Talk:Shoe tossing

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shoe tossing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wellie wanging was copied or moved into Shoe tossing with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Old Story

Don't know if it's true at all but I had read somewhere, on paper and years ago that: Marcel Duchamp or somebody famous in the Dadaist movement did it once or twice(?)... like an anti war symbol. In that case, it goes way back to the begining of the century, to the old phone lines. I think it does kinda fit the movement, but if it is true - it must have been very rare, in those times there were less wires and the shoes were expensive (the article stated military shoes). Has anybody heard of this? -- － Cy21 ➜ discuss 11:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

Shitty article, shitty sourcing, WP:RECENTISM. Rewriting as a cultural phenomenon. Hint: When shoe-throwing started, "sneakers" hadn't been invented... Article as was yesterday was really describing shoe trees. Neil S. Walker (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Structural problems with article

The introduction defines the subject of the article narrowly (shoefiti) but the rest of the text is a broad overview of shoes in folklore/culture. It should either be split into two or the introduction should be changed to reflect the rest of the article. Kelemen yeti (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten it to be a rough summary of the article and to have a clear MOS:FIRST sentence.

I think all the angles covered here are similar enough in concept to keep the content in one place, but it may benefit from being given a more neutral article title ("Throwing of shoes"?), if "shoe tossing" is only used in reference to laced shoes thrown over a wire. Belbury (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Y2kcrazyjoker4: MOS:FIRST recommends that The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is: the subject is throwing shoes in any context, not just over wires. It's permissible to MOS:AVOIDBOLD and omit the literal article title if there's not a natural way to do so in that definitional sentence. --Belbury (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not one of the exceptions that the guideline spells out. This is a simple case of a named topic, not something abstract, that can be stated right in the first sentence. The first sentence can be rewritten in a more generic way if the article has a broader scope than tossing shoes on wires. But there's no reason not to name the topic in the first sentence in bold. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely has a broader scope than just shoes on wires, as it is currently written. The first sentence needs to communicate that. Belbury (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hillarious bundle of topics

This is not a reasonable heading under which to collect such disparate topics. It is pretty funny though. 181.215.172.82 (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]