Talk:Shoe polish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shoe polish is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Shoe polish appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 15, 2005.

Shoe polish has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Everydaylife article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

The spoken word version of this revision (diff) of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.

I removed the clean up tag. Surely it doesn't need one now. Proto 13:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

just some feedback:

• The chemistry section includes "The burning of shoe polish..." seems rather odd in there. The products you describe are the result of the burning of any hydrocarbon. Unless there's some particular significance to the burning of shoe polish I'd drop that. But I would like to know more about the ingredients that are included. What is the purpose of including lanolin, or gum arabic for instance? you say that 65-77 percent is volatiles, is that so it hardens after it's applied? What's the significance of its specific gravity? If you knew the answers to this questions, the chemistry section would be more interesting. Otherwise, it's a bit small and maybe the relevant portions could be merged into another section.

Done, except why the s.g. is significant. I don't know why it is. Or even if it is.

• "Wartime surge in popularity" section the part that reads "Williams, a native-born 'Kiwi' who lived in Japan" should be changed (probably to "Williams, a New Zealander who lived in Japan" Although you properly mention above that 'Kiwi' is slang for newzealander, it's a term that is considered offensive to some (though not all) and is not very encyclopedic.

Done

• "Alternative uses" section I think the expression is 'in a pinch' not 'at a pinch'.

Depends on whether you're American or British, respectively. Either is ok.

• "that would take the person's mind off the stark realities of life in the twilight hours of Communism." I think this should go. It sounds really corny, Seems POV, and doesn't seem to reflect a scholarly view of substance abuse.

Done ... hmm, that was a bit fruity. I did write that when I'd just started.

• "Dangers of shoe polish" maybe use this section to expand the chemistry section. They really go together.

Done, they now follow one another.

• "Home-made shoe polish" section is not really encyclopedic, should be removed I think.

Hmm ... I kinda like that section. Will see if anyone else agrees with you.

You've got a good start on the article here, great job on the work you've put in so far. Matt 03:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

(all indented italic comments by me) Proto t c 23:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 More PR comments 2 Ramsey or Ramsay 3 Link to shoeshine boy 4 Scottish expatriate(s) 5 Structure of "Invention" section 6 Shoes and boots before 1900 7 Featured article! 8 British or American English? 9 Junk? 10 References jumbled 11 Dead Link 12 Invention in Germany 1887 13 Footnotes 14 Jackassery on the main page 15 Modern day usage? 16 "Cirage" in french 17 Spoken version of this article 18 References 19 Why isn't this locked? 20 consumer product 21 "modern" 22 what belongs here and what doesn't? 23 Banana shoe shine 23.1 Other practical uses 24 Graffiti reference

[edit] More PR comments

A nice article, but the sections are woefully small.

• remove the bold text in the article. Just Boot/shoe polish should be bolded.
  • Done.
• Expand the lead by another para
  • done
• Start with the chemistry section first, rename [Chem] to =Manufacture= and include the manufacturing process here. The dangers can also be added here.
  • done
• follow with history section, try and increase the length by 50%-75%. Remove sub headings
  • Working on it
• Trivia section can be merged somewhere else.
• Remove the home made section ingredients. This should be added in wikibooks:. (recipies do not come under an encyclopedia)
  • done
• Now the section on how shoe polish is applied can be added. Expand. Suggestion: There are a lot of home remidies such as the use of alcohol, potatoes etc. to get that perfect shine. Include this. The tone should read like an encyclopedia, not a help magazine BTW.
• Brands should be expanded to cover all continents. Brazil, Agentina, Russia, Spain, Egypt, Japan. Try and get info on all these countries. It is currently too commonwealth centered.
  • I can't find this
• The image has a dubious copyright status.
  • Fixed.
• Please add your references.
  • The pages I used for help are at the bottom in 'external links.
• If you reach this stage, I'll try and reward you by uploading a pic of the shoeshine boys in the railway station. :). Just ping me for that.
  • I'm still waiting, Nichalp :@

User:Nichalp/sg 09:19, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• • Comments in 'italics by me Proto t c 11:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC) Updated Proto t c 09:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ramsey or Ramsay

In the intro the inventors name is given as William Ramsey but later on it is Ramsay, which is correct?AllanHainey 12:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It's Ramsay. I've fixed it, thanks for noticing it! Proto t c 11:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link to shoeshine boy

