This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fashion Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should this be moved to the singular, or kept plural because shoes come in pairs? Michael Hardy 02:21, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've always heard them referred to in the plural by other ppl ... and I've refered them to the plural (when I use to wear them all the time) ... I think they are listed @ shoe companies in the plural ... and the request page had them listed as plural. So I'd keep them here, unless someone else post a reason not to ... reddi 02:49, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree that plural is better in this case. I've made a redirect from penny loafer to be on the safe side. --Camembert

This is not a photo of loafars. Those are oxford, otherwise known as lace up shoes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.176.42 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 November 2005

Please provide a photo of loafers. -Pgan002 (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that my image suits the requirments. I may be wrong.--Normal Phobic (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed the picture. Let me know what you think. Blowcarrot (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian style shoe appears to be a non-penny loafer. Once the dictionary citations are removed, most of the rest of the article would fit here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, I'm open to the concept. However, I would like to see "Venetian style shoe", particularly Wikipedia's history and all the edits (which where primarily done by me) remain logged within WIkipedia's database. This could be accomplished with a simple redirect to loafer. I would like to point out that the term "loafer" was added to Venetian Shoe because of some commercial website "common appelation". (I guess that could still be clarified in the article even if it's merged or not) The proper term, I believe is shoe. Furthermore, I would hate to the disapearance of the etymological section. I would be more willing to accept a merger if this article "loafer" developed an etymological section. Then we would be able to compare both items to better evaluate a merger. Therefore, I'm not quite ready to see this merged into the article loafer. Mind you, I do agree that if we removed, the dictionary citation (or facts), most of the rest of the article would fit here. But, again, I'd like to see the etymological section developed in the "loafer" article prior to further discussions of merger. (p.s: I'll see what I can do) --CyclePat (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that a loafer is worn in a formal situation appears to contradict the current Venetian Style Shoe which is more of a casual "Friday" shoe. (But then again I guess this dilema could be expressed in one article) --CyclePat (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As we're not discussing a delete option any more, the history, no matter how convoluted, will remain available. However, the etymological section requires a scholarly reference, rather than a dictionary or encyclopedia, to be considered for inclusion.

(Appropriate for the merge discussion, rather than in the article). We've noted that some manufactures define "loafer" to include both "penny loafers" and "venetian style shoes". That does need to be properly included in this article as part of the merge. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I was going to say that again. I need to pay attention to what I already said.) Some people define "loafer" as including "non-penny" loafers, such as the "venetian style shoe" (as noted by User:CyclePat in that article. That needs to be here, whether or not the article is merged, but I don't see a clear reference there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest including the etymology of the expression itself (does it perhaps come from Laufer, a German expression for "running (around)"?) while excising unreferenced statements a la and this is considered 'the sexy look' and such.

• • • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.76.179 (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt productive at all, but purely for aesthetic's sake, could we not find some more attractive loafers. I think the 5 year-old girl who lost her's is still looking for them you know! haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.173.27 (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think we should shoot for classic penny loafers, which are the kind of loafers most people are familiar with.Blowcarrot (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Image has been changed, I think this is much better image than before. Also is this bottom photo section necessary? We already have a photo section at the top of the page.Blowcarrot (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the dictionary, "Loafer" as it refers to shoes is a trademark name. A USPTO search indicates that the trademark on "Loafer" was filed for by A.E. Nettleton Company on September 4, 1937, having first been used in commerce earlier that year: "(EXPIRED) IC 025. US 039. G & S: LADIES', MEN'S, AND BOYS' SHOES MADE OF LEATHER, RUBBER, FABRIC, AND VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF SUCH MATERIALS. FIRST USE: 19370201. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19370201" [i.e., February 1, 1937]. The trademark is expired, so the term has entered the public domain and the shoe can properly be referred to on Wikipedia in lowercase, but I think, unless prior use of the term "loafers" as applied to shoes can be confirmed prior to the dates claimed, the article should note the origin of the term. Robert K S (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a few dubious statements, and flagged up a few more. The first couple of paragraphs are just about believable, though unsourced, but the last two are very questionable. There is a heavy emphasis on wearing no socks, which strikes me as vile, and not at all common. The association between lawyers and loafers is also extremely bizarre, since lawyers would normally be connected with smart dressing (I am convinced loafers are not permitted at the bar — totally incongruous with a suit and detachable collar). I left the statement because there must be some grain of truth in it, as it is too bizarre just to invent. —Kan8eDie (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reference article that makes it sound as though the lawyer reference is accurate, including a US Presidential candiate using it that way from back in the early 1990's. [1] BroThadeus (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks. This is another US/UK divide. It seems lawyers in America dress very differently to over here. I will use that good source in the article, when I get around to editing it and working in the material from books I have got (maybe later this week). —Kan8eDie (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kan8eDie -- I'm sorry to tell ya, but wearing loafers without socks is far from vile, its very common in America, particularly among the "preppy", I'd say especially those on the eastern seaboard, and of course on college campuses. I do it quite often, especially with khakis, and I can't think of anyone who wears them with socks, especially in the summer. It's not vile at all, docksiders are also worn sans-socks. (sorry I don't have a user name yet, but I'm working on it.) 71.187.205.25 (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that; this is a personal opinion, and has hence not been put in the article (though I still stand by the idea that wearing any shoes without socks is indeed vile). I have some refs, and plan to come along and clear this up sometime, in maybe a couple of week's time when I should have some more free time. I would not abandon an article after coming along and littering it with ugly tags, it is just that real-world stuff comes much higher on my todo list. Rest assured, I am more generally aware what Americans wear, whether I personally would or not (more so than I was when I first came to the article, as shown by post above!). —Kan8eDie (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not suggesting that you were going to add your personal opinion, just wanted to back up the previous posters - that it is done, and done quite often. I can't even speculate as to the origin, Docksiders are worn without socks primarily because, when used for their original purpose (i.e. sailing) one wouldn't want to wear socks - you're just going to get them wet. Loafers probably were just a continuation of that trend. I'd like to find out for sure, and find some sources for that. I agree it is definitely a US trend, I probably would find it strange, if it hadn't been a tradition since I was very young. If you want to read more about the eccentricities of American dress (at-least the conservative / preppy kind) I'd recommend flipping through The Preppy Handbook by Lisa Birnbach, originally written as quite tounge-in-cheek, it has been taken seriously partially because although a parody, it's quite true i most respects. 204.52.215.112 (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this whole article obsessed with painting Britain as some kind of conservative paradise? As far as I'm aware, London is the kind of city where you can wear anything and not attract a glance? It may be true that businessmen don't wear loafers, I don't know, but making statements like 'more conservative locations such as Britain' and 'in America and less formal European countries, such as Italy' is just irrelevant, opinionated and frankly wrong. No-one I know could call America less conservative than Britain.

And what on earth is 'As with all American fashions, they are becoming more common in Britain' meant to mean? What a load of nonsense! Betong Åsna (talk) 03.46, 5 July 2009 (JST)

• There are a variety of spurious comments in this article. Part of the issue is, I think, that the general description of a "loafer" covers a broad range of actual shoe. From near moccasin style, suede shoes, through to casual shoes made of smooth leather, and finally polished dress shoes made with patent leather.--Koncorde (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have yet to hear of patent loafers. That sounds ghastly. Loafers are moccasin-style shoes, whereas pumps have a heel and wholecut top, so if you are thinking of those, I have covered them roughly in court shoes.— Kan8eDie (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just google images "Loafer Patent Leather" to see a variety such as thus: [2][3][4]. Like I said - the problem is that the word "loafer" covers more now than it was originally intended. Just as the phrase "slip-on" covers many more styles of shoes than the phrase loafer strictly does (and means different things between the sexes - with the vast majority of womens shoes being, generically, slip ons) - and the suggestion that loafers represent the "most common style" is a little american-o-centric. The venetian style shoe for instance blurs with the side gusset and with the moccasin and with the loafer. I myself wear a pair of soft leather loafers that nonetheless have a solid sole and heel similar to this "driving shoe": [5] but are actually from the "Smart Shoes" range here: [6]. In both cases these shoes (generally) have an elasticated top hidden by the upper, rather than gussets. Also as you can see the leather treatment varies quite a lot. They're also very popular and acceptable workwear even in "conservative" Britain :D The original definitive article of a loafer doesn't really match up to the products on display.--Koncorde (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced. It is pretty self-evident that the trend for the last half-century has been from west to east in clothing styles. Far from being a load of nonsense, nearly all the clothes we wear today in Britain have come in from America, ranging from the now common T-shirts to casual blazers and jeans. 'Business casual' only started catching on in Britain in the eighties at the earliest, and is still only setting in many companies, with plenty of industries entirely untouched. Loafers are, I think undeniably, creeping in, and the attribution of that source to America is hardly far-fetched. There are quite a few broad generalisations in the article, but, broadly speaking, they hold up well.— Kan8eDie (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this edit (with summary "cleanup"). Firstly, it added no information to the article, consisting solely of a large amount of copy editing. Unfortunately, inaccuracy was introduced into nearly every paragraph, so I chose to revert the edit to prevent a muddle with the different bits of information. If the user wants to restore the stylistic changes, I suggest adding them more slowly so that they can be considered more easily. Examples of sloppy phasing introduced:

