Talk:Toe socks

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Toe socks 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

Benefits cite

I restored the cite for that section, because it substantiates exactly what one would expect it to - benefits of toe socks according to the manufacturers of such products. If one can find a better, "more reliable" source for it, go right ahead. If someone wants to remove the entire section, I would not be averse to that. So your call. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with your logic but we would have to be more inclusive ie. find all of the benefits of toe socks pages from all the manufacture's. That would lead to every commercial outfit selling toe socks to benefit, by simply adding medical benefits page to their site. Thoughts ? PadawanMD 14:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said better and more reliable. Technically, this one doesn't hit WP:ATT, but it's something until we can find something more appropriate. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toetoe

A statementless toetoe citation has kept appearing and disappearing in this page. In an attempt to resolve this, I have checked out the website, found that it contains useful information that was not in this WP article, added the information to the article, and then moved the citation to my new paragraph. I hope this solution is satisfactory to all involved parties. (I also changed the reference to point to a toesocks page, rather than pointing to the home page)

I have no connection whatsoever to the toetoe site or company, so was trying to maximise the amount of useful verifiable information in our WP page while trying to avoid a link that was merely for advertising purposes.

Any comments? -- Hebrides 13:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but it still doesn't work, as the site is not a reliable source, per the WP:RS policy. That and I'm not exactly thrilled about giving these spammers a permanent spot on the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...which leaves me wondering which is better, a completely unsubstantiated statement or a statement with a reference to a "less than scholastic" source. As I said on your talk page, there is a dearth of information about toe socks on the internet and most of what exists is of a commercial nature. If the evidence of the existence of certain products is the fact that they are available from a retail website, is it always wrong to provide a link to that retail website? Just wondering... -- Hebrides 10:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither one is a great alternative, but a link to a product display page is advertising. I'm sure there are reliable sources to be found, it just takes looking. But for toetoe, the spam continues. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repositioning of stitching

If I ever meet someone who knows how to make toe socks, I'll ask them to only do three toes per foot, with the 2nd and 3rd, and 4th and 5th toes together. dogman15 (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

secret socks

I removed the "secret socks" section -- although the content really wasn't removed, just moved up to the history section with a better source. The citation provided in the old section was going to a 404 not found, and I found a new citation which does assert the information there, but makes no mention of the term "secret socks" -- it uses other terms. A google search for the term does result in several hits, but none of them (at least in the first few pages of links) seem to refer to the definition provided by the previous section.

I also don't feel that it's necessary to have a major section header for a very short section with one or two sentences, and if the information can be better formatted and included elsewhere, that would be preferable, which would go along with the WP:MOS. WTF? (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

good faith re-addition of image to article

Here was deletion of image:Flip-Flops socks.jpg with cloudy statement. The image is compatibly to the topic of the article, since those socks were specifically designed to be worn with flip-flop sandals. --Neptuul (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image was removed not because it wasn't relevant to the article, but because there were too many images in a very short article, thereby crowding the article and decreasing the ratio of text to images. I'm sorry it doesn't work out, but I think the images that are there now are more representative. The socks in the linked image that was removed are originally derived from the Japanese tabi form of sock, and I believe that the Japanese image currently in the article better describes the origins in this case. WTF? (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm not really a big fan of galleries, but there appears to be quite a few images on Wikimedia commons, and it seems to me that it makes sense to highlight a variety of different examples. So we can include your image here with several other examples. WTF? (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

This pair of toe stockings dated XIX century should disprove Ethel Russell attribution

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stockings_XIX_century.jpg

66.249.81.61 (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily Women

DJ Autagirl made a good faith edit on Christmas Eve to remove the idea that they are primarily marketed to women. Since then, there has been a lot of edit warring reverting and re-reverting that change. Can't anyone come up with a citation that supports one side or the other? Banjohunter (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Banjohunter: DJ Autagirl was confirmed to be a sockpuppet of site-banned editor Fangusu, so the edit was reverted per WP:BANREVERT. With that being said, my opinion on whether or not this is a constructive edit is not an opinion I personally have. Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:: @Steel1943: I did not catch the sockpuppet reference. That makes sense now. Keep up the good fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banjohunter (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Thread resulting from an edit request by a banned user

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the phrase, "although traditionally are targeted toward women". There is no evidence that toe socks are marketed primarily towards female consumers. To my knowledge, they are completely unisex. 134.154.20.152 (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlpearc: just so you know, this is not a genuine edit request. The blocked user Fangusu is just restoring a previous edit request she has been repeatedly reposting for over a year so that she can insert a frivolous unblock request in the edit summary. Pay it no mind. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, instead reverting multiple times, let them provide a cite, if they can. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 00:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Fangusu is sitebanned, and also banned from her talk page, from UTRS and from email, due to abusing these systems to repeatedly harass multiple editors. If I see her edit, I will revert it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy, calm down, no harm done....jeeez Mlpearc (open channel) 17:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These Date from the Nineteenth Century in Germany

An Austrian writer who moved to the United States, Bernard Rudofsky, had many books about rare cultural trivia. One of his books mentioned a German in the Nineteenth Century who wanted men to wear such toe-socks, among other variances. And he had such socks manufactured. So it has nothing to do with the hippies, or whoever. 173.162.253.101 (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Rudofsky? Do you know which book? Grayfell (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Throughout the discussion, it was debated whether WP:SINGULAR should apply here, or whether the plural forms of each type of sock were sufficiently prevalent to qualify for an exception under WP:PLURAL. Neither side of the discussion appears to have swayed the other, leading to the result that no consensus emerged. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– per WP:SINGULAR and consistency with sock (WP:TITLECON) and some other sock articles (cf. anklet (sock), diabetic sock, hockey sock, stocking). (Plus, use of the plural is a little insensitive to people with one foot or leg.) A similar proposal for shoe articles is here. — AjaxSmack 05:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for knee highs, as the singular term can have other meanings. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:SINGULAR. Knee high exists as a redirect to Knee highs not a disambig so it doesn't seem to have been a problem to date. If Knee high is too ambiguous I'd support as a 2nd choice a move to Knee high sock or Knee sock. VQuakr (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that knee highs are a type of hosiery, so something like "Knee high stockings" would probably be more accurate. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support any of the above. VQuakr (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Come in pairs. Usually referred to in the plural. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per those above, since socks come in pairs. BD2412 T 20:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- They come in pairs, but that's not how they go. nb missing sock. — AjaxSmack 15:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: socks do not come in pairs in the manner of pants or scissors. "Frequently worn together because most people have two feet" is not the standard in WP:SINGULAR. See also glove and Plurale tantum. VQuakr (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me this just seems to be common sense. I am not suggesting imposing this for Sock and Glove, but for these subsets it is irregular for them to be discussed in the singular. In other words, it feels weird to refer to the subject as a whole as "a dress sock" or "a rugby sock", and that's enough for me to characterize the plural as the overriding WP:COMMONNAME. BD2412 T 18:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think Missing sock actually rather proves that point, since the signficance of a singular sock missing is that a singular sock remains. BD2412 T 18:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should sock be moved to socks, then, for consistency? — AjaxSmack 15:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary oppose, let's do an RFC instead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Slash (talk • contribs) 20:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support all per WP:PLURAL and WP:TITLECON. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 18:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.