The "Pre-1906" section of the History mentions shoeshine boys. I added a link to shoeshine boy, which currently hasn't been written. The boot polish boy article does exist, but seems to only cover India. I took the assumption that these were somehow separate, but I wanted people to know in case they weren't. -- Creidieki 14:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

because this section is called "shoeshine boy", I thought I'd add my related but somewhat independent comments here: traditionally, shoe polishers are called "shoeshine boys", even if they are men older than that (look even at the picture in this article) This traditionally has been a derogatory usage, though it may have lost some of that in modern times. Note the famous Kenny Price lyric to the Glenn Miller song, "pardon me boy, is that the Chattanooga Choo Choo", is a reference to a shoeshine boy, who would have been assumed to be African-American (or "colored") in the time that song was written; the title of that song is "Chatanooga Shoe Shine Boy".

Other terms for shoeshine boy include "bootblack" and "shoeblack" which also strike me as potentially seen to be derogatory, even though they refer to the color of the shoe polish. The shoeshine trade is a skill and has a deserved amount of respect and pride in workmanship, but it is definitely a low status working class trade the world over. In Japan, IIRC it is practiced by an distinct "outcaste" subculture, the "buraku", and I think (a strong dose of "I think") it is because leather handling is considered dirty because it is dead flesh (and not to mention it's somebody else's feet).

Another interesting tidbit which it seems should be mentioned, a somewhat archaic but still common slangy idiom "he doesn't know shit from Shinola" comes from a hypothetical comparison with the shoe polish brand. Oh, and shouldn't there be mention of [Horatio Alger] whose rise to fame started with his story about Ragged Dick, the once immensely popular rags-to-riches success story of an enterprising young man who got his start as a shoeshine boy. [[[User:66.92.78.29|66.92.78.29]] 18:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)]

[edit] Scottish expatriate(s)

In the "Invention" section (2.2), I'm a little worried about the phrase "Scottish expatriate William Ramsay and Hamilton McKellan". Were they both Scottish expatriates, and there's an "s" missing? Or did we mention Ramsay's nationality but not McKellan? I think the sentence should mention both of their nationalities. -- Creidieki 14:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Should be an s. I'll fix it. Proto t c 14:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Structure of "Invention" section

I had some trouble following the "Invention" section. It mentions a lot of good information, but it doesn't provide any structure or narrative. Essentially, every paragraph in that section needs an introductory sentence.

I don't know enough about the topic to write those myself, so I'll provide a few options/examples.

First paragraph: We need to establish why the first paragraph is

• The beginning of large-scale commercial production of shoe polish was with "Kiwi" brand shoe polish in 1904.
• The first shoe polish to be marketed on a large scale, and the first to be called "shoe polish", was Kiwi shoe polish.
• The first modern formulation of shoe polish was produced by Kiwi in 1904.

Sentence about Ramsay's wife: Is this actually relevant? Please either connect her with shoe polish or remove her from the article.

Yes. It's the reason it was named Kiwi. In the frenzy of copyediting, someone had seperated it from where it originally was (and made sense). Proto t c 14:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Second paragraph: "A rival brand of the time": Was this their main competitor? The only other commercial brand? Try to start this paragraph with a stronger statement, that tells us why we're learning about Cobra.

• Kiwi faced at least one major competitor when it was founded, in Cobra Boot Polish.

We are learning about it because it is an article about shoe polish. Proto t c 14:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Third paragraph: Again, this gives good information, but it's not connected very well. "However" indicates that the paragraph is contradicting something. Presumably, with the second paragraph we're saying "Kiwi had at least one major competitor", and with the third paragraph we're saying "But they were better, and that's why they won in the marketplace". This flow needs to be explicit.

Easily fixed. In fact, all of this has been fixed. Proto t c 14:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shoes and boots before 1900

The "Surge in Popularity" section's first sentence says that no one could afford shoes or boots before the 19th century? What were they wearing? I assume you mean that no one could afford leather shoes or well-made shoes or modern shoes or commercial shoes or something? I'm afraid that Wikipedia's history of footware is *pathetic*, so I can't tell what changes happened in shoes around then. -- Creidieki 15:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Read the sentence. It states "At the end of the 19th century, shoes and boots became affordable to the masses". Proto t c 14:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand that. But were the masses seriously going around barefoot before then? -- Creidieki 15:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Oh, I see. I'll try and fix it up. Proto t c 16:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article!

