text:
The Late Late Show (American talk show)

The Late Late Show is an American late-night television talk and variety comedy show that originally aired from January 9, 1995, to April 27, 2023, on CBS. Tom Snyder was the show's first host, followed by Craig Kilborn, Craig Ferguson, and James Corden. The show originated from Television City in Los Angeles.

Tom Snyder (1995–1999)
Tom Snyder hosted the program from its inception in January 1995 until March 1999. The choice of Snyder as host was made by David Letterman, whose contract with CBS gave him (via production company Worldwide Pants) the power to produce the show in the time slot immediately after his own program and who had an affinity for Snyder, whose NBC late night series Tomorrow had been succeeded by Late Night with David Letterman. The time slot on CBS previously carried repeats of Crimetime After Primetime. Snyder departed CNBC to host The Late Late Show on CBS.

Letterman and Snyder had a long history together: a 1978 Tomorrow episode hosted by Snyder was almost exclusively devoted to a long interview with up-and-coming new comedy talents Letterman, Billy Crystal and Merrill Markoe. And in 1982, when Tomorrow was cancelled by NBC, Letterman's series Late Night with David Letterman succeeded Tomorrow in the timeslot, and Snyder had been offered but refused a move to follow Late Night by NBC.

Snyder's show featured a mix of celebrities, politicians and other newsmakers, but was otherwise quite unlike the program hosted by Letterman; Snyder was a former newsman, not a comedian, and his show featured an intimate interview format with no studio audience present, similar to his old Tomorrow show of the 1970s, or to Charlie Rose show and Later, which had abandoned the format the previous year and had followed Late Night under Letterman on NBC. Though the show lacked a studio audience, Snyder still frequently gave extended conversational monologues, many of which contained jokes that prompted audible laughter from the off-camera production staff. Without the need for an audience, the show originated from the intimate Studio 58 at CBS Television City.

Throughout most of the show's run, it was also simulcast over some CBS Radio stations, and Snyder accepted calls from viewers/listeners somewhat in the manner of Larry King; to accommodate this, the show was broadcast live in the Eastern and Central United States and on radio in the west, a rarity for late-night talk shows that had otherwise transitioned to tape, though due to existing syndication contracts and resistance to give up local control of timeslots, many stations, such as WJZ-TV in Baltimore, would delay it to as late as 3:05 a.m. When Snyder was on vacation, the show featured guest hosts such as Jon Stewart or Janeane Garofalo.

Saxophonist David Sanborn composed and performed the theme music and several other songs featured on the show, all of which were smooth jazz pieces to fit the show's low-key, middle-of-the-night mood. Sanborn had previously been a guest saxophonist in The World's Most Dangerous Band during Late Night with David Letterman. Unlike other late-night shows, The Late Late Show did not have a house band (a tradition that carried on to its iterations under Kilborn and Ferguson) or any announcer, except for the last episode, when Snyder allowed one of his staff members to announce an introduction.

Letterman had offered the Late Late spot to Garry Shandling, a former permanent guest host of The Tonight Show, but Shandling turned the offer down in favor of The Larry Sanders Show (NBC had previously approached Shandling about succeeding Letterman on Late Night but he had also declined that offer, the job ultimately went to Conan O'Brien). He also offered the slot to Later host Bob Costas who also declined. Letterman then insisted on Snyder despite CBS wanting a younger host with a comedy background and a more traditional late night talk variety format. In 1998, the network reportedly reasserted its desire for a host who could attract a younger demographic and asked Worldwide Pants not to renew Snyder's contract when it expired in September 1999, though other reports portray the decision to leave as Snyder's decision, with Snyder informing management that he wished to depart before his contract ended, as early as January 1999. Snyder would return to CBS to guest-host some episodes of the Late Show while Letterman recuperated from heart surgery in 2000.

Longtime late night television producer Peter Lassally was executive producer of Snyder's iteration of the program and mentored Jon Stewart when he was a guest host filling in for Snyder.

Craig Kilborn (1999–2004)
When Snyder announced he was leaving, the show was reformatted to resemble Letterman and other major late-night talk programs. Craig Kilborn took over in March 1999, having left The Daily Show (where he was succeeded by Jon Stewart) to become the new Late Late Show host (previously he was an anchor on ESPN's SportsCenter).

When Kilborn was on the show, it began with an image of a full moon wavering behind gray stratus clouds, to the tuning of an orchestra, while the announcer—the recorded, modulated voice of Kilborn himself—blurted out, "From the gorgeous, gorgeous Hollywood Hills in sunny California, it's your Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn. Tonight," and then the guests were announced, backed by the show's theme song, composed by Neil Finn. Then Kilborn was presented, "Ladies and gentlemen, *pause* Mister Craig Kilborn", with the 1970s disco band Wild Cherry song "Play That Funky Music".

After Kilborn's stand-up monologue, he walked to his "Bavarian oak desk" while Finn's theme song continued playing with the chorus "The Late Late Show is starting. The Late Late Show is starting now." The "Desk Chat" was said to be Craig's favorite part of the show.

During later seasons, the opening consisted of shots of various Los Angeles hotspots accompanied by a new theme song performed and written by Chris Isaak. For this new theme song, Kilborn would be played to the desk with a chorus of "The Late Late Show is starting".

The show continued to originate from Studio 58 throughout Kilborn's tenure as host.

Segments included:
 * In the News: A news segment, whose theme song was Survivor's "Eye of the Tiger", where Kilborn would provide a humorous overview of the day's events. It was briefly called "The World of Whimsy" following the September 11th attacks. The segment also included characters such as the hoary and cherubic "Ewok Guy" or the rapping "PG&E" Lady.
 * What Up?: A Friday segment where Kilborn and three other panelists discussed and joked about the news.
 * To Blank with Love: Kilborn dedicated verses to different people and things
 * Five Questions: Kilborn asked a geography question, a Match Game-style "blank" question where the guest had to fill a blank with a word related to the guest, a "Now think of other one" question in which the guest had to guess what Kilborn had in mind. This segment was a holdover from Kilborn's previous job as the host of The Daily Show.
 * Tuesdays with Buddy: Featuring Buddy Hackett
 * Yambo: An elimination game between two guests. Kilborn would slowly walk in a circle around the two celebrity guests and randomly yell questions at them. A correct answer within three seconds earned them a point; three points won a game. Failure to answer or a wrong answer earned a strike; three strikes resulted in the opponent winning.
 * The Weather with Petra Nemcova: Craig and Goldy would sometimes do a weather report with model Petra Němcová. The theme song was: "Petra, Petra tell us the weather, Tell us the weather to make us feel better. Petra, Petra, tell us whether we need to bring a jacket, or not."

Kilborn left the program on August 27, 2004, two weeks after surprising executives at CBS and Worldwide Pants by announcing after several weeks of talks that he was not seeking a contract renewal. In a June 2010 interview, Kilborn stated that he left late-night television due to his belief that the late-night time slot was too crowded for him to succeed. Executive Producer Peter Lassally later claimed that Kilborn quit because he did not get the raise he wanted.

Transition (September–December 2004)
With Kilborn only announcing in early August that he would not be returning to the Late Late Show in the fall, CBS and Worldwide Pants executives decided to have a series of guest hosts helm the show in on-air auditions. While initially saying they would choose a permanent host by the end of October, the process ended up extending into December. Drew Carey was the first guest host on September 20, 2004, and again the following night. Subsequent guest hosts included: Jason Alexander, Jeff Altman, Tom Arnold, Michael Ian Black, Tom Caltabiano, Adam Carolla, Tom Dreesen, David Duchovny, Damien Fahey, Craig Ferguson, Jim Gaffigan, Ana Gasteyer, David Alan Grier, D. L. Hughley, Lisa Joyner, Donal Logue, Rosie Perez, Ahmad Rashad, Jim Rome, Aisha Tyler, and The Late Late Show head writer Michael "Gibby" Gibbons culminating in four finalists being involved for week long final tryouts: Craig Ferguson, D. L. Hughley, Damien Fahey, and Michael Ian Black. It was announced on December 7, 2004, that Ferguson, a Scottish comedian best known from his role as Mr. Wick on The Drew Carey Show, was to become Kilborn's permanent replacement. David Letterman later said he made the selection based on the recommendation of Peter Lassally.

Following the conclusion of the on-air auditions on December 3, 2004, guest hosts continued to fill out the roster until the end of the year and included Jason Alexander, Donal Logue, David Alan Grier, Aisha Tyler, Drew Carey, Sara Rue, John Witherspoon, Joe Buck, Susan Sarandon, Don Cheadle, Daryl Mitchell, Bob Saget, Jim Rome, Ana Gasteyer, Damien Fahey, and D.L. Hughley.

Craig Ferguson (2005–2014)
Under Craig Ferguson's tenure as host, the show started with a cold open, followed by opening credits and a commercial break. A loose comic monologue then followed, consistently including a greeting ("Welcome to Los Angeles, California, welcome to the Late Late Show, I am your host, TV's Craig Ferguson") and the proclamation that "It's a great day for America, everybody!".

From 2010 the monologue also included banter with Geoff Peterson, his "robot skeleton sidekick", voiced and controlled by Josh Robert Thompson. This animatronic was constructed by the MythBusters' Grant Imahara but went through many revisions, the most important was the regular live control and voicing by Thompson. This changed the dynamic of the show as Ferguson had a recurring 'sidekick' to banter with.

After another commercial break, the banter continued with Ferguson sitting behind a desk. He usually read and responded to viewer e-mail and (since February 2010 ) Twitter messages for random responses to viewer questions.

