This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Flip-flops is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
I have removed "Japanese sandals", "thongs" and a couple other references from the lead section. They can be represented in the body of the text. The most common name is "flip-flops" which is appropriately the title of the article. Let us please not clutter up the lead section. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 08:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
PS: The correct word is "thong sandals" not "thongs". — Nearly Headless Nick{C}08:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the kind of post that almost seems designed to inflame discussion here rather than help make a better article. There is no "correct" word. English doesn't work like that. Your Edit summary comment - Also a "thong" is not a flip-flop - is particularly unhelpful. I'm in Australia. The ONLY name this footwear has been known as in this country for all of my long lifetime is "thongs". I find it easy to accept that other names are used elsewhere. You should try to accept it too. I have no idea what "the most common name" is. I don't know how you can possibly know. I am going to again put the article back the way it has been for some time, and it should stay that way until a different consensus arises here, or until you can find sources for your claims. Since the latter cannot happen (see my comment about the name "thongs" above), it means you must wait for other editors to comment here, so please do not make any more changes now. HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By your reasoning Hawaii chappal should also be included in the lead? There are independent and reliable sources available which will confirm that this term is widely referred to in the Indian subcontinent. The most WP:COMMONNAME is also the article name. It's very bad taste to revert war over something like this. — Nearly Headless Nick{C}11:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a "Hawaii chappal". The term you are thinking of derives from Hindi (India), and is spelled "Hawai chappal". On the island of Hawai'i, flip-flops are either known as the American term "flip-flops" or as "slippers". WTF? (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In the United States the flip-flop descends from the Japanese zōri, which became popular after World War II as soldiers brought them back from Japan. They became popular unisex summer footwear[1] starting in the 1960s."
These sentences are problematic. Firstly, the majority of the world is not the United States of America. "Jandals" were produced in New Zealand in 1957, "Thongs" in Australia in 1959. "Zoris" were being sold as such in the US (and possibly elsewhere) by Japan in the 1950s, however the US did not sell "flip flops" until the 1960s. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/maurice-yock-trademarks-jandal
In Australia, Dunlop sold "thongs" since 1959. They have been a staple of Australian footwear ever since - and form part of the national self image.
Considering that this footwear were not called "flip flops" until the 1960s, and they were already called "zoris", "jandals" or "thongs" before then - you need to question why these names aren't right at the top in the lead section.
I'm no expert on flip-flops, but I'm not sure that being sparkly or not has anything to do with it? And the paragraph that mentions it goes on to say that's considered business casual, which I think must be some sort of joke...
Wikinetman (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That must've been removed. The only statement that refers to "business casual" is an unsourced statement: "However, they are not considered flip flops if they have a strap around the heel or ankle, or they have more than a 1/2 inch heel. In any of these cases the shoe would be considered more along the lines of a business casual sandal." WTF? (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the article and removed the cleanup tag from 2009. The information has been organized into four main sections:
etymology -- dealing with the terminology across the globe, as well as the origin of the term.
history -- covering their origin since ancient times.
design and custom -- covering the design and customs involved in wearing them.
health and medical implications -- covering the injuries that are common among wearers.
I removed the manufacturing section. Some of the information regarding what materials they're made of is in the design & custom section. Information about all of the various manufacturers is really not necessarily -- I think there are probably literally hundreds of makers of flip-flops across the world, and listing all of them is probably not appropriate. Many of the citations in the old section were just direct links to manufacturer websites anyway, which is a violation of WP:EL. WTF? (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image was removed not for incompatibility with the topic itself. It was removed because there is already an image illustrating the wearing of toe socks with flip flops, and to reduce image crowding. It's not necessary to have an image of every single example of wearing socks with flip-flops in the article, and in this case, the image that was kept is more aesthetically appealing due to the angle that the picture was taken (a shot of someone else wearing them as opposed to a self-taken photo). WTF? (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted this edit, which reintroduced the association of the Hindi term "Hawai chappal" with the island of Hawai'i. This is incorrect. While the reference itself does correctly attribute the term's usage in India, the editor is correct that the term "air sandal" is not found in the article. However, one can easily verify the information via Google Translate by typing in "air sandal" in English and translating to Hindi -- although the Hindi words are written in Sanskrit, an audio translation is available which will confirm that "Hawai chappal" translates to "air sandal". I think it's easy to get this confused, given the similar spellings of "Hawai" and "Hawai'i" using the roman alphabet. WTF? (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a question about this being a reliable source. The site incorporates a search engine with information about various english words, and they cite their sources and also provide information about the author. WTF? (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
from what source is हवा चप्पल from? How can Google translate possibly qualify as a reliable source?
