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
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
I moved this out of Europe into Asia. Whilst Asia is technically correct, what is the concensus over Asia vs Middle East? Do we need a proliferation of continents given that there is only one other entry in Asia? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the Middle East, but for not over categorizing I think Asia is at the moment the best. I am not able to find an example of a Bahrein wooden shoe in Google and therefor I have my doubts if it exist. What I did found were clogs in India: padukas. Strangely it is a high class shoe and not a working class one. The picture shown on Wikipedia seems to be a special form. At Wikimedia I found a picture of a more common model, as you can find more of them at Google. It is not the best picture. Is it an idea to ad this to Asia? Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutly. They are clearly wooden soled, particularly the high platformed padukas. Now you remind me I have seen them on British TV before as wedding attire. If we had Middle East separate from Asia, then the subcontinent also has a claim for separate status, so for the moment I'd say keep Bahrain and India in Asia. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll make a text and add it this week. Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've rejigged the lead to note sandal types and to indicate that some clogs are high fashion. The old section on overshoes only had a single line in it which duplicated what was said in the lead, so I've removed it. I'm concerned that the lead is getting a little long, so I propose to shortly create a section "types of clogs" above section 1 and move most of the second and third paragraphs into it. Comments? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds as a good idea. A section "types of clogs". The Oxford Dictionary definition is a useful way of looking at wooden footwear, but there seems to be some overshoe hybrids. The Indian clog text will take some time. It´s strange wooden footwear to summarize it in a few words. Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I think something needs to be added to the types to cover the bottoms: flat like Dutch/English, feet like Spanish or high towers (geta). Unless someone beats me to it I may have a go in a week or so's time. Don't worry about the description of the Indian padukas being a little long, better too much than too little. Can anyone clarify: how much of the uppers of German and Italian clogs is fabric and how much wood? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Made some adjustments to the lead section and the section types of clogs. What do you think? Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to shorten/restructure the page. It is becoming very long. I have made a concept, see User:Berkh/Notebook. For the existing text per country, new pages can be made. What do other editer`s think? If there are no objections I will replace the page in two weeks time. Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. One one hand I like the gallery but on the other I think the short comparative notes help a reader, who may know little about the subject, to appreciate the different styles. A picture and a link will not highlight this comparative study. I wouldn't worry too much about the length. Possibly we need to develop a more prose style and less of a list-by-nation style. I'll have a think and put up a suggestion in the next week or so in my sandbox, I'll post the link here when I do.
By the way, we must have a think about the history. The earliest extant examples are certainly Roman (see Sommerfeld, Adolf: "Die Holzsohlen-Fussbekleidung" translated as "History of footwear with wooden soles": Klompenmuseum Gebr. Wietzes*). Sommerfeld also references sandals in Egypt, Persia, Assyria and Babylon, but it is not clear from the (English) text whether they were wooden soled or not.
Note: * I'm sorry if the reference is incorrectly interpreted, my total knowledge of Dutch can be written on the back of a very small stamp. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think a general history is not suitable for the subject. Most likely wooden footwear is invented at several places in the world and time. For instance, according to the bata museum, paduka's are 5,000 years old. See: http://www.allaboutshoes.ca/en/paduka/index.php. I think we must be aware we easily write a European centered story. When you show a draft of your ideas we can discuss it further. Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I am trying to say is, there is too much not known about clogs in literature, especially outside Europe. I have also seen pictures of very old Chinese clogs, but I can not find it back. Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three concepts of clog pages for Dutch, French and British clogs. When using these pages , a few question has to be answered:
1). what do we do with the interwiki's? Do we add at the Dutch and French page a Dutch and French interwiki?
2). What do we do with the categories? Do we make a new categorie "clog"?
3). what do we do with the the Template:Footwear? Do we add a new group: "wooden footwear"?
Replacing the current clog page by this concept would offer a lot of possibilities for interactive research. What do other editer`s think?
Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I didn't get back earlier - too much time spent on the day job! I like what I'm seeing, keep up the good work. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Martin. The job is more important than Wikipedia. Although, we are talking about clogs here ... I am not sure if the name for the clogs you wear are right; "British clogs". It can be renamed of course. The same with Swedish clogs and Traeskor. Kind regards Berkh (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reasonable compromise. The problem with an English language encyclopedia is that the English word will tend to refer to the English (or American) instance, in this case clogs => English clogs, which doesn't fit Wiki's policies. I could nit-pick over English/British, but it is good enough for most readers. Were you to write the article in Dutch, then I suspect you would have a main article on "Klompen" pointing to sub articles on "Clogs" for the English form and "Klompen(Nederlands)". Please excuse my approximation to the Dutch language, errors are entirely due to my ignorance! Martin of Sheffield (talk)
That is an interesting question! In the Netherlands we call Swedish fashion clogs, "Zweedse klompen". We can not buy your English clogs. With the word "clogs" Dutch people refer to woman´s high heeled shoes, especially when the make a lot of low-toned noise and look sturdy. Often the wood-ones. So for the Dutch Wikipedia I would suggest "Engelse klompen" for your clogs. You are doing fine with Dutch! What can be difficult for English speaking people is that Dutch people like to use English words, but with a slightly different explanation. The Rihanna n*gga-b*tch gate is a good example. Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, not "Engelse klompen". We don´t see your clogs as "klompen". For us they are "schoenen", shoes. The dictionary defines "klompen as "footwear consisting of a hollowed piece of wood, wooden shoe". "Clogs" or "English Clogs" is better for the Dutch Wikipedia. Kind rgerads, Berkh (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I've just tidied up the citations/notes a little where there was duplication, and have used the templates. At the moment two forms of citation are used, some are in the notes section and some in the references. I would like to seek concensus to move all citations to the references section keeping the notes section for notes and page numbers (see for example De Boer-Olij). If there are no objections I'll try and do it next week. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A text should use a uniform reference system and not mix up different styles. Dutch surnames with tussenvoegsels often cause confusion. In The Netherlands and in Belgium different rules are used for listing surnames with tussenvoegsels. A Dutch reference is: "Boer-Olij, T. de, ...". Belgians write it as: "De Boer-Olij, T., ...". As I understand the Wikipedia page about "tussenvoegsels", in English the Belgian style is used. Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the heads up about the surnames. Are T. De Boer-Olij and John de Greef Dutch or Belgian, or would you advise adopting the familiar (to English readers) Belgian style uniformly? Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both are Dutch. So both in The Netherlands as in Belgium the tussenvoegsels in both names should be written in lowercase. A lot of Dutch people are not aware of this difference. In this English text the International system overrules all Dutch-Belgian nitpicking. So the tussenvoegsels should be written with a capital. Not mentioned in the Wikipedia page is the (not to common) custom of emigrated Dutch and Belgians who make the tussenvoegsel a part of the name. This is especially the case with the tussenvoegsel "van" and "van de". For example "Jan van der Berg" (Dutch), or Jan Van der Berg (Belgian) into: "Jan Vanderberg" (American). This to preserve the complete name and to avoid continuous misunderstandings. Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to start a editwar about this. But you really do not see them that often in the netherlands. In rural areas some old people still wear them. But usage of clogs isn't really widespread. If you see them there is usually a history reinactment or other tourist like act in town. That and farmers. But less then one percent of the dutch population is a farmer (and the amount is dropping every day). (My edit got reverted by another dutch user) Soyweiser (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gents, I've been watching this one but as an Englishman I have little input on the facts. Perhaps I might help with the phrasing though? AIUI:
clogs are sold as tourist gifts
they are worn in rural areas, particularly by farmers
they are rarely worn in towns
they are geographically widespread even if uncommon.
If this assessment is correct then perhaps phrasing it as: "... sold as tourist gifts but are still occasionally worn as practical footware throughout the Netherlands. They are more likely to be worn in farming communities than elsewhere."
