Talk:Omega SA/Archive 1

This is a talk archive. Do not edit it. If you think that any issue raised in it deserves further comment, copy the relevant portion from it, paste it to Talk:Omega SA, and discuss it there.

Omega Models

This article really needs some more info regarding the different models Omega makes and has made. Also, information about collecting vintage Omega watches is also necessary.

Also, the picture representing an Seamaster watch (the Bond watch) actually shows a Seamaster Chronograph, which is the same but includes a chronograph (stopwatch). The Bond watch does not have this feature. The legend under the pic makes reference to the helium valve at 10 o'clock, but this cannot be seen in the pic. New pic needed for these 2 reasons.

Copyright-protected content

I've deleted the "Omega and The Moon, The Speedmaster Professional" section as it was appx. 90% copied from the following locations and others:

I'll be checking the rest of the article over the next two days for other copyright-protected content. If you are aware of some there, now is the time to rewrite it. FeloniousMonk 06:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the co-axial escapement sounds suspiciously like language from the Omega web site. Especially the last sentence reads like something straight out of an Omega press release. Is this an encyclopedia entry or a brochure?

A. Vistited plenty of watch enthusiasts sites and this is pretty much how it is summed up everywhere.

Expansion

The following text was under the Expansion template on the article page; I've placed it here, because it talks about the article itself, not the subject of the article. See WP:NSR for more.

This article needs a whole section regarding the current Omega Models: De Ville, Speedmaster, Seamaster and Constellation; all with their features and uses. Also, a section on collecting vintage Omega watches is also needed. Please remove this notice when completed.

Proposed move

Any objections in moving this article from "Omega Watches" to "Omega SA" ? Racklever 18:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Omega8501.jpg

Image:Omega8501.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Omega8500.jpg

Image:Omega8500.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Omega3303.jpg

Image:Omega3303.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Omega2500.JPG

Image:Omega2500.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Omega1120.jpg

Image:Omega1120.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Omega8501.jpg

Image:Omega8501.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Omega8500.jpg

Image:Omega8500.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Omega3303.jpg

Image:Omega3303.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Omega2500.JPG

Image:Omega2500.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Omega1120.jpg

Image:Omega1120.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Omega3303.JPG

Image:Omega3303.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia section

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

Omega watches in other popular culture

The blond woman at the park in Little Children looks at her watch when calling in the children for lunch. The watch is a metal plated Omega.
President Bartlett In The West Wing is seen in episode 15 of season 1 wearing an Omega watch. There is a zoom in on the watch.
Keith Allen, British actor/comedian/singer/presenter wore a Seamaster Professional 'Bond' chronometer on the December 9 2007 episode of British car show Top Gear
Luc Besson's movie The Big Blue featured Omega's Seamaster Professional 600 which has become a collectible.
Bill Paxton first wore the Omega Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch he received in 1993 in the movie Apollo 13, however he grew so attached to the piece that he continues to wear it throughout his new show Big Love.
Top Gear host and celebrity Jeremy Clarkson wore an Omega Seamaster Professional James Bond watch for a few years until due to lack of service it started acting erratically; he recently replaced the watch with a new large size Omega Planet Ocean.
NCIS actor Michael Weatherly used to wear a Rolex Submariner at the outset of the show but has since switched his timepiece of choice to the Omega Planet Ocean with the orange bezel.
NCIS actor Mark Harmon used to wear a Rolex Explorer II throughout series but has since switched his timepiece of choice to the Omega Planet Ocean with the orange bezel.
Actor Peter Weller wore the Omega Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch in the movie The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension.
In the movie War of the Worlds, actor Tom Cruise wore a vintage Omega chronograph that stopped running when the aliens first started to attack.
Seven times Formula One World Champion Michael Schumacher is sponsored by Omega, and has been recently seen wearing an orange Planet Ocean model.
In the movie Minority Report, actor Tom Cruise wore an Omega Speedmaster Professional X-33 disguised as a Bulgari watch.
David Duchovny, in the TV show The X Files, was repeatedly shown wearing an Omega Deville Prestige watch.
In the movie The Edge, Alec Baldwin is given an Omega Seamaster Chronograph as a gift from Elle Macpherson.
Sarah Michelle Gellar was wearing the Omega Constellation in the film Simply Irresistible.
Chow Yun Fat is seen wearing an Omega Speedmaster Professional Moon Watch in the film The Corruptor.
Will Smith wears an Omega DeVille Prestige, in the film Enemy of the State.
David James Elliott wears an Omega Seamaster Professional Diver in television series JAG.
Dennis Quaid wears an Omega Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch in the movie ''The Right Stuff''
Dennis Quaid and James Caviezel both wear Omega Speedmaster Professional Moon watches in the movie Frequency.
"The Man" in the movie Undercover Brother wears an Omega Seamaster chronograph.
Light Yagami wears an Omega Speedmaster Professional Moon watch during the Death note series.

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

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

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

I have undid your migration of the "popular media" reference from the Omega watch page to the discussion section. If you are going to criticize the format then possibly you should focus the same attention on the other various brands on the wiki. I have also added a link to the presumed "source" for reference. Mjancsics (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My responses:

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

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

Recent edits by Mjancsics and Hoary: a summary

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

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

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

Capitals in subtitles

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

Omega Watches In Space Exploration
Omega Watches in Space Exploration
Omega watches in space exploration

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

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

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

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

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

References in popular Media Justification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flags, ships, prestige, gibberish

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

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

For expansion of the Sports section

An interesting article about Omega Timing: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10457187-56.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20 AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP article or advertising?

Like the majority of articles concerning horology companies, this WP entry reads as advertising copy masquerading as reference. In its present form this article does not belong on WP, in my opinion.Georgearnold23 (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only Reliable Sources PLEASE

Per WP:RELIABLE a watch forum where users post celeb photos is not for Wikipedia. Keep it on the forum. --Inayity (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says it was the largest in making COSC Chronometers from 1958 to 1969, but COSC started in 1973???

That needs to be corrected...something is wrong there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.28.10 (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Watches in Space Exploration Section - wrong claim

This section claims "All subsequent manned NASA missions also used this handwound wristwatch. NASA started selecting the chronograph in the early 1960s. Automatic chronograph wristwatches were not available until 1969."

That is untrue. In fact, the picture of the 1958 Constellation shown above this is of an automatic chronometer. I own an automatic Constellation chronometer from 1965. Any reference to Omega calibers would quickly invalidate this claim.

NASA may have had other good reasons for avoiding an automatic watch. Automatic watches rely on gravity in order to wind themselves, so this would have certainly been a problem. However, they were definitely available for sale back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.110.25.19 (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing two different features, chronograph and chronometer. A chronograph is a watch that contains a stop watch function and a certified chronometer is an accurate watch that has passed a series of tests. The first automatic chronographs became available in 1969.--Racklever (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Planetocean.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Omega wearers

I think Jeremy Clarkson mentionned wearing an Omega on an episode of the Grand Tour, should someone add him to the list? He is quite famous. Maplesyrupcan (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English

Tyfhj 2401:4900:4823:DACE:1:2:D181:A3C0 (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External link COI concern

I added an external link that I think has high value for readers and is consistent with WP:EL, but I wanted to be certain that I was cautious about pointing out a potential WP:COI issue: I have been paid by this company in the past, but was not paid for this edit or offered anything of value in exchange for editing. (See also Talk:Bob's Watches.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rolex

Does the article need to mention Rolex? See the number of times Omega is mentioned at Rolex page. Perhaps the article should focus on Omegas unique and rich history of achievements. 149.164.110.128 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]