During segments Ferguson occasionally received phone calls (voiced by Thompson) from a variety of characters, including celebrities, the 'very shy' band (Alfredo Sauce and the Shy Fellas) allegedly hiding behind the set's curtain, room service, a duplicate Geoff, and Miriam, a possible stalker who confused Ferguson with former host Craig Kilborn.

Ferguson called his Twitter followers his "robot skeleton army."

Generally one or two celebrities were interviewed; Ferguson started each by dramatically ripping up note cards written for the interview, "signalling to the audience, and to the guest, that this conversation need not be rigidly managed." At the end of an interview, Ferguson usually asked his guest to engage in one of various rituals; options included "Awkward Pause", "Mouth Organ", "Guess What the Queen is Thinking", the "Big Cash Prize," or simply joining Ferguson in throwing Frisbees at the show's "horse," Secretariat (actually two interns dressed in a pantomime horse costume). Occasionally Craig requested Thompson (as Geoff) to interpret the thoughts of Secretariat or others, in one of a variety of celebrity voices, most notably Morgan Freeman. During a guest appearance, Morgan Freeman described Thompson's prompted vocal impression of himself as "impeccable".

Sometimes the show featured a stand-up comedian or a musical guest, the latter of which is typically pre-taped.

Ferguson incorporated various running gags. Early examples included themed weeks such as "Crab Week", "Magic Week" and "Shark Week". Shark Week was apparently a reference to Shark Week on the Discovery Channel, and that channel, saying that Ferguson has always loved Shark Week, scheduled him for an appearance on August 4, 2010. A "photo of Paul McCartney" joke (wherein Ferguson called for a photo of McCartney, which was actually a photo of actress Angela Lansbury and vice versa); the show often used variations of this gag featuring other pairs of look-alike celebrities, such as Cher being shown as Marilyn Manson, and a picture of Ann Coulter being shown whenever Ferguson requested a photo of Tom Petty.

The show ended with "What Did We Learn on the Show Tonight, Craig?", a segment that started with an animation of a kitten and in which Ferguson "removes his tie, puts his feet on his desk, and summarizes the preceding hour of TV." Since the introduction of the Geoff character, Ferguson usually discussed the day's lesson with the robot.

Ferguson's tenure included the show's first high definition broadcast, on August 31, 2009. In March 2010, the Late Late Show won the Peabody Award for Excellence in Television for its "Evening with Archbishop Desmond Tutu" episode. According to the Peabody Board, "the Scottish-born Ferguson has made late-night television safe again for ideas."

The show had Peter Lassally as its executive producer through Ferguson's entire tenure. Lassally had previously been executive producer of The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, Late Night with David Letterman, and Late Show with David Letterman.

In April 2012, CBS announced that they had reached an agreement with Ferguson to extend his contract through 2014. As part of the deal, the network began co-producing The Late Late Show for the first time.

From the beginning of Ferguson's tenure as host until August 8, 2012, The Late Late Show continued to originate from Studio 58 at CBS Television City, as it had dating back to the show's origins under Snyder. Ferguson often joked about the studio's small size, leaky roof, and poor lighting. On August 27, 2012, the program moved down the hall to the much larger Studio 56. Though the look of the main desk set was similar to the one in Studio 58, the extra space in Studio 56 allowed for more audience seating, a fireplace set for Geoff Peterson, an entrance & monologue set, a musical performance area, as well as a stable set for the show's pantomime horse, Secretariat.

Ferguson's departure
Ferguson's contract was set to expire in June 2014. His contract called for him to be first in line to replace David Letterman as host of the Late Show. Because CBS chose Stephen Colbert for that position, Ferguson reportedly received a windfall of as much as $10,000,000.

On April 28, 2014, Craig Ferguson announced he would leave The Late Late Show at the end of the year. He had reportedly made the decision prior to Letterman's announcement but agreed to delay making his own decision public until the reaction to Letterman's decision had died down. He had also originally intended to leave in the summer of 2014 but agreed to stay until the end of the year to give CBS more time to find a successor. His last show was December 19, 2014, and began with Ferguson performing "Bang Your Drum" with many of his guests over the years banging drums, including Desmond Tutu. The show featured Jay Leno as Ferguson's guest and cameos by Bob Newhart and Drew Carey in the closing segment, a parody of the finales of Newhart, The Sopranos and St. Elsewhere.

Transition (January–March 2015)
In the interim between Ferguson's departure in December 2014 and James Corden's premiere on March 23, 2015, CBS scheduled a number of guest hosts to helm the program. Repeats of Ferguson's show finished out 2014. Drew Carey hosted the week of January 5 and did so again the week of March 2, while CBS daytime talk show The Talk aired a special week of The Talk After Dark episodes on the week of January 12. Other guest hosts included Judd Apatow, Will Arnett, Wayne Brady, Whitney Cummings, Jim Gaffigan, Billy Gardell, Sean Hayes, Thomas Lennon, John Mayer, Kunal Nayyar, Adam Pally, Jim Rome, Lauren Graham, and Regis Philbin. Peter Lassally remained executive producer during this period and retired from television after a six decade career with the taping of Arnett's show on February 20, 2015, in which Lassally appeared in a cameo. Shows that aired for the rest of February, into March, had been pre-recorded in January for later broadcast in order to give CBS time to dismantle the Ferguson set and traditional audience seating, and build out a new set and audience arrangement for Corden's show. Shows taped by Cummings, Philbin, and Pally originated from New York and were recorded without an audience from Studio 57 at the CBS Broadcast Center, the home studio for CBS This Morning. Repeats were to fill out the two weeks between the final new Carey-hosted show on March 6 and the premiere of Corden's show on the 23rd.

James Corden (2015–2023)
On September 8, 2014, CBS announced that James Corden would succeed Ferguson as host on March 23, 2015. His show, originally slated to premiere on March 9, 2015, CBS pushed back its premiere to March 23, 2015, in December 2014, in order to use the NCAA basketball tournament as a means of promoting Corden's debut, and prevent a situation where two episodes would be pre-empted during the first week of the tournament. Corden's hosting tenure was the first to have a house band (the lack thereof having been a running joke during Ferguson's tenure); Reggie Watts served as the franchise's first and only bandleader.

David Letterman's contract included the right to control the time slot that follows his and produce the Late Late Show and it was his production company, Worldwide Pants, which selected previous hosts. With Letterman's departure, CBS became the sole producer of the show. In keeping with customs employed on British chat shows such as The Graham Norton Show, Corden interviewed all of the nightly guests at once, opting for a more conversational style and reducing the format's emphasis on U.S. fixtures such as desks and an opening monologue. Many of the show's segments, including the recurring "Carpool Karaoke" (where Corden sang with celebrity guests in a car), became viral videos online, with the show's YouTube channel having the second-highest number of subscribers among all associated with U.S. late-night talk shows.

On April 28, 2022, Corden announced that he would step down as host in 2023, stating that "I always thought I’d do it for five years and then leave, and then I stayed on. I’ve really been thinking about it for a long time, thinking whether there might be one more adventure."

Retirement and replacement
In February 2023, Deadline Hollywood reported that CBS was considering using Corden's departure to reevaluate the future of The Late Late Show as a franchise, with the network considering alternative formats for the time slot that would be cheaper to produce than a traditional talk show. That month, the network reportedly settled on a Stephen Colbert-produced revival of @midnight, a social-media-themed panel show aired by sibling Comedy Central from 2013 through 2017, bringing an end to The Late Late Show franchise after 28 years.

Due to the 2023 Hollywood labor disputes, CBS acquired reruns of Byron Allen's Comics Unleashed in September 2023 to fill the Late Late Show time slot in the interim, with a mix of reruns and unaired first-run episodes. In November 2023, CBS officially announced that After Midnight, hosted by stand-up comedian Taylor Tomlinson, would premiere on January 16, 2024.

List of hosts
Notes
 * $undefined$ Jason Alexander, Jeff Altman, Tom Arnold, Michael Ian Black, Tom Caltabiano, Drew Carey, Adam Carolla, Tom Dreesen, David Duchovny, Damien Fahey, Craig Ferguson, Jim Gaffigan, Ana Gasteyer, David Alan Grier, D. L. Hughley, Lisa Joyner, Donal Logue, Rosie Perez, Ahmad Rashad, Jim Rome, Aisha Tyler, Sara Rue, John Witherspoon, Joe Buck, Susan Sarandon, Don Cheadle, Daryl Mitchell, Bob Saget, and Michael "Gibby" Gibbons (head writer)
 * $undefined$ Drew Carey, Julie Chen, Sara Gilbert, Sharon Osbourne, Sheryl Underwood, Aisha Tyler, Jim Gaffigan, Judd Apatow, Regis Philbin, Whitney Cummings, Adam Pally, Sean Hayes, John Mayer, Wayne Brady, Tom Lennon, Lauren Graham, Will Arnett, Billy Gardell, and Kunal Nayyar

title: The Late Late Show (American talk show)


text:
Lana (chimpanzee)

Lana (October 7, 1970 - November, 2016) was a female chimpanzee, the first to use lexigrams in language research. She was born at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center of Emory University, and the project she was allocated to when 1 year old, the LANguage Analogue project led by Duane Rumbaugh, was named after her with the acronym LANA because the project team felt that her identity was well worth preserving.

LANA project
The researchers stated that Lana could discriminate between lexigrams, sequence words grammatically and make novel utterances, demonstrating language learning.

The first LANA project (1971) officially had two Principal Investigators, Rumbaugh and Ernst von Glasersfeld (cf. NIH grants HD-06016 and RR-00165). Ernst von Glasersfeld developed the language that Lana learned to use: he coined the term "lexigram", created the first 120 of them and designed the grammar that regulated their combination. This artificial language was called Yerkish, in honor of Robert M. Yerkes, the founder of the laboratory within which the LANA project was conceived and conducted.