Alternatively, and it would be my preference, stop at "... leather shoes" and put the rest of the information on the Klomp page. HTH, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Soyweiser, Clogs are indeed not used that much in The Netherlands anymore. But there is no need to present it as a folkloristic rural relic. Clogs, or klompen are still popular among farmers, market gardeners and gardeners everywhere in The Netherlands. Sometimes you have to search for them, but clogs are sold in villages and cities in tool shops, garden centres and of course by the Blokker Holding. In touristic cities as Amsterdam, Alkmaar etc they are sold as tourist gift. This touristic clog business gives the impression that it is all fake. My experience is that you indeed do not see them that often, but a lot of people do have a pair somewhere, which they do use sometimes for some reason, mostly at home. According to Wiedijk: "3 million pairs of wooden shoes leave our [Dutch] factories each year. It is true that a large proportion leaves the country as souvenirs, but there is a tendency to wear them as well. Approximately 1 million Dutch people still wear clogs regularly" (Wooden shoes of Holland (2000), p. 25). Therefore I stand by the current text. If you want, I can add this as annotation. Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is that you see them almost never. If you see them is is mostly because people use them as decorative objects. Sure I own a pair of them. Nice decorative ones I made when I was very young at some sort of museum. If your 1 million number is correct 1 in 16 people should wear them regularly. Most of the real life people I know are dutch. (Some would say, all the people I know IRL ;) ). I never see anybody wear them, outside of reinactment or tourist attractions. (Which should be enough information to disprove the whole "sold and worn throughout the Netherlands." statement). I see them perhaps once a year. And then it is a WTF moment. This book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wooden-Shoes-Holland-Fr-Wiedijk/dp/9071816125/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348645543&sr=1-1 does not seem that reputable to me. And as it is published by Kooijman Souvenirs & Gifts it looks like a not so neutral book to me. More of a "Wij van wc-eend ..." situation. (Dutch joke, bit hard to explain). (Publisher according to: http://books.google.nl/books/about/Wooden_Shoes_of_Holland.html?id=B7G7YgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y)
If you compare the English pages on clogs or klompen on the dutch ones, you see a different picture. The dutch ones focus on the past. None of this "we still wear them a lot today" bs. You actually had the same fight there. The other dutch people seem to agree with me. It is a folkloristic relic. Are you sure you have a neutral point of view? Do you work for the Internationaal Klompenmuseum? (If you do, it is hard to switch from the dutch site to the english one. You might want to tell the maintainers of the website that. If you hit the dutch site as an English speaker you cannot switch). If you do not. Nevermind then.
But feel free to leave it in. The least it will do is give the dutch visitors of this page something to laugh and smile about. Soyweiser (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've bee WP:BOLD. I have moved some Dutch-specific material to Klomp (please feel free to modify or discuss it there). I have brought up one image of each main type of clog as an illustration to help the reader, and referenced the same in the text. Generally I feel this page should just define what clogs are and point the reader to the specific types and countries elsewhere. Berkh (and to a lesser extent myself) spend quite some time making this an introduction and sorting out any Anglo-Dutch war! :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like artin suggestion for adapting the page of 21 September best. I think three large pictures on top make readers focus on that and not on the gallery pictures below. I think studying the gallery is more informative. Then about neutrality. The clog page is neutral written. There is a small general introduction about European history and usage. I don´t think it is neutral to highlight one clog in a folkloric way and the others not. It is better to leave it to something as: "Dutch poplar klompen". Further I am not affiliated with the wooden shoe museum. I live not to far away and visited it November last year for the first time. I am an historian interested in Dutch history and came to the realization that this symbol of Dutch culture does not get the attention it deserves. There are hardly any books about clogs. In contrast to for example windmills. Most of them are hard to get detailed in depth books for clogs in a region. Only one book exist for clogs in Europe (Tet de Boer). Wiedijk is a small introduction used mainly for tourism. I got the book and must say that as an historian I am jealous. I think it is very good. The passage about one million users is in the chapter about the machine made clog clog. This chapter is clearly written with knowledge of the present day industry. I think that the million clog wearers is what the clog industry considers as the present day internal market. The Dutch Wikipedia page focuses on Dutch clogs only. This English clog page is a page about clogs worldwide. There is no Dutch equivalent of this page. Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin; yes we've got some history in common ... Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clogs in Belgium are called sabot (French) and klomp (Dutch). In the Ardennes there is a model that can not be found in French nor in The Netherlands. What to do with a redirect to clogs from Belgium? A redirect to a page for Belgium clogs, or a redirect to French sabot and Dutch klomp? I prefer a page for Belgian clogs alone. Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Berkh. I noticed that the new picture of Belgian sabots had been put up, but the link was to the type of sabot used in guns! I corrected it to sabot (shoe) and then saw that sabot (shoe) only mentioned France. Clearly they are the same sort of footware, so since the page is "sabot (shoe) not sabot (France) I modified it slightly. I've then been chasing up the galoshes/pattens link. Might I suggest that sabot (shoe) remains as it is to deal with a particular design and instead the gallery picture is changed to "[[klomp|Klompen]] or [[sabot (shoe)|sabots]] from [[Belgium]]" ("Klompen or sabots from Belgium").
You mention a different model in the Ardennes, what is in the picture? If the picture is of a type common to The Netherlands, Belgium and France then we don't need another article. If the picture is of the Ardennes style klomp/sabot then a new article is needed.