That's right, Shoe polish is now a featured article! Thank you very much to everyone for your help. Proto t c 10:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British or American English?

Right now we have a sentence with colo(u)r both ways: "The polish is generally the same color as the shoes it will be used upon, or it may be neutral, lacking any intrinsic colour." I see a "colourant" in there somewhere else. I'm not sure which way this one started out. Proto? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would have spelled it 'colour', being a dirty Brit, but as long as it's consistent, it really shouldn't matter. I think Nichalp has amended it now, anyway. Proto t c 14:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it was still a mix. I've changed them all to "colour". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Junk?

Why is there that big section on the top of the article? It ruins the article's reputation as a featured article. Bibliomaniac15 01:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to? --Oldak Quill 02:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References jumbled

Multiple references to the competition commission that need to be untangled into two references.

This is a pretty big problem—the first citation points to the 18th note, and the second one doesn't even seem to work. Could someone fix this? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Link

The link to the 'shoe polish fraud' article is dead.--Anchoress 06:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Invention in Germany 1887

According to the company history of the market leader for shoe polish in Germany [1] (german) Adam Schneider, head of Werner & Mertz (brand name Erdal), in the german town of Mainz, invented a shoe polish that not only was water resistant, but was the first to include ingrediences to conserve leather in 1887. --82.135.79.162 10:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (H-stt in the de-Wikipedia)

Erdal was more of a dubbin than a shoe polish. It provided water resistance and preserved the leather, but didn't induce shine (which is what a shoe polish would do). Proto t c 10:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Erdal isn't and never was a "dubbin". I don't know where you're getting this idea from. It provided water resistance, preserved the leather, restored color (has been and is available in black, brown, clear, white, for instance) and induced shine. Great, now I'm involved in a wikipedia flamewar on freaking shoe polish. I hate you, Proto. ;) Kar98 15:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The difference (as someone mentions below) is that Erdal was one of the first to not dissolve in the rain/water as dubbin does. Punch (first manufactured in Ireland in 1851) did the same thing, yet again the difference is it wasn't what 'modern' shoe polish is today (no high concentration of fast-evapourating volatiles). Proto t c 14:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Links to/from footnotes appear to be screwed up. Joestynes 10:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think I fixed them- I did a revert from link spam in the footnotes earlier. --Adam ^(talk) 15:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jackassery on the main page

Just deleted a bold paragraph at the top going on about Wikipedia saying "this proves that Wikipedia isn't reliable, blah blah blah." Kids these days, I swear...

[edit] Modern day usage?

Shouldn't there be a little more on modern day usage? Like it's controversial usage in uniforms nowadays because of snipers, satalites etc, etc and also the new move of the forces to non-shine boots. -Moocats 13:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm intrigued - shoe polish is controversial because of satellites? Please expand on this. Proto t c 11:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Cirage" in french

In french, "cirage" is the generic word for "shoe polish" and I'm pretty sure it never has been a brand name. Obviously, the advertisement is about the brand "Jean Bart" and claim it is "impermeable cirage" (waterproof shoe polish) And by the way, Jean Bart was a corsair, not a pirate (whatever English may think about it ;-) )

Merci beaucoup, mon ami - cette information est tres interessant. Proto t c 11:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spoken version of this article

I created a spoken version of this article this morning (Melbourne time) when it was the featured article of the day. I have realised that recording a spoken version at this time was not a good idea as the article would attract a large number of edits (apart from vandalism), hence changing the article a fair bit. I will re-record a new spoken version of the article within a week, when the number of edits reduces.
--Peter McGinley 17:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You are the king. I hereby name you Peter 'Awesome' McGinley. Proto t c 11:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

The references throughout the article are messed up, 13 in the reference list, but there are 29 recorded in the article. Hichris 18:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why isn't this locked?

What did I miss? Admittedly, I don't normally pay much attention to the article of the day, but didn't they used to be locked? There's some template that says something like, "This article is locked because it is a featured article".

It's so high-profile, we can bang our heads against the wall all day trying to stop vandalism. Once it's off the list, we can unlock it again. I'll bet that by the end of the day there will be more edits from today than all the rest of the edits in the history of the article put together. Half of them are vandalism, and the other half are reverts.

