Jump to content

Talk:Shoe/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Removing Shoes

Bob went to the store to buy a jug of milk. There he met Jose who was at the store to buy some eggs. Can you believe they met there? OMG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.66.132 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC) There is a growing list on the article of cultures where one would take one's shoes off before entering the home, and it's becoming more and more strange to me.In Austria, shoes are well known called as DILF Boots for there superior comfort. Japan I know, and have witnessed myself. But Sweden? Canada? Can anyone verify these purported facts? And if a friend of mine is fanatic about dirt and asks shoes to be taken off before entering his home, should I add my country too? Maybe we should only list countries where taking off shoes is the most common practice, more common than keeping them on. Do Sweden and Canada fit this description? Nyh 07:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


It's common where I live (Toronto, Canada) Sure, there are lazy people everywhere (which seems to support a variation of the five-second rule), and I guess people who like cleaning daily, but a lot of people insist on guests removing shoes just like they insist on them not smoking in their home. I mean eww, if someone's been stepping out in the world in all kinds of crap.. I don't that crap tracked all over my floors. I guess that's a variation of the Japanese clean/dirty zone idea. Inside clean, outside dirty. -- Sy 10:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here in Hungary we usually take off our shoes before entering someone's living room, and leave the shoes in the hall. The host usually politely insists that "you don't have to take them off" but the guest takes them off anyway. I don't know if it's a custom in other countries but I'd definitely remove my shoes before stepping on someone's carpet. Alensha 16:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The page Flying Shoes should be linked to this page.

Here in Sweden, we always take off our shoes before entering someones (including our own) home. Everybody does that. - Drogo 00.43, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT+1)

When I went to Sweden, the Swedish guy whose flat I stayed round made a point of saying “In Sweden, we take our shoes off…” So, seems reasonable to me. The difference with Japanese is that there shoes are removed before entering all sorts of other places. Bombot 11:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In my neighborhood, it's considered extremely rude to ask someone to take their shoes off. You're likely to be questioned when you last cleaned your floors. 72.87.188.149 03:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Canada fits the description. Every private home I've been too, it's expected to take off your shoes, even at parties, open houses, etc. It actually seems very odd to me that people wouldn't... Claude.Xanadu 03:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC) (gah I always think I'm logged in when I'm not)

and yet without some kind of citation it shouldn't go in. So far just personal Observations i.e. Original research. Curious how the sweat and bacteria, fungus and so on on bare of socked feet is somehow cleaner than shoes wiped on a rug before entering. Especially since you don't eat on the floor. Its like demanding people wear gloves before greeting someone with a handshake. Do you know if your guests have washed their hands before coming to your door and greeting them. Knowing germs your more likely to get something from your hands then from someone elses shoe on your floor and somehow you getting it inside your body.--Xiahou 03:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Where would you find a citation about taking off shoes? It's a cultural norm, the culture's the closest to a citation that's ever possible. You ain't gonna get any studies about shoe

(Wikiloverpedia (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC))


removal policies. Also, btw, at the risk of getting into a flame war on wikipedia over shoes, it's not for the reason of dirt or fungi that we take off our shoes, but the much more difficult to clean mud and moisture, that is common in our winters (evidence is any public shopping centre in winter with its brown entryways, and muddy snow goes up the crevices of the soles making wiping shoes off not effective). I'm not saying its wrong to not remove ones shoes, just that it is completely unheard of everywhere I've lived (that's in many locations all around Canada). I think that's citation enough. Claude.Xanadu 01:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A British Perspective:- In the UK, taking shoes of because of expensive fitted carpets (now quite unfashionable - wooden or tiled floors with rugs or traditional rectangular carpets are more up-market) is seen as being a lower middle class/upper working class preoccupation, originally started back in the mid 60's because they did not have the money to replace them or have them cleaned regularly. Amongst my circle of educated middle, professional upper middle and upper classes, it would be considered extremely rude to ask people to remove their shoes at the door, - women don't spend £100 to £500 on a pair of exquisitely wrought high-heeled shoes that complete their outfit (and add considerable sex appeal!) to remove them at the door! Similarly a male outfit isn't complemented by the absence of shoes either; imagine a formal dinner party with the men in their tuxedos (or equivalent modern jackets), Highland Dress or Officer's Mess 'Kit' parading round in their socks! Besides, who arrives to dinner (formal or otherwise), luncheon, afternoon tea, cocktails or supper except by car or taxi? A good look at any good quality male or female shoe or boot will show you that they have smooth soles and any decent doormat and mud grid will remove all traces of dirt from shoes such as these; if it doesn't you need to get some more shale or gravel put on your drive or have it paved or cobbled as in 'suburbia'! Of course if you are in the habit of wearing heavily treaded rubber ridged soles or 'trainers' (sneakers/tennis shoes etc.) outside of the Gym or when not jogging, then you won't have the slightest notion of what I am talking about!