Translations actually really qualify more as common knowledge, since you're really providing the translation between two languages (no one owns the copyright over the words). With regard to the "Hawai chappal" <--> "air sandal" translation, a quick look at other online English-Hindi translators, as well as some actual translation books confirms the accuracy of Google Translate (although the spelling of "Hawai" may vary, due to translations between the Latin alphabet and Hindi Sanskrit). WTF? (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"similarly-designed" -ly words as compound adjectives shouldn't be hyphenated per wp:HYPHEN
I can't see where in the two cited sources the Vietnamese, Polish, or Greek names are given
I'm pretty sure the Austrian (i.e., German) name should be capitalized, not sure about the others, but you might want to check capitalization rules for nouns in those languages
I have capitalized Havaianas and Jandals, since they are trademarked proper nouns. I cannot find evidence that "schlapfen" is a trademark or company name, so it is not capitalized. WTF? (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have never had a problem or anyone else question citations to about.com before. The article lists the author who wrote it and the date of publication. They actually seem to do their research on a wide variety of topics. WTF? (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a different experience with the use of About.com. In this case though, I'll accept it, per the statement in WP:RS: "A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim". Sasata (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what makes http://www.pecheblu.com (a commercial site promoting the sale of flip-flops) a RS? They appear to have text very closely paraphrased from this article (or perhaps vice versa?)
the link to Havaianas redirects to the flip-flop article
article: "Beginning in 1962, the Brazilian company, Alpargatas, marketed a version of flip-flops known as Havaianas. These quickly become some of the most popular in the world: By 2010, more than 150 million pairs were produced every year."
source: "First created in 1962 by Brazilian company Alpargatas, Havaianas has become the most popular brand of flip-flops in the world, with more than 150 million pairs being produced every year."
article: "…came to dominate the casual footwear of young women from their teenage years to college and, often, they would be embellished with metallic finishes, charms, chains, beads, rhinestones, or other jewelry."
source: "…came to dominate young women's casual footwear … were heavily embellished with metallic finishes, charms, chains, wood or glass beads, rhinestones, buckles, and other jewelry pieces."
article: "Following the criticism, their footwear was eventually auctioned off on eBay to raise money for a young cancer patient, Jaclyn Murphy of Hopewell Junction, New York, who was befriended by the team. Nine pairs of flip-flops raised approximately $1,653."
source: "Criticism followed, and eventually the celebrity footwear was auctioned to raise money for a young cancer patient, Jaclyn Murphy of Hopewell Junction, N.Y., befriended by the team."
In the "Health and medical implication" section, I'd like to see more WP:MEDRS-compliant sources used for claims about increased susceptibility to injury, rather than the news sources that are currently used
Source: Foot and ankle surgery : official journal of the European Society of Foot and Ankle Surgeons Volume: 18 Issue: 2 Pages: 79-83 Published: 2012-Jun
This is a review article (a good WP:secondary source) that spends a paragraph discussing flip-flops; some of the material in the Health section could be sourced to this (instead of news sources):
"Flip-flops also are claimed to simulate barefoot walking and increase calf, leg and gluteal muscle activity. Manufacturers of the popular model Fitflop claim them to be flip-flops with a built-in-gym. The different flip-flops available on the market have been reviewed by American Podiatric Medical Association (APMA), which recommends only a few. According to APMA, the lack of support in a flip-flop can leave the wearer susceptible to sprained ankles and ligament injuries, and the limited protection offered to feet can mean a higher chance of cuts, scrapes, and stubbed toes. Penetrating injuries have previously been reported in rubber-soled shoes and flip-flops and they are therefore not recommended in diabetics, due to the lack of protection from injuries [48] and [49]. In general flip-flops appear to be suitable for normal feet but not for patients with foot pathology (Fig. 4).
Also, both this article and another source (PMID20821862) mention the flip-flops made by Fitflops, and seem to endorse them (I'm using "endorse" loosely, of course), e.g., the latter source says: "If you’re going to wear flip-flops, you might try the ones made by Fitflops or Chaco. They’ve been endorsed by the American Podiatric Medical Association because they have a thicker sole, good arch support, and a deep heel cup that holds the foot and helps with shock absorption." This is probably worth a mention in the article.