The early project also had several graduate-student researchers. The prime researcher, and the prime worker with Lana was Dr. Timothy V. Gill. Included in the project were graduate students Gwen Bell Dooley, Beverly Wilkenson, and Michael D. Haberman, among others. Gwen Bell Dooley demonstrated Lana's cognitive capability to distinguish between two numerical sets of objects which she then labelled with either "more" or "less", whichever was requested.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Lana (chimpanzee)


text:
Intimacy (Jody Watley album)

Intimacy is the fourth studio album by American pop singer Jody Watley, released in 1993 (see 1993 in music) on MCA.

Track listing

 * Tracks 1, 3, 7 Copyright A Diva Music-Rightsong/Ultrawave Music-EMI April Music. Tracks 2, 8 Copyright A Diva Music-Rightsong/Art & Rhythm Inc-Zomba Enterprises. Track 4 Copyright Jobete Music-Black Bull Music. Track 5 Copyright WB Music-Kulu Shay Music-Tix Music-Interscope Music-Thug Music/Brandi Jo Music-Famous Music Corp.
 * Track 6 Copyright A Diva Music-Rightsong/Def Mix Music-EMI Music/EMI April Music/EMI Virgin Music. Track 9 Copyright A Diva Music-Rightsong/Big Giant Music-Coffey-Nettlesby Music-Warner Tamerlane Music. Track 10 Copyright Ultrawave Music-EMI April Music/Sizzling Blue Music-Warner Tamerlane Music.

Personnel

 * Jody Watley – vocals, backing vocals
 * André Cymone – drums, bass, keyboards, guitars
 * Brian Kilgorec – percussion
 * Scott Mayo – saxophone
 * Tommy Morgan – harmonica
 * Larry "Rock" Campbell – drum, keyboard programming
 * Chris Hunter – trumpet
 * Peter "Ski" Schwartz – keyboard programming
 * Terry Burrus – keyboard programming

 * David Morales - drum programming
 * Chris Botti – flute
 * Terry Coffey – keyboards, synthesizers, rhythm arrangements
 * Jon Nettlesbey – keyboards, synthesizers, drums, percussion, rhythm arrangements
 * Duane Nettlesbey – additional programming
 * Gene Page – string arrangements, conductor
 * Paulette McWilliams – backing vocals
 * Brenda White-King – backing vocals
 * Alfa Anderson Barfield – backing vocals

 * Production

 * Producers – Art & Rhythm (for Zomba Recording Inc.), André Cymone, Philip Kelsey, David Morales (for Def Mix Productions) , John Nettlesbey & Terry Coffey (for Mercenary Productions)
 * Executive producer – Jody Watley
 * Engineers – Wolfgang Aichholz, Bobby Brooks, Pete Christensen, André Cymone, Hugo Dwyer, John Poppo, Chris Purham, David Sussman, Chris Trevett
 * Assistant engineers – Pete Christensen, Rail Jon Rogut
 * Mixing – Bobby Brooks, Alan Meyerson, David Morales, John Poppo, David Rideau, Chris Trevett
 * Mixing assistants – Kimm James, Will Williams
 * Remixing – Andre Fischer, Philip Kelsey, Dave Way
 * Remix assistant – Bill Leonard
 * Mastering – Steve Hall
 * Production coordination – Ivy Skoff

title: Intimacy (Jody Watley album)


text:
Talk:Lobata

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lobata. 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/20080516210612/http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/~haddock/abstracts/haddock_spectra.pdf to http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/~haddock/abstracts/haddock_spectra.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Invertebrate Zoology
— Assignment last updated by Wildlife Nerd8694 (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lobata


text:
Talk:Intimacy (Jody Watley album)

Larry "rock" Campbell
I gather Larry "rock" Campbell is not the same as Larry Campbell (musician). -MrFizyx 16:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Intimacy (Jody Watley album)


text:
Brian Cashman

Brian McGuire Cashman (born July 3, 1967) is an American baseball executive for the New York Yankees of Major League Baseball. He has served as the general manager and senior vice president of the Yankees since 1998. During Cashman's tenure as general manager, he inherited a core that was built by Stick Michael and Bob Watson and the Yankees have won six American League pennants and four World Series championships.

Cashman began working with the Yankees organization in 1986 as an intern while still in college. He was named assistant general manager in 1992, helping to run the team while owner George Steinbrenner was suspended from baseball. He succeeded Bob Watson as the team's general manager in 1998.

Early life
Cashman was born in Rockville Centre, New York, and raised in Washingtonville, New York. He was raised in an Irish Catholic family, as the middle of five children born to Nancy and John Cashman. He became a baseball fan at a young age, attending a summer camp hosted by Bucky Dent before starting high school. He grew up as a fan of the Los Angeles Dodgers. While visiting his grandmother in Florida, he served as a batboy for the Dodgers during spring training in 1982, with the help of former Dodger Ralph Branca, a family friend.

The Cashman family moved to Lexington, Kentucky, where his father managed Castleton Farm, raising standardbreds for harness racing. Cashman described moving out of Washingtonville before starting high school as "the best thing to happen to [him], to get out of there."

Cashman attended Lexington Catholic High School before moving to the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. He attended Georgetown Preparatory School in North Bethesda, Maryland, graduating in 1985. Cashman played baseball and junior varsity basketball at both schools, and added football in his senior year. Brian was classmates with Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and two years after future Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The Catholic University of America offered Cashman the opportunity to play college baseball for the Catholic Cardinals, competing in the National Collegiate Athletic Association's Division III, guaranteeing him playing time as a freshman. He was a four-year starter at second base and the team's leadoff hitter. He set a school record for most hits in a season, which has since been broken. He earned a bachelor's degree with a major in history in 1989.

New York Yankees (1986–present)
George Steinbrenner, the owner of the New York Yankees, met John Cashman when he managed Pompano Park in Pompano Beach, Florida, and the two became friends. Through another family friend, John helped Brian obtain a position with the Yankees organization as an intern in 1986. He worked in the minor league scouting department in the day, and worked security at night. After Cashman graduated from Catholic, the Yankees offered him a position as a baseball operations assistant, which he accepted.

Steinbrenner was banned from baseball in July 1990 for hiring a gambler to investigate Dave Winfield. Gene Michael, then the Yankees' general manager, took over daily operations of the Yankees, and Cashman played a role in assisting him. He was promoted to assistant farm director that year, and to major league administrator in 1991. Michael named Cashman an assistant general manager in 1992. He remained in the role after Bob Watson succeeded Michael as general manager in 1995. The Yankees won the 1996 World Series.

"Dynastic" years and success (1998–2005)
In February 1998, Watson resigned from the Yankees, and Cashman was named senior vice-president and general manager. He agreed to a one-year contract for $300,000, and became the second-youngest general manager in MLB history. The Yankees won 114 games during the 1998 season, and won the 1998 World Series. In 1999, Cashman traded fan favorite David Wells to the Toronto Blue Jays to acquire Roger Clemens. The next year, he acquired David Justice, who won the American League Championship Series (ALCS) Most Valuable Player Award for his play in the 2000 ALCS. The Yankees won the 2000 World Series, making Cashman the first general manager to win World Series titles in his first three years. In 2004, Cashman arranged the trade of Alfonso Soriano for Alex Rodriguez.

Despite the team's success, Cashman considered leaving the Yankees in 2005 due to conflicts with Steinbrenner and organizational disputes between team officials in New York City and Tampa, Florida. The Washington Nationals were rumored to be interested in hiring Cashman, which would have brought him back to the city where he attended school. Instead, Cashman agreed to a new contract with the Yankees following the conclusion of the 2005 season which gave him more authority in personnel decisions and paid him an average of $1.3 million more over the following three years.

Another championship (2006–2009)
With the increased authority, Cashman created a department of professional scouting, and tabbed Billy Eppler as its director. Later, Eppler would move on to become the general manager of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. On September 30, 2008, Cashman signed a three-year contract to stay with the Yankees through the 2011 season. Following the 2008 season, when the Yankees failed to make the playoffs, Cashman signed CC Sabathia, A. J. Burnett, and Mark Teixeira to long-term free agent contracts and traded for Nick Swisher. These four players played a significant role in the 2009 Yankees season, culminating with a victory in the 2009 World Series.

Post-Championship years and struggles (2010–2016)
The Yankees went on to make the playoffs again following the 2010 season, but lost to the Texas Rangers in the 2010 American League Championship Series. Following the 2010 season, Cashman held a hard line with Derek Jeter during contract negotiations, reportedly telling Jeter that he would prefer to have Troy Tulowitzki as the Yankees' starting shortstop, though a deal was eventually made for three years and $45 million.

Yankees ownership agreed to sign Rafael Soriano in January 2011 without Cashman's approval. Cashman stated at Soriano's introductory press conference that he disagreed with the deal. The Yankees re-signed Cashman to a three-year contract in November 2011.

During 2013, Alex Rodriguez composed a tweet, saying that he had been cleared to play by his doctors after his hip surgery. Cashman was not pleased about the tweet, claiming that the doctors did not give such authority to clear Rodriguez to play after seeking a second opinion with them, causing his faith and relationship with Rodriguez to be alienated. Cashman also wanted to trade Robinson Canó during the 2013 season, reasoning that they would be unable to re-sign him in the next offseason. Ownership prevented Cashman from exploring a trade.