"An American view point" I have traveled to Germany and Russia and have encountered the same emphasis on removing shoes before entering the home. In germany guests and house members would often leave their shoes in a foyer. Usually there were extra pairs of houseshoes (slippers) that guests could wear to keep their feet warm. It was much the same situation in russia. After seeing the amount of snow in the streets and the accumulation of water in shops from people walking in the snow, I surmised that removing ones shoes was simply the only way to avoid bringing dirt and water into the home. September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahiya (talk • contribs) 14:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A Travelled Canadian" Like many of you, I've been fortunate to have traveled quite extensively and think I can wage comment here. Being Canadian I've grown and understood as common, the etiquette of shoe removal upon entering a home. So when I entered the home of Steve and Olive Christian on Pitcairn Island and again some new friends in Rikatea, French Polynesia, I proceeded to remove my footwear. The move seemed to have started a joke, based on the laughter. When the hysterics settled, discussion ensued. Our conclusions on the issue were based on climate. The colder, snowier and unpleasant the region, the more likely that shoes were to be removed to avoid tracking a mess into the house. Colder climates tend to decorate with 'warm' floors like carpets or rugs. Southern (warmer) climates use tile, concrete, etc - finishes that are easily cleaned and relatively cool and less apt to molding. Warmer = less shoe removal. Cooler = more shoe removal. Supe63 (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Shoe History

"Since a shoe uses more leather than a sandal, their use was more common amongst people in cold climates." This needs a citation or removing. Roman Footwear in Egypt is pretty much the same as Roman footwear in northern Britain for example. Etruscans had closed shoes whilst the Greeks often wore sandals. The Assyrian King Ashurbanipal is depicted wearing shoes/boots whilst sandals were found in Tutenkhamun's tomb. This is despite the fact that they were both rulers in countries with very warm climates. Climate isn't necessarily the primary factor for open/closed footwear styles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.189.106 (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know about the history of shoes? I am very curious when people started wearing them, when they went from being a thing for nobility to something for everyone, what early shoes were like, etc.--128.118.113.158 12:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

There is an interesting article in the bbc about the history of the shoe, although more relating to prehistoric times from an anthropological rather than social sense. -- postglock 12:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Go see the shoe collection at Northampton Museum, it's the world's largest collection of shoes. The website is http://www.northampton.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents.php?categoryID=1482Shoelady (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

lol...

  • Nailers - shoes with very sharp nails that stab into the feet in order to draw blood
  • Shyts - shoes considered to be largely and significantly homosexual

Are these for real? Bastie 20:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Trainers

What are trainers, and why are they so-called?

trainers are sneakers or sport shoes. they are called that because you train in them.

More importantly, they are called trainers because it is a short or informal name for Training Shoes. Similar to how some may call them runners - short for Running Shoes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.249.0 (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think "trainers" is a UK colloquialism and "sneakers" is the US English equivalent. No one I know or have ever known growing up in the US says "trainers" -- we say "sneakers" or possibly "tennis shoes" -- but watching BBC television, they all say "trainers" and I don't ever recall hearing "sneakers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsilve1 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

list of shoe companies

wouldn't it be better to either categorize the shoe companies or make a new page for it. right now it lengthens the article unnecessarily --Buridan 00:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There is already a category. I chopped the list and added a link to the category. Things look a bit messy though, I'll move a couple of images around to see if I can improve the look. --GraemeL (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

体育iop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.66.92.204 (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism?

It seems like there should be a section about criticism of shoes, both of the tendency to place fashion over function, and of the notion that we live in a society where shoes are necessary. I read a New Yorker article about an early World's Fair, and an orthopedic surgeon (I think) examined the feet of individuals on display as "savage" native Australians. He noted that the traditionally barefoot people had fewer posture, back, and foot problems than could be seen in any other similiarly-sized sample from anywhere else in the world. I think most people who accept criticism of shoes acknowledge that we live in an inevitably-shod society, because of inclimate weather and modern asphalt sidewalks and pavement, but again this gives some credence to the idea that more shoes should be designed for utility, not beauty. Also, the same article dealt extensively with a man who received a PhD from an industrial arts college in the former Soviet Union in shoe design. Shoes as a field of academic study would also be worth mentioning.

Thoughts? I'll try to find stuff to cite and add to the article, if no objections are raised.

