Talk:Foot

Remove Picture

There is a picture of the feet and lower legs of a couple in bed together. While it does technically show feet, I see it as out of sync with the other pictures, themes, and general tone of the article. Before I remove it, however, I will allow a period for discussion and defense of its continued inclusion. DoctorEric (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• It appears another user agreed with me, and removed the picture as proposed. As no objections were lodged in over 2 weeks, I'll consider the subject closed. DoctorEric (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Add Picture?

As a follow-up to my previous discussion, would adding this picture (from the Nicaragua page, linked below) be a valuable contribution to the article? It shows 2100-year-old human footprints preserved in dried volcanic mud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HuellasdeAcahualinca.jpg DoctorEric (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The article Foot type lacks references and appears to be the work of now vanished sockpuppets. I suggest the content in that article should be merged into the foot article once appropriate references have been added. Alternatively, the Foot type cancer article should be redirected to Foot. Note: I just cleaned-up the Arches of the foot article from some content originally added the the Foot type article (and merged content from an earlier split of that article). --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Move Culture Section

Move "Culture" section to end of article (just before "See Also"). It's ancillary information at best and is given undue importance by appearing just after the introduction. - 134.174.174.181 (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Done. While I have just followed your suggestion, maybe it could go above the Evolutionary variations section. Regardless it clearly doesn't belong at the top given how little is said in the section, as currently written a reader would not expect or want the information displayed so prominently. Monty₈₄₅ 21:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Seems Legit... not realy its just a foot.Why are we having a conversation on wiki?!

Needs common names section

This needs common names section, e.g. toes, heels, sole, arches, ankles, etc. to call different parts of the foot in common English, not by anatomical Latin names.

In particular, something like what to call the middle bottom section of the whole heel part of the foot (not just the back of the heel - which is not the underside by the way and another subject by itself), or upper parts of the toes, right side of the foot, left side of the foot. Such are common questions asked by children or in classes where English is taught as the 2nd language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoichi123 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

"lumbricals" is misspelled as "lumbricales" Lyingahull (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Joints of foot

No need for a separate article, needlessly fragmented. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Merged content about muscles to Interphalangeal articulations of the foot leaving two sentences to merge. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Mention "ball"

From Ball_(anatomy), add "The ball of the foot comprises the heads of the metatarsals together as a unit." under Structure, Forefoot. Is there no specific latin term?209.86.76.219 (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Anklet on female feet 2.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Human foot or the general foot?

The title and first paragraph of this article make it seem as though this article is about the foot in general. But the content of the article seems to focus entirely on the human foot. Is this not an issue? There should either be one article for the general, and one for the human foot, or this article should cover the general foot with a section on the human foot. Finnigami (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

"Plates of meat" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Plates of meat and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Plates of meat until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 102 Section 6

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ZionLynn (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by DoctorBeee (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Size of the human foot?

Nowhere does the article state how big a human foot is. Not the average size male or female, nor the range of sizes, nor the size of a newborn's foot. (This is not something I can write!) Bill (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

"Foot taboo" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Foot taboo has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21 § Foot taboo until a consensus is reached. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

"Foot type" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Foot type has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 2 § Foot type until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Reconsider citation [20]

I feel this is a bad citation, as it is only a top 10 list with no further elaboration. 195.252.220.178 (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)