After the 2013 season, the Yankees signed Masahiro Tanaka, Jacoby Ellsbury, Brian McCann, and Carlos Beltrán to contracts that totaled $438 million. However, the Yankees missed the playoffs for the second consecutive year. On October 10, 2014, the Yankees signed Cashman to another three-year deal through the 2017 season. That offseason, Cashman prioritized restructuring the Yankees roster with younger players. He replaced the retired Jeter with Didi Gregorius and also acquired Nathan Eovaldi, both of whom improved during the season. In the 2016 season, he traded Carlos Beltrán to the Texas Rangers, Andrew Miller to the Cleveland Indians, and Aroldis Chapman to the eventual World Series Champion Chicago Cubs to bolster the Yankees farm system.

"Baby Bombers" Era (2017–present)
In 2017, the Yankees made the postseason with rookie outfielder Aaron Judge and second-year catcher Gary Sanchez. The Yankees defeated the Minnesota Twins in the 2017 American League Wild Card Game, and then went on to defeat the Cleveland Indians in the 2017 American League Division Series. Making their first appearance in the American League Championship Series since 2012, the Yankees lost to the Houston Astros in seven games, far outpacing the expectations of many analysts. Following the season, Cashman recommended to the owner Hal Steinbrenner that a managerial change was needed. Baseball America named Cashman their Executive of the Year after the season.

On December 9, Cashman traded second baseman Starlin Castro and two prospects for Marlins outfielder Giancarlo Stanton.

On December 11, 2017, Cashman signed a 5-year, $25 million contract with the Yankees to keep him as general manager through 2022.

The 2018 season saw Cashman and the Yankees win 100 games. Despite a lopsided victory in the AL Wildcard game over the A's, New York would fall to their rivals: Boston Red Sox in the Division Series. On April 7, 2019, Cashman won his 2,000th game as the Yankees general manager.

In the 2019 season, the Yankees won 103 games despite having over 30 players on the injured list during the season, with the players accounting over $81 million unable to play at one point of time.

During the pandemic-shortened 2020 season, the Yankees got off to an 8–1 start, and were 16-6 mid-August, before a seven-game losing streak. The team finished both August and September 14–13, which included a 1–7 stretch against the Baltimore Orioles, Toronto Blue Jays, Tampa Bay Rays, and New York Mets, before an 11–2 run, and finished the season 33–27, good for second-place in the East and a spot in the American League Wild Card Series, their 28th consecutive winning season. They won the series 2–0 against the Cleveland Indians, but lost the 2020 American League Division Series three-games-to-two against the Tampa Bay Rays.

In 2021, the Yankees rebounded to win 92 games, behind several winning streaks. Numerous player injuries in the first half of the season contributed to poor offense (through July, the Yankees had the second-lowest number of runs scored in the A.L.). Looking to bolster offensive production, Cashman traded for Anthony Rizzo and Joey Gallo, two strong left-handed batters. Between August 14–27, the team won 13 consecutive games, their longest such streak since 1961. They ended the season on an 8–1 run between September 20–30, but lost two of their final three games, before falling to the Red Sox 6–2 in the Wild Card Game.

The following year, the Yankees finished 99–63, winning the American League East, while star outfielder Aaron Judge broke Roger Maris's American League record by hitting 62 home runs. The Yankees defeated the Cleveland Guardians three games to two in the American League Division Series, but were swept by the Houston Astros in the American League Championship Series. During the season, Cashman surpassed Ed Barrow to become the longest-tenured general manager in Yankees history.

On December 5, 2022, the Yankees re-signed Cashman to a four-year contract to remain with the club through the 2026 season. Two days later, the Yankees and Cashman re-signed Aaron Judge to a 9-year, $360 million contract.

Honors
Cashman was named to Crain's New York Business 40 under 40 list for 1999. The Boston chapter of the Baseball Writers' Association of America selected Cashman as their MLB Executive of the Year for 2009. In 2010, Cashman was inducted into the Irish American Baseball Hall of Fame.

Cashman was selected as Baseball Executive of the Year in 2017.

Cashman was also involved in the developing of the video game MLB Front Office Manager.

Personal life
Cashman lives in Darien, Connecticut. He and his wife, Mary, have two children, Grace and Theodore. Mary filed for divorce in February 2012; they had been reportedly separated for a year. The day prior, prosecutors charged a woman with stalking Cashman in an attempt to extort money regarding an extramarital affair. Cashman is a Kentucky Wildcats and New Jersey Devils fan.

Cashman has referred to himself as an "adrenaline junkie." In December 2010, Cashman rappelled from a 350 ft building in Stamford, Connecticut as part of an annual Stamford Christmas celebration. He jumped from an airplane with members of the United States Army Parachute Team to raise awareness for the Wounded Warrior Project and broke his right fibula and dislocated his right ankle in the process. In November 2014, Cashman slept on a New York City sidewalk to raise awareness on behalf of homeless youth.

title: Brian Cashman


text:
Talk:Watch

Untitled
Also there is no section on turbillons. The complication paragraph needs to be expanded to include grand complications and other variations, jewels etc. There is so much more to watches than this article. This is very dissappointing.

What is the etymology of the word 'watch' (as in "a small portable timepiece"?) How do self-winding mechanical watches work? - I removed this sentence, "About 4 times per day a radio wristwatch will check this radio signal and reset itself to the exact time." My Casio G-Shock only resets once per day. Is 4 times a day normal and the G-Shock is the exception to the rule? It seemed like this was at least an overgeneralization. - I don't know but my G-shock also only resets once a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:45:501:BBC0:55A:6565:61A0:43E7 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Waterproof watch available
Just letting you all know that MTM has legally been allowed to call their watch waterproof.

http://www.specialopswatch.com/cart/products.cgi?category=7

Somebody with more experience should maybe edit the entry?

Rykoshet 12:55, 22 Octover 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.249.81 (talk)

Mechanical watches "most precisely engineered mechanisms in existence"
I strongly doubt that, by orders of magnitudes. I do not think that the precision comes close to e.g. harddisk production etc.If there are no bjections, I will just remove the sentence. Brontosaurus 21:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. The other extremely precisely engineered device is actually the humble video recorder head, built to much higher precision than any mechanical watch component. Colin99 19:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 * And then there are disk drives. And diffraction grating ruling machines.  And mask steppers -- the machines that project the mask patterns onto semiconductor chips.  Those operate to tolerances that are a fraction of the IC feature size -- right now that's 45 nanometers, give or take, in the densest chips.  So watches miss the mark by at least 4 if not 5 orders of magnitude. Paul Koning 20:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

American Made Watches
I question the validity of this paragraph: Important collectible American made watches from the early 20th Century were the best available at any price. Leading watchmakers included Elgin, Gruen, Hamilton, and Illinois. Hamilton is generally considered as having the finest early American movements, while the art deco styling of The Illinois Watch Company was unsurpassed worldwide. Early Gruen Curvex models remain very desired for how they entwined form and function, and Elgin made more watches than anyone else.

It appears biased, the last sentence doesn't elaborate on 'entwining form and function' which is a very abstract phrase. Also in the same sentence it not only has a grammatical error by having a comma followed by the word 'and' but it also makes very bold point that is irrelevant to the rest of the sentence. I think a citation would be required when making as bold a statement as a company making more watches than any other company for the entire century.

Luxury watches
Perhaps high end watches needs to be addressed in further depth. Chopard and Cardier as well as most women's watches are thought of as more of jewelry and hence many are quartz. While Breguet, Blancpain, Patek are rarely quartz, and hence rarely thought of as jewelry or ornamentation but as timepieces. The section describing high end watches needs to be cleaned up, one can tell it was not written by someone that knows watches. Also I don't believe Patek invented the first wristwatch, i thought it was Breguet??

 * First please, excuse my movement of your post to this section; it will make it easier for others interested in the discussion to join. I agree that there should be more written about the high-end watch market.  The only issue I have here is that there is debate as to where some brands fall (though others are clearly in certain groups).  A good page that was alreadly linked to on this article can be found here  .  My only problems are that it spends far too long trying to explain that Rolexes aren't the be-all, end-all of watches and having a giant love-in with Omega watches and not enough on the brilliant table at the bottom that makes an admirable attempt at splitting the higher-end watches into sub-groups based on reputation and price.  As a guide to the way brands are split, here are the example given for each sub-group:

 * High-end luxury - A Lange and Sohne, Alain Silberstein, Audemars Piguet, Blancpain, Breguet, Franck Muller, JLC, Parmigiani, Patek Phillipe, Ulysse Nardin, Vacheron Constantin
 * Luxury - Breitling, Cartier, Ebel, Omega, Rolex
 * Pseudo Luxury Watches - Baume & Mercier, Raymond Weil, Tag Heuer
 * Basic Luxury Watches - Epos, Fortis, Movado, Oris

I don't know about you but this (as well as the explanations of the groups in the table seems reasonable based on my (admitedly limited) experience with luxury watches. I imagine there will be some debate on those makers not included on this list, and where they fit in as well as on other topics but I'd appreciate feedback from all about placing this table in the article or perhaps even starting (an, IMO, long overdue artilce on luxury watches in particular).--Zoso Jade 08:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't know if you want to, but you may want to add Girard-Perregaux in the "High-end luxury" section. Zenith, IWC,in the "Luxury" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.155.23 (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

 * i agree, there needs to be alot more written about both the high end complications and the luxury market. This is the part of watchmaking which is interesting! Ill get around to it in a month or two if nothing happens before that(busy on holliday!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidolafsson (talk • contribs) 21:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 * What specific price range is required to purchase luxury brand watches?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.240.5 (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Link to german version
There is a bit of a problem with the link to the german, as the english "watch" basically means "the union set of pocketwatches and wristwatches" (correct?) and there is no such word in german (there is a word for general "timekeeping device" and specific types of them, but no word that encompasses exactly those 2 specific types). The link was towards pocketwatches and I've changed it to wristwatches as those are more common, is this okay with everybody? Peter S. 16:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Today, nearly every Westerner wears a watch on his wrist

I think we need to correct that. Since cell phones are popular (since 5 years or so) I think less and less people (specialy teenagers) wear watches.