Ihavenoheroes 15:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps this could be of some use? http://anthropik.com/2007/06/learning-to-walk/ Cadentsoul 02:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the whole notion of placing shoe maker names both self serving and contradictory to the purpose of Wiki? When I've offered quality information from my website that is germane to the topic and has a noted authority on the subject I'm burned at the stake. My links are almost immediately removed by a self serving editor. Does this sound like a mixed message - to anyone? —This unsigned comment was added by 70.120.220.31 (talk • contribs) .

We've been through this the last time you tried to spam your site. See User talk:65.66.197.215 for the details. --GraemeL (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe we last left this with your aggrogant refusal to discuss anything! Is there ANY possiblity you could strive to achieve a consensus? Please note my last note to you (you never responded):

Perhaps you've not read my earlier comment. We all concur that Wiki is not the correct forum for "blatant" advertising. Wiki does permit and promote the free exchange of relevant, accurate, and timely information - without regard to the linkage (.com, .net, ....). Your editorial license stops when the content and the linkages have been determined to be relevant, accurate, and reasonably appropriate.

I'm providing relevant, accurate, and timely information that finds its source in two universally recognized authorities. The fact that this information appears on a commercial website should not get your "shorts in a wad".

Please stay on task and focused! As a self-appointed Wiki editor you should be governing relevant, accurate, and timely information and avoiding "blantant" advertising.

I welcome your reply

The content of the links was determined to contain copyright violations, which is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. --GraemeL (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


i know duh dummy

From the athletic shoes section...

"Emphasis tends to be more on function than style."

Umm... Have you looked at any athletic shoes produced in the past 50 years? All those stripes and ridges and shit are functional? Come now.

I love shoes and running shoes are ugly even though they're comfy. From the BOOP

Regardless of the stripes and whatever else, athletic shoes are far more functional than other types. --67.165.6.76 04:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I work in a shoe store and have done so for like 3.5 years, I know what I'm talking about ok. Walking shoes are NOT more flexable, in fact they are some of the stiffist shoes the best having a mettal or plastic plate in the sole to keep their shape. The toe is often pointed up to keep the 'forward motion' when walking. They usually have the best support besides orthopedics. Also they used to come in leather only but now have become more trendy and you can find many with mesh uppers.

Running shoes are very flexable in the toe area and usually very light weight. Made most often with mesh to alow air to flow. They usually have the worst support because they are so flexable. Why are they flexable? So you don't pull or streach or anything to the musscles in your feet.

Cross Trainers are used for anything else usually. They have thicker soles than runners or walker because they are more like basketball shoes made for all over direction and not just to go forward. They usualy have a decent amount of support but are not good for walking or running, you might turn your ankle, because they don't keep you moving forward.

Basketball shoes usually have higher tops and a 'chunker bottom' made to swich directions suddenly. It is easy to roll around in these shoes.

Skater shoes have become very popular lately, those that are used for skatebording. These usually have a thick tounge and a very flat sole with a pattern ment for griping. They are very well cusioned and are nice to wear if your standing in one spot all day but aren't good to wear if a lot of movement is exspected because the are too flat.

Shoe comfort There are a lot of options out there but I'll give you the basics. Arch supports are best if they have a hard matterial that will help them keep their shape. Jel ones are ok for occational use or if you just need a little something extra. Other types of arch supports can be got for heals and you can find them in some types of socks. Supportive socks are highly recomended because they are comfortable and provide a different kind of support that you can wear bare footed.

Other cusionings such as ball of foot cusionings and heal cups have a purpose. Ball of foot cusions are great in heals to keep your foot from sliding forward and if you have a narrow foot they can be used to make the toe area narrower and theirfor more comfortable. Heel cusions are good for sensitive heels or if a shoe has a very hard sole around that area. You can also get heel liners to make the heel area of the shoe narrower but they don't work well in athletic shoes. Lacing your shoe up as far as it will go will also make the heel area narrower.

Shoe care Oilled leather doesn't need polished! Most polishes are no better than paint. If you want to use a polish get something cream based. Leather lotion or mink oil work great on oilled leather but mink oil can darken light colored leather. Scratches and Scuffs can be fixed in most leather shoes with leather lotion. Cleaners should be tested out if posible first on the tounge of the shoe or similarly unvisible part. Most athletic shoe cleaners have a bleaching agent and shouldn't be used on untreated leather. Suede and nebuck should only be cleaned with a spicific cleaner never use a athletic cleaner. Water proofer should be used on almost all shoes to prevent unnessasary streaching and stains.

Last but not least Famouse Footwear, Factory Brand Shoes, and what used to be Supermarket of Shoes are all the same chain of stores and stuff bought at one can be returned at any of them. Catapillar and wolverine are also the same and Addias was bought out by rebock or vise versa. I think that is it... Oh and if you come in to steal shoes don't or at least don't do it with neon pink limited too bags!!!!!!!!!!!