Your newly added source Shroyer (2009) is an improvement over what was there previously, but it appears like this is his doctoral dissertation; it's better to cite the relevant peer-reviewed publication resulting from this disseration:
Title: Comparative Analysis of Human Gait While Wearing Thong-Style Flip-flops versus Sneakers
Author(s): Shroyer, Justin F.; Weimar, Wendi H.
Source: Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association Volume: 100 Issue: 4 Pages: 251–257 Published: JUL-AUG 2010; PMID20660875
Title: Computerized analysis of plantar pressure variation in flip-flops, athletic shoes, and bare feet
Author(s): Carl, Tanya J.; Barrett, Stephen L.
Source: Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association Volume: 98 Issue: 5 Pages: 374–378 Published: SEP-OCT 2008; PMID18820040
From the abstract: "Results: Statistically significant results were obtained for nine of the 18 comparisons. In each of these comparisons, flip-flops always demonstrated higher peak plantar pressures than athletic shoes but lower pressures than bare feet. Conclusion: Although these data demonstrate that flip-flops have a minor protective role as a shock absorber during the gait cycle compared with pressures measured while barefoot, compared with athletic shoes, they increase peak plantar pressures, placing the foot at greater risk for pathologic abnormalities."
Another possibility:
Title: Effects of Common Footwear on Joint Loading in Osteoarthritis of the Knee
Author(s): Shakoor, Najia; Sengupta, Mondira; Foucher, Kharma C.; et al.
Source: Arthritis Care & Research Volume: 62 Issue: 7 Pages: 917–923 doi:10.1002/acr.20165 Published: JUL 2010
Let me know if you'd like to have these articles sent to you; I can access many through my University account (and there's always WP:RX for harder-to-find ones). Sasata (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over a month since the most recent post to this review, and almost that long since the nominator edited the article. What is the status, please? If there are still significant problems, perhaps the review needs to be concluded. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm closing this review; the nominator appears to have lost interest, and there's still problems with poor-quality sources in the "Health and medical implications" section. Sasata (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A user keeps trying to reinsert the following into the etymology section of the article:
There is some controversy in New Zealand regarding the invention of the name "jandals". The name was trademarked October 4 1957 by Morris Yock and eventually passed to Skellerup. However it is also claimed that the name was first thought of by John Cowie, Mr Yock's friend, who started manufacturing a plastic version of the Japanese wooden sandals in the late 1940s in Hong Kong.[7]
While it's of minor and trivial interest, probably moreso in New Zealand, it doesn't really pertain to the overall global use of the word, nor does it disprove the use of the term "jandals". What it is is essentially some trivial infighting between two individuals in a trademark dispute over who owns the term. The article is really only concerned with which terms are used, not who owns the trademark on which terms. A minor trademark dispute does not meet the threshold for inclusion in a general article about the subject. WTF? (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the part of this which is of greater interest is the date the term was trademarked in comparison to the dates (not yet in the article) when the other more well-known terms began being used in English.
According to Etymonline (which doesn't have an entry for "jandal") the term "thong" for this footwear has been in use since 1965 and the term "flip-flop" / "flip flop" has been in use since 1972. According to Wiktionary "thong" was in use in United States, especially in certain areas and especially up to the 1980s, after which "thong" came to mean a certain type of G-string.
The trademark dispute in New Zealand involves a specific and verifiable date which proves that "jandal" pre dates "thong" and "flip flop" by decades. This is surprising and interesting. I would not be surprised if the footwear was known by various circumlocutions like "Japanese sandal" before these three terms settled into fixed usage.
I think this information, when properly sourced from citable primary sources would be of great interest to the article. I've often witnessed people argue over which term for this footwear is "correct" so the full story would be good for settling those debates. — Hippietrail (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The article is really only concerned with which terms are used..." Who says so? Excluding the information is officious, and Tango.Foxtrot's reason for excluding it us no reason at all. IF I wanted to know where the term "jandal" came from, this is the article I would come to. Where else on Wikipedia would the info go. Does Tango.Foxtrot expect a special separate article on the origin of different names for flip-flops? Get a grip! And let the information go in. Koro Neil (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little suprised that there's not a subsection under customs noting that the thong is part of the australian national attire - even the Australian Government thinks so.[1]
It forms part of the triptych of shorts; singlet and thongs. Throw in a ute and a stubbie and you're done.
The linked article does NOT say that thongs are official "national attire", so adding it to the article as such would be grossly inaccurate and horribly inappropriate. It merely says that thongs are popularly worn. WTF? (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article only talks about one type of flip-flop. In addition to the thong flip-flops with the strap between the toes, there is also another type of flip-flop that has no strap between the toes. Instead, it has a horizontal strap that goes over the top of the foot.
