Talk:Shoe polish

Modern day usage?

Shouldn't there be a little more on modern day usage? Like it's controversial usage in uniforms nowadays because of snipers, satalites etc, etc and also the new move of the forces to non-shine boots. -Moocats 13:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm intrigued - shoe polish is controversial because of satellites? Please expand on this. Proto t c 11:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Drill boots are still polished in the british army. You dont polish your fighting boots, only you drill boots...

The same reason you arent supposed to crease your combat trousers with the iron the same as you do your dress ones (because it destroys the anti-IR reflective coating).81.23.50.232 (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Cirage" in french

In french, "cirage" is the generic word for "shoe polish" and I'm pretty sure it never has been a brand name. Obviously, the advertisement is about the brand "Jean Bart" and claim it is "impermeable cirage" (waterproof shoe polish) And by the way, Jean Bart was a corsair, not a pirate (whatever English may think about it ;-) )

Merci beaucoup, mon ami - cette information est tres interessant. Proto t c 11:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Spoken version of this article

I created a spoken version of this article this morning (Melbourne time) when it was the featured article of the day. I have realised that recording a spoken version at this time was not a good idea as the article would attract a large number of edits (apart from vandalism), hence changing the article a fair bit. I will re-record a new spoken version of the article within a week, when the number of edits reduces.
--Peter McGinley 17:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You are the king. I hereby name you Peter 'Awesome' McGinley. Proto t c 11:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

References

The references throughout the article are messed up, 13 in the reference list, but there are 29 recorded in the article. Hichris 18:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't this locked?

What did I miss? Admittedly, I don't normally pay much attention to the article of the day, but didn't they used to be locked? There's some template that says something like, "This article is locked because it is a featured article".

It's so high-profile, we can bang our heads against the wall all day trying to stop vandalism. Once it's off the list, we can unlock it again. I'll bet that by the end of the day there will be more edits from today than all the rest of the edits in the history of the article put together. Half of them are vandalism, and the other half are reverts.

Why isn't this locked? Kafziel 18:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Usually not a good idea because articles get great improvements while featured on the Main Page. --Adam ^(talk) 19:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Awesome improvements. I don't know what I was thinking. Kafziel 19:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Front pages always get vandalized. It is unfortunate but the vandalism gets reverted quickly. I saw the guideline about this a few days ago, but I can't remember where it was. If you look in the page history, there have been quite a few constructive changes. I think the user that posted this obscene picture has been blocked. --Adam ^(talk) 19:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about earasing the page, i was trying to get rid of the penis. Hagamaba 19:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem- this is getting old. I think someone should protect the page at least for a few minutes. --Adam ^(talk) 19:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll admit, I made a few constructive changes myself earlier in the day. But that actually makes me question how this got to be an article of the day in the first place. The main page isn't supposed to be for articles that need improvement; it's supposed to be for articles that are already good. Not just good, even. Great. They're not supposed to need a lot of editing by the time they become the article of the day. This should be locked for the day. If anyone has any changes to make, they can make a note of them and fix them tomorrow, when it's off the main page. Kafziel 19:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I found the article I was looking for by googling it: User:Raul654/protection. It's a user's view on the issue against protecting the featured article. --Adam ^(talk) 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Also note that if vandalism occurs on this page, you may either block them immediately or list them on WP:AIV immediately per the comment in the page. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I can't block anybody. And nobody else seems to be doing it, either. Or, at least, it isn't working. Second of all, that article is just one user's opinion, not policy. Thirdly, that might be okay sometimes, but on the day after Wikipedia made international news for inaccuracies, you can expect vandals to come flooding in. Nobody ever cared about shoe polish before, and they won't care about it when it's off the main page. This is more about protecting the main page. Kafziel 19:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

True, that's just a user's opinion, and not policy, but Wikipedia:Protection policy is. When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 21:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that it matters so much at this point, since my request was ignored all day, but in the same article you cited - actually, it's one of the first things the article - the explanation reads: A permanent or semi-permanent protection is used for:

   * Protecting high visibility pages such as the Main Page from vandalism.

Below that, it goes on to add that temporary protection is used for protecting a page or image that has been a recent target of persistent vandalism or persistent edits by a banned user.

