Talk:Shoe
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This level-4 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 Archives | |
| |
 | Tip: Anchors arecase-sensitive in most browsers. This article containsbroken links to one or more targetanchors:
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking thepage history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed |Report an error |
 | Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= or|ans= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
In the "Shoe" article it's listed that "foot straps" were used to bind the feet into the "lotus foot" shape, and is simply stated that it was used to "lure men". In fact foot binding, as it was specifically called (there is a wiki article here, which should be linkedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding ) they used silk bandages, started by breaking and binding the feet at a young age (around 3-7 years of age) and it was considered a mark of beauty, and a way to "ensure a husband", which is stated in the article. At one point almost 100% of Han upperclass women had lotus feet. The foot binding and lotus feet are not shoes specifically, but it may be important in reference to the shoes that accompany them (and are really not referenced aside from the photo). Recommend that "foot straps" be replaced with "silk bandages", and a brief, concise description of foot binding and a link to the page should be included in that section (as it is vaguely alluded to and needs to be more clear). Also recommend the later remark of "Chinese feminists called for the ban of the foot strap" be possibly linked directly to the section "decline" from the foot binding article, and clarified to be that many called for the ban of foot binding, which started with Chinese writers calling the practice into question and an Anti Foot-Binding Society being formed. The editor can use discretion of what to add within this section, as there is a lot of information and a fair amount is not necessary to the shoe article.
Also in the article a phase states "the upper is lasted to the sole" which is not possible, as a "shoe last" is for shaping shoes and is more modern than the reference. I'm not sure how it would be rephrased, as the "shoe" article states that uppers being sewn to soles is more modern, as well as gluing, but I figure I might as well point it out.Damien-Silverfang (talk)13:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: Please heed Maproom's advice. This request is too difficult to follow, with regard to what parts should be changed, versus what is an addition.The current version of the Wikipedia article on shoes exhibits an advertisement-like tone in certain sections, such as Athletic Shoes, Boot, and Dress and Casual Shoes. These sections contain detailed brand histories, specific product names, and descriptions that resemble promotional material rather than neutral, encyclopedic content. For instance, the Athletic Shoes section includes detailed accounts of brand histories and specific product names, which can be seen as promotional rather than informative. Similarly, the Boot section contains detailed descriptions of specific types of boots and their features, including mentions of specific brands, which might be interpreted as promoting those brands rather than providing neutral information. Additionally, the Dress and Casual Shoes section includes detailed brand information and specific product types, which could be perceived as more suited to a marketing brochure than an encyclopedia article. To align with Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and reliability, the article should be revised to present information in a neutral and educational manner, focusing on the historical, cultural, and functional aspects of different types of shoes, while ensuring that claims about specific brands or products are supported by reliable sources.Cleter (talk)01:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PCC556: re youredit here, which you summarise: "Chopines were never worn in Turkey and the source used to back that claim is a random blog. Historical evidence and academics point to chopines originating in were invented in Spain
".
Given your strongly-expressed edit summary, can you please explain, by responding here, why you believe such a definitive change from ""Also during the 15th century,chopines were created inTurkey, and were usually 7–8 in (180–200 mm) high.
" to instead "... created inSpain ...", is justified by citing only Anderson (1979) which says (for example)?:
Examples of the chopine, imperfect but probably theearliest in existence, have been recovered from piles of rubbish under a stairat the Alhambra ...
— Anderson, Ruth Matilda (1979).Hispanic costume, 1480-1530. Hispanic Society of America.ISBN 978-0-87535-126-1. p. 229 [emphasis added]
from the previous version of the article?
You made a similar drastic change atChopine, inserting into first sentence of lead: "... of spanish [sic] origin
" and "Chopines originated in Spain in the 14th century and spread to Italy and other parts of Europe throught [sic] the 15th century
". This is also concerning (i.e. similar lack of discussion or consensus-building, poor sourcing, for a very fundamental change). Thanks,AukusRuckus (talk)08:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barefoot shoes is a type of shoe, not yet listed in the "types" section.173.222.1.141 (talk)06:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
addCordwainer andShoemaking to the see also section173.222.1.141 (talk)06:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
| Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= or|ans= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
Change "These date back to between 73,000 and 136,000 PB." to "These date back to between 73,000 and 136,000 BP." AFAICT, "PB" here is a typo for "BP" ("before present").166.181.81.209 (talk)10:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done I can't access the source used, but "BP" is often used in radiocarbon dating, and I've never seen "PB". Thanks for the catch.DrOrinScrivello (talk)14:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
