Talk:Mechanical watch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fashion WikiProject
Fashion Portal
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance within fashion.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Merge Automatic watch into this article?

I can only sustain the merge proposal: in fact, whether hand wound or provided with a self winding system, the mechanical time keeping method is the same. Most so called automatic calibres / movements are also being assembled as mechanical movement, for slimmer watches.

Of course, both articles need a lot of work! None of them belong to "fashion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claude girardin (talk • contribs) 23:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. These are two different movements. I wrote this article, I know exactly what's to be addressed. Automatic movements are to be kept in a different article, as mechanical movements are to be posted here in this article. Drop by, leave me a message when you respond to this comment. -- Steven Suttles Stone 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Steven, please do some more reading about what Wikipedia is and how its articles are created. You seem to think, and act, as if you own this article. That's not the case. In particular, it isn't appropriate to say "wrong" without giving some reasons for why you disagree with the proposal. (And "wrong" is a term you might want to avoid in the future.) Similarly, it isn't appropriate to delete a merge proposal tag until there has been time for discussion of the subject, and some indication that there is a consensus. I put the tag back on for now. I would like to suggest at least two weeks, perhaps more, of time for discussion. Paul Koning 01:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I've read both Mechanical watch and Automatic watch and I found it helpful that the automatic movement was explicated within its own article, as one is a distinct variation of the other, so I disfavor a merge. - LuckyLouie 22:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I disfavor the merge because of many reasons. There is a bright distinction between the two movements, and second, I'm not calling this article mine. I'm just saying, if this is the way it is, then why bother with it? My message is for those of whom who are to see this article mind their own business and enjoy the content. Disfavor. -- Steven Suttles Stone 05:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"mind their own business"...that's antisocial behavior for WP standards, you still don't get it Steven. This encyclopedia is the way it is because people don't mind their own business and seek to improve it. I'd like to hear some explanation how a manual and an automatic movement differ other than there being a rotor connected to the mainspring. In my understanding, automatic winding is just a feature of a mechanical watch, just like a chronograph or a moonphase or any complication: they all make the movement different, but they're still all mechanical. If you merge the articles together, can there be a better, more cohesive and comprehensive narrative than having two article separate? I think yes. hateless 19:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Virtually the only difference between a manual and automatic winding watch besides the addition of the automatic winding mechanism is the use of the 'bridle' overwinding prevention slip clutch in the mainspring barrel. A full Automatic watch article would have long sections duplicating this article on the balance wheel, escapement, wheel train, face, case, styles, etc. I think Automatic watch should be merged here, or into Mainspring. --ChetvornoTALK 12:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Since there are 2 merger proposals, changed name of this section to make merger clear. Hope nobody minds. . . --ChetvornoTALK 13:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I read both articles and changed my mind. I think it's a toss-up. There's probably enough to say about the self-winding mechanism, if the history is included, to sustain a separate article. (Also, the article obviously doesn't have to have info on parts of the watch irrelevant to the winding mechanism, just because it is named 'Automatic watch' instead of 'Automatic winding', as I said above. Don't know what I was thinking.) --ChetvornoTALK 06:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs work

I'm not sure why this article is in the category "fashion". Then again, I'm not sure why this article is needed when watch seems to cover the subject well.

The English needs a lot of work, and there are errors of fact (the "chronometer" (marine chronometer was not invented in the 1500s but in the 1800s, for example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul Koning (talk • contribs) 19:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, this article needs to be completely rewritten. I put an 'Expert needed' tag on. --Chetvorno 18:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

It isn't clear to me that this subject needs an article of its own. There is a "mechanical movements" section in watch which covers the topic; I'd suggest merging this article into that section. Paul Koning 18:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is as if you and a small number of others are the only persons who are suggesting this merge. I do not think you should be able to post a tag for your own do's and wants. I will remove the tag after further notice. See section below. -- Steven Suttles Stone 00:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
As I understand Wikipedia -- correct me if I'm wrong in this -- articles don't belong to any one person and don't have any one author. Anyone may edit, anyone may propose changes -- such as merges. So "I do not think you should be able to" is incorrect in Wikipedia.
I put on the tag to solicit opinions. Yours is the first one. I'm convinced by your arguments (in particular the ones below) -- I'll withdraw the proposal. Paul Koning 10:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Paul, you did the right thing. I hope you will get better at editing as well as become a greater contributor to the Wikipedia Foundation. As I said before, I do not mean to make you feel oppressed in any way. I am sorry if I may have used any "keen" talk on this page. Thanks, and have a good one!, -- Steven Suttles Stone 06:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me there is so much going on in the watch field lately, with the proliferating functions of digital watches, new combinations of electronic and mechanical technology, new materials, etc. The Watch article seems to be concentrating on covering these recent developments. Mechanical watches is a distinct field, more traditional, that deserves this separate article. Also, if they were merged, the resulting article would be huge. --ChetvornoTALK 13:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] I Wrote The Article, Mechanical Watch, And I Mean It To Be Quite Different From The Watch Article

As writer of the Mechanical Watch article, I had meant this page to be quite different in content as well as explanation to the original branched Watch article. It is NOT in my opinion to merge these two articles, as the explanations to fusees as well as the mechanical movements are important to be explained independently on a separate page. As writer of the article, I am fully against the decision to merge these two articles together. G'Day, -- Steven Suttles Stone 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't own the article. However, I agree that there is enough material that is unique to mechanical watch to merit a page separate from watch. --Chetvorno 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if I do or don't. It's not your right to come storming in with your own opinions and ruin the tranquility of the article. Just leave it that way. -- Steven Suttles Stone 03:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely within any editor's rights to come "storming in" with their own opinions. Please review WP:OWN. It seems to be the relevant policy here. Every time you edit, there is a reminder at the bottom of the page that "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Your opinion on the merge matters, but no more or no less than anyone else's. --Onorem♠Dil 03:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two types of escapements?

Two types of escapements? Maybe in recent times, but clearly not if you go back further. Duplex and cylinder escapements were also used in mechanical watches in volume production. Also, I'm not sure I would call lever vs. pin-lever "two different types" -- they are just one type, with the pin variant being a cheaper (and inferior) way to construct it. Paul Koning 14:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And I think the Roskopf escapement is the same as the pin-lever escapement. --Chetvorno 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, it seems to be just another name for the thing. If we want a list of all mechanical watch escapements, that could get pretty long. Lever (including variants), cylinder, duplex, double-duplex, verge, chronometer (Earnshaw), etc. If we want it to be just the "popular" ones, that would still leave lever, cylinder, and duplex, perhaps verge as well depending on how you define "popular". Paul Koning 18:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)