This was certainly the case here, on both accounts. Many, many pages have been protected this way in the past. In fact, when wikipedia starts protecting pages once they reach a certain level of quality and stability (next year) chances are every article that makes it to the main page will already be locked. So why not start now?

Honestly - what fabulous improvements were made to the shoe polish article that couldn't have waited until tomorrow? A few minor structural and grammatical fixes. What damage was done? A few total page deletions, numerous written vandalisms, a bunch of spam... oh, and 20 or 30 posts of a full page photo of some guy's dick. Nicely done, admins. Kafziel 03:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The first quotation you cited refers solely to the Main Page itself, not any pages linked from it, including this one, which are covered by the quotation I used. The second quotation is to protect against continual vandalism over a short space of time from a specific user. If you disagree with the policy, I suggest you bring it up at the Village Pump rather than on individual talk pages, as it's more likely to receive a wider perspective from other users. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 03:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Kind of a moot point now, isn't it? I brought it up here, I posted it to the requests for protection board, and I spent half the day reverting vandalism (yes, continual vandalism, and yes, from specific users). I did everything I was supposed to do, and... zip.

You know, I usually just stick to writing and editing articles. The past couple of days I've been checking out more of the inner processes, trying to help out more behind the scenes, and a couple of things really stand out for me:

• One user (sometimes an admin, sometimes not) has himself a thought, and it suddenly becomes a consensus. A consensus of one, but a consensus nonetheless. Because as soon as he writes something about it on his user page, presto - there's a precedent. Now everyone refers back to that guy's opinion, rather than making thoughtful decisions as specific situations arise.
• People loooooove to debate things on here but nobody wants to fix anything. (I know, I'm debating right now, but I can't fix anything because I'm not in the club.) I've seen an awful lot of people saying "we can't do X because it would take up too much space." Well, how much space ends up being used by the twelve pages of debates about it? That doesn't matter because everybody just wants to hear themselves talk.

  This experience has been enlightening but I guess I'll just go back to my usual edits and let the rest of this go on without me. Hey - maybe I could vandalize pages! I think I'd make a pretty good vandal, and clearly there's no penalty for it! ;) Kafziel 05:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm not "in the club" either, and you'll notice that I didnt refer back to "that guy's opinion", I simply quoted from the relevant policy page, and corrected a misapprehension about the subject of the quotation you used, followed by a referral to the page set aside for debates like this. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 20:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the thing: I don't want to debate it. I just wanted an admin to take some initiative and do something to help us with the vandalism. Debates online never solve anything because nobody is listening to anyone else. For example, check thisout. Does what I wrote not make sense? It's in English. Plenty of other people have made good points for it as well. But the next guy to post completely disregards it, and the guy after him recites the same tired old cliche yet again. The one that I had just addressed. Nobody has any response to what I said; they just want to hear themselves talk. Might as well let them, I guess. Kafziel 21:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Want another example of debates leading nowhere? Look right at the bottom of this talk page. Doops wanted to get rid of the Kiwi references in the article. Proto suggested that he could copy the information over to the Kiwi article, but that it was still relevant to the main shoe polish article. Doops took it out anyway.

- "Hey, should I change this?"

- "No."

- "Okay, I changed it."

Why even bother asking everyone else if you're not going to listen to what they say? This is happening all over wikipedia. So I'm not interested in debating the issue at the village pump, because it will just be more of the same. Kafziel 21:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I have to protest at that characterization of the exchange between Proto and me at the bottom of the page. I did read his/her arguments; they didn't convince me entirely; I got up the energy to edit the article (where previously I had just posted lazily to the talk page). That's how talk pages work; just like conversations in real life, sometimes they don't lead anywhere much. But it's still important to have them for the sake of civility and community spirit. Doops | talk 21:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I use talk pages all the time. They can be useful, if you ask a legitimate question without an agenda of your own. But that's rare. When someone shows up at a talk page with an idea for an article, they're going to do it. They're really just there to let everyone else know they're doing it. It's like glorified vandalism; you're ringing my doorbell to tell me you're going to egg my house, but there's still nothing I can do about it.