Insufficient context?

A shoe is an item of footwear often worn on the foot or feet of a human. [...]

This is currently the first sentence of the article. Similar sentences (about socks, heels, etc.) follow.

But above the introductory paragraph there is a tag saying:

The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please help improve the introduction to meet Wikipedia'srpSIOJyio'rhere is no "issue" here. How many people worldwide are there who do not know what a shoe is? I'm going to remove that tag. Comments? <KF> 20:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


It is very odd to have a short list of animals who wear shoes----if a chimp wears "footwear on his feet," is that not a shoe? Also, the inclusion of dogs is arguable, but cats rarely (if ever) wear shoes, strange to include them in the list without a link to a cat shoe store or some such.

Photos requested

It would be very helpful to include photos for the types of shoes or accessories which don't have their own articles. -- Beland 20:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this true?

History - The earliest known shoe dates from about 7000 BCE and was found in California.

The same California as our california whose history does not date more than a couple of hundred years? Can someone verify this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.175.154.212 (talk • contribs) June 28, 2007.

Yes, I can verify it: the source ([1]) that's linked in the article does, indeed, say that. While the recorded history of California, and the name "California" itself, may only go back a few centuries, the place has been around (and occupied by humans) for much longer. Independent of what the shoe's maker or wearer called the place (we have no way of knowing what that was), or what cultural or political identity they owned to (we might never know that either), it seems that they had a shoe, around nine thousand years ago, somewhere in what we now call "California." -- Why Not A Duck 21:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Why Not A Duck, I have read your cited source and am inclined to say that your statement can be misleading to the reader. Please correct it to "protective footwear comparable to modern-day shoes"... or rephrase the para to include the early human acts to protect feet with the timeline. - Illiterate Reader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.175.154.212 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

If it really needs changing you can edit it yourself. It's not mine, it's Wikipedia's. It wouldn't be mine even if I wrote it. I'm also unsure what it's "misleading" the reader into believing. That shoes were the first/only thing humans ever put on their feet? I don't see it as really implying that. -- Why Not A Duck 00:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Misquotation"... = Accuracy of quotaions... "partial sentence" of the cited work... I thought you had written the article, which is the reason I addressed you.

Actually, the cited article is incorrect, either misquoting the source or the source is in error. The shoes (several actually) were found in 1938 by Fort Rock, Oregon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.67.106 (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Shoe Viewers

Back in the 1950's, the higher class shoe stores had shoe-size viewers. You would stick your feet in shoes into a slot at the bottom, and through an aperture at the top, you could see an image of your feet inside the shoes, projected on a flourescent screen, and judge if the shoes were big enough ( we were kids at the time - the salesman would view your feet through another aperture, and would instuct you to wiggle your toes, to judge the fit ). What technology was this?MikeNStern 13:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Mike Stern, Israel

Mike - Pretty sure this was early commercial and unregulated flouroscopy with all the attendant radiological risks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.143.38 (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

shoe stretchers

How much difference can a shoe stretcher make? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie smith jr (talk • contribs) 14:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the 50 foot Woman

In the 1993 version of Attack of the 50 foot Woman movie, what kind of shoe was the woman wearing the moment she became a giant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.100.146 (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is about improving the Wikipedia article Shoe. If you have a question, you should ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. (EhJJ)TALK 21:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarks Shoes

9 out of 10 people that shop at clarks have got foot fungus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.114.170 (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The link to pumps does not point to anything shoe related, it points to the mechanical device pump.WFDobbs (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Corrected. If you see mistakes like this again in the future, feel free to fix them yourself. —Kan8eDie (talk)
I would have fixed it, if I had known the right link. I couldn't find it, I didn't realize they were also called court shoes.WFDobbs (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry; point. It helps to have written half the article. It seems there is a rather muddled disambiguation page that should be cleaned up too, but I know nothing about women's shoes. I expect that pump (shoe) and court shoe should be merged, probably the latter into the former, but as these articles mainly interest women, I am not qualified to do that. —Kan8eDie (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Shoes in Irish

I have translated the first portion of this article into irish. I would like to link the English article to the Irish one, but i can't because it is protected.

Senan1990 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Done. Thanks for translating. My sister tried to learn Gaelic for a year, but found it hard, so it's good that there are people who can help with things like that.—Kan8eDie (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Apron? Sublimating the last?

Need help: where is the "apron" on a shoe and what can "sublimating the last" mean? I quote:

The three models in the collection – Oxford, Derby and straight toe-cap Derby – are distinguished by their front apron. This surface – a traditional feature of lasted Moccasin construction – is used here to capture and reflect the light, while at the same time sublimating the shoe’s last.

