Talk:Shoe size

src: ssli.ebayimg.com

Video Talk:Shoe size

Misc concerns

"Athletic shoes

That sizing chart is completely wrong.. Japan doesn't equal CM (as women and men have different Japan size with the same CM foot).. there's no UK men vs UK women.. what a joke --Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.129.111 (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I found this article confusing inthe extreme and hopeless for preparing to actually buy shoes. Hi-Tec, and I'm sure many manufacturers, provide conversion charts on their websites. For example 91.89.60.41 (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Martin Lord

Some makers of athletic shoes, such as Nike, Reebok, or Fila, use an increment of 5 mm instead of half a barleycorn (4.23 mm)[6]"

This information in incorrect, the cm in the tables are not accurate (they are commercial adaptations)

UK and US shoe sizes are hard to convert in to cm: US CM 0 9,948 0,5 10,371 1 10,794 1,5 11,217 2 11,641 2,5 12,064 3 12,487 3,5 12,911 4 13,334 4,5 13,757 5 14,181 5,5 14,604 6 15,027 6,5 15,451 7 15,874 7,5 16,297 8 16,721 8,5 17,144 9 17,567 9,5 17,991 10 18,414 10,5 18,837 11 18,261 11,5 19,684 12 20,107 12,5 20,531 13 20,954

0,5 21,377 1 21,800 1,5 22,223 2 22,647 2,5 23,070 3 23,493 3,5 23,917 4 23,340 4,5 24,763 5 25,187 5,5 25,610 6 26,033 6,5 26,457 7 26,880 7,5 27,303 8 27,727 8,5 28,150 9 28,573 9,5 28,997 10 29,420 10,5 29,843 11 30,267 11,5 30,690 12 31,113 12,5 31,537 13 31,960 13,5 32,383 14 32,807

Size 0= 3 in + 11/10 ? 9,948 cm

---

UK CM 0 10,160 0,5 10,583 1 11,006 1,5 11,429 2 11,853 2,5 12,276 3 12,699 3,5 13,123 4 13,546 4,5 13,969 5 14,393 5,5 14,816 6 15,239 6,5 15,663 7 16,086 7,5 16,509 8 16,933 8,5 17,356 9 17,779 9,5 18,203 10 18,626 10,5 19,049 11 19,473 11,5 19,896 12 20,319 12,5 20,743 13 21,166

0,5 21,589 1 22,012 1,5 22,435 2 22,859 2,5 23,382 3 23,705 3,5 24,129 4 24,552 4,5 24,975 5 25,399 5,5 25,822 6 26,245 6,5 26,669 7 27,092 7,5 27,515 8 27,939 8,5 28,362 9 28,785 9,5 29,209 10 29,632 10,5 30,55 11 30,479 11,5 30,902 12 31,325 12,5 31,749 13 32,172 13,5 32,595 14 33,019

Size 0 = 4 in ? 10,16 cm

Paulo Silva --Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.166.62 (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

In the US all brands and styles come in half sizes. I've never seen a shoe offered only in interger sizes. Tinarob1993 (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2014 (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 correct table is now added! copied 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)

Maps Talk:Shoe size

Needs complete re-write

Just a terribly written article. Confusing and worthless. Needs to be completely re-written in plain English. Too much obscure info. Frankly it should be deleted until then. Armandtanzarian (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

src: taimillworks.com

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)

src: ssli.ebayimg.com

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)

Note that under the section Brannock Device of the main article, the formulas are based on foot length, rather than last length used in the section United States and Canada. If the last length is calculated from foot length: Last = Foot + 0.67 inches, the two methods result in the same shoe size for male. The 0.67 inch (16 mm) margin is within the reasonable range mentioned in Foot versus shoe and last section of the main article. For convenience, one popular shopping web site provides tables of sizes that replicates the Brannock results.LoopTel (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What is not consistent is the relation between male and female sizes for the same foot length. In the section United States and Canada, for the same last, female size = male size + 1.5. The Brannock Device results in female size = male size + 1.0 for same foot lentgh. Yet in an external reference "How to find out ..." cited, female size = male size + 2.0.LoopTel (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

EU size is just 3*(foot size)/2. So a 30 cm foot is a 46 shoe size, you just have to look the charts everywhere (even in this page). That's just my case (I'm Italian), my foot is 29.8 cm and I always wear 45 or 46, noway 48! 21:21, 07 dec 2009 (UTC) --Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.65.85.214 (talk)

