Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of watch manufacturers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, default to keep. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of watch manufacturers

List of watch manufacturers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia is not a directory and this list appears to be listcruft. There is no good definition of what a "watch manufacturer" is and listing every brand name is not appropriate.

This article was under proposed deletion, but it was disputed with the claim that it "Should be a fairly trivial excercise to decruftify this." On the contrary, I think it will be very difficult to decruftify.

First off, note that there already is a Category:Watchmakers, I'm sorry for failing to mention this in the prod. Many of the problems with this list, however apply to that category also.

Secondly, I confess I was hoping this list would go away quietly because an explanation of why it is a bad idea is not simple nor obvious.

Watch manufacturing goes back about 500 years. The listcruft article says that any "list of something" that doesn't have a definition for that "something" is highly questionable. The closest thing to a defintion of a watch manufacturer is a watchmaker, but as noted in that article, this includes most people who just repair watches. Imagine if people who repaired cars were called automakers rather than auto mechanics, or anyone who assembled white box, repaired or upgraded computers was a computer maker.

For the last couple hundred years, a "watch manufacture" could be anything for one person to a large company. A "watch manufacture" could produce almost all parts of a watch assemble, test and finish them, but never have its name put on the dial or be sold under its name. Or, a "watch manufacture" could do little more than contract with others to produce a, possible stock, watch with their name on it. Or, a "watch manufacture" may produce a few watches, but mostly resell other watches under their name. Or, a "watch manufacture" might make only a few easy to make parts, such as the case. Or, a "watch manufacture" might not make all the parts, but do all the work required to turn a rough movement (or an Ébauche) into a usable timepeice. Or, a "watch manufacture" might take a fully working movement and add a few flourishes. Or, ....

If you removed all current "watch manufactures" that didn't just buy generic quartz movements or ETA mechanical movements, you would eliminate almost all the names in the list of watch manufacturers, and end up with a handful such as Swatch and Rolex. However, in order to do that, you would need to know a great deal about the actual watches, something that many "watch manufactures" try very hard to keep private. The watch industry makes heavy use of branding, and has for hundreds of years, with effectively idencial watches selling for 10 or even 100 times as much with one name as another.

Because of long historical and legal precedent, basically any name that has ever appeared on a watch face has a solid claim to being a "watch manufacture". Attempting to apply more modern defintions/ideas of what qualifies as a true "manufacture" will result in strong resistance from both those companies and loyal customers.

There are whole books that just list "clock/watch manufactures". For example, look at some that are still in print on shentonbooks.com: "WATCHMAKERS AND CLOCKMAKERS OF THE WORLD: 21st CENTURY EDITION" at 720 pages, "GREATER MANCHESTER CLOCKS AND CLOCK/WATCHMAKERS" at 344 pages, "COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF AMERICAN CLOCK/WATCHMAKERS 1640-1950" at 52 pages, and several others from just that one book seller.

A complete list of watch manufacturers would easily contain thousands of entries.