Best regards, --CopperKettle 16:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a really good resource that is missing for the External Links section. It's the Dmoz listed site "Century In Shoes". It's an "Online museum that features vintage shoes and explains the cultural temperament associated with various shoe styles throughout the century". Would be a great contribution for the shoe page.--It2shoes (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is some more info about the site:

It's an online fashion museum that features vintage shoes and explains the cultural temperament associated with various shoe styles throughout the 20th century. It offers a decade-by-decade look at shoes and their place in fashion and culture from the 1900s-1990s. For each decade you can read an essay, view examples of footwear and see advertisements from the period. There are also three feature articles: Dangerous Shoes, Ga-Ga for Gaza [Gaza Bowen, shoemaker], and Ruby Slippers. Includes a pre-20th century chronology of "great moments in shoe history.--It2shoes (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this semi-protected

Why is this article semi-protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.10.114 (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Coolmonky, 23 April 2010

I like shoes ,i like mbt shoes.Everyone need shoes ,if we have no shoes,there are many things we couldn't to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolmonky (talk • contribs) 09:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

mbt shoes

I'm the new comimg.I wanna buy a pair of new shoes,my friends all adviced me to buy a pair of mbt shoes.I haven't bought it.Do you know some information about the mbt shoes? coolmonky (Coolmonky (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)).

Edit request from 222.166.181.232, 1 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} a shoe is a thumb drive and it can store lots of memory, it can be kept in your pocket if you like

222.166.181.232 (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I don't think this is the place, and in any case it doesn't look to have any particular notability. Cheers, haz (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Linning (part)

What is linning (part) in a shoe?.Hamiltha (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} Cheap Men Shoes Menshoes (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia is not a place for advertising or spamming links. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.148.172.64, 3 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Dear page owner,

I've been trying to understand what the "rand" of a boot/show is and have not had a lot of luck. I see that you make refernce to it in your article and I was wondering if you might shed a little more light on the subject or perhaps start another page if it needs one.

Many thanks Ken.

86.148.172.64 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Not really a request and nobody owns an article. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Soles

Is there any more information that can be added under 'Soles'? I'm no expert, but it seems something more could be written about common materials, manufacturing and the left/ right sole debate than just "Soles are the bottom of the shoe."

12/01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.177.248 (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Functional Shoes

{{edit semi-protected}} Hey everyone, I think the following addition (Maybe even an own section called “functional shoes”) to the Unisex-shoe-section might be significant. As nowadays the majority of the big shoe brands have a functional/toning shoe in their assortment based on the rocker bottom shoe concept.

Rocker bottom shoe: A rocker sole or rocker bottom shoe is a style of footwear which has a thick sole with rounded heel. Such shoes ensure the wearer does not have flat footing along the proximal-distal axis of the foot. Inventor of these kind of shoes is the Swiss engineer Karl Müller.

What do you think?

--83.97.81.92 (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Article contains nonsense

" this makes the impact more gradual and hence reduces the shock by 300%" - that makes no sense. It can't reduce shock by more than 100%, otherwise it would turn negative! Whoever has written this section has written incoherent rubbish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.223.156 (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

More history

there should be more history about shoes in old kingdoms like Egypt and around the world in ancient times, shoes are things that were part of almost everyone daily life and one of the earliest things humans made to comfort thier walk and travels etc i couldnt find the edit box to add more history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moham29 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a long history of what types of shoes have been fashionable, certainly enough to fill an entire article. This is intertwined with the history of shoe technology, much of which is still missing. -- Beland (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There needs to be a separate page for the history of the men's dress shoes and the major companies that contributed to their evolution. There should also be a synopsis of the remaining companies that continue traditional bootmaking. user:gpejic 00:58, 23 Jan 2011 (EST)

shoes not worn by most of world's population?

I removed the following statement because I believe it just plain false:

"Until recent years, shoes were not worn by most of the world's population — largely because they could not afford them. Only with the advent of mass production, making shoes available very cheaply, has shoe-wearing become predominant."

Although there are certainly many cultures where going barefoot is common, I think history has shown that the development of some type of footwear for basic protection is common. WTF? (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Word "Vamp" used repeatedly without being defined

Editorial suggestion on the article. The word "vamp" is used six times in the version I read to refer to a part of the shoe, without being defined in the construction section. The article would benefit by adding that definition. Jwhite.hv (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for Subsection "Skate Shoes."