No, you misunderstood what I meant. I wasn't going to add that picture to the article as a source. The only reason why I added the link to that picture is to show what the flip-flops that I am talking about look like. I didn't mean to cite that link, or anything. I just included that link, so that people could see and realize what I was talking about. SuperHero2111 (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section about possible health risks is terribly biased and wrong. Our feet don't need any support; on the contrary, going barefoot or wearing minimalist footwear (such as flip-flops) is actually much healthier for the feet than wearing supportive shoes. And people with flat feet do not need support. Flat feet are either caused by weakness due to wearing shoes, or genetics. If they're caused by the former, then starting to go barefoot will strengthen your feet and might raise your arches. If it's the latter, then there's nothing wrong with your feet. There are actually many habitually-barefoot people with flat feet who have perfectly healthy feet and no foot problems. This whole 'support' paradigm is just a load of rubbish, and I think that it should be removed from here. SuperHero2111 (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with you, but the article has sources supporting the negative perspective. They do seem a bit tabloid though. I guess the best approach is to find some decent sources supporting your point of view, and at least rewrite that section of the article to say something like "There are conflicting views on whether flip-flops are good for the feet. Some sources suggest they can be dangerous.... However, others point out that...." HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let us start with a common ground i.e. 'chappal' which means any open footwear, which I think nobody will dispute with. Now the term Hawai, though literally the term Hawai Chappal would translate to Air Sandal but I think it is a bit illogical to think that in this context it has anything to do with air, as there is nothing to suggest that the flip flops had anything to do with air. So there are two alternatives. One less likely one that people visiting Hawaii and seeing this being worn at beaches called it Hawaii Chappal, meaning Chappal from Hawaii.
There is a second possibility that one must consider and investigate that this sandal might have been made and marketed by Scott Hawaii company which gave it the name of Hawaii Chapal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.139.138 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Hawai chappal" has absolutely nothing to do with the US state of Hawaii. There, they are called flip-flops (the US term). "Hawai chappal" is an Indian/Hindu term, and a direct translation from Hindi. 96.33.109.85 (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw someone's statement that in Hawaii they are called flip flops, but that does not rule out the possibility that an Indian saw them first time worn by someone in Hawaii and himself named them Hawai Chappal not bothering to know their Hawaiian name. This is a very common practice all over the word. If people see something associated with a country they just name it according to that regardless of what that thing is actually called in that country. For example "tamarind" is called "imli" in India, but when the Arabs saw it first time they called it "tamar Hindi" meaning "Indian date" and this name later changed to "tamarind" in English. Now if someone says that "tamarind" has nothing to do with India, because it is not called with that name in India, he will be absolutely wrong because the Arabs who saw this did not and possibly could not know its Indian name so they just called it "indian date" so the assumption that people called flip-flops "Hawaii Chappal" because their first association of this was with Hawaii and/or they were manufactured by Scott Hawaii may not be correct but rejecting it just on the basis that they are not called by that name in Hawaii is not fair. I agree that I have no proof for my assumption, but neither do the people who say that it is the translation of "air sandal". Why do you think think that Indians are so stupid that they would call something "air sandal" which has nothing to do with air
I do agree that the word "Hawai Chappal" in Hindi or Urdu does mean "air sandal" but the question still remains why would they call something "air sandal" which has nothing to do with air. The alternate explanation(s) must be thoroughly explored. I urge people in Pakistan and India to contact their relatives or acquaintances who are in their 80s and ask them why they used to call it "Hawai Chappal" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.192.172 (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term "air sandal" is what you get if you go to google translate and type in "Hawai Chappal" in Hindi and ask to translate to English. I think they are using the word "air" to refer to something that is light, like a "MacBook Air". Flip-flops are often light shows that don't have much weight. WTF? (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 4 external links on Flip-flops. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The very word "Vietnamese", presumably, arose as a derivative of the name of the country Vietnam. It is believed that these shoes came to the world market from there. Accordingly, the name is associated with this eastern country. In Russia, the word "Vietnamese" is also used as a brand name - Vietnamki.