Wrs1864 07:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There are more than 40 links to WP articles in that list, which suggests that there is a fair amount of interest in watch makers/manufacturers/sellers. One or more of the entries are annotated--the list could be improved by annotating it further. --Hjal 09:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• "There are whole books that just list "clock/watch manufactures"" — This is a pretty strong Keep argument. Not to mention "more modern defintions/ideas of what qualifies as a true "manufacture"" sounds like WP:OR. Demiurge 13:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. Seraphimblade 14:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/questions My argument is not that there isn't interest, nor that the list would be short, but rather that the list will be effectively unlimited and unmaintainable. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists. Remember, any name that has appeared on a watch face, any person who has or had a career as a "watchmaker" would qualify. Right now, this list is primarily external links to small companies that most likely manufacture very few, if any parts of the watches they sell, along with internal links to things like Diesel (clothing company), DKNY and Victorinox which do not actually manfacuter watches, or internal links such as Roamer, Skagen, Xemex (redlinked in the list) which don't link to articles related to watches. Is there any criteria for what does or does not belong here that can make it less of a website directory? For example, there are things like list of people, but those lists seem to be restricted to internal links. Would that be a reasonable restriction? Remember, there already is a category for watchmakers, which automatically restricts the list to internal links. I will keep an eye on this, and if people can convince me that this list can be "easily decruftified", I will withdraw my AfD. Originally, I was just going to delete what I thought were inappropriate entries, but realized that would delete almost everything. Wrs1864 15:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If you see any bad entries of non-watch manufacturers, the solution is to delete those entries, not this list. Mister.Manticore 15:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, but that is kind of my point, what qualifies as a "watch manufacturer"? WP:lists explicitly says "For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value" and the historic definition would include a huge number of brand names. For example, I have a web page that lists a couple hundred names that I could add to this article, and this list is only for one particular "real" manufacturer that has been defunct for decades, it was known for *not* selling watches under other names, and I collected the list over a relatively short time. I think that if I either deleted 90% of this list, or added hundreds of new entries, that I would violate WP:POINT. Wrs1864 18:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
      • This list isn't for all watch manufacturers, it's for notable watch manufacturers (the "notable" is implicit in all lists on Wikipedia). A good rule of thumb is that, if it wouldn't deserve a Wikipedia article of its own, it doesn't deserve inclusion in the list. Demiurge 18:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, fair enough. Would it be acceptable to delete all external links? Also, I'm not sure how well WP:NOTE works when applied to companies from the 1500s-1700s. Would anyone who has been a member of the British Worshipful Company of Clockmakers (est 1631) qualify? (Of course, that would be a very small subset of all watch/clock makers) Wrs1864 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Your question is something that can resolved. For example, by removing any entries that are just brand-names labels that buy from another source with their labels put on. (Though I'd make a distinction with those that assemble from stock components). For another example, take a look at List of automobile manufacturers. Obviously the details would require some knowledge of the subject, but I suggest taking it to the list's discussion page, and seeking input from other informed persons. Mister.Manticore 22:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
        • As I said in my AfD commentary, I don't think trying to apply modern concepts of what a manufacturer is will work. As Demiurge points out, any such new definition would be WP:OR. I mentioned carmakers in my AfD so, yeah, I have looked at it quite a bit. Compared to watches, cars are a very modern invention and have a comparatively modern definition of what a "manufacturer" is. Also, as I mentioned in my AfD, these companies try very hard to hide just how much or how little they actually do to qualify as "manufacturers", which will make WP:VERIFY very hard to do and result in a lot of WP:OR for each company. There are far too many examples of "watch manufactures" that really were nothing other than a shell that sold watches with their name on it. See below where I talk about the "Advance" name. Wrs1864 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
          • First, you seem confused about what OR is. Deciding the criteria on this list is not necessarily original research. All we really need is a reliable claim about the company that they make watches. Anything else is just a convenient restriction to what's useful for Wikipedia. Where that would be on Watch manufactures, I don't know, but this AfD is hardly the place to decide. If a company is just a "shell" then I think it would be clear they should be mentioned at most under the original company, assuming the brand itself is more or less notable. If something else, then that can be determined on a case by case basis. What you talk about Elgin doing with Advance is really no different than what many electronics and appliance companies do today. (For example, Sears has several brands, including Kenmore but they are manufactured by other companies from Maytag to LG). In any case, none of your arguments add up to deletion. They are merely concerns for the individual entries on the list itself. All of which can be resolved, if you commit yourself to doing so, not just giving up and throwing it in the wastebin. Mister.Manticore 03:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Funny you would use Sears as an example. R. W. Sears started out selling watches and hired a watchmaker named Roebuck. Their late 1800s-early 1900s advertising, at best, implied that they were watch manfacturers, even though they just resold things like Elign watches. Again, this would be considered acceptable at the time they did it. So, Sears certainly should be in a list of "watch manufacturers". I kind of doubt they would could reasonably be placed in a list of "washing machine manufacturers". Wrs1864 05:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Sounds like information to be added to this article then(at least in summary form). It might also help to round out the information in the article on Sears and Elgin Watch Company. (The Sears article does mention Watches, but not Elgin, or why Roebuck was hired, the Elgin article is itself pretty bare of content. And if somebody made a list of home appliance manufacturers, they would be silly not to put Kenmore on the list in every place that it was appropriate. Mister.Manticore 15:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the long AfD to the contrary, none of the arguments presented indicate a grounds for deletion. All of this information should, if true, be included in the article on watchmakers or possibly at the top of this list, to inform folks. Deleting this list would accomplish nothing except the removal of potentially valuable information to folks. I don't know about you, but I prefer lists to categories myself. If you are concerned about the criteria, go to the talk page, establish some sustainable criteria, put it on the talk page, see if people accept it. Mister.Manticore 15:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• What a nauseating linkfarm. The only way I can see this list being of any use whatsoever to Wikipedia is if inclusion criteria limiting it to companies which already possess articles on Wikipedia were both adopted and enforced, with the list page primarily serving as a honeypot to find newly-spammed articles. Category:Watchmakers is and would remain the tool that both our readers and our editors use; this unadorned list is harder to maintain, comparatively quite incomplete, and ridiculously prone to self-promotion. Unless someone is willing to commit to removing the two or three new redlinks and external links that people who ignore a nice, friendly <!-- Please do not add external links or entries that do not have an article. --> will put into the article every day, delete. —Cryptic 15:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as pointless list. There is no encyclopedic value is providing a list of links.meshach 21:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is neither a directory nor "listcruft." Fg2 00:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, directory AND listcruft AND very lousy made. Mixes manufacturers (those who actually build) with resellers (those who put a brand label on a box). Contains pearls like Advance and "generic" names as Andy Warhol. Pavel Vozenilek 01:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