As a general point, is there any structural difference between a klomp and a sabot? If not then it might be worth combining the two under klomp and setting sabot to be a redirect. I'll bow to your judgement here, I'm no expert on these whole foot types. If there is a structural difference, then both articles need a bit more of an explanation about the difference, and then we can judge the Belgian one! Kind regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Martin. The galoshes is a great find. I've seen the page once, but failed to see the relation. According to European wooden shoes from Tet de Boer, there are two types of Belgian clogs. The "kloefen" or "blokken" in the east of Flanders. They look like something in between Dutch en French (Normandy and Brittan) clogs. The picture of the French clog on this page is a Normandy/Brittan clog. Besides that there are distinct models in the Vosges, the Pyrenees and central France. In Spain you also got different types, see the Spanish Albarca page. In The Netherlands there is also another type, one with a leather strip on top. The other Belgian type is the Wallonian "walekes" or "klepperkes". The clogs of the picture are of this type.
So there are different types per country. It is possible to make a page for each type, but I think it is more user friendly to follow a structure of a (compilation) page per country. To avoid misunderstandings with Belgian clogs it is maybe an idea to rename them in "blokken"? I searched Google with the Belgian type names, but the don't give results. The Dutch klomp page however uses the word "holleblokken" for male clogs and "klompen" for female clogs. With that (working) name Belgian clogs would have a name of their own. It could prevent misunderstandings with Dutch klompen and French sabots? What do you think? Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to keep WP:RF in mind. What does a 14 year old South American boy who has heard of clogs want to know? First he needs to know what defines a clog, and I think that the main page does that reasonably. Next he is curious about the different types, so looks at the gallery - good. He than sees that there are a number of named types: clogs, klompen, sabots, geta, paduka etc and clicks on an interesting syle. I don't think we need too much proliferation of pages, just one for each of the main styles concentrating on the most significant prototype and explaining variants. A good page that draws attention to detail is of more use that a plethora of poor pages, some of which are red links. The geographic information is interesting but on a continent such as Europe where political boundaries have changed a lot it can be misleading. After all, when the klomp was developed it was in the Spanish Netherlands. :-o Even England is not exempt from this, if our clogs are as old as is supposed, then we were a Roman province at the time, certainly later part of France - perhaps clogs = sabots!
To sum up, I would suggest that klomp concentrates on Dutch design as the most significant form, with reference to nearby variants. A good idea from the next village (over the border) is of more interest to a farmer than a remote capital city. Sabot should refer to all sabots, comparing them to klompen and again being flexible with the border.
I do think that I will update the main page however, there are a significant number of intermediate forms where the toes are covered in wood but a strap passes over the foot, such as the Wallon type (if I've understood corectly). I would regard these as a form of whole foot due to the manufacturing methods, but in some ways are intermediate. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Section 1 of the main page updated. Let me know what you think. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That are good remarks about user friendliness! But we should not forget that the structure of using the word clog in the different national languages is simply a tool to create some user friendly order in regional chaos. And that the knowledge about different (national/regional) clogs models is not available yet on the English Wikipedia. The red links and poor national pages are possibly not user friendly, but they also serve as a signal that there is (way) more and as an invitation to people who do know to add it.
You are sure right that you can see clogs with a leather as a distinct meta model. However the OED definition does not give room for a 4th model. Maybe it is an idea to split the definition of "whole feet" clogs in something as "compleet wood" and "half open with leather streps" ? Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Belgium is clearly an exception in the followed system. It has no language of its own. French speaking Belgians call them sabots en Dutch speaking Belgians klompen. All the other words are dialect. Further in Ardennes, which is Belgium, there is a distinct model. I think it is not user friendly to use a system of European countries, except Belgium. Further I think it is not objective not to give Belgium a page of its own, when you use a system of countries. So we have a problem. I think I would like to keep the description as it is now. The model from the Ardennes is the most distinct model in Belgium and in the Ardennes they speak french. So een interwiki ]]Sabot (Belgian)[[ Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found a nice Belgian website with pictures of Belgian clogs. It says there are a lot of different (dialect) names for klompen. He uses the word "kloefen" frequently. Also for the Wallonian model. Kloefen!? See the data 10/10/2010. http://www.bloggen.be/everbeek/archief.php?ID=1057338 Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Clog (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The OED definition given- refers to the online version.