El Questiono
Why does my watch say: Mon, Tue, Wed, Thur, Fri, Sat, Sun from 1am to 12am and Dom, Lun, Mar, Mie, Jue, Vie, Sab (el spanisho) from 12am to 1am??? Answer that one... :P~

 * Your mechanical watch was built to display the day in either English or Spanish. The date wheel inside has the names of the days in both languages. When you set the watch, you will have some way of indexing it to either the Spanish or English names.
 * To advance from Dom to Lun, it has to move the date wheel two "steps". It makes these movements an hour apart.  If you look at in during that hour, you will see the "off" language.
 * Watches with many complications that need to change daily don't always change them in a single set of motions. It is normal for a watch to take several hours to prepare all the displays (day, date, month, etc.) for the new day.  Since this typically happens in the middle of the night, when the wearer awakes, the watch is ready. -O^O

News of my death.........
The beginning of the watch discussion suggests that mechanical watches are a thing of the past. Mechanical watches are produced today in the millions and will be for the forseeable future. Switzerland produced 100 million mechanical watches from 1990 to 2000.
 * I suppose what he was trying to say was that quartz has taken over the utilitarian end of the market. If you just want timekeeping functions, quartz is cheaper and more accurate.   Mechanical watches are now luxuries, valued more for their history, esthetic qualities and as jewelry than for their timekeeping abilities. -- Chetvorno TALK 00:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Not necessarily. The Seiko 5 series, for example, is a series of inexpensive but accurate mechanical watches that have been very popular from the 70s to this day. I think it goes deeper than what you suggest. Survivalists, adventurers etc as well as normal people who don't want to depend on batteries are among consumers who prefer the simplicity, ruggedness and self-sufficiency of a good mechanical watch. Good mechanical watches like the Seiko 5 models lose about a minute per week and are also automatic. One minute per week is about 52 minutes per year. Even if you went to the Amazon jungle and never adjusted the watch at the end of the year you would only be off by 52 minutes. Compare that to the problem you would have if you ran out of batteries halfway into your adventure. What kind of watch would you take  to the Amazon? Dr.K. (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Not to mention that they are "green" (environmentally friendly) and cheaper to maintain since battery replacement, if done by a watch specialist, runs at about 7 bucks a pop. Dr.K. (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 * And of course let's not forget the third world, people in villages, the handicapped, the old and other underprivileged populations for whom a trip to the nearest mall's watch specialist is either impossible, unknown, or simply not part of their way of life at all. However almost everyone has a radio. For these underprivileged people the time keeping routine involves listening to their radio time announcement once a week, adjusting their mechanical timepiece and then go about their business without having to worry about any watch battery replacement. Dr.K. (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Good points, especially about the 3rd world. I don't know what the penetration of quartz watches is there.  You're right, mechanical watches aren't a 'thing of the past', but they're becoming a smaller part of the market.  In 1998 alone, Hong Kong exported about 500 million quartz watches 1, p.231, dwarfing the decade's Swiss production of 100 million mechanical watches quoted above.  Not that I think this is good - I like mechanical watches for the excellent reasons you mentioned.  -- Chetvorno TALK 18:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. You cannot impede progress. Indeed we are all dependent and even addicted to the modern conveniences afforded to us by the ever growing number of features and modes present on quartz watches which are increasingly becoming something of a moving entertainment/connectivity centre due to technological convergence. But for the substantial minority living under more rugged conditions than we are normally accustomed to and also for the many of us who sometimes want to go back to basics such as using the watch as a device for telling time (and are not very fussy to tell it to the nearest split second), the mechanical watch will have a niche. How long this niche will last and how big it will be in the future, only time can tell. Thank you very much for your kind comments and great input, which made me think about such an interesting subject, and take care. Dr.K. (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 * If I was going to live in a 3rd-world backwater, I'd be happy to have a solar-powered quartz watch (e.g., Citizen Eco Drive). Don't know what their life expectancy is, but probably longer than most people could keep an every-day watch without losing it or breaking it. 75.149.30.179 (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 * A mechanical watch won't run forever without service. Every five years is a typical recommendation. Maybe a modern watch with modern lubricants will go for a few decades without—assuming you don't break it. But, my grandfather's watch, which sort-of still worked forty years ago when my grandmother gave it to me, is just an inert, gold-plated memento today. 75.149.30.179 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Watchmakers and Watch Brands
I'm wondering about the usefulness of this list in its current form. It is a very long list of watch makers with links to their website without any additional information. Does someone has an idea on how this list may be used by wikipedia readers ? Dragice 10:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

perhaps only independent watchmakers should be listed, and perhaps a link to a site that has more detail information about the brands. i agree, listing all the brands(all being very understated).Davidolafsson (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Where's the Cesium?
Why no mention of cesium clocks? TheLimbicOne 16:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * There are cesium clocks, but no cesium watches. Paul Koning 20:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cesium clocks are precise, but as far as I know, there are no cesium clock or timepieces of any kind sold at this moment. The closest are atomic, or radio, clocks, which, despite, the name, only connect to a radio broadcast of the time, and the broadcast is measured by a cesium clock.

 * Couple of years back, there was a guy who built a prototype cesium-time-base wrist watch. A little bit too big and klunky to be practical. It wasn't the oscillator that took up so much space though. I'm guessing it probably was the batteries. 75.149.30.179 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Commercial Links
I suggest we remove links to commercial watch vendors such as "misterwatch" and limit links to resource pages only

 * Agreed. I keep removing that one, and it keeps coming back. I have just reported the URL to the Spam blacklist, so I hope it will get permanently blocked some day. --Heron 12:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Would this be an acceptable link to use?

 * Information on the user of titanium in wrist watches

 * I added it but then started to read the guidelines and although it is informative at the same time the site is primarly for commercial intent so I'm not sure if that is acceptable. I read a suggestion to post it here and ask for advice if I am not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.150.23 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

is there anyone can anser me this Q? (Why 10:10?)
i found out that almost 99% of analoge watches shown in magazine,newspaper or cataloge show the same time. that is 10.10. why is it 10:10.is there any meaning?

Answer: This is a recurring question on many watch fora. The most common answer is: the 10:10 position looks like a 'smile'. If the hands would point to, for example, 7:20, the hands would form a 'frown'. Another answer is that this position usually doesn't block any of the watch's important features or markings (the logo, the date window, etc.). Even some digital watch manufacturers do this.

Reply: The "Smile" is something I have never heard of before. Not blocking the 12:00 brand markings is what I've heard, as well as being symmetrical. For the time being 10:10, rather than 1:50, is generally regarded that the time 10:10 can denote both evening and morning hours where one isn't up late or up early, where as 1:50 could denote that it is "past the bedtime", giving the viewer a psychological feeling of uneasiness.

Also, such as the date usually showing the 28th most generally, as well as Wednesday as a day, is because they fill the aperture of the dial the fullest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Reply : because the bigger numbers are at 6-12 it gives a more balanced look to have the smaller hand(hour, duh :) at the 6-12 side of the dial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidolafsson (talk • contribs) 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My father told me many years ago that the 10:10 time looks like a "tick" or checkmark, implying approval or correctness or yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.149.94 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

removed nonsense

 * More than this, digital watches have the more philosophical implication of fragmenting the linear and controlling functions of time. By presenting only a number that can be glanced at in a vaccum from all other time, they free the reader from a spatial notion of time. Mechanical watches force us to see time as a moving hand on a clock face, whereas the flashes of a digital clock open the space for different interpretations and can help to ensure that our bodies and minds are not conrolled by the flows of linear time. James Herndon, a communications scholar with a focus on time studies, argues that "any attempt to disempower the biojuridical phenominological existence of timepieces that fails to recognize and delineate mechanical vis a vis digital timepieces is scholastically absurd to the point of being asinine."
 * removed above piece of nonsense from the digital watch section.
 * --Unconcerned 04:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * not quite "nonsense", but indeed it is quite over-wrought in language and, furthermore, is theoretical in nature. What the passage is trying to say is that digital watches forces you to regard time in the immediate sense, as an absolute value ("It's 2:49 right now"), while an analog watch forces you to see time in relation to the coming or passing hours ("It's ten minutes 'til two").

waterproofing
There is no section on waterproof watches: how is it achieved and what do the different waterproofing ratings mean (50m, 100m, etc.)? There is a common misconception that the 'm' rating is actually the maximum depth underwater that the watch can handle, however, this is not true. I believe 50m meant that the watch is splash-proof, 100m means it's swim-proof, and larger numbers are for diving and deep diving. I am, however, unsure of the exact specifications. Please add a section with appropriate information. maraz 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 * First of all, it's usually water-resistant, not water-proof. Second, it varies by manufacturer.  However, I think Seiko is a typical, good-quality watch maker, without being a luxury watch maker, though they do make some more expensive watches, including diving watches.  Here's the Seiko FAQ:  see the section on this topic: Seiko FAQ.  Feel free to add the information to the article--Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. -THB 20:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Made section, Watch. At least, it's a start. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

 * My Casio watch says "Water Resistant 20BAR", now how deep is that? --antilivedT 11:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

 * 20Bar is 200 meters. Are you asking or are you asking for the info to be put in the article? =P --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Just asking... ;) --antilivedT 02:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

 * It does actually not vary by manufacturer, if the watch says 200 meters its 200 meters its guaranteed to withstand(read article for clarification on what that actually means). Some manufacturers might have the tolerances bigger then others(for example all [Brand X] watches withstand 200 meters + a 20% added for security but [Brand Y] has only 15% added, if thats the variation you mean then you are right i guess, but the classification is the same for all watches. 200 is 200. Ive added some bits and pieces about the whole process of testing the water resistance of watches, i hope it makes it a bit clearer.