More, it contains names from a few Western countries. A really complete list of mere manufacturers would be huge. Pavel Vozenilek 01:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Advance is a great example! You dismiss it as if it wasn't a "watch manfacturer, but it almost certainly was represented as such. The Elgin National Watch Company made about 115,000 watches using the Advance name betwen 1875 and 1900. During this time, there were several recessions in the US and recessions hit watch companies hard since a good watch will last many decades and they are expensive. These Advance watches were made to much lower standards than Elgin's normal watches. Elgin also had a distribution system with jewelers such that everyone expected that Elgin would *never* sell direct to the public. Now, was the Advance name simply a name that Elgin used in order not to damage their own good name and sell direct to the public? Or, was it a shell corporation? Or, was it another company that contracted with Elgin? Besides the Elgin manufactured Advance watches, there are also examples made by the Trenton Watch Company. This could be evidence that the folks selling the Advance watches were separate from Elgin, or it could be that there were two companies with the same name.

All this happened "only" around 100 years ago. Lots of people are interested in this kind of trivial and have investigated it, but I am reasonably certain that no one alive today knows the answers to the above questions. What is clear to me, however, is that any list of "watch manufacturers" would need to include Advance, and that Andy Warhol watches are no less qualified to be in that list than Advance. Wrs1864 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Advance is dismabiguation page for a generic word. I pointed the approach this list was created - copy something, link every word, forget about it. If kept the list should be separated into the true manufacturers (they aren't that many - here's one from Czech lands [1]) and list of watch brands where marketeers could promote and battle. Pavel Vozenilek 04:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Advance link being incorrect, in fact, I'd say there are rather a lot of them on this page once I converted it from external links to internal ones, but I felt it was more important to have it done and make it right than check each and every name for an existing article. Obviously, this list needs to be fixed even if kept, but that's a job for another day. Mister.Manticore 05:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry for not getting back to this sooner. I have taken a hack at trying to clean this list up. Those that wanted to keep this list, please look at it and make sure what I did was acceptable. Those that wanted to delete this list, please look at it and see if it now is worth keeping. Mister.Manticore had previously gone through and replaced all external links with redlines, but I don't think that is a good idea because he didn't check to see if the external links were even notable watch companies. I think just creating redlines will simply encourage people to create advertising articles about the non-notable companies. Instead, I reverted his changes and removed all external links. I then went back and added in some of the more obvious notable watch companies and reorganized them into parent companies and brand names. I also deleted any internal links to articles that weren't about watch companies, but added in a few internal links to ones that had been omitted. I am certain I did not do a complete nor flawless job. However, I think this makes a much better basis for moving forward. Wrs1864 16:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken another hack on this. I have replaced the list with an exact copy of Category:Watchmakers since it was far more complete, didn't have double indirects, and linked to the right articles. I still don't see the purpose of having both a list and a category, but I guess some people like it that way. Wrs1864 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Oh, and one advantage of this in list form is that it can be organized in various ways, such as by date, by country, or whatever. Whether that's worth doing, I don't know. We'll see. Glad to see you take up some of the work though. Kudos to you! Mister.Manticore 07:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep because this list could be fairly usefull. If it gets too long, break it up.

• Weak keep as potentially useful. 38.100.34.2 00:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.