Slates are the colloquial name for rubber slippers. They can be not only flip flops, which are described above, but also ordinary rubber slippers. In the Soviet Union, a well-known manufacturer of these shoes was the Polymer plant in the city of Slantsy. Some buyers believed that the word “Slates” embossed on the soles of the slippers was the name of the shoe, and not the place where it was made. Further, the word entered the active vocabulary and became a synonym for the word "slippers". 37.54.230.242 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is English language Wikipedia. The second paragraph of the Etymology section is mostly a list of names for flip-flops in some languages other than English (but obviously not all). Why? What's the point? HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody just added yet another non-English name. I removed it and asked the editor to come here. My next move will be to delete all of them. HiLo48 (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: The current picture at File:Flip_flops.png is not ideal in many ways (low resolution, blurry and having two black lines at the top and the bottom of the image. According to File usage information, it is only used in the English Wikipedia while the article exists in 40 languages. I propose that it should be replaced by an existing image on Commons that is better in quality.
My first attempt was File:Black_Flip_Flops.jpg (Revision as of 06:23, 6 April 2020). This was reverted by HiLo48 with reason: "It's important to show that there is nothing at the back of the foot holding the flip-flop in place." (Revision as of 06:45, 6 April 2020)
Taking into account the comments from HiLo48, my second attempt was File:Man's_Feet.jpg which is used in three other Wikipedias. (Revision as of 07:18, 6 April 2020). This was reverted by HiLo48 with reason: "That's no better than edit warring. Please take it to the Talk page."
If you see that the current image is inferior in quality and wish to address it, please propose/discuss/upload a new photo. I am ok with any of the previous photos for the article or any new photos provided that the quality issues are addressed.
current version (introduced in the Revision as of 21:55, 10 December 2019 by Mpopp921 (talk·contribs))
My original comment still applies to your first image. The second image is of a particularly up-market piece of footwear, hardly your standard flip-flops. I see little wrong with the current image. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The tool did not work for me and I did manual search to give a summary of what has been changed in the past five years. It actually time consuming to dig up history manually, if you know a quicker way please tell me in my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comments added by Taweetham (talk • contribs) 03:59, April 7, 2020 (UTC) and at 04:04, April 7, 2020 —moved and signed by Meters
Noting you have now confused things by adding images to a post I had already discussed, meaning my comment doesn't reflect the new order of images, I shall add that an ideal image would clearly show front and back, and have feet in them. HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JUST STOP!!!!! If you have new images, put them AFTER comments discussing the older ones. You are totally stuffing things up here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: Sorry. It took me some time to get into the history of this article. My 1st and 2nd revisions are still in the same order and same labels as 1st and 2nd. The new ones from commons will be posted below here as per your requirements: "front and back, and have feet in them" + Not "up-market piece". --Taweetham (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48 and Meters: I am sorry if anything above caused any offences to you. To move forward, I have looked into commons category and found two high-quality pictures that may suite your requirements. There are other images that may suit the requirements but blurry/grainy (not shown below). Since these two are high resolution, if needed, the chosen one may be cropped further for this article. It is also possible to rotate or crop to show one foot as well. Similar to the current one, these two images have not been used in other Wikipedias at all but this should not be a problem.
It's not a matter of taking umbrage. It's simply confusing when someone adds material to a post that has already been replied to. It's difficult to follow, and, as pointed out by HiLo48, the thread replies lose context. You've done it in at least three places, and you have not fixed the problem even though it has been pointed out to you several times. I will refactor your addition to make it clear what was in the post when it was replied to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 05:01, April 7, 2020 (UTC)
We don't need to look at and discuss eight years of previous images., or worry about which ones are used in other Wikipedias. Just tell us which one you think is an improvement over the current image for this article. Most of the other images are simply not good images to use. There is not point in looking at bad pictures, or ones that do not show that the heel is free. I agree that we should not use a simple flipflop rather than a fancy one, so my choice would be the current image or one of the two that preceded it (2017-2018, or 2019). Meters (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the change from previous one (~2019) to the current one (introduced in the Revision as of 21:55, 10 December 2019 by Mpopp921) is a significant drop in quality. I am ok with the ~2019 version. However, if there is a preference to have a foot or feet in the picture too, the photo by Dami96 20 August 2012, 09:13:39 (the first one the gallery above) will do just fine. The other proposal (the photo by Jan Polák 21 March 2014, 17:01) will require cropping and rotation. --Taweetham (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: Please help comment on the choice. I am also ok for you to proceed further with an edit to replace the current one with previous versions (2017-2018, 2019) or any high-quality photo. --Taweetham (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why the rush? As I said above, I saw nothing wrong with the current image. You cannot force someone to play your game. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It does not add anything that we don't have in the image of a single pair. In fact, we actually lose the illustration of the open heel since none of the 12 heels in the proposed image are showing. Meters (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
1st edit by Taweetham
2nd edit by Taweetham
.jpg)