I am requesting an edit for a lack of a necessary apostrophe under the section "Types">"Athletic">subsection "Skate Shoes." The second sentence in this section reads as follows: "They are very wide and have extra layers of padding to protect the skateboarders feet." The word "skateboarder's" needs an apostrophe between the "r" and "s" to indicate ownership of the plural noun "feet," as they are the proverbial "skateboarder's feet," and not anyone else's. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoemrick (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Skate shoes are a very, very specific type of footwear, and dedicating an entire subsection to them is highly inappropriate. Since skating is generally a sport, inclusion under the athletic section is a better choice. WTF? (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Custom shoes

Do shoes exist which are formed to the foot (which is pediatricly speaking much better) rather than where the foot is formed to the shoe sole. This could be done using liquid rubber (latex) and a mould.

Include in article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.185.211 (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty of companies that make custom shoes. However, they wouldn't do it the way you describe, because that is actually bad for the feet. The shape of the shoe should complement the shape of the foot, not copy it. For example, if you take a mould of the foot standing up on rubber, then the arches of the shoe will be too shallow. The two approaches are either through moulding the insole to the foot, but tweaking it my hand where it tends to flatten out, or, much better, making the whole shoe for the foot by having a last made for you. Last-making is a highly skilled job done manually from drafts of the foot, and wooden last which fits best is quite different in shape to the actual foot all over.— Kan8eDie (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You are thinking of "bespoke" shoes. Both John Lobb and Edward Green make bespoke shoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.11.123 (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 October 2013

The original text states, "...Additionally fashion has often dictated many design elements, such as whether shoes have very high heels or flat ones." There should be a comma (,) inserted after additionally. Also 'flat ones' should change to 'flat heels'.

The original text states, "Other shoes are for very specific purposes, such as boots specially designed for mountaineering or skiing." The change should be 'Other shoes are designed for very specific purposes, such as boots being designed specifically for mountaineering or skiing.'

The original text states, "Shoes have traditionally been made from leather, wood or canvas, but are increasingly made from rubber, plastics, and other petrochemical-derived materials." The change being requested is 'Traditionally, shoes have been made from leather, wood, or canvas, but are increasingly made from rubber, plastics, and other petrochemical-derived materials.'


Lesh212 (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done here. --GraemeL (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Question: When did left/right soles became the norm?

the anwser is wrong A friend told me that until around the 1850th shoes were usually produced using symmetric soles for both feet. According to him, the left/right asymmetric layout we take for granted today only emerged in the 1850th, leveraging on advanced manufacturing techniques of the industrial revolution.

Is this a tall tale, or is there some truth in it?

HagenUK (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that left/right footed shoes predate the use of 'straights', in Europe at least; Roman legionaries were certainly issued with 'footed' shoes (see 'Greece and Rome at War' by Peter Connolly). Medieval shoes were also made as left and rights (see 'Shoes and Pattens: Finds from Medieval Excavations in London' (Medieval Finds from Excavations in London) by Francis Grew & Margrethe de Neergaard). The practice seems to have fallen out of favour, however, as turn shoes were replaced by thoses with welted soles.

Rpb1487 (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Woodcut of shoemakers from 1568
Line engraving of shoemakers, ca. 1632-35

Medieval-style turnshoes are definitly chiral, made in lefts and rights (in fact, I don't think you could force many of them onto the wrong feet, at any rate not without great discomfort). If you are making a turnshoe for a specific person, you'd be fool not to trace around their feet to get the shape (even the patterns for the uppers can be made this way). This automaticaly gives chiral shoes.

I too suspect achiral shoes may have come in with mass production of welted rands. Making a turnshoes needs scissors (or shears), a needle (or bristle) and an awl. Welted shoes need more tools to make, including a last, and making custom lasts for each customer is expensive. Ignoring left and right would simplify manufacture and stocking. I've seen a renaissance engraving of early welted shoes being mass-produced, in a shop without the clutter of labelled lasts you'd expect in a modern custom shoemaker's. Can't find a copy, though (one on the right shows turnshoes being made, the other welted rand shoes being repaired). Anyone have a proper reference on this?

Still, I am sure that the references given by Rpb1487 is enough support a statement in the article that turnshoes and Roman shoes did have different lefts and rights, and I have added one (I'm trusting your references) HLHJ (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


Article is way too overlinked

I just did some editing to try to remove a series of superfluous and often redundant wikilinks in the first few paragraphs of this article, but the rest of the article still is overburdened with them. For the future: this article does not need wikilinks to the words wood, leather, or China as these are commonly understood words that do not aid the reader in understanding and are in fact distracting and a nuisance. Thanks! KDS4444Talk 20:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nike

Hello!

I was browsing the article and was struck by the prominence of Nike brand product lines explicitly mentioned as examples of various shoe related topics.