I have used the conversion chart for both adult and children's shoe sizes and found it is superb for comparing the true UK and EU sizes. This means I have bough shoes with just EU sizes blind on many occasions and got the right size. However, the foot size which goes along with this scale seems way out. Both my wife and I measure about 260mm on that scale, but need sizes indicated for 275-280mm feet (9/43). I understand that shoes need to be bigger than the feet they are intended for, but the chart implies that absolute feet measurements translate into sizes directly. If people measure their feet and followed this conversion chart they would buy shoes that were too small. This is explained partially in the article, albeit for children's feet: "Example: A child's foot that is 185 millimetres (7.3 in) long requires a shoe that is about 15 millimetres (0.59 in) longer. The inner length of 200 millimetres (7.9 in) is EU shoe size 29 or UK size 11." But surely it would be better to change the comparative scale to allow for this and explain that. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.11.4 (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I have used the conversion chart between UK and EU sizes and found it superb too. But now someone has removed the UK sizes from the chart. It's still there for children's sizes but not for adult males or females. This is not helpful. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.10.122 (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

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)

src: s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com

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

UK female shoes were traditionally given a size number about 2 (and at least 1) less than male shoes of the same size. This was, of course, to make the ladies appear to have smaller (that is "daintier") feet. Thus a man with size 8 shoes and a woman with size 6 shoes had similar sized feet. As recently as about 10 years ago I bought a pair of K-Swiss shoes which had a size chart on the box confirming that the makers were familiar with this sizing tradition. There must be people within the footwear industry in Britain who can confirm this tradition. The 2 size difference is sometimes alleged wrongly to be in the opposite direction. The coming of "unisex" sizing seems to have harmonised male and female sizes to the male size.Queryit (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

src: classifieds.talkofthevillages.com

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)

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

shoe size = length of foot (cm) / 0.65 is almost equal to the French system. only 2% difference. Is it really supposed to be any difference? --Bjoorn (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

The section on French sizes is plain wrong: a "Paris Point" is indeed 2/3 of a centimeter, but a size is the foot length expressed in Paris Points. The statement that a full 2 centimeters has to be added to foot length is wrong. Also see the counterpart in the French wiki which I have created a link to.

The formula then stacks error on error because it does not reflect the text. I will correct the formula to reflect the text. If the "add 2cm claim is not substantiated I will correct text and formula in a few weeks to reflect the contents on the French (!) wiki.

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': ${\displaystyle {\mbox{(physical length)}}=30\mathrm {cm} }$. When you divide by 1 inch, you have to divide both sides, giving ${\displaystyle {\mbox{(physical length)}}\ \mathrm {in} ^{-1}=11.8}$. 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)

The fact that an offset is required for conversions does not change the fact that shoe-sizes fundamentally measure length. In the same way, Kelvin, Celsius and Fahrenheit have different zero-points, but still all measure temperature. To convert a temperature in Celsius to one in Fahrenheit we use the formula C° x ⁹/₅ + 32 = F°; the conversion of these particular units requires use of a coefficient of ⁹/₅ and an offset of 32.

Most shoe-size systems (Mondopoint is an exception) have a zero-point which is offset from the zero-point of more common measures of length (centimetres, inches). Thus we find formulas like UKShoeSize = LastLengthInInches x 3 - 25 (coefficient = 3, offset = -25). The key point is that it is essential to specify the units of the input measure because these formulas are designed to convert a single unit to another (in our example, inches to UK shoe size). The same formula will not work if we start with centimetres.

If you want to really wear yourself out with this take a look at Dimensional analysis. Never a dull minute! Simon the Likable (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

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 o contribs) 05:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Several popular shoe manufacturers don't even offer options for width any more, disenfranchising anyone with an even moderately unusual foot shape. If you can even find shoes in, say, narrow sizes, you may be left with an extremely limited number of available styles, and those that are available may only be available with a single color choice etc. It would be nice to see the article acknowledge the issue.