Davidolafsson (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Timepieces vs. clocks
I have added brief references to the nature of "timepieces" (such as wristwatches) that lack striking mechanisms, and noted that this distinction sets them apart from "clocks," which usually have bells or gongs that announce the passage of time. Some watches, of course, have this feature and can correctly be designated clocks. It is hoped that this distinction will be helpful to those who investigate timekeeping instruments and their useful characteristics. Jack Bethune 19:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrist Watch invented in the end of the 19th century?
I sincerely doubt this. While researching Baroque paintings, I encounter the French piece of A Lady on Her Day Bed, 1743 by François Boucher. His wife is posed reclining upon a day bed and is clearly wearing a wrist watch. The piece is located in the Frick. External Link:Painting in the Frick Collection displaying the wrist watch

 * The first documented sale of a wristwatch was by Breguet to the Queen of Naples in 1810. Adam Wang 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That does actually look like a watch, although it could also be some kind of jewelery. JayKeaton 22:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How do stopwatches work?
I decided to answer this question before it's asked. Watch crystals are invariably 32768Hz. Divide by two, 15 times, and you get 1Hz pulses to drive a watch counter or electromechanical movement. So, I hear you ask, how do stopwatches work, these count in 10ths or even 100ths of a second? Well they could re-engineer the whole thing to use a different frequency of crystal, perhaps 100kHz instead of 32.768kHz, then the required fractions of a second could be taken from divide-by-10 counters. They could, but they don't. In practice the stopwatch adds 1/32768 second fractions to a counter and calculates how many 10ths or 100ths of a second have elapsed since the start signal. Of course this is an approximation, but good enough for a wristwatch. This is done because 32.768kHz crystals and trimmers are readily available in the required small size for a watch, other frequencies would consume more space and the dividers would probably consume more power. Colin99 19:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that someone has changed from "most" to "many" watches have 32768Hz crystals. No, it should be most. Virtually all in fact. Name a recent quartz watch which uses any other frequency... Colin99 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Several Seiko watches use the 8F35 movement which has a 196,609Hz crystal, for example the diver model SBCM023.72.242.92.138 (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Brett Clark

 * I don't know how it's done, or even whether it's done -- it may be designers simply use the closest approximation and ignore the error. (That could easily be tested.)  However, it's easy to do it right -- using a frequency synthesizer. Paul Koning 01:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

 * In the first stages of quartz movement design, the first oscillator was not 32.768kHz. I am not certain of the frequency, but it was much slower, and the crystal a much larger size, which consumed more energy to maintain its oscillations. The tuning fork shaped crystal design which was at 32.768kHz was the major breakthrough in the electronic quartz watch design, though the technology was developed elsewhere, not in a watch factory. In regards to Paul Koning's remark, that is almost precisely how it is done. It would be practically impossible to cut and manufacture quartz crystals to vibrate precisely at 32.768kHz. As with all manufacturing, there is a tolerance of machining. Manufacturers will cut the crystal into the tuning fork shape smaller than the required size. This makes the oscillations faster, thus the watch will run faster if not compensated some how. In practical purposes, an unadjusted quartz watch will run three or four seconds fast a day. Older quartz logic circuits had a trimmer that could be manually adjusted by the manufacturer or watchmaker, such as a regulator arm on a balance and hairspring mechanical watch. Newer quartz watch circuits will have a function in their logic called "Inhibition". What this does is every 60 seconds or so, depending on how many times the coil is impulsed, rotating the gear train and progressing the hands, the IC will halt a programmed duration, delaying the next impulse of the coil. This lets the watch, which was gaining time for one minute, slow down enough to essentially maintain accurate timekeeping. Generally, this cannot be readjusted by anyone besides the circuit manufacturer, which is nearly never the same as the watch movement manufacturer. A select few of professional quartz watch testing devices have abilities to modify this setting through trying to flash a new variable into the IC of the circuit, but it does not work well in the field of watch repair. It is more efficient to replace a bad circuit than repair it. Besides, most watchmakers were trained in the mechanical aspect of watches and only briefly into the theory and application of electronic watches (like myself).

Unitepunx 21:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While an interesting item you have added there, it's not quite answering the right question. We were pondering the way that 10th and 100th's of seconds were adjusted in stopwatches, not how watches in general maintain timekeeping.  Paul's idea would be impractical within the power constraints of a wristwatch, I believe.  But since you have raised the point of timekeeping, this is interesting that many manufacturers no longer include trimmers.  So the watches (or at least ones away from the sub £5 bracket) would be trimmed at manufacture of the chip and crystal assembly.  This seems entirely logical.  I once had a brainwave that radio controlled watches could "learn" the inaccuracy of their inbuilt crystal used for timekeeping between radio reception, and apply adjustments throughout the day, ideal if radio reception might be unavailable for some days for example.  A short conversation with Junghans informed me that they do this already in some of their newer designs.  Colin99 19:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure why you say a frequency synthesizer would be impractical in a watch. It only takes a few transistors, and there's no reason it should take more than a trivial amount of power.  Also note that you'd only need to turn it on while the stopwatch function is operating, which further reduces the issue. Paul Koning 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge "mechanical watch" here?
I'd suggest merging mechanical watch into this article, since it doesn't seem to stand on its own as a separate article. Paul Koning 18:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

 * May I request that mechanical watch not be merged into watch. I think it would be more beneficial to the community to expand on the mechanical watch article as itself. In my opinion, the article is very poorly written in its current state. Unitepunx 21:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with User:Unitepunx. I feel there is so much innovation going on in the watch field (the proliferating functions of digital watches, combinations of analog and digital technology, new materials, new power sources, new styles, etc.) that this article has to cover.  Whereas mechanical watches are a separate, more traditional field, and should benefit from their own article.  If both mechanical and digital watches were covered thoroughly in this article, it would be HUGE.  I agree with Paul that the existing mechanical watch article is broken, but I'd like to see it fixed, not merged. -- Chetvorno TALK 21:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Roman Numerals - IV vs. IIII
Why do most watches with Roman Numerals display IIII vs. IV? I have read a number of theories but none seem conclusive. Any ideas? Rclancy 18:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)rclancy

As you mention there are many theories, but the one most traditionally held by the watchmaking community at large is that when dials were made in the 17th and 18th centuries, usually by a dialmaker that had little to no knowledge of watchmaking or manufacture, they were told to keep the numerals 9:00 through 3:00 inwards, so the bottom of the numeral was to the center of the dial, and the numerals 4:00 through 8:00 outwards, so the bottom of the numeral was pointed outwards to the edge of the dial. This made it seem that when the dial was held up, all the numbers were still vertical in nature, even though they were nearly all rotated to be in line with the radius of the dial. As these were made, they started to notice that 6 (VI) and 4 (IV) were too close together and were sometimes confused. So since 6 was more prominent, they left it alone, changing IV to IIII.

Unitepunx 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A common theory is that the ancient Romans avoided putting "IV" on a sundial face so as not to insult Jupiter (whose name was spelled out IVPITER in their calligraphy), the most important of the gods. WHPratt (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean it to be quite different
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 Stone 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: As a newer user and contributer of Wiki, i would agree that Watch should provide general information on the watch, specifically cases, displays, bracelets, etc. where as Mechanical Watch should be the recipient of much of the information that is on this page. I'm afraid this page is in dire need of a cleanup. As example, one of the first sections, Parts, includes a tourbillon along with the balance and escapement. while it denotes that it (tourbillon) is 'Optional", it is the most unlikely complication added to a watch. I think the Gear train can be added in its place, and subdivided into the 5 Different classifications of gear trains in a simple mechanical watch etc, along with the 3 types of gear trains... blah blah blah I can go on.

Point being. Please don't merge Mechanical Watch into Watch —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