I have nothing personal against you, by the way - everyone does the same thing now and then - but you provided me with an excellent example right here on the same talk page. I really don't care about shoe polish, or dubbin, or any of that other stuff. I just care (cared, anyway) about protecting the main page. I meant no offense. Kafziel 22:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

None taken. When someone shows up at a talk page with an idea for an article, they're going to do it. They're really just there to let everyone else know they're doing it. I think this does often happen in practice, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the original comment was conceived of in those terms by its author at the time of writing -- in this example, for instance, I lazily posted to the talk page hoping that somebody else would fix it — preferably one of the people who worked on this for featured article status and therefore knows the subject better than I do. (In doing it myself I might mess up some delicate balance I don't know about.) But then when nothing happened I grew a sense of civic duty and made the changes myself.

Even apart from this, I don't think editors posting about the changes they're going to make is glorified vandalism at all; it it's actually, in my view, courteous to discuss certain kinds of changes on the talk page. Edit summaries aren't very capacious and, once written, they're set in stone; talk page conversations are more pleasant. And although in posting here I may not be asking whether or not to edit the article (i.e. I'm going to do it anyway, as you say) any feedback I get may well be useful when I'm editing it. Cheers, Doops | talk 22:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

consumer product

what is the difference between a "consumer product" and a mere "product"? Also, isn't a consumer somebody who consumes, well, products? In a nutshell, I think the apposition is pointless. dab (ᛏ) 00:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really, there are also chemical reaction products, mathematical products, industrial products etc. See Product for more details GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"modern"

what makes a shoe polish "modern"? If you're the Kiwi PR department and sufficiently vague in your definition of the word "modern" I'm sure you can get a nice procrustean rationale for calling your product the first "modern" one. But this is the shoe polish page — not the Kiwi (shoe polish) one. Doops | talk 04:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It was the first one that chemically (and appearance-wise) resembles the shoe polishes manufactured today. Other brands, such as Erdel and Punch were manfuactured before this, but were more akin to dubbin. Proto t c 10:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll take your word for it. But the article does seem heavily Kiwi-centric and perhaps some attention should be given to reducing any danger of a "Kiwi PR machine" perception in the readers' minds. (For example, the anecdotes about the founders of Kiwi don't really belong here but on Kiwi (shoe polish).) Doops | talk 10:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC) PS: Scratch all that: I'm starting a new header below. Doops | talk 10:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Bloody nonsense, Proto. Are /you/ a Kiwi per chance? If you follow to the link at the bottom of the article, you'll find that it says Im Gegensatz zu der damals gebräuchlichen "Perleberger Wichse", auch "Spuckwichse" genannt, löste sich die neue Schuhcreme von Werner & Mertz nicht im Regen auf, schützte somit wirklich vor Nässe und enthielt zusätzlich noch lederpflegende Bestandteile, wie z.B. Terpentinöl., meaning ...unlike then-traditional shoe polish, the new shoe polish by Werner & Mertz did not dissolve in rain, thus protected from moisture and also contained ingredients to preserve the leather, like turpentine oil. The company's history page doesn't say when exactly the product was invented, but the "modern shoe polish" Erdal was trade-marked in 1901, and it was not "more akin to dubbin" Kar98 13:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think your response is down to a little bit of nationalist pride, and moreso down to your definition of a shoe polish. Dubbin preserves and waterproofs leather. That is what Erdal did, which is why I said it was more akin to dubbin. Yes, it was different in that it did not dissolve in water (not being able to speak German, I can't figure out what it did contain, presumably it used waxes rather than tallow). The first modern shoe polishes contained high concentrations of napthalene and other volatiles, which allow fast evapouration of residue, producing a lasting shine. I think maybe because the Werner & Mertz website (taking your word for it here, as ich nicht sprechen zie Deutsche wehr gut) describes shoe polishes that came before it as 'then-traditional', there is some crossed wires here. What I termed modern shoe polishes contain high concentrations of volatiles, as nearly all of them have done so since 1906. Kiwi was the first to do so. Incidentally, a product that did the same thing as Erdel, Punch, was first manufactured in Ireland in 1851. Proto t c 14:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, not even the Kiwi shoe polish website supports the claim that Kiwi "was the the first modern shoe polish". Read on Kar98 18:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

what belongs here and what doesn't?