Why isn't this locked? Kafziel 18:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Usually not a good idea because articles get great improvements while featured on the Main Page. --Adam ^(talk) 19:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Awesome improvements. I don't know what I was thinking. Kafziel 19:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Front pages always get vandalized. It is unfortunate but the vandalism gets reverted quickly. I saw the guideline about this a few days ago, but I can't remember where it was. If you look in the page history, there have been quite a few constructive changes. I think the user that posted this obscene picture has been blocked. --Adam ^(talk) 19:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about earasing the page, i was trying to get rid of the penis. Hagamaba 19:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem- this is getting old. I think someone should protect the page at least for a few minutes. --Adam ^(talk) 19:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll admit, I made a few constructive changes myself earlier in the day. But that actually makes me question how this got to be an article of the day in the first place. The main page isn't supposed to be for articles that need improvement; it's supposed to be for articles that are already good. Not just good, even. Great. They're not supposed to need a lot of editing by the time they become the article of the day. This should be locked for the day. If anyone has any changes to make, they can make a note of them and fix them tomorrow, when it's off the main page. Kafziel 19:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I found the article I was looking for by googling it: User:Raul654/protection. It's a user's view on the issue against protecting the featured article. --Adam ^(talk) 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Also note that if vandalism occurs on this page, you may either block them immediately or list them on WP:AIV immediately per the comment in the page. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I can't block anybody. And nobody else seems to be doing it, either. Or, at least, it isn't working. Second of all, that article is just one user's opinion, not policy. Thirdly, that might be okay sometimes, but on the day after Wikipedia made international news for inaccuracies, you can expect vandals to come flooding in. Nobody ever cared about shoe polish before, and they won't care about it when it's off the main page. This is more about protecting the main page. Kafziel 19:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

True, that's just a user's opinion, and not policy, but Wikipedia:Protection policy is. When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 21:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that it matters so much at this point, since my request was ignored all day, but in the same article you cited - actually, it's one of the first things the article - the explanation reads: A permanent or semi-permanent protection is used for:

   * Protecting high visibility pages such as the Main Page from vandalism.

Below that, it goes on to add that temporary protection is used for protecting a page or image that has been a recent target of persistent vandalism or persistent edits by a banned user.

This was certainly the case here, on both accounts. Many, many pages have been protected this way in the past. In fact, when wikipedia starts protecting pages once they reach a certain level of quality and stability (next year) chances are every article that makes it to the main page will already be locked. So why not start now?

Honestly - what fabulous improvements were made to the shoe polish article that couldn't have waited until tomorrow? A few minor structural and grammatical fixes. What damage was done? A few total page deletions, numerous written vandalisms, a bunch of spam... oh, and 20 or 30 posts of a full page photo of some guy's dick. Nicely done, admins. Kafziel 03:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The first quotation you cited refers solely to the Main Page itself, not any pages linked from it, including this one, which are covered by the quotation I used. The second quotation is to protect against continual vandalism over a short space of time from a specific user. If you disagree with the policy, I suggest you bring it up at the Village Pump rather than on individual talk pages, as it's more likely to receive a wider perspective from other users. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 03:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Kind of a moot point now, isn't it? I brought it up here, I posted it to the requests for protection board, and I spent half the day reverting vandalism (yes, continual vandalism, and yes, from specific users). I did everything I was supposed to do, and... zip.

You know, I usually just stick to writing and editing articles. The past couple of days I've been checking out more of the inner processes, trying to help out more behind the scenes, and a couple of things really stand out for me:

• One user (sometimes an admin, sometimes not) has himself a thought, and it suddenly becomes a consensus. A consensus of one, but a consensus nonetheless. Because as soon as he writes something about it on his user page, presto - there's a precedent. Now everyone refers back to that guy's opinion, rather than making thoughtful decisions as specific situations arise.
• People loooooove to debate things on here but nobody wants to fix anything. (I know, I'm debating right now, but I can't fix anything because I'm not in the club.) I've seen an awful lot of people saying "we can't do X because it would take up too much space." Well, how much space ends up being used by the twelve pages of debates about it? That doesn't matter because everybody just wants to hear themselves talk.

