Talk:Sole (foot)

Images

Its seems that the picture on the bottom left corner of the page has been constantly changing.. can we agree on a final picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.48.76 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

seems like the current one is pretty good..Nantesbenchpress 05:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Given the length of the article, I think the single picture in the table at the beginning is more than adequate. The second picture, particularly where it is, throws off the formatting of the page as my browsers see it, and the book, face and trees in the background are extremely distracting. Were there not a much better picture at the top of the page, I'd agree to leaving the image there. The face of the person, the book, the chair and the foliage make the picture less clear. It is not a long page, and does not require a second picture. The picture adds nothing to the page, and does not help in the section it is in - how does the picture demonstrate that the soles of the feet are sensitive? WLU 20:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The first picture is of disembodied feet, whereas the second shows it attached to a person. The article is long enough to justify two images. The article says at the end that showing the sole of the foot is considered taboo in some cultures, and not in others, so an image of a person showing the sole of their foot in public seems perfectly applicable. 216.83.83.166 14:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The feet are poised in the air, in front of a book, a head and a tree. They do not show the natural relationship between a foot and a body as there is no connection between the feet and the head. The head, book and tree are just a huge distraction from the soles themselves. A better image would be the one at the right as it at least shows the feet connected to legs without the distraction of a head. Also, in both the browsers I use the spacing is thrown off by the picture, which is larger than the paragraph it accompanies. This is particularly a concern given the re-write I just gave the article - the picture is jarring and out of place. By moving it to the right, there will be excess whitespace. The picture does not look good, and should not remain or be replaced in my mind. Why do you feel the picture is superior? And if you insist on a second picture, what do you think of the one to the right? Thank you for discussing this on the talk page. WLU 16:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Since we obviously still don't agree, I'll take this up at WP:3O for an outside opinion - rather than get in a revert war, let's let someone else decide. WLU 20:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Further:

1. I've replaced the picture with the above - it shows the feet attached to the body, addressing your point about disembodiment
2. There is no way of knowing where the feet in the picture are being displayed, within a taboo or non-taboo context. It's also not obviously public, it looks more like a back yard. The culture is not apparent.
3. I've never heard a joke about the sole of the feet. Does the Rossi book refer to tickling? That's not really humourous. WLU 20:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to request at 3O: I concur with the above assessment that one image is thoroughly satisfactory at this time. A second image would need to offer something different, which this does not. As the article expands, I'm sure that there will develop a need for more images that illustrate some of the specific characteristics/issues/medical conditions/etc. that are or will be described, but there is not much material of that nature at this time. Just another image of just another ordinary pair of feet adds nothing at all. Adrian M. H. 15:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In coming to this opinion, you did not seek the input of the other person in the dispute.

The image, of a person whose soles are on display in a public place, is illustrative of the fact that public display of the soles is not taboo in some cultures, and adds to the article in that respect. The caption indicates this as well. 216.83.83.166 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The third opinion does't seek out the opinion of any parties. They simply look at the page and give their opinion. See WP:3O for more information. I'll be removing the image as per the 3O, if you've got a dispute past this, check out dispute resolution. I really don't want to go for a request for comment for this. WLU 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the whole point of a 3rd opinion is that it is an outside opinion from someone who isn't soliciting any input from either party. If this opinion does nothing to solve the dispute, a request for comment to form a consensus would be a logical next step, though really it isn't necessary in my opinion as I'd have to agree with Adrian's outside opinion; the auxiliary image doesn't add anything of value to this article.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the image again. At this point no less than 3 editors have opined that this is not a necessary image which would indicate consensus is against the image being in the article.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Rossi

