Talk:Loafers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Fashion WikiProject
Fashion Portal
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within fashion.
It is requested that one or more images be included in this article to improve its quality.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Should this be moved to the singular, or kept plural because shoes come in pairs? Michael Hardy 02:21, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've always heard them referred to in the plural by other ppl ... and I've refered them to the plural (when I use to wear them all the time) ... I think they are listed @ shoe companies in the plural ... and the request page had them listed as plural. So I'd keep them here, unless someone else post a reason not to ... reddi 02:49, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I agree that plural is better in this case. I've made a redirect from penny loafer to be on the safe side. --Camembert

Contents

[edit] Photo

This is not a photo of loafars. Those are oxford, otherwise known as lace up shoes.

Please provide a photo of loafers. -Pgan002 (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I do believe that my image suits the requirments. I may be wrong.--Normal Phobic (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I just changed the picture. Let me know what you think. Blowcarrot (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Venetian style shoe appears to be a non-penny loafer. Once the dictionary citations are removed, most of the rest of the article would fit here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, I'm open to the concept. However, I would like to see "Venetian style shoe", particularly Wikipedia's history and all the edits (which where primarily done by me) remain logged within WIkipedia's database. This could be accomplished with a simple redirect to loafer. I would like to point out that the term "loafer" was added to Venetian Shoe because of some commercial website "common appelation". (I guess that could still be clarified in the article even if it's merged or not) The proper term, I believe is shoe. Furthermore, I would hate to the disapearance of the etymological section. I would be more willing to accept a merger if this article "loafer" developed an etymological section. Then we would be able to compare both items to better evaluate a merger. Therefore, I'm not quite ready to see this merged into the article loafer. Mind you, I do agree that if we removed, the dictionary citation (or facts), most of the rest of the article would fit here. But, again, I'd like to see the etymological section developed in the "loafer" article prior to further discussions of merger. (p.s: I'll see what I can do) --CyclePat (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The idea that a loafer is worn in a formal situation appears to contradict the current Venetian Style Shoe which is more of a casual "Friday" shoe. (But then again I guess this dilema could be expressed in one article) --CyclePat (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
As we're not discussing a delete option any more, the history, no matter how convoluted, will remain available. However, the etymological section requires a scholarly reference, rather than a dictionary or encyclopedia, to be considered for inclusion.
(Appropriate for the merge discussion, rather than in the article). We've noted that some manufactures define "loafer" to include both "penny loafers" and "venetian style shoes". That does need to be properly included in this article as part of the merge. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
(I was going to say that again. I need to pay attention to what I already said.) Some people define "loafer" as including "non-penny" loafers, such as the "venetian style shoe" (as noted by User:CyclePat in that article. That needs to be here, whether or not the article is merged, but I don't see a clear reference there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Etymology

I would suggest including the etymology of the expression itself (does it perhaps come from Laufer, a German expression for "running (around)"?) while excising unreferenced statements a la and this is considered 'the sexy look' and such.


[edit] The pic

This isnt productive at all, but purely for aesthetic's sake, could we not find some more attractive loafers. I think the 5 year-old girl who lost her's is still looking for them you know! haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.173.27 (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should shoot for classic penny loafers, which are the kind of loafers most people are familiar with.Blowcarrot (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The Image has been changed, I think this is much better image than before. Also is this bottom photo section necessary? We already have a photo section at the top of the page.Blowcarrot (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)