  This experience has been enlightening but I guess I'll just go back to my usual edits and let the rest of this go on without me. Hey - maybe I could vandalize pages! I think I'd make a pretty good vandal, and clearly there's no penalty for it! ;) Kafziel 05:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm not "in the club" either, and you'll notice that I didnt refer back to "that guy's opinion", I simply quoted from the relevant policy page, and corrected a misapprehension about the subject of the quotation you used, followed by a referral to the page set aside for debates like this. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 20:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the thing: I don't want to debate it. I just wanted an admin to take some initiative and do something to help us with the vandalism. Debates online never solve anything because nobody is listening to anyone else. For example, check thisout. Does what I wrote not make sense? It's in English. Plenty of other people have made good points for it as well. But the next guy to post completely disregards it, and the guy after him recites the same tired old cliche yet again. The one that I had just addressed. Nobody has any response to what I said; they just want to hear themselves talk. Might as well let them, I guess. Kafziel 21:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Want another example of debates leading nowhere? Look right at the bottom of this talk page. Doops wanted to get rid of the Kiwi references in the article. Proto suggested that he could copy the information over to the Kiwi article, but that it was still relevant to the main shoe polish article. Doops took it out anyway.

- "Hey, should I change this?"

- "No."

- "Okay, I changed it."

Why even bother asking everyone else if you're not going to listen to what they say? This is happening all over wikipedia. So I'm not interested in debating the issue at the village pump, because it will just be more of the same. Kafziel 21:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I have to protest at that characterization of the exchange between Proto and me at the bottom of the page. I did read his/her arguments; they didn't convince me entirely; I got up the energy to edit the article (where previously I had just posted lazily to the talk page). That's how talk pages work; just like conversations in real life, sometimes they don't lead anywhere much. But it's still important to have them for the sake of civility and community spirit. Doops | talk 21:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I use talk pages all the time. They can be useful, if you ask a legitimate question without an agenda of your own. But that's rare. When someone shows up at a talk page with an idea for an article, they're going to do it. They're really just there to let everyone else know they're doing it. It's like glorified vandalism; you're ringing my doorbell to tell me you're going to egg my house, but there's still nothing I can do about it.

I have nothing personal against you, by the way - everyone does the same thing now and then - but you provided me with an excellent example right here on the same talk page. I really don't care about shoe polish, or dubbin, or any of that other stuff. I just care (cared, anyway) about protecting the main page. I meant no offense. Kafziel 22:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

None taken. When someone shows up at a talk page with an idea for an article, they're going to do it. They're really just there to let everyone else know they're doing it. I think this does often happen in practice, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the original comment was conceived of in those terms by its author at the time of writing -- in this example, for instance, I lazily posted to the talk page hoping that somebody else would fix it — preferably one of the people who worked on this for featured article status and therefore knows the subject better than I do. (In doing it myself I might mess up some delicate balance I don't know about.) But then when nothing happened I grew a sense of civic duty and made the changes myself.

Even apart from this, I don't think editors posting about the changes they're going to make is glorified vandalism at all; it it's actually, in my view, courteous to discuss certain kinds of changes on the talk page. Edit summaries aren't very capacious and, once written, they're set in stone; talk page conversations are more pleasant. And although in posting here I may not be asking whether or not to edit the article (i.e. I'm going to do it anyway, as you say) any feedback I get may well be useful when I'm editing it. Cheers, Doops | talk 22:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] consumer product

what is the difference between a "consumer product" and a mere "product"? Also, isn't a consumer somebody who consumes, well, products? In a nutshell, I think the apposition is pointless. dab (ᛏ) 00:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really, there are also chemical reaction products, mathematical products, industrial products etc. See Product for more details GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "modern"