Actually, on visiting Kiwi (shoe polish), I find that it's quite a short stub. It strikes me as odd that, for example,

• anecdotes about the founding of kiwi
• speculation on the role of kiwi shoe polish in the formation of New Zealand national identity

are located here and not there, since they're not really about shoe polish but about one specific company. Surely this content should be sent thither? (This page would retain only technical description of what made kiwi different from other shoe polishes of the time.) Doops | talk 10:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper - be bold and copy any information you think would be useful over to there also. As Kiwi was the first modern polish, the invention of this shoe polish is a valid topic for the article on shoe polish and so it is pertinent. Proto t c 11:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the text across; but I've also edited this article in a gentle attempt to reduce the kiwi anecdotage. Doops | talk 21:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Banana shoe shine

Banana skins(as shown here in this GIF) are very good shoe polishers. This GIF has been featured on the banana page and i wanted to reccomend to put it on this page.

The animated gif looks terrible. It is very dark, almost impossible to make anything out on it. I recomend it be removed, but since I can't log on on this computer, I'm hesitant to do it myself. 199.224.17.21 (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is better:

Other practical uses

A banana peel being used to clean and polish shoes.

A banana peel can be used to effectively shine shoes[1]. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 07:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The portion of the article about bannana peel is very short, it looks a little out of place in the ontext of the article, and is possibly mislabled as it is more "Other [Possible] Forms Of Shoe Polish" rather than "Other Practical Uses" which, it seems to me should more be about other uses for polish rather than alternate sources.

If nothing else perhaps the people who tend this article might consider a breif explanation of how the peel polishes the shoe ? - Fenix [password temporarily forgotten]

The reference for the banana shoe shine should be changed. Using a page of search results is not a good enough reference, there should be a reference of a documented case to back up the claim that a banana skin will shine a shoe. Then more information can possibly be added to the banana shoe shine section of this article by explaining the details behind how and why it works.

Remove this Image

Consider removing this image. It is not clear enough It is very heavy, makes the loading of page arduous

Jon Ascton (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Graffiti reference

Bhadani, you reverted an edit I made, and I'd like to understand why.

The article originally said:

Shoe polish is also used in applying graffiti tags too. It makes a wonder ink that flows well for fast and sharp looking tags.

I changed it to:

Shoe polish can also be used to create graffiti, as its flow characteristics are well suited for the task.

I have multiple issues with the original phrasing. The first sentence is grammatically incorrect ("polish is also used... too"), and contains a slang term ("tags"). The second sentence contains overly informal terminology ("wonder ink", as well as another use of "tags"), and a subjective value judgment ("fast and sharp looking tags").

I acknowledge that my rewording is a bit clumsy, but how can you justify the original sentence being remotely encyclopedia-appropriate?

Stephen Hui 21:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I change the whole thing up becasue it was not true. The shoe polish is not used as a medium, just the applicator. It is filled full of ink or paint, also called a Kiwi Mop. Just F.Y.I.

Edwinfallwell 00:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Shoe Polish.

While this article is interesting and informative it almost comes across as an advertisement of Kiwi Polish, which is after all only one of a number of brands of shoe polish.

I do not know enough about shoe polish or the brands available to edit the page, but I definitely feel that it needs editting to remove the bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J R van Zijl (talk • contribs) 10:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Alcohol replacement

I heard that in the former Soviet Union, when vodka was rationed, shoe polish factory workers used to drink their product...by pouring the liquid in a cup and putting salt in it. When the ball of rubber from the toxic chemicals came floating up, they'd drink it... Disgusting and definitely not good for the brain, but what are you going to do? This is a fairly reliable source too, my father, who lived there for 5 years. His co-workers used to drink shoe polish in the bathrooms all the time. -Uagehry456|Talk_{JordanhillVote} 07:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide any kind of reference (in print or on the web) for this, rather than your father? Neil ╦ 08:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

// It's not exactly unheard of; in the Faeroe Islands circa 1970-1980, it was very common for guest workers to find their shoe polish stolen, as well as come across natives passed out and covered in black vomit. I've heard that, on several separate occasions, from former guest workers and immigrants from the Faeroe Islands. Alcohol was practically impossible to acquire outside of what guest workers would import. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.218.234 (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

self-shining liquid shoe polish ingredients

Dear All, Could you please sent to me the ingredients% For self-shining liquid shoe polish to my Email ahmedgamal1980@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.53.167.14 (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

disambig

ash and container need disambig 90.55.145.208 (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Advertising of 'Nugget'