What is the conversion between the old A, B, C... and the new Narrow, Regular, and Wide widths? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.153.217 (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Some manufacturers still use the A, B, C system, especially higher quality manufacturers. However, what constitutes "Medium" or "Wide" on the more general descriptive system seems to also vary between companies, as some women's shoe companies list "D" as wide and some list "E" as being wide, while I have seen E and EE both considered "Extra wide", and EE or EEE as "Extra extra wide". For someone with EEEE wide feet, the less specific system is awful, as "Extra extra wide" shoes are almost never available in stores, and purchasing online means there is a significant likelihood that I won't even be able to get my feet into "extra extra wide" shoes, let alone find them comfortable.Opendestiny (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Russian shoe size

I wish to think about the Russian shoe sizes. Could have differences between Russian and EU shoe sizes? Allo002(talk), 24 October 2008

I don't know about Russian sizes, but the (former socialist) German Democratic Republic used the same system as the Japanese system described here. Since the Eastern Bloc states usually used the ame systems, maybe this system is stillused in Russia, too? -- megA (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In my experience (Poland, Estonia and Serbia), if these countries previously used a system similar to the Japanese one they don't do so any more. They all seem to use the standard European system. I'd imagine that the former East Germany now uses the same system as the rest of Germany.--217.203.128.170 (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

MEA shoe sizes?

Where to find Middle Eastern Arabic shoe sizes? Is it equal to European ones? Allo002(Talk), January 2009

Australia

Observations:
1. Australian men's shoe-sizes are founded on the UK model; they should be the same.
2. The formulas for Australian sizes (- 22.5) and UK sizes (- 25) differ.
Conclusion: one of these is wrong! Simon the Likable (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

??????????? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.0.193.70 (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

???????????? ????? ???????? ???????????? ?????????!!! --Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.57.42 (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

From my experience selling shoes, convention in Australia is to use US rather than UK sizing conventions, with some European shoes (Birkenstocks, MBT's etc) using the European sizing that their manufacturers use. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.209.165.130 (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Brannock devices are common in Australia - to the point I'd suggest your canonical shoe size the Brannock formula. But what size shoes are primarily marketed as does vary between the US and UK conventional sizings. No cites though :-\ -- Hornetfig (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Brazilian Sizes and More

This web site includes Brazilian shoe sizes and some other countries, too:

http://www.rio-carnival.net/sizes.php

Somebody who's up on the preferred formatting techniques could link to that in the article or incorporate the numbers into the table.

--Lance E Sloan (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Math template

Would it be better to dispense with the math template where formula can be represented with standard text? Not necessarily saying we should, just asking.

${\displaystyle {\mbox{child shoe size}}=3\times {\mbox{last length in inches}}-12}$

child shoe size = 3 × last length in inches - 12

Kendall-K1 (talk) --Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC).

Chart Scale is Wrong

The 'Adults' chart shows 10 inches is less than 255 millimeters on the top & as greater on the bottom. Ten inches is 254 millimeters.

Nantucketnoon (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And the "source" linked to by the chart is defunct, so there is no easy way to correct the errors and recreate it. The page is an unorganized collection of facts, many without references. I wouldn't know where to begin. I went to the https://www.wewear.org/ site looking for published standards or conversions - that site is less than useless. Metaxis (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There are more errors in the shoe size chart: e.g. European Size 42 refers to shoe length of 28 cm, in the chart it's 28,5 cm. e.g. the so-called US athletics size do not exist, they have been deleted from the article'S text on 16 Nov 2010, but are still in the chart Recently, I've been working on the German aricle and I think, I could give precise information on UK sizing, European sizing and Brannock sizing, but I am still uncertain about the other US scales. Information might be found in handbooks for the American shoe industry or similar literature hardly available in Germany. I could not find the FIA recommendations mentioned in the article. However, technically I do not know how to change the chart. Maybe someone else does? The user who created the chart seems to be inactive. --UMyd (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Mens size chart

UK mens size 6 or EU size 39 is 23.5 cms long not 25 cms as chart shows -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.50.160 (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"United Kingdom and Ireland" section can be confusing

It would be good if, wherever the article refers to a formula or mathematical expression to indicate shoe sizes, there were an example indicating how the formula ought to be used. A much better way forward is to avoid formulae entirely and focus upon the use of tables. In particular, tables that have columns indicating cm length and inches length and how these lengths should be converted into shoe size. With all due respect, I have never used "wiggle room" calculations to adjust for shoe size, and I imagine most people have never required it either.

I will endeavour to make some of the changes I indicate above, but don't expect anything anytime soon. 188.66.85.172 (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Shoe size comparison

I use this section all the time as it is the only reliable chart on the Internet, it was working just a few days ago, but the tables no longer display. I have tried this on two computers using different browsers(Firefox and Google Chrome). The linked charts display this message :This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.26.196 (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Shoe size in Iceland and Scandinavia?

