Talk:Shoe size

I have tagged shoe size#length as uncited and tagged specifically as dubious the claim This is the basis for current UK and North American shoe sizes, with the largest shoe size taken as twelve inches (a size 12). (Straight away, a US 12 is smaller than a UK 12.) The article foot (unit) says 13 (UK), 14 (US male), 15.5 (US female) or 48 (EU sizing). (It was uncited until I added the citation below).

Strongly disliking drive-by tagging, I searched the web for an accurate ratio between length and size: the best I found (in terms of clear explanation of derivation and the algorithms) was this:

• Melissa (30 March 2016). "Why are shoe sizes as they are?". Today I found out. [...] today in America, the sizing generally adheres relatively closely to a formula of 3 times the length of the foot in inches (the barleycorn length), less a constant (22 for men and 21 for women). [...] In the UK, shoe sizes follow a similar method of computation, except that the constant is 23, and it is the same for men and women. [...] For European sizes, the calculation is much easier at 1.5 times the length in centimeters, plus an additional 2 centimeters "for comfort". (×ばつ3=36. US(m): 36−22=14, UK: 36−23=13, ×ばつ1.5=45.75 then +2 "for comfort" plus rounding = 48)

Unfortunately, todayifoundout.com is identified by the Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector as "generally unreliable". That does not assert that this particular citation cannot be used, but a better one should be sought.

Meanwhile, can it be used to correct the existing uncited and dubious assertion? JMF (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I have made this change to the article: it is better to have a "good enough" citation rather than let uncited speculation stand. --JMF (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

While describing the difference between US and UK sizes, it says the "zero point" for US men's sizes is related to the largest US children's size, AND it says that the first US men's size is "size 1".

This is unclear. Is "size 1" at the zero point? Or does the zero point mean "imaginary size 0, smaller than size 1"?

Maybe "zero point" is a term that works better when confined to the UK, where a size 0 shoe exists. But we can't start calling it a "one point" for the US instead, that would be extremely confusing. I don't know. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The zero point is the point relative to which the sizes are named, so it still makes sense to speak of one for the US system, even if there are no size 0 shoes. Eishiya (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

In the section on US sizes, we describe a system that we call customary, BUT in the next sentence we explain that what we have just described is not customary. This is insane. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Unclear comparison:

1) the calculation for a child's foot size in the UK is:

child foot size = 3 ×ばつ last length (in) − 12

equivalent to: child shoe size ≈ 3 ×ばつ foot length (in) − 10.

And similarly for adults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-31698-53 (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

2)shoe size (Paris points) = 3⁄2 ×ばつ last length (cm) equivalent to: shoe size (Paris points) ≈ (3⁄2 ×ばつ foot length (cm)) + 2

As can be seen the latter gives two calculations for shoe size, one derived from foot length and the other from last length, but the former has foot length, foot size, last length and shoe size. I think "foot size" should in fact say "shoe size". ~2026-31698-53 (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The conversion formula given says that 10 UK = 43.91 EU. I recently bought a pair of size 44 trainers which were marked 44 / 9.5 and I have another pair marked 44.5/10.

I know it's an inexact science, but these two examples suggest the formula is wrong. ~2026-31698-53 (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• C-Class fashion articles
• High-importance fashion articles
• Pages translated from German Wikipedia