Talk:Brogue shoe

message: The opening sentence reads "the Brogue (derived from the Gaelic bróg (Irish), bròg (Scottish))".
But there is no language "Scottish". I am guessing the author intends Scots Gaelic (purely based on the link with aforementioned Irish), but there is also no citation for this. SaintDaveUK (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It quite clearly refers to Irish Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic. Steelwool (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bròg (Scottish) 

message: The article mentions several times that the nowadays decorative perforations of brogues have their origin as holes for water drainage, since brogues were used for walking in bogs. This is a popular anecdotal claim that is often repeated on the web, but I am not aware of any evidence that it is actually true. (And holes that let water out also let water in, making the concept a bit dubious.)
  
The article states two references for the claim: "The Book of the Feet - A History of Boots and Shoes" by Joseph Sparkes Hall from 1847, and some "Smith 2010-09-09". Now, I have checked the book by Mr Sparkes Hall, and he makes no such claim. There is nothing about brogues being suitable for wetlands. Indeed, while the construction of brogues is described in considerable detail, the perforations are not mentioned at all, and hence there is also no drainage explanation for them. I would even say that going by the book and its age it is reasonable to assume that perforations were not a defining element of the original brogues at all.
The reference "Smith 2010-09-09" has no details about its actual source, I am not sure what this is referring to.
Given the above I would like to remove the "water explanation" entirely. Nevertheless, the claim is quite popular, as mentioned, so removing it could spark controversy. Hence I felt it was appropriate to start a discussion first. Maybe there are actual sources for the claim?
Elanguescence (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brogues, Holes and Water 

message: I performed a major edit to this article, but the basic original content is still there (even if the diff is unintelligible ). Only duplicate content was removed (style section); layout, grammar, punctuation, citations, etc. were fixed.
Layout and images:
* Reordered the images into galleries (which cleaned up the page), and removed subheadings for the various brogue styles.
* Added a few images.
* Swapped out the main image (from what was essentially an advertisement with an external link) to the best photograph of a representative pair of full brogues I could find on Wikimedia.
* The 'See also' section was removed because all the entries were mentioned and wikilinked in the article. The last remaining one, Pampootie, really isn't relevant, related or even interesting to this topic.
References/citations:
* Checked every single citation.
* WebCitation seems to be 'out of order' (nonfunctional) so I resurrected some links from archive.org/web. 
* Added two citations to replace the citation-needed tag.
* Updated the book citations to include ISBN or Open Library links so the books can be read online.
* Updated from SFN style to using <ref> style, which was easier than fixing the SFN style citations.
* Incorporated the remaining Lobb source into the text (it was the only reference that wasn't cited).
Platonk (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of edit 

message: what does 'blind' mean/ refer to in the last picture('s) description?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3036:273:B589:E76A:1ED7:6129:D09A (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  blind?