Is it appropriate to highlight specific brands in such fashion? Yes, I'm sure the company makes minimalist shoes, biodegradable shoes, collectible shoes and shoes that can be recycled but are Nike brand shoes so special in these regards as to merit being specially linked to in those sections of the article? It reads kind of like an advertisement. --81.234.133.93 (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Nike does not warrant this kind of special attention, whatever their world market share of the item might be, and yes, repeated mention of their company brand name does start to feel like advertising and should be minimized. Please feel free to open up a Wikipedia user account and make some changes to the article as you see fit. This is exactly the kind of thing for which Wikipedia exists: for everyone to be able to contribute to the project through constructive editing. You have made a good suggestion here. I hope you will decide to follow through with it. KDS4444Talk 20:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2014

History Antiquity Roman soldiers were issued with chiral footwear.[14]

"Chiral" is hyperlinked to a redirect page to Chirality which is a property of asymmetry and has very little to do with shoes. The closest I can think is the term "caliga".

The Latin word for generic sandals is sandalia or soleae; for shoes and shoe-boots, calcei -- from the word for heel (calx) -- which Sebesta and Bonfante say were distinctly for wearing with the toga and so forbidden to slaves. In addition, there were slippers (socci) and theatrical footwear, like the cothurnus.

Dbmack13 (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2014

have the appearance of aglet become a link to the aglet page. Alexhairyman (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The external link "International Shoe Size Conversion Charts" points to a page that has some inaccurate data. A more accurate site for shoe size conversion charts is http://www.shoesizeconversionchart.net/, which in addition to the generic charts (women, men, kids, toddlers, babies) also has per-brand size charts for around 500 brands. I'd recommend replacing the current link with one to http://www.shoesizeconversionchart.net/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.55.225.73 (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015


Dear Wikipedia, I would like to add more information about the SHOE Singed, Bob

203.177.92.119 (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request 73.16.9.214 (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Under the Culture and folklore section, it states that "In the children's book and movie, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, a pair of red ruby slippers play a key role in the plot." While important to the plot in both, the slippers in The Wizard of Oz were silver in the book, and not red until the movie (which was showing off color).

The book is in the public domain now, so you can look at the chapter where she finds the "silver shoes with pointed toes." [1]

Done. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shoe&oldid=651431496 Allanlw 03:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Baum, Frank. "The Wizard of Oz". Literature.org. Project Gutenburg. Retrieved 4 February 2015.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2015

Please remove the {{visible anchor}} from § Shoe construction. As a section heading, it is already an anchor, so the template adds nothing; enclosing it in that template creates a duplicate anchor which is invalid HTML. 174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Untrue anatomical statement

There is (unnecessary) anatomical information in text, which presents false information. The article states: 'The foot contains more bones than any other single part of the body.' Even if we are talking about human foot (implicated, but not stated outright) it is not true. Actually even a hand has one bone more then a foot (there is one more carpal then tarsals; the number of phalages remains the same). There is 26 bones in one foot. If we are looking at single parts of the body then head has 28 bones (Eight bones of the neurocranium (occipital bone, 2 temporal bones, 2 parietal bones, sphenoid bone, ethmoid bone, frontal bone), and fourteen bones of the viscerocranium (vomer, 2 conchae, 2 nasal bones, 2 maxilla, mandible, 2 palatine bones, 2 zygomatic bones, 2 lacrimal bones) plus paired auditory ossicles (2 malleoli. 2 staples, 2 inci). The trunk (also single part of body?) will consist of thoracic, lumbar and sacral vertebrae (thats usually 20 bones), 4-5 part of coccyx, 24 ribs, 2 hip bones, 2 parts of sternum, 2 clavicles and 2 scapulas (then 57-58 bones). So I propose to remove the sentence mentioned above altogether.

I agree, so I have removed it. Deli nk (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

At the Time of Jesus Christ?

I noticed in the History/Antiquity section that I changed. The sentence was: "They were also worn in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus Christ." I understand that for more than 2 billion people, Jesus Christ is very real; but he is not a historical figure. What I mean by that is that there is no historical evidence of his existence. While I assume that most everyone will know what is meant by the sentence in question, it isn't encyclopedic. I changed the sentence to: "They were also worn in Jerusalem during the first century of the Common Era." The reference provided is a book about the growing public health problem of slipping and falling -- I'll see if I can find a better reference. I hope it is understood that my only aim here is to improve Wikipedia.TheCensorFencer (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I found some more material at the end of the same section with similar problems. "Biblical times" is used as a historical period, and there's an unnecessary boxed-in Bible verse at the end. These bits are also poorly/not referenced. I'm removing them.TheCensorFencer (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2016

Jimmy.olsen12 (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC) 

there is some information i would like to put in for this article
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Topher385 (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-requested additives

Can we mention in the article that shoe soles are often found to also contain chrome?

