary. Again contact the OCD to make your case; this isn't the place to raise the issue. --Quartet 00:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from B.C., and I spell it 'touque' as does everyone I know. The Gage Dictionary is the standard for Canadian spelling. Someone should look it up there. Also check the Hansard transcripts of Parliament for the word. Check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_English#Spelling_and_dictionaries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.24.220 (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of the word "touque" used in the Hansard:

http://www.archive.org/stream/mar717hansard1952ontauoft/mar717hansard1952ontauoft_djvu.txt

"Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank all my friends in the House and to say that it is entirely a surprise to me to receive this beautiful touque..."

Also, please see again the links I have posted above.

My only point in all of this is that the spelling "touque" IS an established, long-standing variant, even if for some reason the OCD has seen fit not to include it. Language is alive, it changes and adapts, through time and as it moves from region to region. The fact that there are "official" variants only serves to highlight this point: Logic dictates that the word, in its first incarnation, had only ONE form (the original). Now it has (at least) two "official" forms. This is a tacit admission that established variations ARE legitimate.

The only question here is what is "established" and who gets to decide? I have provided four examples of current and one of historical (from 1952) usage in a Canadian context! Apparently, for some, the OCD is the ONLY acceptable evidence. I'm quite sure this is far too narrow a reading of far too limited a selection of Wikipedia guidelines. I certainly did not expect this kind of hostility (mentioning no names), and this zealous a defence of the apparent status quo!

Perhaps my section title was a little too controversial, but I stand by my statement that in the matter of this omission, the OCD is incorrect. And I believe I have proven that sufficiently for the purposes of Wikipedia. Heavenlyblue (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, please see again the second poster (above) under the heading Dubious. The link he or she has provided is to an official Government of Canada website.) Heavenlyblue (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but are all Canadians this obtuse? As mentioned you may indeed spell it "toque" and so might your family, your friends, or other people you've informally polled in your area, however because this is an encyclopedia we rely on established reliable sources with editorial oversight for our content. This prevents edit wars, squabbles and people who use different spellings from inserting their own opinions into article. I think article's "Spellings" section does a good enough job explaining why the article title is "Tuque" instead of "Touque", but if you have some sourced content that expands on that, please add it so that this discussion can be closed for good. --Quartet 21:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intention of suggesting a change in the article title, simply of getting a very common Canadian usage included in the Spellings section. Heavenlyblue (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the standard English Canadian pronunciation of "touque/tuque/toque" (the hat) corresponds exactly to that of the family name Took (e.g. Bandobras "Bullroarer" Took) in (the film adaptations of) the works of J. R. R. Tolkien. This family name is rendered in French as... wait for it... Touque!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58398865/Tolkien-j-r-r-le-Seigneur-Des-Anneaux http://books4all.110mb.com/litt/commun_anno.pdf
http://membres.multimania.fr/kingconan/tolkien-hobbits.htm

Lord of the Rings: Fool Of A Took! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TofMWRNYDwo

I mention this for the sake of interest, and to show the obvious reason for the development of this spelling variant: We're spelling it as we say it! Heavenlyblue (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody suggested looking the spelling up in the Gage Canadian Dictionary. I have, and it's tuque. The spelling touque is not listed. 64.140.121.160 (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's let Canadians have the final word: "Thousands vote on correct spelling of Canadian knit cap" (CBC Edmonton) http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/thousands-vote-on-correct-spelling-of-canadian-knit-cap-1.2457737

Touque 40.14% Toque 35.51% Tuque 17.73% Heavenlyblue (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added an image of the famous sherpa-style orange tuque (I'll keep out of the spelling argument and stick with the article title until it changes - I never heard or read any of the variations until today) worn by Jayne Cobb, and reordered the images - is the bright green tuque image necessary ? I moved it to the bottom but it seems a bit superfluous. ☭  мдснєтє тдлк^ЅТЦФФ 12:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The popularity section does not know the difference between fact and fiction. Because something has appeared on tv does not mean it is popular or representative. The fictional aspects ought to be at least removed to a seperate section. It is worrying and saddening that North Americans cannot or will not distinguish between real life and what is shown in fiction on tv. 92.29.68.169 (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know how this word is pronounced but the section on pronuniciation does not tell me. Can someone from Canada help out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.14.253 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to know. If possible could someone provide the pronunciation as a respelling instead of IPA (for the US crowd)? Does it sound like "took" (rhyming with look, book, nook) or "toke" (rhyming with joke, yoke, bloke) or neither?