Clog (noun)
a. A wooden-soled overshoe or sandal worn (chiefly by women) in some localities, to protect the feet from wet and dirt.
b. A shoe with a thick wooden sole protected by a rim of metal, worn in the north. [Probably the name belongs originally to the thick wooden sole alone: compare clog v. 9]
which is different to that used on the page. I don't see that this gives a full international overview.
The next section which analyses the versions is without reference- does anyone know its source? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked up the online OED entry for clog:
1. A thick piece of wood; a short piece of the trunk, or of a large root, of a tree; a block, clump.
The section you quote is meaning 6. Does not the single sentence:
The Oxford English Dictionary[1] defines a clog as a "thick piece of wood", and later as a "wooden soled overshoe" and a "shoe with a thick wooden sole".
I am afraid the subdivision is just made up. For example the wooden upper clogs into: the whole foot clogs and the half open clogs. This against all Wikipedia regulations of not presenting your own research ... This simply because there is -so far- no literature known about clogs in a bigger than national perspective. Except the book of De Boer-Olij, T. (2002), European Wooden Shoes. Their History and Diversity. Kind regards Berkh (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Not really a problem- just a challenge. A little rewording- and some deeper research and references will appear. It may take a little longer to get this one to FA though! -- Clem Rutter (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the link on Trefor Owen page to a distantly remembered poem- Mi clogs. and Mr Google found this for me dunkerley-tuson dialect poems not only the poem- but the illustrations of the pivot knives. Now Tefor's page may help with the reference above. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Clem Rutter, Nice find, the Trefor Owen page. He clearly distinguish clogs into wooden upper, wooden soled and overshoes. He gives a nice overview of clogs worldwide. Why do you say it was retrieved on June 2012?
Further, I must admit the poem in dialect goes beyond my understanding of the English language. I like the rythm though. For me, looking with binoculars from the Netherlands this is typical English. Or Welsh? Something. Typical United Kingdoms. That is a neutral word, that don't make me step on toes. Berkh (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Clog. 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:
@Fuzheado: Do you have a citation for the change? I notice that the Turkish WP uses this same image on tr:Türk_ve_İslam_Eserleri_Müzesi and tr:Sedef_kakma and on both pages refers to them as Takunya. The Slovakian sk:Drevák and Danish da:Træsko WPs also use the image under the name Takunya, but since I think their articles are a traslation from the English WP, that is not suprising. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, here's the source I used for this but it would be good to have a more definitive answer. Seems that there is a distinct difference between nalin and takunya - [1]. "Today, instead of the Nalın, wooden slippers called “Takunya” are worn in both new and historical Turkish baths. Takunya are lower-height wooden bathing clogs." -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me on this. There's not a lot on the internet, but what there is seems to support Dörtbaş. I've been rooting around on Wikicommons and patching up categories. I think there is enough now to put together a small article on "Turkish clogs" which will cover takunya, nalin and even mention the plastic slippers. There appear to be plenty of free images of Nalin but few of Takunya, indeed, the only ones I've seen are at the foot of Dörtbaş's page on which copyright is claimed. It's lunchtime in the UK, so I may get started this afternoon. Once I have a basic article hammered out I'll update the main clogs gallery to point to it. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuzheado: I've got a stub organised, see Turkish clogs. I've also redone your original takunya -> nalin change, as well as linking the image to Turkish clogs. I've been looking for an alternative to Dörtbaş, simply to avoid charges of just using a single source. Have you any more sources that can be quoted? Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An IP user has posted merge tags at the top of Sabot (shoe) and here. The IP has not created a discussion topic nor provided a rationale other than the edit summary: "The Dutch clog is not called sabot but klomp. Via the language links to other wikipedias, clog links to the correct french page, not this one." on the Sabot page and "Sabot is just french for clog". I do not believe that this merge suggestion is in bad faith, so I've created this section to open the discussion.