What exactly does Rossi say about humour and sexual desire? The wording is ambiguous and I think the foot fetishism is a reasonable inclusion. Frankly, I think sexual desire + feet = Foot fetishism. I'd really like to clear up the humour point, as I don't really see it. I have never heard of a consistent joke about feet and I think the current wording is vague enough to want some clarity. WLU 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted back to the wording before Anon re-added, and re-edited to try to make it clearer. The article doesn't refer to 'some cultures', it refers to the Middle East and the West. By adding the 'some', the point becomes more vague and weaselly and less clear. Further, I doubt the sole is only tickled or fetishized in the West, and without greater detail on what the Rossi book says, the second bullet is almost pointless. The sole is probably tickled across the world. And without further clarification, I don't see how the sensitivity of the foot makes it humorous - tickling is not the same thing as making a joke, even though both might make you laugh. WLU 16:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the source before you edited the article? It seems, from your discussion above, that you did not. Please advise if I am mistaken. Bullet point lists are to be avoided if the section can be written in full text form, and it looks rather odd that it's in list format. Anyway, I'll be getting around to this article eventually, amongst other anatomical articles, after I work on head and foot some more. I guess that will include looking at that Rossi article (or whatever it is). That photo has got to go. It is absolutely hideous. Larry Dunn 12:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a better public domain picture than the one currently in the article or the one the rather tendentious IP editor keeps trying to add would be helpful.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My point, that I made above, was that I did not know what was in the Rossi text, and asked the anon who added the info, to clarify, which they never did. Feel free to change the picture, I wouldn't mind it being posted on the talk page first as I still think the current picture is a good one because of it's disembodiment. Commons has many pictures of feet, including some soles here. Aesthetically, I kinda link Image:Healthy feet.JPG, though I would also suggest Image:MySole.jpg, or Image:Bottom of feet.jpg is OK too. And Image:Adult and infant feet compqared.jpg has the cute factor. As long as it's not that awful one with the girl's head in the background. WLU 13:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more appropriate to check the source yourself rather than reverting sourced text because you haven't looked at it. That's why people provide sources, so that you can look at them -- not so that you can quiz them on it. Larry Dunn 13:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>At this point I'm not even sure what edit you are talking about, could you provide a diff? I tried to find the book but it wasn't available at the library, any of the bookstores I checked at, and since the individual who added the reference presumably had it, it seemed easier to ask them than buy a book I was not particularly interested in. What are your thoughts on the images? WLU 14:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Image-wise, I personally think that Image:Bottom of feet.jpg is not a good choice. It looks very staged, and the fact that the legs are bare seems not quite right for Wikipedia. Image:MySole.jpg, however, seems good to me. _TheIslander 14:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And MySole doesn't look staged? :) I'm fine with either one, but MySole would be my preference as well - less distracting background and less disembodied than the current one. Larry? WLU 14:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose 'staged' isn't really the right word. I'm not really sure how to explain it - it just doesn't feel right. Regardless, glad we agree to some degree :) _TheIslander 15:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:MySole.jpg is probably a good choice for an image.--Isotope23 talk 14:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess the page is locked? I'll leave a note for Larry to ask for his opinion on this. WLU 16:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either of them really works, to be honest, but I'm not really focusing on this article now, as the sole of the foot is a sub-part of the anatomy, and I'm trying to do the work on the basic appendages first. FWIW, I'd suggest an image somewhat less disembodied. Larry Dunn 19:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I more prefer the disembodied image as it actually focuses on the part itself. So far every image I've seen where there is an individual where you can see their legs or whole body and their soles are prominent in the picture has looked, for lack of a better term, silly.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I see MySole as a nice compromise - mostly soles, but connected to legs, but against a black background. I'm pleased to see it up on the page. WLU 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

compartments of the foot

The section that lists the muscles contained in each plantar compartment needs to be reworked. For example, the muscles of the lateral compartment are included with those in the medial compartment, and, muscles on the dorsum of the foot are included in the lateral compartment.

67.97.72.2 (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)KA

Thanks for pointing this out. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, so anyone can contribute. The best person to fix the section in the way you think is best is... you! Editing is quick and simple, and I'd encourage you to try. --LT910001 (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image

There has been slow (and sometimes not so slow) edit warring over which image to use in the infobox going back many months. Belbury added a new image a week or so ago, and today MrOllie and Pasteleditor have been edit-warring over reverting to a previous stable image. A number of other editors have tried adding their own images, which all seem to have been deleted. None are the image that was last discussed here in 2007. I have protected the page and temporarily removed the image.

• 
  File:Soles of human feet.png. Previously stable image, added by Pasteleditor 18 April 2020
• 
  File:Soles of Feet.JPG. New image added by Belbury 7 July 2024
• 
  File:Barefeet Soles.jpg. Older image added by Belbury 1 November 2023

Please discuss. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It has only been the 'previously stable image' because Pasteleditor has been repetitively putting it back in over the last 4 years or so. Given that all the images they have added share a common uploader, and given the commonalities in subject type of those images, it is fairly obvious what is going on there. MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here are all the times that you've restored that image: 8 Sep 2021, 9 Feb 2023, 9 Feb 2023 again, 7 Aug 2023, 6 Jul 2024. Should your edits also be rejected because you clearly share the same fetish? Should we not have an image at all because some people find it titillating? Or do you have an actual argument for using one image over the other? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel I can respond to your questions and maintain civility, so I will disengage here. MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Pasteleditor's been indef blocked now. From the history this article gets general vandalism from people who want to have their own feet, or the feet of somebody they know, as the lead image.

Given that, it would be good to agree a simple consensus on which image to use. I picked File:Soles of Feet.JPG above as a clear image where the soles are straight to camera. From the history it turns out I added File:Barefeet Soles.jpg last year (and got reverted by Pasteleditor), which might be a better one for having a plain background rather than somebody's jeans. Belbury (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to have been no discussion whatsoever about this since one further up the page that was 17 years ago, and only had consensus for removing one particular image. Clearly on an article like this there are going to be people wanting to upload their own images, as well as the outright vandalism, and it's certainly easier to stabilize such an article if a discussion has selected an image to use. Otherwise you just get established editors fighting over whichever image is their favourite. I added the older image to the gallery above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

So does anybody apart from the blocked user Pasteleditor have any objections to using the File:Barefeet Soles.jpg image for the infobox? --Belbury (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Barefeet Soles.jpg is a good image, but I can live with File:Soles of Feet.JPG. File:Soles of human feet.png. is a good image from a technical standpoint but it has a lot stuff in the background that distract from the main area of interest. Besides, there is something indecent about the camera view between the legs, so not that image. Sjö (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)