And FWIW, I mainly hear it refered to as a "beanie" but that's a generational thing. Beanie used to mean the hat with the propeller but since it's popularity has declined few would really think you are talking about it. "Knit hat/cap" seems like a pretty generic phrase as well. I concur that the picture of the bright green hat is unnecessary and might be replaced with one of a neon orange hat. Lime in the Coconut 15:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After asking around I'm thinking it's "tuke" like rhyming with duke, luke, nuke, etc. Lime in the Coconut 18:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very late, but just wanted to say that you are correct, it is pronounced like "tuke". — Preceding unsigned comment added by CzechAnada (talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it sounds like "tuke" depends on whether your accent has yod-dropping. To me "tuke" looks like it rhymes with "cuke" (as in short for cucumber); tuque, on the other hand, definitely does not have that y sound. --Trovatore (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I pronounce the word with a yod. Both pronunciations are recorded in the Gage Canadian Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. The latter dictionary doesn't record the word as being specifically Canadian. 64.140.121.160 (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I was probably wrong about that. I probably just met people in Canada who had yod-dropping. --Trovatore (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's tuke without the 'y' (ie not 'yu' like 'avenue' but 'u' luke, it's an 'oo' sound rather than a 'u' if that makes sense)

The article currently claims that tuque is American usage as well as Canadian. I can believe that that might be so in a few border states, but really I am not familiar with it as American usage; I think the usual term is knit cap. As for beanie, I thought beanies had a little button at the top (and were not necessarily knit). I think the article should be corrected but will wait a reasonable time for comments. --Trovatore (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Americans say tuque when they are recalling memories of the McKenzies and trying to sound Canadian :) But yeah, surely dialects are going to bleed in the border area. – RVJ (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And coming from Illinois knit hat and knit cap sound most neutral to my ears. I have the same impression of beanie as you. – RVJ (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being from Australia, I had always known this item of clothing as a beanie. I have only heard the term tuque recently from a Canadian colleague, otherwise this would have been quite foreign to me. I agree that knit hat or knit cap (which both currently redirect to beanie) or knitted hat or knitted cap would be more neutral and instantly recognisable terms for more people, I suspect, so I would support a move of this article to any of those titles.

There is a discussion at Talk:Beanie (North America) in relation to issues in disambiguating the article on Beanie (North America) from Tuque and also dealing with a problematic article created at Beanie and the confusing disambiguation page Beanie (disambiguation) (which doesn't reference Tuque at all). It would be good to tidy up these articles with titles that will be recognised and understood by as broad an audience as possible. —sroc (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my Cdn ears a 'knitted hat' would be most neutral, as to me 'cap' means something more structured like a baseball cap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.190.183.214 (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’m from New York and growing up in the 80s a beanie to me was a novelty hat with a propellor on top. A winter hat was called a wool hat, that’s it. I first heard beanie used for a knit cap as California slang began to pervade the country in the late 90s. Would like to see if anyone else had a similar experience. Current NY youth know this hat ONLY as a beanie. Alexandermoir (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia refuses to allow links to sites that show this hat is called a toboggan in the Southern states of the United States. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackal242 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this term came from British military usage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.45.195 (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, a toboggan is a sled. Does anyone really call a hat by the name for a sled? That's like calling your shoes refrigerators. In what backwards part of the world did such foolishness start? And why? Or is it actually just a really dumb malaprop for a touque? Mingusal (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toboggan means a sled only in Canada. Words can have different meanings in different countries. Bearcat (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have lived n the U.S. South all my 64 years, & I have never heard the term tobaggan used for a watch cap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:F879:F889:51BF:A536 (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up with "toboggan" for hat in North Carolina. I've been told such usage is specific to NC, but I don't have a definitive source.Grisamentum (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another NCer here (43 years old) and I've always used toboggan (pronounced TOE-bog-un) for the cap. Of course, we don't have much use for the term meaning sled around here with our fairly mild winters. --Khajidha (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of unsourced alternative names in the article; please add references to back up these claims. Reify-tech (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Knit cap. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20080611053000/http%3A//www.thedenial.com/tuque/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140304222428/http://www.peoplestylewatch.com/people/stylewatch/gallery/0%2C%2C1210198_20004186_1257369%2C00.html to http://www.peoplestylewatch.com/people/stylewatch/gallery/0%2C%2C1210198_20004186_1257369%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wool Hat and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Wool Hat until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]