Talk:Shoe size

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Fashion Portal This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of high-importance within fashion.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

I am missing information about precision in this article. For instance, in Norway, integer sizes are most common but there are also half sizes. The newly introduced Masai Barefoot Technology shoes are sold in 1/3 and 2/3 sizes as well. How common are half sizes in the U.S.? Are there third or quarter sizes? Darkride 06:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Shoe sizes differ all over Europe. The French shoe size is not the same as the German or the British. For example a foot with a length of 28 cm is a German 44 (= 44 times 1/4 of an inch = 44 x 0.635 cm = 27.94 cm) and a French 42 (42 times 2/3 of a cm = 42 x 0,6667 cm = 28 cm). Male and female sizes in Britain are identical. They differ from US sizes. A good an correct table is on the German wikipedia page under "Schuhgröße"

Why are UK male and female sizes quoted as being different? I've lived in the UK all my life and have never heard of a difference.

--

The table is wrong, or at least it certainly doesn't match the external link.

I also know that size 11 uk mens shoes are equivilant to a European 45. In the table given a size 11 uk mens shoe is a European 41. If I had trusted this article, my shoes would be too tight!

--Dumbo1 15:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have edited it based upon a webpage which gave what seemed like more reasonable UK-EU conversions. Not sure about the US sizes though, so I've taken as much as I can from both sources, but it still needs a bit of work. --NeilTarrant 20:57, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree - the UK information looks well and truly wrong. Moreover, if UK male and female sizes were different, then unisex footwear, e.g. house tenpin bowling shoes, would have to be double-labelled with male and female sizes. But the only size labelling I've ever seen on such things is of a single UK size and a single continental size. -- Smjg 18:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Where measures in proper units are given, the article should distinguish clearly between body dimensions (the length and width of a naked foot) and product dimensions (e.g., the length of the shoe's inner cavity, or the overall outer length of the shoe). There is an important difference between the two, because the inner cavity of a shoe must be at least 1–2 cm longer than the foot to ensure comfort. How much longer the shoe needs to be than the foot depends very much on the style of shoe. Is the cm length given in the table a body dimension or an article dimension (and in the latter case, which)? Note that in the Mondopoint system, the millimetre figure given is the length of the foot for which the shoe was designed. — Markus Kuhn 13:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since the ad-hoc sizes used in many countries are not properly standardized, there exist lots of different and conflicting conversion tables. It may be impossible to agree on a single authoritative one. It is therefore better to convert each ad-hock size into the range of foot lengths (in mm) for which that size is generally believed to be suitable. — Markus Kuhn 13:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Cleanup Tag 2 Last size versus foot size 3 INCHES 4 UK sizes (Again) 5 Sign!!!! ¡ ¿ [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] 6 Brazil 7 Paris points, not mm 8 Correct use of quantities and units in formulas 9 UK section disappeared 10 Complete change in US shoe width standard

[edit] Cleanup Tag

I've requested this article be cleaned - as the descriptions of sizes do not agree with the table (most notably the US men's sizes) and I am confident in the accuracy of neither. --Neo 14:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Canadian men's shoe sizes correspond to the British sizes, not American. I found out the hard way. Peter Horn 17:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last size versus foot size

The recent contribution on US foot sizes by Elembis contained the phrase "where the last is as long as the foot the shoe is designed to fit". This sounds very wrong to me. The last will always only be slightly shorter than the inner cavity of the resulting shoe, but that cavity must be at least a centimetre longer than the foot that goes into it, or it will hurt. Therefore, the last must always be at least a centimeter longer than the foot that the shoe should fit. Given that apparent misunderstanding, I wonder whether the U.S. formulas provided are really meant to refer to the "last length" or the "foot length". Any ideas? Markus Kuhn 14:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Details like the fact "that sizes are 3 times the last size minus a constant" are quaint and interesting, but are utterly useless to the average reader who will be sitting in their socks holding a ruler! I think the most useful information to readers isn't going be details about how shoe size relates to last size, but how shoe size relates to foot size. Most people will be measuring their feet with a ruler trying to order the right shoes.

Also it would be extremely helpful to get definitive information on how individual manufacturers' sizes relate to each other. I know I'm all talk and no action here (sorry), I'll try to get back into the article, when I find something usefull.

GFanslow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.56.121 (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] INCHES

shouldnt we put the number in inches next to the centemeter measurments

Only if we also do the opposite. Wikipedia is not only viewed by Americans, you know. Oh, yeah, and please sign your comments with "~~~~" (without the quotes).

--trlkly 14:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it's too late now, but

1. WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, and
2. "Conversions to and from metric and US units should generally be provided." (WP:Manual of style#Units of measurement)

Jobarts^-Talk 23:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK sizes (Again)

The UK female sizes are completely wrong - using that system I am a size 9-10, when I am actually a 4-5, In European sizes though, I am a 36 which is not far from the size I get using the formula (35)- Aoife

[edit] Sign!!!! ¡ ¿ [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]]

Regarding:

• AAAA, AAA, AA, A, B, C, D, E, EE, EEE, EEEE
• 4A, 3A, 2A, A, B, C, D, E, 2E, 3E, 4E
• N, R, W

what is "r", please?

