Talk:Slip-on shoe

message: This is not a photo of loafars.  Those are oxford, otherwise known as lace up shoes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.176.42 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 November 2005
: Please provide a photo of loafers. -Pgan002 (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do believe that my image suits the requirments. I may be wrong.--Normal Phobic (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just changed the picture.  Let me know what you think. Blowcarrot (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: 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.
***  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.76.179 (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  The pic 

message: According to the dictionary, "Loafer" as it refers to shoes is a trademark name.  A USPTO search indicates that the trademark on "Loafer" was filed for by A.E. Nettleton Company on September 4, 1937, having first been used in commerce earlier that year: "(EXPIRED) IC 025. US 039. G & S: LADIES', MEN'S, AND BOYS' SHOES MADE OF LEATHER, RUBBER, FABRIC, AND VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF SUCH MATERIALS. FIRST USE: 19370201. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19370201" [i.e., February 1, 1937].  The trademark is expired, so the term has entered the public domain and the shoe can properly be referred to on Wikipedia in lowercase, but I think, unless prior use of the term "loafers" as applied to shoes can be confirmed prior to the dates claimed, the article should note the origin of the term. Robert K S (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Loafer" originally a trademark name 

message: I have removed a few dubious statements, and flagged up a few more.  The first couple of paragraphs are just about believable, though unsourced, but the last two are very questionable.  There is a heavy emphasis on wearing no socks, which strikes me as vile, and not at all common.  The association between lawyers and loafers is also extremely bizarre, since lawyers would normally be connected with smart dressing (I am convinced loafers are not permitted at the bar — totally incongruous with a suit and detachable collar). I left the statement because there must be some grain of truth in it, as it is too bizarre just to invent. —Kan8eDie (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, thanks.  This is another US/UK divide. It seems lawyers in America dress very differently to over here.  I will use that good source in the article, when I get around to editing it and working in the material from books I have got (maybe later this week). —Kan8eDie (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Kan8eDie -- I'm sorry to tell ya, but wearing loafers without socks is far from vile, its very common in America, particularly among the "preppy", I'd say especially those on the eastern seaboard, and of course on college campuses. I do it quite often, especially with khakis, and I can't think of anyone who wears them with socks, especially in the summer. It's not vile at all, docksiders are also worn sans-socks. (sorry I don't have a user name yet, but I'm working on it.) 71.187.205.25 (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise that; this is a personal opinion, and has hence not been put in the article (though I still stand by the idea that wearing any shoes without socks is indeed vile). I have some refs, and plan to come along and clear this up sometime, in maybe a couple of week's time when I should have some more free time. I would not abandon an article after coming along and littering it with ugly tags, it is just that real-world stuff comes much higher on my todo list. Rest assured, I am more generally aware what Americans wear, whether I personally would or not (more so than I was when I first came to the article, as shown by post above!). —Kan8eDie (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, not suggesting that you were going to add your personal opinion, just wanted to back up the previous posters - that it is done, and done quite often. I can't even speculate as to the origin, Docksiders are worn without socks primarily because, when used for their original purpose (i.e. sailing) one wouldn't want to wear socks - you're just going to get them wet. Loafers probably were just a continuation of that trend. I'd like to find out for sure, and find some sources for that. I agree it is definitely a US trend, I probably would find it strange, if it hadn't been a tradition since I was very young. If you want to read more about the eccentricities of American dress (at-least the conservative / preppy kind) I'd recommend flipping through The Preppy Handbook by Lisa Birnbach, originally written as quite tounge-in-cheek, it has been taken seriously partially because although a parody, it's quite true i most respects. 204.52.215.112 (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Just google images "Loafer Patent Leather" to see a variety such as thus: .  Like I said - the problem is that the word "loafer" covers more now than it was originally intended.  Just as the phrase "slip-on" covers many more styles of shoes than the phrase loafer strictly does (and means different things between the sexes - with the vast majority of womens shoes being, generically, slip ons) - and the suggestion that loafers represent the "most common style" is a little american-o-centric.  The venetian style shoe for instance blurs with the side gusset and with the moccasin and with the loafer.  I myself wear a pair of soft leather loafers that nonetheless have a solid sole and heel similar to this "driving shoe":  but are actually from the "Smart Shoes" range here: .  In both cases these shoes (generally) have an elasticated top hidden by the upper, rather than gussets.  Also as you can see the leather treatment varies quite a lot.  They're also very popular and acceptable workwear even in "conservative" Britain :D The original definitive article of a loafer doesn't really match up to the products on display.--Koncorde (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: I have reverted this edit (with summary "cleanup"). Firstly, it added no information to the article, consisting solely of a large amount of copy editing. Unfortunately, inaccuracy was introduced into nearly every paragraph, so I chose to revert the edit to prevent a muddle with the different bits of information. If the user wants to restore the stylistic changes, I suggest adding them more slowly so that they can be considered more easily. Examples of sloppy phasing introduced:
:¶1:Loafers were introduced as informal shoes (casual was correct)
:¶2:Side-gusset shoes not designed "as laced Oxfords" (original "same shape but lacking laces" correct)
:¶4:"Weejuns ... to denote a quality product" OR
:¶4:"lozenge perforated" implies many holes; "with a diamond cutout" is clumsy but accurate
:¶5:quote marks added to sentence with ref at end, but text is not a quote (so misleading; Flusser never calls loafers "dress shoes")
— Kan8eDie (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 68.165.188.116 edit (Jan 09)

message: Request a move to Loafer page.  While originally of Norweigian manufacture - albeit employing a North American Native American moccasin design - the "loafer" is fundamentally an American shoe and an American style; the term "slip-on" is more generic, and applies to forms of other shoe styles, such as a slip-on Court shoe; moreover, "Loafer" is the terminology employed by Wikipedia classification of Men's dress shoe styles. Thus "Slip-on" is anomolous, not internally consistent within Wikipedia.  Thank you for your consideration. Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I came to this article looking for the etymology of "penny loafers".  It is mentioned, but isn't really clear.  A photo of an actual 1950s shoe with a penny in it would really help... 05:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for penny-related photo 

message: The article states that Michael Jackson brought the classic loafer into fashion. First, the statement itself claims the loafers were "classic". Also, Thriller wasn't released until late 1982. The loafer was definitely a part of the total look if one was imitating Jackson during this phase, but the shoes were already popular in preppy fashion. I suggest the statement be removed, as it has little bearing on the shoe itself. Other thoughts? Leatherwing (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Jackson claim 

message: Recent edits includes claim that the first loafer was introduced in England before the Aurland factory marketed their design. Let us not rush to conclusion but look at sources and definitions before we make a definite statement. THanks. --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The company webpage says the "Wildsmith was founded in 1847", but does not say clearly that their loafer was introduced the same year. Please help out clarify this issue. --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was first? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Slip-on shoe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019195708/http://www.wildsmith.com/history to http://www.wildsmith.com/history
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110129060330/http://www.aurlandskoen.no/historikk/ to http://www.aurlandskoen.no/historikk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: How are Slip-on shoes different from Moccasins? Meridiana solare (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences form Moccasin 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion