Talk:Venetian-style shoe

See also

• "boots to suit"
• The Bata Shoe Museum in Toronto, Canada: fact about high heel definition (POV) [1] Relationship with venice's... Chopine [2]
• refered to here: http://shoemountain.com/index.php/link/shoe-brand/Unlisted/1000/B000GOTY1Q/
• Google search for: venetian style shoe loafer history -shipping -mask -hotel -homeware -mirror -kitchen -shopping -buy
• history of Loafers: [3]
• Japan: http://fobos.dnshop.com/front/FobosProductDetail?PID=F251_33607_080118112442&CID=D61765&Sid=S001_PL010000_01_01

Queen Elizabeth Era; [4]

• Venetian shoecream

• Gondola
• Sometimes, but less often, refered to as A Venetian-Style Boat Shoe...
• Sex and the venetian show (16th century)[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs) 19:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• News article http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-27948052_ITM
• http://www.footwearhistory.com Good website for history on footwear --CyclePat (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Historic resources

• Resource History on Loafer for prestigeous people[6]
• "La chopine était une chaussure vénitienne au XVIème siècle à semelle de bois et épais patin de liège dont on se servait dans la rue pour se protéger de la boue."[7]
  • Info on the venetian Chopine [8]
• "Musée international de la chaussure"[9]
• News article making reference to the Chopine being a Venetian style shoe.[10] --CyclePat (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Books

"Footnote: The cardinal-patriarch officiates in the Basilica San Marco with some ceremonies which I believe are peculiar to the patriarchate of Venice, and which consist of an unusual number of robings and disrobings, and putting on and off of shoes. All this is performed with great gravity, and has, I suppose, some peculiar spiritual significance. The shoes are brought by a priest to the foot of the patriarchal throne, when a canon removes the profane, out-of-door _chaussure_, and places the sacred shoes on the patriarch's feet. A like ceremony replaces the patriarch's every-day gaiters, and the pious rite ends.] "[11]

• Paul Lacroix, Histoire de la Chaussure depuis l’Antiquité a la plus reculée jusqu’a nos jours (Paris 1852);

Glossaries

• http://www.onthefly.com/content/glossary-of-shoe-terms/30354

Loafers -- Also referred to as Moccasins, they are slip-on shoes noted for their comfort. The shoe's construction tends to be simple and 'roomy'.

Venetian Loafers -- Loafers that lack the ornamentation often found across the middle, or as one source stated 'loafers with nothing to put a penny in'.

• http://www.dancestore.com/cds.html (This link has the same definitions as above... I believe it may be the original source

Manufacturers or stylists

This list is being created via google search. (ex.: venetian loafer -"Allen Edmonds" -"Bruno Magli" -"Cole Haan" -"Brooks Brothers" etc...) You may help by adding to the list. If you do add a company please fix the google search by adding -"[company name]". This will remove the company from future searches within the string.

With articles on Wikipedia

• Allen Edmonds[12]
• Ben Sherman[13]
• Bruno Magli[14]
• Bostonian[15]
• Johnston and Murphy[16]
• Cole Haan[17]
• Sperry Corporation (known as Sperry Pilot Loafer)[18]
• The Timberland Company[19]
• Rockport Winton[20]
• John Varvatos[21]
• Hush Puppies[22]
• Tommy Bahama[23]
• Tommy Hilfiger[24][25]
• Brooks Brothers[26]

All of the preceding was written by CyclePat (talk)

Content

There is nothing in the article (at present), other than the first sentence, which should be in an article with that title. The second sentence is plausible, but the source is not reliable. The rest of the article, including the See also section, does not contain a word suitable for a Wikipedia article. A few of the sources here might support a stub article. The manufacturers section also doesn't belong here, even in a talk page. If kept, I'll remove all but the first two sentences as being irrelevant to Wikipedia, under WP:DICT and WP:EL. I'd keep the #See also section, but the rest of the "content" is not suitable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I think what you are trying to say is that it is difficult to find information on this subject since most of the information is primary information from business websites and dictionnaries. The first sentence is actually an amalgamation of dictionnary and business website term. Of course the second sentence is plausible it's stated in a dictionnary that has received approval from the goverment of quebec or l'Office de la langue française. b.t.w. It's the same reference as the first sentence, to which we have given approval. I think what you may have meant by not suitable for Wikipedia article (per the See Also section) is that most of the article listed are somewhat lacking in good sources and should be developed... maybe even consolidated to one article... (from what I understand from my prelimanry investigation, a Chopine, Loafer, etc... may all have the same history or a very closelly related history! It would be nice to have an article like Hat with all the different styles, for shoe). I dissagree about the manufacturers. A link should be provided to these companies. If it's not within the article then something similar to List of bicycle manufacturing companies should be utilized. Also these manufacturers allready have their own wikipedia articles. I would also direct your attention towards the definition of Etymology being "the study of the history of words". Take for example the article Mass spectrometry which talks about the linguistical use of the word. My hypothesis, for Venetian Style Soe is that it's etymological background will demonstrate it's historical background. I do agree that the example section could probably be removed now that we have a photo. --CyclePat (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree that shoe#shoe styles seems an appropriate section to write, and possibly to merge the appropriate parts of this article into. Perhaps list of shoe manufacturing companies, but list of shoe manufacturing companies that manufactuer a Venetian style shoe seems a bit out of bounds. As for mass spectrometry, that seems to be a history of word choice for the term, rather than the derevation of the term, which is normally what is called etymology and is clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia.

As for your first point, it's clear that, if there isn't external discussion about a concept, then there is no reason for that concept to have an article on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the changes you made requesting citations and removing some information. I'm sorry I can't address all of them right now. Perhaps you could try to to include some information from the above sources? Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Zappos

This edit claim Zappos is not appropriate, however the reason I added it is because it gives the name (the second term for Venetian Style Shoe) venetian-style loafer. I think it's necessary for the article to add a reference to the terms, hence the reason I added the link in the first place. --CyclePat (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer my own question but with a question: Maybe this could be addressed in the Fashion history section with the "various other manufacturer" names for the similar shoe? At one point in time I think we'll need to reference some manufacturers... hence the reason I made the afformentioned list (also a resource to look on their websites and/or eventually contact those manufacturers for more info.) --CyclePat (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

other sources

The upper is mentioned in the first sentence. here is some more information on a patented method for making the shoe-upper. [27]

Here is another good source on slip-on shoes. [28] —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs) 02:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags

As I understand the guidelines, {{fact}} tags should not be removed without supplying sources. If the sources are already in the article, but in a differt section <ref name=ReferenceName/> can be used to avoid duplicate references in the #References section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Manufacturers: "According to DealsPlus"?!

Under the "Manufacturer" section, it reads "Allen Edmonds, for example, is a shoe manufacturing and retail company based in Port Washington, Wisconsin with, according to Deals Plus, an 'impressively crafted casual Venetian loafer' or 'Men's Conway Loafer'." Apparently the person who added this does not understand that an on-line retailer's advertising copy isn't Wiki material. I'm not at all convinced that the entry benefits from a manufacturers section unless it can be shown that there were seminal loafer manufacturers (G.H. Bass is probably the closest thing to that). Thoughts? Bricology (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Name and origin

There have been many styles of shoe called Venetian 'shoes', 'slippers', etc. over time. (see for example http://books.google.com/books?q=%22venetian+slipper&btnG=Search+Books) The obvious explanation for the name is that the style was actually or supposedly from Venice (à la Vénitienne). I couldn't find any reference to Venetian shoes (etc.) in 19th-century English or French reference books such as the OED, the Larousse du XIXe Siecle, or the Littré. I wonder where the OQLP got the far-fetched-sounding comparison to the shape of Venetian barques (which could refer to a rather large variety of boats...). --macrakis (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WIthout Doubt

The worst wiki article I have seen. There seems to be no grasp of what is relevant, noteworthy, or authoritative. Japanscot (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)