 * Alas, I didn't see that "Parts" section in the article today, so I created a new "Parts" section from scratch.
 * Is there anything from the old "Parts" section that should be restored? --DavidCary (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Not representative enough?
I'm puzzled by today's edits in which a number of photos and other material were eliminated on the grounds of "not representative enough". So what? Are they good photos that illustrate what the article describes? If so, leave them in. The fact that they are Russian instead of Swiss is not relevant. The fact that they may not be the first chronographs isn't relevant either. Paul Koning 17:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the entire gallery of photos was deleted, in addition to an excellent close-up of watch internals at the top of the article. They are all photos of watches, both digital and analog, very representative.  The user who deleted should have been more specific, and should have made a note in the talk page.  I am reverting as best I can. --Bridgecross 16:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I see some of his reasoning now; most of the watches in the gallery were from one Russian company. This made the gallery seem like an advertisement, and it was a bit one-sided.  However not ALL of the photos were like this, and it also left the article without a decent photo near the top.  I am reverting some of the gallery, and moving a photo up.  Anybody have better idea, let me know.--Bridgecross 16:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. Paul Koning 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 * This may be old, but I am noticing that the Poljot watch image which is captioned as a Russian Mechanical Watch Movement is actually the swiss ETA Caliber 6497, which has had its bridges shaped in the similar way Panerai shapes the bridges in the watches they produce that also have this movement.
 * td;dr: That picture representing a watch movement is Swiss, not Russian. Poljot is a Russian Watch Company, but they don't manufacture movements anymore.
 * Unitepunx (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

what's the deal with these watches?
I'm not commercially link spamming, I really want to know. Are these weird LED things common in Japan? Notable enough to be mentioned in the article? --86.144.101.134 16:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Digital watches with unconventional displays are widely available across the world. There are several gadget sites selling them and I have found retail stores in my country providing them as well. So either you are in good faith but ignorant or you are spamming, but claiming not to be. In either case I'm removing the link to the online store, since it's against wikipedia's policy. Now if you want to add a section to the article about unconventional watches, be my guest, I actually think it would be a worthwhile addition. --Ferengi 18:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Article needs to be reorganized?
This article desperately needs a comprehensive rewrite/reorganization. The only section on the history of watches, misleadingly labeled 'Pocket timepieces' is very incomplete. The section on 'Parts' only deals with mechanical watches, and only mentions the escapement and balance wheel, ignoring other essential parts. And the above 2 subsections are grouped under 'Watch cases'! The article seems like an eclectic collection of sections on watch features people have added because they are interested in them. Nothing wrong with that, but someone needs to edit it into a comprehensive, organized overview. -- Chetvorno TALK 00:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Added a comprehensive section on the history of the watch. -- Chetvorno TALK 04:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I question the sub articles in the history section. At first it seemed there was a section dedicated to each century during the watch's history. However, there are sections refering to specific years. And on top of that, there are events and innovations that took place before or after the dates indicated in the sction title. I suggest either having sections designated for each century; or, if that doesn't lend itself well to the watch's evolution of the years, perhaps a section for each era in the watch's development, including a range of years during which that era took place.Ghost650 (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The history section is organized along the lines of your latter suggestion, broken into eras. Each era begins with the year in the heading, and ends with the beginning of the next era.  I didn't give the range of years (e.g. 1657-1765) for each era, only the beginning year, to avoid duplication.  Perhaps this is confusing.  As you point out, some of the eras mention events that occur before or after that era, in the interest of continuity.  It was difficult to show the connections between technological innovations through time while strictly segregating events into eras, so I violated the segregation in some places.  I think it improves understanding.  -- Chetvorno TALK 05:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Did celestial navigation have anything to do with watches?
Re: 'Pocket timepieces' section. Did celestial navigation have anything to do with the development of watches in the 15th century? What I've read says portable clocks and watches evolved because people wanted to know what time it was, for daily use. Besides, before the balance spring in 1657, watches were so inaccurate (~1hr/day) that there's no way anyone would think them applicable to navigation. Mostly they were just expensive novelties for the rich. Of course later, during the 18th & 19th centuries, marine chronometer design innovations were applied to watches. -- Chetvorno TALK 00:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont think celestial navigation had anything to do with timekeeping before the 17-18th century. Since as you say, they were extremely inaccurate, they didnt even have a minutes hand. Davidolafsson (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ten Past Ten
Why do watches, when advertised, almost always show the time ten past ten? Could the answer be added to the main article? Robinson weijman (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From this posting under the title "Ten past ten" Quote: is the best placement of the two arms of the watch and it makes the appearance of the watch very elegant and in a state of equilibrium. and this setting of the watch as a face symbolic of gleeful reception which gives cheers to a viewer/reader. The two arms of the watch equally stretched divergently upwards symbolise receiving a person warmly with open arms. That is why the watch is invariably shown "ten past ten. The posting then goes on to analyze other hand configurations and it concludes that 10 past 10 has the optimum appeal based on aesthetic/psychological reasons. 17:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also here it is mentioned that 10 past 10 looks like a smiling face. Dr.K. (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those answers. So, should this be added to the main article?  By the way, I've often heard this "smiley face" argument - but is it true?  I mean, does it work.  Any articles on that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinson weijman (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The smiley face link which I found seems to be a reliable source but I don't know of any books that mention this or the other reasons for the 10:10 configuration. As far as inclusion I am against creating a new section only for this fact but if there is an advertising related entry, in any section, it could be included with inline citations. I consider this to be an interesting point but not necessarily of significant encyclopaedic importance. On the other hand this is just my opinion. If you disagree please go ahead and modify as you choose. Bye for now. Dr.K. (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There used to be an article called 10:08 discussed this, but it was deleted because it was mostly speculation with lots of contradictory claims. Before adding any information to this article, I would recommend reviewing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10:08 discussion.  It would probably be very useful to ask a wikipedia admin to recover the deleted talk page and article so that it could be used as a starting point.  If someone wants to put the effort into actually making a good article on this subject, I think you make something that wouldn't be delted again.  However, references like mentioned above to would not qualify as reliable sources.  Wrs1864 (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, I do think it is of importance for Wikipedia, because you see this everywhere! Here's another question: is it Ten Past Ten or Ten To Two?  Robinson weijman (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As the old 10:08 article explained, there are many times being used and many sources that claim that the time on clocks/watches in advertising is "always" 10:10, 1:50, 8:20, and quite a few other times.  These conflicting sources that claimed that the when the time "always" was is part of why the article was deleted.  Again, this is something that someone will have to put some effort into or it will just be deleted again.  Wrs1864 (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fish wearing a wristwatch
It's a long shot, but does anyone know the name of a children's story featuring a fish who always wanted to have a watch? Eventually the wish is granted and the fish gets to wear the watch around his or her waist. I've been trying to track this down for years with no luck --Totorotroll (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrist or all?
Is this article meant to bear mainly on wristwatches, or is it meant to cover both wrist and pocket watches? If it's the latter, I'd like to suggest that this be changed to have this article mainly deal with wristwatches, as the pocket watch has its own article. As such, it would delete redundancy. History could be kept to pocket watch history in that article, and wrist watch history here. Right now, it seems like this article is MAINLY about wrist watches. It would be easier to move pocket watch info to that article, and add the template

to deal with any issue. If noone has objections, I'd like to make that change. TheHYPO (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)'''

 * The mechanisms of mechanical wristwatches and pocketwatches are almost the same, and historically are part of a continuous line of technological development. A history of wristwatches has to include the history of pocketwatches, to cover the origins of the mechanism.  I'd like to see the chronological history of watches in this article stay together, and not be broken up into segments destributed among various articles.  -- Chetvorno TALK 02:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Maybe discussion on the mechanics and mechanisms of watches, both pocket watches and Watches could be moved over to Mechanical Watch, where, in my opinion, it seems better suited? Unitepunx (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo of a digital watch (issue resolved)
Does anyone have a better photo of a digital watch? The one shown doesn't have the standard time-of-day displayed. Jeff Muscato (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I found a usable photo on the Timex Ironman article, so I'll try to work it into the watch article as a graphic for a standard digital watch. Jeff Muscato (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Done—I added a thumbnail of a standard digital watch with the time displayed. Jeff Muscato (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplicated images
No prize for spotting it, but one image is used twice. that can't be right? ProfDEH (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

2009
Both Le Locle and its geographical twin town La Chaux-de-Fonds, located in the Jura Mountains, the cradle of the Swiss Watch Industry, have now been recognised as an UNESCO World Heritage Site, for their horological and related cultural past.

ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 * No, not in their own section. But the info could be packaged differently and put in the history section. Something like: "In the history of the watch the cities of...... are considered the cradle of the Swiss Watch Industry and have been recognised....etc. "Cradle" and other assertions have to be cited though.  Dr.K. logos 01:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand I don't see any mention of any historical watch-making cities in the article so either we add some information about other watch manufacturing centres or leave this info out altogether. Dr.K. logos 02:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Custom clocl face
I am looking for a clock face, size- 1"-1/1/8" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.58.67 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Digital / LED
"Most watches with LED displays required that the user press a button to see the time displayed for a few seconds, because LEDs used so much power that they could not be kept operating continuously."

All too true. I got my first digital watch maybe 1973. The first two or three batteries promptly died on me. I took the thing to a shop. "You're only supposed to light up the display four of five times a day." I was told. "How often do you do it?"

"About eight or nine times an hour when I'm teaching a class," I told him. "You have to pace a lecture, you know."

That convinced me that I wasn't an LED type person. The LCD models that came in shortly were much better in this regard. WHPratt (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of recent flowery content
I removed a recently added section because it uses promotional-type language and the ideas presented are naive and unencyclopedic. It also uses commercial external links as references. A quote from a portion of the removed text may illustrate some of the flowery language which coats quite mundane and useless concepts to the point of triviality: "Furthermore, at the end of the decade, on 20 July 1969 to be exact, the wristwatch was quite incredibly used on the mission to the moon where NASA astronauts immediately recognised the usefulness of this tool." Wow, you don't say. The fact that astronauts used wristwatches is presented as incredible. What next? Should they have used a sun-dial instead? And what with the "astronauts immediately recognised the usefulness of this tool"? Is this difficult to recognise? And must you be an astronaut to recognise the usefulness of the watch? What about the billions of people who wear one in every corner of the planet? Do they just wear one for kicks? Please leave these incredible statements for a blog or something of that type. And leave the commercial links out of the article. Thanks. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course I couldn't omit the introduction:"The coronation and undisputed success of wristwatches came about in the 1960s when even the stars of the big screen started to wear such timepieces in their films; artists of the calibre of Sean Connery in the unforgettable Bond film series, Steve McQueen in The Hunter or the great Paul Newman in Winning." I guess prior to their "coronation" in the 60s, the wristwatches lived a life of failure, poverty and neglect, wallowing in self pity and frowned upon by the masses who refused to wear them. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And please stop edit-warring attempting to insert such tripe into the article. The time is ripe, not for tripe but, for some responsible second thoughts. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree. Glad to see somebody cleaning up this junky article.  Parts of it seem to have been lifted by semiliterate people from watch industry promotional material or ad copy.   This is an encyclopedia, not a hobbyist's blog; this is not the place to promote your favorite watch. -- Chetvorno TALK 16:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

David Usinski
David Usinski was the creator of the watch and was formally known as "Ticker" back in 1631. although many people had disagreed with him and his invention of the time device. It was 3 years later that he came with his first design of the watch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devole (talk • contribs) 10:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

History
Article became too big. I think that "History of watches" should be shifted into separate article - it is good written and interesting by its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.8.94 (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

References, definitions, general article
I am putting in my own efforts to this article. There are several specific pages on the pocket watch, mechanical watch, time, etc. The statements in this article, especially in the opening few paragraphs, aren't backed up by good references. A statement was made in paragraph 2 that "Most inexpensive and medium-priced watches used mainly for timekeeping are electronic watches with quartz movements", but the referenced article doesn't say this at all! It just says that as time went on, quartz started replacing purely mechanical approaches to tracking time. It is possible to buy a full automatic knock off watch that tells the time for about $100 USD. I don't think it's a good idea to generalize on the technologies found in the typical watch at a given price point, that's really all over the map. Someone looking to read about a watch needs a general overview on wrist and pocket watches, a basic history, checked facts, etc. and then the article should refer to the article on Mechanical Watch, Time and Pocket Watch.