what makes a shoe polish "modern"? If you're the Kiwi PR department and sufficiently vague in your definition of the word "modern" I'm sure you can get a nice procrustean rationale for calling your product the first "modern" one. But this is the shoe polish page — not the Kiwi (shoe polish) one. Doops | talk 04:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It was the first one that chemically (and appearance-wise) resembles the shoe polishes manufactured today. Other brands, such as Erdel and Punch were manfuactured before this, but were more akin to dubbin. Proto t c 10:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll take your word for it. But the article does seem heavily Kiwi-centric and perhaps some attention should be given to reducing any danger of a "Kiwi PR machine" perception in the readers' minds. (For example, the anecdotes about the founders of Kiwi don't really belong here but on Kiwi (shoe polish).) Doops | talk 10:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC) PS: Scratch all that: I'm starting a new header below. Doops | talk 10:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Bloody nonsense, Proto. Are /you/ a Kiwi per chance? If you follow to the link at the bottom of the article, you'll find that it says Im Gegensatz zu der damals gebräuchlichen "Perleberger Wichse", auch "Spuckwichse" genannt, löste sich die neue Schuhcreme von Werner & Mertz nicht im Regen auf, schützte somit wirklich vor Nässe und enthielt zusätzlich noch lederpflegende Bestandteile, wie z.B. Terpentinöl., meaning ...unlike then-traditional shoe polish, the new shoe polish by Werner & Mertz did not dissolve in rain, thus protected from moisture and also contained ingredients to preserve the leather, like turpentine oil. The company's history page doesn't say when exactly the product was invented, but the "modern shoe polish" Erdal was trade-marked in 1901, and it was not "more akin to dubbin" Kar98 13:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think your response is down to a little bit of nationalist pride, and moreso down to your definition of a shoe polish. Dubbin preserves and waterproofs leather. That is what Erdal did, which is why I said it was more akin to dubbin. Yes, it was different in that it did not dissolve in water (not being able to speak German, I can't figure out what it did contain, presumably it used waxes rather than tallow). The first modern shoe polishes contained high concentrations of napthalene and other volatiles, which allow fast evapouration of residue, producing a lasting shine. I think maybe because the Werner & Mertz website (taking your word for it here, as ich nicht sprechen zie Deutsche wehr gut) describes shoe polishes that came before it as 'then-traditional', there is some crossed wires here. What I termed modern shoe polishes contain high concentrations of volatiles, as nearly all of them have done so since 1906. Kiwi was the first to do so. Incidentally, a product that did the same thing as Erdel, Punch, was first manufactured in Ireland in 1851. Proto t c 14:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, not even the Kiwi shoe polish website supports the claim that Kiwi "was the the first modern shoe polish". Read on Kar98 18:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what belongs here and what doesn't?

Actually, on visiting Kiwi (shoe polish), I find that it's quite a short stub. It strikes me as odd that, for example,

• anecdotes about the founding of kiwi
• speculation on the role of kiwi shoe polish in the formation of New Zealand national identity

are located here and not there, since they're not really about shoe polish but about one specific company. Surely this content should be sent thither? (This page would retain only technical description of what made kiwi different from other shoe polishes of the time.) Doops | talk 10:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper - be bold and copy any information you think would be useful over to there also. As Kiwi was the first modern polish, the invention of this shoe polish is a valid topic for the article on shoe polish and so it is pertinent. Proto t c 11:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the text across; but I've also edited this article in a gentle attempt to reduce the kiwi anecdotage. Doops | talk 21:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Banana shoe shine

Banana skins(as shown here in this GIF) are very good shoe polishers. This GIF has been featured on the banana page and i wanted to reccomend to put it on this page.

This is better:

[edit] Other practical uses

A banana peel can be used to effectively shine shoes[2]. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 07:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The portion of the article about bannana peel is very short, it looks a little out of place in the ontext of the article, and is possibly mislabled as it is more "Other [Possible] Forms Of Shoe Polish" rather than "Other Practical Uses" which, it seems to me should more be about other uses for polish rather than alternate sources.

If nothing else perhaps the people who tend this article might consider a breif explanation of how the peel polishes the shoe ? - Fenix [password temporarily forgotten]

[edit] Graffiti reference

Bhadani, you reverted an edit I made, and I'd like to understand why.

The article originally said:

Shoe polish is also used in applying graffiti tags too. It makes a wonder ink that flows well for fast and sharp looking tags.

I changed it to:

Shoe polish can also be used to create graffiti, as its flow characteristics are well suited for the task.

I have multiple issues with the original phrasing. The first sentence is grammatically incorrect ("polish is also used... too"), and contains a slang term ("tags"). The second sentence contains overly informal terminology ("wonder ink", as well as another use of "tags"), and a subjective value judgment ("fast and sharp looking tags").

I acknowledge that my rewording is a bit clumsy, but how can you justify the original sentence being remotely encyclopedia-appropriate?

Stephen Hui 21:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)