What do they use for shoe size in Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Estonia? Also, the article doesn't mention Eastern Europe at all. What do they use, too? I'd like an exact answer, not just a guess. Thanks! Shikku27316 (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I have previously lived in Estonia, Poland, Serbia and Slovenia and can confirm that they use the standard European sizes (I'm British and take a size 10.5 in the UK which generally corresponds to a 45 in mainland Europe). Eastern Europe generally follows this system (this is just a guess but it is based on the above experiences which are in countries with very different histories so I'd expect neighbouring countries to be the same). Scandinavia, or at least Sweden, Finland and Estonia, is also the same in my experience. It would appear that only the UK and Ireland (Malta, maybe?) use a different system in Europe.--217.203.128.170 (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Scandinavians (or at least Scandinavian shoe makers) use the standard European system. Denmark, Sweden, and Finland do for sure. (I haven't been shoe shopping in Norway or Estonia).Opendestiny (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Are feet changing in width?

A pet peeve of mine has become that most U.S. shoe stores do not carry narrow widths. A few years ago, I could find "C" and various numbers of "E" (or "M" and "W") widths in local shoe stores. Some would advertise proudly "we have extra-wide widths". Now, the narrowest you commonly find is "D", with "EEEE" for the wider feet. What's happening? Have feet increased in width since the presumable original A B C D E system was devised, or have the specifications drifted? My own feet stubbornly remain "B" width in defiance of the new trend. Puddik at (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have had a very different experience. I am mid twenties, female. My foot size, as measured, is US 6 EEEE. In my experience, "medium" width women's shoes are typically a B, D is wide, E may be wide or extra wide depending on the brand, and EE or wider only rarely being available, especially for anything styled for customers under the age of 80.

I think that stating that "D" is the average American shoe width is very misleading, as the majority of women's shoes definitely do not meet this standard (especially fashion shoes). The discrepancy in widths between men's and women's shoes should be mentioned in the article.Opendestiny (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

UK adult and US customary sizes

The text in the American Customary and British section seems to contradict itself. It states that the US size is given by 3 X last length -24, so a last length of 10 in would mean size 6. But it also states that the US size is numerically 1 greater than the British size, and that size (according to the British section) is 3 X last length - 22, so a last length of 12 would mean size 8. It is not true that 6 is 1 greater than 8. The chart at the bottom of the article seems to contradict both the American Customary and British sections of the text; a last length of 10 in implies a foot length nearer to 9¼ than 9½ in, which that chart indicates is US size 5 or, at a push 5½, certainly not 6, and UK size 6 or at a push 6½, certainly not 8.

This sort of self-contradiction renders the page valueless; unfortunately there is a risk that people will not notice the self contradictions in the page and trust some part of it which is wrong.

If I had reliable information, I might attempt to fix this problem, but I don't and I would probably make it worse not better. I hope than someone who understands the topic and has access to reliable information will take it in hand. Michealt (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Problems with tables, US coustomary and FIA sizing

The information and formulae converning UK sizes, European sizes and Brannock sizes are now fully correct and based on solid, albeit German literatuere, see the German wikipedia. Solid information on US customary and FIA sizes is missing and highy desirable, the informations given in the article may be wrong. The tables are in part incorrect and contradict the text, but I do not know, how to change them. --UMyd (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What a joke

These charts are all a joke, especially the "Complete" conversion chart, which leaves out sizes beyond 13US. I have a size 15 US and am trying to find the conversions so I broaden my shopping range to other countries, but no, this seems impossible. You can find anything on the internet, anything except a decent shoe size conversion chart or calculator. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.120.194 (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Shoe Size Comparison Chart

The original shoe size comparison chart was the best available on the Internet for comparing EU and UK children's shoe sizing. I have come back to it and found it is not there, so I've bookmarked an old version. Removing the chart was an complete and utter act of vandalism and sums up the smugness of Wikipedia editors. And don't bother telling me off, I'm not interested. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.180.116 (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