¶1:Loafers were introduced as informal shoes (casual was correct)

¶2:Side-gusset shoes not designed "as laced Oxfords" (original "same shape but lacking laces" correct)

¶4:"Weejuns ... to denote a quality product" OR

¶4:"lozenge perforated" implies many holes; "with a diamond cutout" is clumsy but accurate

¶5:quote marks added to sentence with ref at end, but text is not a quote (so misleading; Flusser never calls loafers "dress shoes")

— Kan8eDie (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request a move to Loafer page. While originally of Norweigian manufacture - albeit employing a North American Native American moccasin design - the "loafer" is fundamentally an American shoe and an American style; the term "slip-on" is more generic, and applies to forms of other shoe styles, such as a slip-on Court shoe; moreover, "Loafer" is the terminology employed by Wikipedia classification of Men's dress shoe styles. Thus "Slip-on" is anomolous, not internally consistent within Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you moved to loafer, you would have to split the article up, as loafers are just one part of the subject. The individual parts would then be very short—a few sentences; short enough to qualify for a merger straight away. Terms are used consistently within WP, as the subsection of this page called 'loafers' really is describing the same set of shoes as that in the classification article. Your point about making the court shoe and slip-on shoe articles harmonious is very good though.— Kan8eDie (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Slip-on" seems more like pidgin, thus is more appropriate for Wikipedia. 68.0.16.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old discussion, but I feel like 'loafer' might be a more appropriate name for this article. The article leaves out vast swaths of types of shoes that could be called "slip-ons" (ex. ballet flats, slip-on sneakers, most women's shoes) and already seems more like just an article about loafers — Windysmile (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this article looking for the etymology of "penny loafers". It is mentioned, but isn't really clear. A photo of an actual 1950s shoe with a penny in it would really help... 05:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The article states that Michael Jackson brought the classic loafer into fashion. First, the statement itself claims the loafers were "classic". Also, Thriller wasn't released until late 1982. The loafer was definitely a part of the total look if one was imitating Jackson during this phase, but the shoes were already popular in preppy fashion. I suggest the statement be removed, as it has little bearing on the shoe itself. Other thoughts? Leatherwing (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits includes claim that the first loafer was introduced in England before the Aurland factory marketed their design. Let us not rush to conclusion but look at sources and definitions before we make a definite statement. THanks. --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The company webpage says the "Wildsmith was founded in 1847", but does not say clearly that their loafer was introduced the same year. Please help out clarify this issue. --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nettleton Shoe Company claims to have developed the original loafer in 1924, and held the trademark for the word “Loafer”.^[1] Dgnelson (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Slip-on shoe. 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/20131019195708/http://www.wildsmith.com/history to http://www.wildsmith.com/history
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110129060330/http://www.aurlandskoen.no/historikk/ to http://www.aurlandskoen.no/historikk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• White ballerina shoes.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are Slip-on shoes different from Moccasins? Meridiana solare (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mj moonwlk toe stand motown 83.gif

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]