Talk:Patten (shoe)

A fact from Patten (shoe) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 April 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that pattens (pictured) were wooden-soled overshoes worn from the 14th to 19th centuries to raise the wearer above mud and dirt?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/April.

Wikipedia

Getas?[edit]

They're quite similar to geta, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 5 April 2007

Not really; you wear them over your normal shoes. But geta were often described as pattens by earlier Westerners in Japan & elsewhere in Asia. Johnbod 02:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for future article expansion[edit]

The following completely unused "sources" were laundry listed in the bibliography section:

Arnold, Janet: Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd, W S Maney and Son Ltd, Leeds 1988. ISBN 0-901286-20-6
Ashelford, Jane. The Visual History of Costume: The Sixteenth Century. 1983 edition (ISBN 0-89676-076-6), 1994 reprint (ISBN 0-7134-6828-9).
Boucher, François: 20,000 Years of Fashion, Harry Abrams, 1966.
Kohler, Carl: A History of Costume, Dover Publications reprint, 1963, ISBN 0-486-21030-8
Laver, James: The Concise History of Costume and Fashion, Abrams, 1979
Payne, Blanche: History of Costume from the Ancient Egyptians to the Twentieth Century, Harper & Row, 1965. No ISBN for this edition; ASIN B0006BMNFS
Goubitz, O. et al. Stepping Through Time: Archaeological Footwear from Prehistoric Times Until 1800, Stichting Promotie Archeologie 2001. Reprinted 2007 in Paperback

Kindly restore them to the article only once they're actually being used to source some of its information. Otherwise, we create the image of a well-sourced article and well-curated list where that may very much not be the case. (If adding back to the article as a #Further reading section... well, those are generally bad ideas but kindly add a note about what their particular value to the reader is.) — LlywelynII 01:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you haven't written any of the article until today (I think), you don't know what sources were used! Much of this is very old, before people did much in-line citing. I will let your WP:CITEVAR violations go, but your personal whims on what to call ref sections are too much - "bibliography" is always a bad idea. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]