A close inspection of the chart shows it is not based on the formulae as asserted in the text. For example the European 33 is centred at 225mm in shoe length rather than 220mm as specified by the formula. I expect similar errors apply UK and other systems. Karl (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, the comparison chart is definitely wrong. The rulers appear to not be lined up correctly. UK 8 matches up with EU 42/US M 9 (like it should), but according to the ruler is 267-274mm; 262mm is actually that size. http://www.asos.com/Men/footwear-size-guide/?szgid=28&szgtid=2&r=2 http://www.famousfootwear.com/en-US/Content/fit.aspx Famous Footwear's conversion tables are a little off, but the printable ones appear to be correct http://content.next.co.uk/pdfs/x43_shoe_guide.pdf 92.0.138.75 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Russia

The claim: "... with shoe sizes increasing in ½ rather than the 2/3 cm intervals found in the European scheme." is contradicted by the table, e.g. 260 mm ist size 39, 300 mm is size 45, so for a difference of 40 mm, there are 6 sizes, 1 size thus equals 0.666 cm. Other, small differences are probably caused by rounding. --UMyd (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

UK

Is there any substantial reference for this: "Note: some manufacturers have chosen to use a constant other than 25, so sizes do vary in either direction e.g A shoe marked as a European size 40 may also be marked as a UK: 6 by Jimmy Choo, Nike, a 6½ by: Adidas, Clarks, Dr Martens, Fred Perry, Karrimor, Monsoon, New Balance, Reebok, Slazenger, a 7 by: Converse, Gap, Pavers, Timberland, and a 7.5 by: Crocs" --UMyd (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Shoe size

Cyberbot II has detected links on Shoe size which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.sizeguide.info/mens-sizes/shoe-sizes

  Triggered by \bsizeguide\.info on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.--^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Query.

What is the title of the professional (in the USA, anyway) who is trained and certified to evaluate a person's show size and to fit shoes? I don't know if they need a license. They also have a professional organization. I just can't remember what they are called. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Aha! I found it, but they do far more than I ever thought. If you are interested, see the article on Pedorthists. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There seem to be no standard widths in the USA.

I am searching online for XW slippers for the elderly uncle and quickly found the sizings to be confusing from site to site. At a site called "HealthyFeetStore.com" (specializes in orthopedic, therapeutic, and diabetic shoes), in the Frequently Asked Questions section,they say:

20. I am normally a 2E but the shoe I am looking at is not offered in a 2E. What width do I choose?

Each manufacturer gets to establish their own width standards. Some width sizes are in even numbers and some are in odd numbers. A 2E with one manufacturer might be the same as a 3E with another. Again, the difference between each width size is about 1/8th of an inch.

21. What is the difference between a 2E and a 5E in a slipper?

A 2E and a 5E are the same width for slippers, but the upper is enhanced by ½" to allow for the increased width.''

If this is true, then no wonder there's all that squabbling above regarding differences in sizing charts. If the length varies, then that, too could be the source of contention.

In addition, the [Brannock Device] // Brannock Device website speaks of the heel-to-ball measurement and how it effects the shoe size, the mention of which is missing from this article: http://brannock.com/pages/instructions-fitting-tips .

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Brannock Device section.

This formula is listed in the Brannock section. Isn't it exclusive to the USA? If so, the formulas should be in the USA section.

    male shoe size (Brannock)} = 3 x foot length in inches - 22 [5]    female shoe size (Brannock)} = 3 x foot length in inches - 21 [5]  

The source is a dead link. Now it's: http://brannock.com/pages/conversion-chart OR http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0725/6433/files/Scale-Comparison-Chart.pdf?2281987510852295578 , accessed tonight.

In addition to the US shoe size version, Brannock Devices are also available in Centimeter, European, Mondo, and UK, most with a junior version. Presumably, there will be different formulas for the size plans that don't use a size verbatim (Centimeter vs Euro). One more device is one used to measure the sizes for men with very large feet, up to size 25USA: http://brannock.com/collections/products .

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

UK/European Size Conversion

I've seen a conversion between UK and European shoe sizes added and it seems incorrect to me. I then corrected it and this correction has been reversed with partial explanation.

Both size systems are based on last length. So I used the 25 given in the UK definition as the zero and not 23.5 + 2.25 = 24.75 derived indirectly via foot length. I agree that the conversion factor of 1.27 is exactly correct and so 1.27*25 = 31.75. Also I used 4 significant digits in the reverse conversion. Karl (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

definition of "last length"

Last length is not defined anywhere in the article. Would be nice to know what it means

It is the length of the last used to make the shoe. It is explained early in the article. Karl (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• ^ http://www.hi-tec.com/uk/product-mens-eurotrek-wp-dark-brown.html

Source of the article : Wikipedia