Talk:Smelly socks

Clean-up
Subsections should likely not have but one or two sentences. Perhaps re-organizing some of the material would help make it flow better? -- Banj e b oi   11:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The section headings are intended to be a framework upon which we may flesh out the content. I have done some work towards this - renaming and moving content as seems appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment
Colonel Warden, compared to your other and I might add "fine" work, this article just does not pass muster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.204.187.222 (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone is killed by malaria every minute and so the annual death toll is about a million. And there are hundreds of million of sufferers incapacitated by violent fever and chills.  This article now contains details of a notable development which may help reduce this carnage and suffering.  What is finer than this?  Colonel Warden (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Judgemental adjective in title
Isnt this frowned upon? wouldnt "sock odor", or "sweat soaked socks" be better? or perhaps a less judgemental term, like "odorous socks", since smelly is a judgement. i know, most people would say they are smelly, but who are we to judge? i know my cats like "smelly" shirts.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a move to Foot odour and socks would be appropriate - smelly is too casual a word to use in the title. Claritas §  07:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to comment in the merge discussion at Talk:Foot odor.  Snotty Wong   gab 14:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion it should be renamed to "stinky socks". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronautant (talk • contribs) 08:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"Odor" or "odour"
Currently we have "odor" and "odour" both. Per MOS:TIES, should the article be written in British or American English? Respectfully, RomaC  TALK 18:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:RETAIN, "the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted". I wrote the article in British English at the outset and so that is preferred as there are no national ties in this case, I suppose.  It seems best to mimimise use of the word in question so that our readership will not be overly distracted by the spelling issue.  Synonyms include scent, aroma, smell and stink.  Colonel Warden (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed it since the spelling "odor" is used in the name of the article as well as in most other articles that have odor in the title.  D r e a m Focus  19:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

As explained above, the spelling "odor" is not acceptable per WP:RETAIN. It is best to use the original title for the article as it is the WP:COMMONNAME and avoids the issue of US/British spelling variation. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Coincidence
I made a small edit here last month, and just hit on this article with the random button. coincidence...or something more?(mercurywoodrose)76.234.122.170 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Evil forces are surely conspiring against you. You may have demonic possession in your computer.  Be very afraid.   D r e a m Focus  05:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the funniest article i ever seen in wikipedia :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.146.210 (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wat?
Are you kidding, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.109.162 (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent source
here Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  17:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Silver socks and all other antiodor socks are inefficient?
Odor is not reduced even 50% and even the small benefit quickly goes away if microbes become resistant to silver. http://www.sterishoe.com/foot-care-blog/toenail-fungus-treatments/antimicrobial-socks/

ee1518 (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Potential infraction of Wikipedia’s general notability guideline
I’m concerned that this article is at odds with Wikipedia’s genera notability guideline. Should articles of this frivolous nature continue to stay up and garner the attention that this particular article has, it has the potential to open the gates for many more articles that aren’t in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies. Just my thoughts. What do you think about the matter? ZaneYatesWallach (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Genuinely baffling and disgusting that this article has made it through fifteen years of scrutiny about “notability” 2601:644:600:FF00:5508:8273:9BD:AAC9 (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)