Talk:Bunny boots

If anybody knows who the manufacturer/ers is/are, please add it to the page. Bata/Miner were the rubber black then white version. The Original U.S. Army military bunny boots were leather uppers with double buckles, with felt lowers and hard leather soles(very slippery on ice and snow. My dad gave them to me. He wore them in the 1940s during the war. I wore the same pair in the 1960s. They had felt boot liners. Richard Thies Fairbanks, Alaska — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.158.235 (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bunny boots. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150507183856/http://www.bata.com:80/blog/flashback-bunny-boots-bata/ to http://www.bata.com/blog/flashback-bunny-boots-bata/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅L3X1 (distant write)  14:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

First clearly written entry in some time.
I saw all the flags about weasel words and personal opinion and had to vent that it was the first article in many weeks that was clearly informative without requiring a specific education above the level of the entry (in such case wouldn't be reading the entry). It would be great to expand it more, add details of construction for instance, but AFTER the simple yet satisfyingly explanatory answer. Too much of the value of Wikipedia is lost when they are overly complex or (my NOT favorite) have links for unfamiliar terms that lead in a circle back to the entry you're reading to explain itself but doesn't (electronics pages fun for that).Whinestein (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Bunny boot toe wedges
I have never seen toe wedges on bunny boots in pictures or in real life. 2600:100E:B132:ED42:0:56:4375:1501 (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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. The main point of discussion here was whether the proposed moves were preferable under WP:SINGULAR. Supporters of the moves stated that WP:SINGULAR should apply here. Opponents of the moves highlighted the more detailed guidance in WP:PLURAL, arguing that the prevalence of plural naming for footwear would render the singular names as awkward, unnatural titles. Neither of these arguments seem to have been more persuasive than the other. WP:CONSISTENT was also raised in support of the move, but its utility for this discussion was challenged by other participants in the RM. Ultimately, no consensus emerged from the discussion.It bears note that galoshes and bespoke shoes also attracted individualized opposition, separate from the more general discussion. This opposition did not introduce new policy-based arguments beyond what was discussed in the overall RM, however, so my "no consensus" finding applies there too. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

– per WP:SINGULAR, the practice with most footwear article titles at Wikipedia, and consistency with parent or sibling articles (WP:TITLECON) in most cases (cf. shoe, boot, slipper, stiletto heel, combat boot, moccasin, mule (shoe)). (Plus, use of the plural is a little insensitive to people with one foot or leg.) A similar proposal for sock articles is here. —  AjaxSmack 05:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Bunny boots → Bunny boot
 * Abaca slippers → Abaca slipper
 * Cantabrian albarcas → Cantabrian albarca
 * Cavalier boots → Cavalier boot
 * Clear heels → Clear heel
 * Galoshes → Galosh
 * Bespoke shoes → Bespoke shoe
 * Thigh-high boots → Thigh-high boot
 * Oppose Galoshes move. I've never heard of that referred to in the singular and "galosh" sounds very unnatural to me. I think WP:PLURAL applies to that one at least: "Articles on items such as scissors or handcuffs are not located at awkward, unnatural titles like scissor or handcuff." Rreagan007 (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Galosh" is used often enough even when the plural would be better. Not including the Mikhail Zoshchenko short story. Scissors and handcuffs are pluralia tantum that are grammatically plural for a single item.  (I suppose you could have one handcuff, but with the resulting loss of utility, it would be unencyclopedic.)  Not the same as a pair of separable items like shoes or lovers. —  AjaxSmack  18:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. ''' YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's moccasin etc. that are odd. In ictu oculi (talk)
 * Support. WP:SINGULAR is quite clear here. VQuakr (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per IAR. While, technically, I would agree that WP:SINGULAR is applicable, the resulting singular titles would read somewhere between "slightly odd" and "weird", therefore failing WP:NATURALNESS The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Note that all titles in Footwear are plural, and most footwear articles already begin with formulations such as "Foo boots" are a style of boots. On the other hand, I acknowledge that we currently lack consistency, but I wish we would codify an exception to WP:SINGULAR here rather than to apply it blindly. No such user (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But changing to A "Foo boot" a style of boot sounds just as natural to me. I don't see any need to invoke IAR to avoid sounding dumb. Many but not all titles in the footwear template currently are plural, so even within the template it is currently inconsistent. VQuakr (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't know. Still sounds kind of stretched to me to invoke singular, when any book about shoemaking would use a plural title. Perhaps not as bad as a potato chip, though. But I do feel strongly about not moving bespoke shoes, since it's not about style but about classification. You really cannot purchase and wear a single bespoke shoe. No such user (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

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.
 * Oppose. Come in pairs. Usually referred to in the plural. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per those above, since boots come in pairs. BD2412  T 20:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So do shoe! YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not all come in pairs; nb walking boot. —  AjaxSmack 16:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is walking boot part of the nomination? No, it is not. BD2412  T 06:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither is shoe but precedent is a thing. YorkshireExpat (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per WP:SINGULAR. I arrived here while looking up "galoshes".  I am over 60 and have never, ever heard or read "galosh", singular, that I can recall; "galosh" is weird, as others noted above.  At issue here may be English v. American usage, however.  I suppose if I were putting on my galoshes, with one accomplished, I might say to my friend "Would you hand me that galosh, please?"...but me, personally, I would not - I would say "Hand me that, please" (pointing to the galosh).  The point being that instances of "galoshes", plural, are oodles more common than "galosh", singular.  Same as "shoe", actually, as evidenced by the number of usages of "shoe" v. "shoes" in that article itself.  But, to me, somewhere between "shoe" and "galoshes" a line is crossed - I don't object to the "shoe" article, singular, but do object to "galosh", singular.  Though, come to think of it, an article for "shoe" may have a different aim and content than an article for "shoes" - they are used in different contexts/purposes.  I looked up "trousers" and see that "trouser", singular, is also found ("These pants have a (style) trouser." [referring to the type of trouser, singular]); much like shoes/shoe, seems to me. Anyways, oppose. Bdushaw (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Should shoe and boot be moved to shoes and boots respectively, then, for consistency? —  AjaxSmack 16:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support that, yes. No such user (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No we should use the singular for those as well per WP:PLURAL.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no need for "consistency"; it seems an error to assume that. I note that if "Bunny boots" were changed to "Bunny boot", then sentences such as (from the article) "These boots were originally developed at the Navy Clothing and Textile Research Center ..." would seem to be required to change to: "The boot was originally developed at the Navy Clothing and Textile Research Center ...", etc.  Even the article's authors went with plural, as natural.  This name change could be a Pandora's box. Bdushaw (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would temporarily oppose and start an RFC about all footwear articles. We should be consistent and there are good arguments for each perspective. Red   Slash  19:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)