I will do my best to tighten up the article with whatever references I can find.

Derekd73 (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 * The whole article is staggeringly full of original research, personal insight and generally poor prose. I've done a bit to address that but this will be a long-term project. You're right that the various timepiece articles seem to have an incoherent relationship to one another, not helped by their having been moved about, retitled, split and merged multiple times over the years. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

History
The "history of watches" entry redirects to History of timekeeping devices, which has a short section on Watches, which directs the reader back to the "Watches" page. On History of Timekeeping Devices, there is no mention of the Digital watch. That article expects this article to provide a history of watches. Can someone please decide what to do and move that section or flush it out? It would be a great read on its own, I agree :)

Derekd73 (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I've split the section back out to history of watches. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Invention of the wrist watch
Here in Brazil, people say that the first person to invent the practicability of using a watch on the wrist was the Brazilian inventor Alberto Santos Dumont. As he was going about his mechanical experiments, each time he wanted to check the hour, he found it clumsy to reach for a pocket watch, so he experimented fastening the watch to his wrist. From this to designing a watch shaped expressly to be worn in the wrist was a short jump. João Carlos de Rezende Martins (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

 * See this WP entry. That should clear things up.TMCk (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional Readouts
I've never read an explanation for those extra circular readouts on some wristwatch faces (see the picture of the "space" watch in the article). One dial seems to have six hours marked along its circumference, another has 45 minutes. If these could be set independently, they might be useful, but my experience is that they're tied to the main hour reading. Of what use is a dial that goes around four times a day and another that goes around 32 times a day? These would seem to be redundant information. WHPratt (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The watch is a chronograph that can be used as a stop-watch for timing events. One sub-dail shows the number of elaped minutes and the other the number of elapsed hours. Racklever (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of digital clocks and watches
Timetables are always printed in a digital manner: Thus the plane, train or bus will be “leaving at 11:15”, never it will be “leaving when the short hand points upwards except for a small angle to the left and when the long hand points to the right”.

To compare the watch reading with the timetable is thus much easier and more straightforward with a modern digital watch than with an old-fashioned analog watch. Even inexpensive digital watches are also usually more accurate than the most expensive analog watches. (See COSC). Why then are analog watches still being manufactured and sold? This is partly explained by the fact that analog watches are often heavily advertised as being both jewels and timepieces rather than just timepieces.

A typical digital watch will display: SUN 01-29, 17:25:15. It is all there except for the year, which is 2012. The watch does in fact keep track of the year too, checking whether it is a leap year, but the year is not displayed for reasons of space. Most people keep track of the year anyway. Sixtamia 10:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixtamia (talk • contribs)

The Financial Times for Sept. 8, 2012 has an interesting article considering the virtues of craft over precision. Mechanical watchmakers try to increase precision by introducing ever higher escapement frequencies. But “nothing they produce will match the accuracy of a cheap electronic watch.” Sixtamia 09:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixtamia (talk • contribs) 09:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sweep seconds
I have edited a section that claimed the term sweep seconds refer to the gliding motion of a second hand in a mechanical watch. This is not correct, sweep seconds is a second hand mounted in the center of the watch face, as opposed to in a subdial. It literally sweeps the face of the watch. For sources see here or search for seconds in this horological dictionary. Ramskjell (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Space - Watches flight-qualified by NASA
This list is not substantiated by any references my Internet search engines turn up.

Flight-certified by NASA for all manned space missions: Omega Speedmaster Professional 3570.50.00

Flight-Qualified by NASA for space missions: Omega Speedmaster Professional X-33 Casio G-Shock DW-5600C Casio G-Shock DW-5600E Casio G-Shock DW-5900 Casio G-Shock DW-6900 Casio G-Shock Master of G G-9000 Timex IRONMAN Triathlon Data Link

I found it here: http://mobile.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=187&t=839828&mid=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.97.151 (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Printed Material
I was wondering if there is an agreed upon policy/standard/mechanism for listing printed material a reader may find for more information.

To be specific, there have been a number of new books written in the past 3 years that help Gruen watch collectors. In the past there has been only 1 dedicated to Gruens. I also know of and have collected a number of magazine articles on Gruens, from the early research by Charlie Cleves in the AWCI journals, to dedicated publications by the NAWCC, and recent articles, three in the past 6 months I believe. New collectors to the brand have more tools now than ever but there isn't a place to find them without visiting the sites shown in "External links" section.

Please excuse my ignorance of Wikipedia and how it works. If there is an "owner"/"moderator" of the Gruen Wikipedia page Gruen_Watch_Co., I have a good list of books and journals that I can supply. If I am supposed to edit the page myself, some direction on what section name and format to use would be great. An example page would be even better.

--MikeTheWatchGuy (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Hello Mike and thanks for offering help! I think it might be very useful to mention those books at the Gruen Watch Co. article. You can make a section named "Further reading" right before the "External links". As a model you can use Berlin section. If you find any trouble in doing that, then you can simply mention those books here and I will create that section. You can mention here the books in a list like this:
 * Title of the first book, First Author Name, Publishing house, Year
 * Title of the second book, Second Author Name, Publishing house, Year
 * etc. For starting to learn more about editing Wikipedia, you can read Help:Editing. Have a nice day! —  Ark25  (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sales
The global watch industry will generate more than $60 billion in sales in 2013, said Citigroup Inc. analyst Oliver Chen. While that’s smaller than the pool of revenue that comes from TVs, gross margins on watches are about 60 percent, he said. That’s four times bigger than for televisions, according to Anand Srinivasan, a Bloomberg Industries analyst. TG Daily, September 2, 2013. —  Ark25  (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Casting doubt on wrist watches in the 1570s
Guinness World Records says there is no concrete evidence to support wrist watches prior to 1868.

David.castell (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The first two paragraphs of the section Watch seem to depend on the reliability of this source. This web article is an interesting read, but other than mentioning "Eugène Jaquet's and Alfred Chapuis' "Technique and History of the Swiss Watch" (ISBN-0-600-03633-2)", it doesn't cite any sources. Does anyone have access to that book? - DVdm (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Jaquet-droz and Leschot have the paperwork for a bracelet watch ordered in 1790 and a bracelet watch survives from 1806.
 * ©Geni (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ©Geni (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121120171414/http://forums.watchreport.com/index.php?showtopic=286 to http://forums.watchreport.com/index.php?showtopic=286

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150928004218/http://www.watchismo.com/search.aspx?find=muslim to http://www.watchismo.com/search.aspx?find=muslim

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 08:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Watch. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110323064128/http://invention.smithsonian.org:80/centerpieces/quartz/coolwatches/pulsar.html to http://invention.smithsonian.org/centerpieces/quartz/coolwatches/pulsar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 05:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Watch. 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/20151013191116/http://www.ieee-uffc.org/main/history/step.pdf to http://www.ieee-uffc.org/main/history/step.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasaexplores.com/show2_5_8a.php?id=02-024&gl=58
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasaexplores.com/search_nav_9_12.php?id=02-024&gl=912

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Watch


text:
File:Jody Watley - Affection.jpg

Album cover for Affection by Jody Watley

Fair use rationale for

 * It is believed that the use of this image on the English-language Wikipedia to illustrate an article on the audio recording in question falls under the "Non-profit educational" clause of the Fair Use doctrine currently upheld by United States law. (17 U.S.C. § 107)
 * The image is irreplaceable; a free analogue is impossible to produce as the original will be covered by copyright for the foreseeable future
 * Owing to the limited web-resolution of the image, only a small portion of a copyrighted work is used
 * For the same reasons, the portion of the copyrighted work used is of inherently lower quality than the original, reducing the risk of competitiveness and therefore the effects of this copy on the market for or value of versions held by the owner of the copyright

title: File:Jody Watley - Affection.jpg


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luelinks

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Speedy Delete

Luelinks
Bah. Annoying non-notable site. J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 21:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Speedy delete. These LUE losers spam this site all the time.  Some of their nonsense had to be blocked from editing so it didn't return. - Lucky 6.9 21:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Has been deleted previously (see Deletion log 22nd November) - adding speedy tag to page. David Johnson 21:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I speedy deleted this, as it meets criteria 5 of Candidates for speedy deletion, reposted vfd'd content. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:01, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)