Keep - the structure of Clog and related terms has been evolved over the last decade to cater for different types, languages and nationalities. The structure holds together as a whole. I'll accept that some of the types referenced may be short, but bringing them all together would create an indigestible mess. Bringing just some for the benefit of a foreign language Wiki is not really our remit and leads to a fractured, chaotic style. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
do not merge - the word is in current (or at least 20th century) use in Canada as the word for shoe. I, at least, find it interesting as a reflection of the origin of most settlers in New France. I would also be willing to bet money that if somebody were to dig, the would find that French and Dutch sabots were somewhat different. In English, I associate the word “clog” with a covered backless shoe rather like a bedroom slipper. A sabot onthe other hand is, in France, specifically a wooden shoe worn by peasants. For what it is worth, that’s the linguistic nuance, and I think it is worth noting.Elinruby (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In English, I associate the word 'clog' with a covered backless shoe", I think that must be regional rather than linguistic. In England "clogs" are either English style clogs or Dutch klompen, which agrees with the OED definition as a "wooden soled overshoe" and a "shoe with a thick wooden sole". However since the 1960s (or thereabouts) Swedish träskors were sold under the DrScholl brand, and I suspect those are what you are thinking of. They were seen as new and exotic and, being Swedish, somewhat sexy. See Clog (British), Morris dance, Träskor and Clog danceet seq. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing, given the consensus not to merge, the French sabot being sufficiently distinctive to warrant separate discussion. Klbrain (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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: not moved. Aside from being a majority, the opposition invokes WP:SINGULAR, which is part of Wikipedia's naming policy. Favonian (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clog → Clogs – The article itself refers to them exclusively in the plural, and most sources I found about the shoes refer to them exclusively in the plural. This seems to be a rare situation where the plural is the more common term. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise there are a couple of places in the article where the singular is used. It is exactly the same as shoe, due to the fact that most people have two feet they tend to have two shoes or clogs. Indeed shoes is a redirect to shoe. Unless there is a good reason this does seem a little pointless IMHO. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The same argument would hold for shoe, mitten, sock, glove and other things that come almost always in pairs. For consistency we should not change this one either. Arnoutf (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me of that the next time I put on my eyeglass and jean, and then cut the tag off with a scissor. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a close call, but I think the plural title would be better in this particular case. In my mind, this is very similar to Flip-flops. The singular makes me think of something changing their position, but the plural makes me think of shoes. When I hear "clog" I think of something like a clog in a pipe, but when I hear "clogs" I think of the shoes. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the title 'Flip-flops' is probably a better disambiguation for something that may not be considered the primary topic at Flip-flop. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think comparison with jeans and glasses is flawed as those objects are undividable (eyeglasses are different from a set of monocles). Flip-flops is closer but I think there the issue is that to cause the onomatopoeia working (i.e. the sound flip...flop...) you always need both of them (to avoid the problem of the sound of a single hand being clapped), so I would argue it is not that similar at all. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this isn't like scissors or handcuffs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As I sit here I have a clog (singular) on my left foot (singular). I have another clog (singular) on my right foot (singular). That is, I have a pair of clogs (plural) on my pair of feet (plural). Now, unless you are an historical re-enactor, you will never have a trouser and are unlikely to wear a glass (ie monocle). A clog is a single identifiable object, therefore that is the appropriate main heading. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have nominated the few plural footwear articles for moves. If you care, please discuss these moves here. — AjaxSmack 05:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Come in pairs. Almost invariably referred to in the plural. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 11 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.
@Shubjt: - "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet", in other words you can call anything by any name, but it doesn't alter what it is. As the article clearly says in the first line "Clogs are a type of footwear made in part or completely from wood", The first line under §Types quotes the OED: "The Oxford English Dictionary defines a clog as a "thick piece of wood", and later as a "wooden soled overshoe" and a "shoe with a thick wooden sole". Now if some random manufacturer wants to call their plastic shoes clogs, then only US Government (Federal Trade Commission?) can stop them. However, a random misleading advertising claim has no place in an encyclopaedia which aims to present reliable, citable article. Put simply, plastic is not wood, crocs are not clogs.
Turning briefly to another point. Please have a read of WP:BRD. If you add a fact (Bold), and it is Reverted, then the next step is to Dicuss, not to edit war, which is why I haven'e re-reverted you. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(My appologies for not following BRD. I wasn't aware of it)
The article on crocs says Crocs, Inc. is an American footwear company that manufactures and markets the Crocs brand of foam clogs. And a lot of sources call crocs as a type of clog: [2][3][4][5]][6]. Maybe the article description needs to be updated.
Fair point, I've edited the Crocs article to mention that they do not meet the description of traditional clogs whatever Crocs want to call them. Unless challenged manufactueres will call their products all sorts of things, consider the "unsinkable" Titanic or "Mild As May" Marlboro cigarettes. I've also edited the photo description to explain that this is simply advertising spin. Hope you're happy with that. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
.jpg)