Seems to me that there are some unnecessary comments about the Nugget brand of shoe polish here. Anyone think that they shouldn't be deleted? [[user:jimjamjak]] (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to propose to delete the article Boot polish holder Gsingh (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

---

I propose that Boot polish holder be merged into Shoe polish. I think that the content in the Boot polish holder article can easily be explained in the context of Shoe polish, and the Shoe polish article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Boot polish holder will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Gsingh (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In its current condition I would not merge boot polish holder with anything; it's nothing better than a dictionary stub (see Wikipedia is not a dictionary), has no referencing (see Wikpedia:Reliable sources), no formatting (see the Manual of Style), and should probably be deleted. fish&karate 16:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that, that was my first choice but I decided to err on the side of caution, would this qualify as a speedy delete? Gsingh (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with Proposed deletion. fish&karate 17:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

claims regarding spit-shining

Under the heading "Usage", it reads "It must be mentioned that those in the military do not use actual 'spit' to spit shine their boots and shoes. Spit contains enzymes that break down the polish so that it does not shine, but remains dull." No sources are given for these claims. Furthermore, I can state from personal experience that they are not widely accepted to be true. I am a member of the military here in the US and not only do I spit-shine my uniform footwear but many of my fellow soldiers do theirs as well. Furthermore, it seems to be a commonly-held notion amongst those who spit-shine that saliva lubricates the polish better for the upper-layer shining that goes into a spit-shine than does water. While both of these are anecdotal points, they put lie to the claimed uniformity of thought suggested in the passage. Unless both claims can be supported with proper sources, I propose that the two sentences be stricken. Bricology (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

As a former member of the British Army (Infantry), who first learned how to shine his boots 'Bulling' back in 69, and with many years of service after that I can categorically state that you don't spit on your boots to shine them in the British army. You use clean cold water. Additionally having worked in the Kiwi Factory that made shoe polish (Note my own factory photo's on the article) I can also confirm that saliva does contain enzymes, as any medical article will confirm, which breaks down not only food but the animal wax used in polish as well. Therefore I suggest you leave the statement be. Richard Harvey (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Richard Harvey -- your personal anecdotal experiences are irrelevant here. The article states "It must be mentioned that those in the military do not use actual 'spit' to spit shine their boots and shoes." "...Do not use..." is categorical and incorrect. The subject at hand isn't what the British military or its members do, nor is it about whether or not saliva is "good for shoes"; the subject is simply whether or not the use of saliva is practiced. Of that, there is no dispute, so the statement in the article is incorrect. As I said, I'm in the US military (which, it should be mentioned, is more than 4 times the size of the British military and likely far more heterodox) and I know many soldiers who use saliva to spit-shine. Bricology (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Shoe polish. 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/20050302161827/https://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1992/fulltext/326c6.pdf to https://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1992/fulltext/326c6.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091113160835/https://www.shoeshine-boy.com/geschichte/geschichte.html to https://www.shoeshine-boy.com/geschichte/geschichte.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.whitehat.com.au/Cemetery/Graves/Ramsay.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051227214830/https://www.kiwiphile.org/sep2000.html to https://www.kiwiphile.org/sep2000.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720101324/https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/centenary/pdf/Chapter_3.pdf to https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/centenary/pdf/Chapter_3.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.whitehat.com.au/Cemetery/Graves/Ramsay.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051227214830/https://www.kiwiphile.org/sep2000.html to https://www.kiwiphile.org/sep2000.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051217125039/https://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1992/326saralee.htm to https://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1992/326saralee.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shoe polish. 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/20070404092653/https://www.chicagohs.org/history/stockyard/stock2.html to https://www.chicagohs.org/history/stockyard/stock2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208205605/https://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/1996/0521.htm to https://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/1996/0521.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shoe polish. 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/20130126193319/https://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/how-its-made/videos/how-its-made-shoe-polish.htm to https://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/how-its-made/videos/how-its-made-shoe-polish.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Section 'shoe creams'

Hello,

I have noticed a mistake ( perhaps from the translation) in the composition of the shoe cream. One of its components is written to be a 'liquid vehicle'. Please review this element which I have replaced by 'liquid detergent'. --Anastasiyakurylo (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

FA status

There is a lot of uncited text in this article, which violates the FA criteria. The lead is also too short for an article this long. If this is not addressed, a featured article review may be opened. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)