Talk:Omega SA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Companies Portal This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale.

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Watches, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of watches. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Archives

Archive 1

[edit] Trivia section

I've just cut the following trivia section from the article:

There's virtually no sourcing for it, and it's unclear how (even if it's all true) any of it tells us anything about the watches or how it's of more than fanclub interest. -- Hoary (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The section above was deleted by Mjancsics in this series of edits. Before anyone does any more deleting in this or other article talk pages, please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. -- Hoary (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In this series of edits, Mjancsics (and SineBot) added the following to my talk page:

My responses:

1. I am not criticizing the format, I am criticizing the triviality and the lack of sourcing. (The latter objection has since been attended to.)
2. It is sadly obvious that whatever kind of junk one finds in any given WP article, one can find junk of the same kind in other articles; an argument that one shouldn't cut junk from one article because the same kind of junk exists elsewhere merely perpetuates awfulness.
3. Even before Mjancsics restored the junk, or trivia, or "popular media references" to this article (20:38, 19 January 2008), I had removed it from at least two other watch articles. See this edit to Cartier (09:57, 19 January 2008) and this pair of edits to Rado (completed 14:47, 19 January 2008). These edits would be obvious to anyone who bothered to look at my list of "contributions".
4. Mjancsics has indeed added a reference to something called "Omega Watches In The Public Eye: Notable appearances of Omega watches in movies, television, and on famous personalities", from a site that calls itself "the largest non-commercial resource on the Internet for owners, collectors and enthusiasts of Omega and other fine wristwatches". Well, good. But that "Public Eye" page tells me nothing about why any of this is of any significance whatsoever.

-- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits by Mjancsics and Hoary: a summary

This article has seen some changes in the last 24 hours. Here's a summary that I hope will be helpful.

1. Edit by Hoary, 07:11, 19 January 2008. Removal of the section "Omega watches in other popular culture" (see above); removal of outdated SGML comments; spelling fixes; miscellaneous rewriting in the aim of brevity and directness; making notes look more like notes.
2. Edit by Mjancsics, 20:38, 19 January 2008. A wholesale reversion of Hoary's edit, returning the article to exactly the same state that it was before, as will be seen in a diff from the state before Hoary's edit to this edit.
3. Set of edits by Mjancsics, ending 21:22, 19 January 2008. Virtually all the edits are related to Bond and product placement. Mjanciscs does add a reference for the pop culture stuff, and also fiddles with the capitalization of headings
4. Edit by Hoary, 05:02, 20 January 2008. Temporary reversion to Hoary's last version, but with the readdition of the pop culture stuff.
5. Edit by Hoary, 05:06, 20 January 2008. Rewriting Bond material per Mjancsics.
6. Set of edits by Hoary, ending 05:18, 20 January 2008. Rewriting the Bond material; elaborating in the one footnote to the "popular media" section.

Hoary (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitals in subtitles

Which of the following would be correct for a subtitle within an article?

1. Omega Watches In Space Exploration
2. Omega Watches in Space Exploration
3. Omega watches in space exploration

Answer: the third, as explained in the MoS. -- Hoary (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does the wearing of this or that wristwatch tell us anything important about the wristwatch or its maker?

Does the wearing of this or that wristwatch tell us anything important about the wristwatch or its maker?

In a few cases, I think it does. That James Bond wears this or that company's wristwatch in this or that movie may tell us a lot about the particular company's advertising budget. Here, though, the article should explain, or at least seem as if it will later explain, the significance. Not just "Bond wears an Omega Tweedledum", but, with a reference to Advertising Age or the Financial Times or whatever, "Omega spent X squillion dollars to ensure that Bond wore a Tweedledum." (And even there, whether it's the Omega Tweedledum or the Omega Tweedledee seems insignificant.)

That's why I pulled out from the article a giant chunk that I regarded as no more than a grandly titled trivia section. (But even then, I indulgently left in the Bond material.) You'll see this chunk above within this talk page, in pink.

It's clear that at least one other editor disagrees. What do you think, and what's your reasoning? -- Hoary (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References in popular Media Justification

If you wish to re-write this section so that its format or what not is conducive to whatever you see as the ideal state for the Omega wiki page then so be it, I have no issues with format and or wording modifications.

However to totally omit this section to me seems like a mistake as not only does it draw interest to the page (at least I presume so as others add to the section) but also it highlights just how much Omega has grown over thee past few decades as a brand, be it by financial means or simply popularity. The company is currently in a state of upward mobility as it tries to compete with Rolex and the more media attention the better things are for the brand; this section highlights the extent of that proliferation.

My comments regarding attention to the Omega page and lacking in others was mainly aimed at your lack of moderation of the Rolex page, while I do notice you did some “updates” and used warning flags at one point they are now gone yet the content and or format seems similar to that of the Omega page, why continue to criticize one and let the other get a “pass”?