This was mentioned in the book "Cradle to Cradle" by Michael Braungart and William McDonough (Dutch edition). I'm not sure why the chrome is added to the shoe sole in the first place, or whether it is in direct contact with the human body (i.e. not sure whether it's on the outside or inside of the sole). If it's on the outside though, it would also pose a problem since shoes degrade and so lose particles as it's worn. This could mean it ends up in nature.

KVDP (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Chromium also exists in nature... And on car bumpers, and hood ornaments. Hexavalent chromium is the carcinogenic kind, but this has to be inhaled to have its toxic effects. That some shoes have chromium in their soles is only worth including somewhere in this article if that fact achieves some kind of broad social significance... And even then, it probably belongs under "rubber" or some other heading rather than here at Shoe. KDS4444 (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Part vocabulary

The diagram is great and names most parts of the shoe, but apparently some terms are missing, like "eyelet", "quarter", "throat line", and "toe cap"; though maybe some of these are present only on certain types of shoe? [2] -- Beland (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Beland: Your wish is my command— though not shoes have all the parts (women's dress shoes usually have no eyelets) or have more parts than shown here (e.g., mudguard, foxing, lacestay) which would change the arrangement and labeling of the parts to some degree. Also, there are some terms not included for which I did not find an easy explanation ("pitch") and which may only be relevant to certain types of shoe. Third, many illustrations are shoe-specific ("EVA midsole", "Rubber sole") causing some confusion ("this shoe has an EVA midsole", "Shoes of this type have a small counter"), things which this diagram does not suss out. But I think it will suit the purpose at hand (?). KDS4444 (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@KDS4444: That's a shiny awesome graphic, thanks for whipping that up! Should we include cutaway version (File:Shoe-parts-en.svg) as well to illustrate "insole" and "midsole" which seem to be common? It might be too much to try to do everything in a single graphic. -- Beland (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Beland:You are welcome! And you are right, it isn't possible to show all of the parts in a single diagram, so maybe the cutaway should be put back in. The page is getting crowded with images on the right side, so maybe on the left? KDS4444 (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, we still need a diagram that illustrates the different types of toe on men's shoes (wingtip, apron, cap toe, etc.). My illustration is of a cap toe derby, and everything gets rearranged when you are talking about a running shoe. Also, women's shoes have some unique vocab which this picture cannot cover. So many needs, so few hours in the day!!! KDS4444 (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@KDS4444: Added the cutaway back on the left. Feel free to move it if it looks bad; layout varies depending on screen size and shape and other factors. Glad we have you as the page's resident shoe expert; I'm fascinated by the fact we have specific words for all these parts which most people don't know, even though we all have them on our feet! 8) -- Beland (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017

Hi 172.56.11.187 (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017

Hi 172.56.11.187 (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Globalize template

I added this template because the article is heavily focused on western (European and American) footwear. There is some discussion of ancient footwear, but the bulk of the article outside the history section is modern and western focused. There are no examples of traditional footwear from Asia or India, and even some traditional European styles like the Dutch wooden shoes are omitted. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Shoe trees to be added to the maintenance section 5/2/13

There is already a Wikipedia page for them add it to the maintenance. They help a ton!

[1]

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_trees

Jai douze ans (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)'Italic text'Italic text'Italic text'''Bold text''''Bold text''''Bold text'''''''''''''

chocolate chip muffins are very good

coconut oil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.202.101 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Poppy

Who else investigates her jibberish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.153.20.206 (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

taking off shoes

In addition to removing shoes (and, perhaps, replacing them with slippers), there is also the common option of shoe covering. In some countries, gyms and hospitals might require people to put plastic coverings over their shoes. 67.209.133.48 (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

snow shoe / snowshoe

Why is it 'snow shoe' instead of 'snowshoe'? The linked-to article only uses 'snowshoe.' I don't recall ever having seen the term written as two separate words. (I can't change the article - there is no editing option for it on my screen.) 67.209.133.48 (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

"Shoe factory" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Shoe factory and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 21#Shoe factory until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleopatra shoes

“The Egyptians and Hindus made some use of ornamental footwear, such as a soleless sandal known as a ‘Cleopatra’” The only information I could find about these “Cleopatra sandals” are in contemporary times in the market. Trying .org or .edu yields little to no results either. I suggest that we remove this line from the article. Senomo Drines (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2022

The plural of "Man" and "Woman" is "Men" and "Women", not "Mens" and "Womens", so the plural possessive of these words is "Men's" and "Women's". Please correct the "Mens'" and "Womens'" section headers to "Men's" and "Women's". 49.198.51.54 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Also corrected some instances in the text. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shoe/Archive_1&oldid=1242018422"