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 13:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If N and W are narrow and wide, then R would be regular. 203.97.105.11 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil

Why is Brazil under Asia? 71.56.210.150 03:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Nate

Also, the article says that:

shoe length(cm) = 0.65 * foot length

If shoe length(cm) is 65% of foot length (presumably also cm) then my shoes will always be a 35% too short. What is the correct formula? 62.164.247.4 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Jim

[edit] Paris points, not mm

The size of european shoes is given as the size on the last in mm, times 3/2. That's ridiculous - its 10 times too large (or conversely, a size 45 would be for someone with feet 3cm long!). Shouldn't that be 'size on the last in cm times 3/2', or 'size on the last in paris points'.

Also this is inconsistent with the UK sizes. Converting EU size 45 via the formulas given gives a UK size 13. I wear size 45 & size 10; other tables I've seen give 45 & 10.5. So either the formulae are wrong, or the measurement used in the two cases is different, they can't both come from the size of the last. Bazzargh 15:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct use of quantities and units in formulas

When editing shoe-size formulas, please stick to the notational conventions defined in ISO 31-0 that are today universally used not only in the physical sciences and technology all around the world. A "last length" or "foot length" is just a physical quantity, that is the product of a unit length multiplied by the number of units. On the other hand, a "shoe size" label is a quantity of dimension 1, meaning it has no unit, something you get by dividing two lengths. Please do not write "last length in millimeters" or the like. Simply take "last length" as a physical quantity of dimension length and then add some length (in millimeters/inches/whatever) and divide the result by some length (in millimeters/inches/whatever) to end up with a shoe size of dimension 1 (i.e., no unit). We can assume that people know perfectly well how to add two lengths even if they were stated in different units originally (i.e., first converting all terms to the same unit scale), so you don't have to tell the reader explicitly what unit to use for the quantities listed in any of the formulas. This way, it is unimportant in which unit the "last length" was measured. It is just a physical length, not any particular number of units. Markus Kuhn 09:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct. It helps to consider what you just did as an equation for a 'physical length', say 30 cm, which you're trying to find without 'any particular number of units': (physical length) = 30cm. When you divide by 1 inch, you have to divide both sides, giving . You've just shuffled where the dimension was, not removed it. Shoe sizes are not dimensionless.

Removing the units from the measurement of the last only adds to the chaos - take a look at the Australian entry now, where it's missing. If I measure the last length in cm will that formula give me the right answer? What about inches? Bazzargh 12:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

With regard to calculating with quantities: surely, you will agree that the equation 2.54 cm = 1 in is true. Now divide both sides by 1 in and we get 2.54 cm / 1 in = 1, right? Therefore, you can multiply in your example the length 30 cm with the factor 1 (or equivalently with 2.54 cm / 1 in) without changing the value. Therefore 30 cm = 30 cm × 1 = 30 cm × (2.54 cm / 1 in) = (30 cm / 2.54 cm) × 1 in = (11.811) × 1 in = 11.811 in. Calculating with quantities is pretty simple, follows exactly the laws of basic algebra, and I would have thought that all this is standard secondary-school knowledge.

I see shoe-sizes as dimension-free numbers and not length quantities simply because a shoe-size 0 does not imply a foot, last, or shoe length of 0 mm. I think of them really as just a dimension-free ad-hoc scales (similar to pH in chemistry) that have no units, because you cannot convert between them simply by multiplying with 1 (as I have done above to convert 30 cm into 11.811 in). The offsets mess this up. The current Continental Europe formula does it correctly, whereas the Australian one is broken. Markus Kuhn 18:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK section disappeared

Shantelle88 (talk · contribs) has taken matters into his/her/its own hands by removing the long-disputed section. [1]

Considering the inaccuracies that have been reported on a few occasions, what should we do with this information? It would be good if we could find a UK-based expert on the subject to rewrite this section. -- Smjg (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Canadian men's shoe sizes correspond to the British sizes, not American. I found out the hard way. Peter Horn 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth my New Balance shoes were purchased in Canada and they have a tag indicating US 10 UK 9 1/2 EU 44 CM 28. It seems clear that either the shoe is incorrect in how these systems compare to each other or the article is.Zebulin (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I work at a Foot Locker in Canada. The sizing in Canada is the US size, not the UK size. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 05:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complete change in US shoe width standard

Sometime since the last pair of shoes that I bought, the shoe industry in the USA has gone berserk. The old A, B, C, D, Etc. width measures have been replaced by a relatively useless narrow, medium, wide measure with about 1/2 the number of choices. My guess is that 1/2 the people buying shoes can no longer find a pair that fits.

The article doesn't mention this catastrophe, nor does it appear to describe the new width scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.162.156 (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)