Also I feel it is safe to say that most of the information presented on this page was gleaned from enthusiasts and “fans” thus the likelihood that any Wikipedia product page bear semblance to a “fan site” or use “peacock” terms is high, if we were talking about a significant point in history then I could understand the desire to avoid such descriptors but a luxury watch brand? Mjancsics (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, and I'm glad that our respective positions don't seem to be in complete opposition to each other.

First, my attitude to what would be a good article on Omega SA is the same as my attitude to what would be a good article on Rolex. I'm not happy with the Rolex article; however, in the pop culture department it seems better than the Omega article. In the current version of "Rolex", Rolexes in pop culture (actually all movies) are dealt with in three short paragraphs. The third and shortest of these is obviously terrible; let's not waste time discussing it. The first is a bit of a mess, but at least it attempts to integrate non-Bond movie appearances into coherent prose. The second is actually good, if you grant that movie appearances are significant (and I'm not sure of this): it's a simple and concise summary of the Omega–Rolex rivalry in the Bond movies.

The demands of the "real world" mean that I can't write a long thesis here. (Anyway, I've no reason to think that you or anyone else would want to read it.) So I'll cut it short by reiterating that yes, I'm sure Rolex and Omega should be treated in the same way, and asking if the concise running-prose treatment in the Rolex article isn't a lot better than the list in the Omega article.

Incidentally, take a look at my fairly recent removal of a pile of junk from Panerai, and my talk page comment on this. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoary, I reviewed your modifications to the Panerai entry and I see your point, that was pretty awful and the list on the Omega page could turn into something similar if it isn't already there. If the most notable entries from the list can be highlighted and then a blanket statement about how the company is making moves to increase brand awareness then that would suffice.

I could try and work on it but like you my time is limited for this type of editing. Also I am not up on the formatting aspect of the Wiki and was wondering if it is acceptable to list the references at the bottom of the page instead of above the links section as it is now?

Finally I am conflicted on the list, part of me likes the references as it gives people an easy way to associate the product with specific media references, but it does make the article seem "ugly" in its format, ideally a link to another page with just the list could work but I don't believe that follows wiki standard, least I haven't seen another page with anything similar.

My concern was that you were a "fan" of one brand over the other, however it appears you are pretty even handed. Thanks for the clarification. Mjancsics (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we still disagree in some ways but we're closer than we first thought in others.

I don't fully understand your referencing question, but the general trend of WP (and one that I strongly approve) is to give specific sources for specific assertions, and not simply to list at the bottom a number of sources that each provide some (which?) of the information that's in the article.

I find the very idea of being a fan of this or that brand ridiculous. I'm no fan of any wristwatch brand. Of course I have my own preferences in wristwatches. On the rare occasions when I glance at new Omegas or Rolexes when bored in an airport departure lounge my first reaction is that they're ridiculously expensive. (I also find a lot of them too big and too flashy, and some of them plain hideous.) I only possess two Swiss watches; both used, they cost me about €20 and about €130; the latter is a handwound Omega that's very plain and I'd guess at least fifty years old, though I've never bothered to investigate. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As I am another who supported the removal of the Panerai bit, my reason for supporting the removal is, these are unsourced and pointless, not to mention that they clutter the article completely. I can only see there are two bits that will definitely have to go...People advertising Omega watches and Omega watches in other popular culture

IMO, some editors just simply need to be reminded that this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Plus on some WikiProjects such as the WP for firearms, they discourage adding trivias and popular culture bits for that same reason as I stated, not to mentioned that if this was a car article, these lists would be instantly slaughtered, if anybody there disagreed, this will be brought up within the WP:CARS and it will be eventually removed.

Like firearms, and cars, any popular culture bits on watches will clutter the page easily. For those who object it, my advice is, why don't you start your own fanpage, at least there will be no edit wars there. My other advice is, refer to WP:TRIVIA, not to mention WP:OR as there is a guideline against original research.

As for the Ambassadors bit, I recommend purging this off as this is as bad as the infamous luxury cars' famous owners list which all of them should have by now been purged off. The reason is, they will always be prone to vandalism (simply any editors will place their own name just for the sake of vanity). Willirennen (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flags, ships, prestige, gibberish

Here and previously, an IP has been curiously eager to readd to Omega SA the claim that Omega remains one of [Swatch's] most prestigious flagship brands. Perhaps this person would like to explain what's meant by "flagship brands", and provide evidence that Omega has more prestige than most of Swatch's other "flagship brands". But as it's phrased now, this claim is worthless and better removed. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I happen to know something about Swatch's marketing and would be startled to learn of any reliable sources which characterize Omega as one of their "most prestigious flagship brands." Gwen Gale (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)