Talk:Breitling SA

Fair use rationale for Image:Breitling logo.GIF

Image:Breitling logo.GIF 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 16:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Breitling logo.GIF

Image:Breitling logo.GIF 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 04:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Outdated logo Image:Breitling logo.GIF

This logo is outdated, the company now use the logo figuring in the french page : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Breitling_logo.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.57.90 (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

La Chaux-de-Fonds

I thought they were based in La Chaux-de-Fonds, Canton Neuchatel. The La Chaux-de-Fonds page says so. --81.105.245.251 19:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

They used to be. But since 1982 they are in Grenchen. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Ambassador"?

What's a "Breitling ambassador"? -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In the jewelery world, an ambassador is a paid celebrity spokes-model. The celebrity will wear the product visibly in their profession, even if only at receptions or press conferences after events. They may be further compensated with free products from the company they're representing. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Identifying the least horrid version of this article

In this edit (3 October), an IP removed a section on "Pricing" from the article. The section was utterly unsourced and -- as it had undated but specific prices (e.g. "Quartz models such as the Breitling Aeromarine Colt start at $2,055.00 on a rubber strap") -- had built-in obsolescence even if (denominated in some kind of dollar, at some time, somewhere) correct.

That was merely the first in a quick series of edits by the same IP. The remainder removed more unsourced material but also added unsourced material, some of which was obviously promotional (and copied from elsewhere).

The IP's first edit struck me as a good one. His/her subsequent edits seemed a mixture of good and very bad.

I therefore started by reverting all but the first of the edits by the IP. I quickly followed this up with a series of my own edits, each with an edit summary I thought reasonably informative. These edits of mine:

• removed "sources" that were mere corporate press releases
• removed material that had been flagged for over one year as needing a source
• attached "unreferencedsection" flags to sections without sources
• attached "citation needed" flags to assertions without sources
• slightly reduced the windiness of the prose

The result wasn't good. (I reluctantly left in trivia about a prop used in a James Bond film.) But I think it was distinctly less crappy than what had been there a day or so previously.

Less than half an hour later, Racklever reverted all these edits, with the summary "Last good version".

It seems to me that Racklever replaced a bad version with a much worse version. I'd be interested in an explanation. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

PS the special-purpose IP (in Switzerland) has returned to cut junk a second time. -- Hoary (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there =) You added *5* {{unreferenced section}}'s to the article - I'd have reverted you too! The single {{unreferenced}} at the top covers the whole article, no need for the spam. You did make a bunch of good changes (I agree with all of your rewording etc edits) but also removed some relevant (if badly written) information which can be properly sourced. Kinda the point of the citation needed tags I feel - if the information isn't contentious or self-aggrandising etc then leave it until it can be sourced (i.e., someone who cares enough finds it!). E.g., the Breitling Chronomat 01 being their first ever full watch should probably be on the page - why remove it? The satellite stuff is mentioned in articles re: the new emergency also. Also, this page gets ~300 views a day - "uncited for a year" doesn't mean much, unfortunately =/ Nikthestunned 15:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

On duplication of the template at the top: yes, that's a fair cop. I wonder about the rest of what you say, though. You mention two sources, but the wirefresh.com thing looks to me like recycled PR fluff. The techcrunch.com piece seems to derive from this one at ablogtowatch.com, which in turn seems heavily indebted to breitling.com. -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Those were from a cursory Google to put together a response and see if the revert was reasonable lol, feel free to add some better sources after you've taken a look at them =) Also, I don't have an issue with non-controversial information being supported by such sources - if I worked for a watch magazine and was asked to write about "WATCH A", I'd first go to the official site to get the specs etc. Nikthestunned 10:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you'd like to have a go at editing the article. (I did; it didn't go down well.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what brought it to this 'horrid' version =P Nikthestunned 08:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

To a horrid version. But since then it's been stripped of some unsourced chunks by the Swiss SPIP. The stripping doesn't worry me, but what do you think? -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Seem good to me - the info was completely unsourced and overly detailed/granular. Though now I see it, I doubt the place of founding was "Léon Breitling" . Nikthestunned 12:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Meaning

I read:

The company exclusively offered certified chronometers in all models since 2000. Watches are usually oriented towards three categories: diving (SuperOcean), aviation (Navitimer), and luxury (Breitling for Bentley).

I thought that certification was needed for the term chronometer -- that today an "uncertified chronometer" was a contradiction in terms. (This doesn't deny that some non-chronometers would be certifiable as chronometers if their manufacturers bothered to submit them for testing.) Does the first sentence just mean: "All Breitling watches since 2000 have been chronometers"?

I long thought that "luxury" denoted an unusual degree of comfort. With this understanding, a "luxury watch" is rather nonsensical. But "luxury" here instead seems to mean a product whose demand curve works in a particular way. With this sense of "luxury", aren't all Breitling's products "luxury"? How about "Most models of watch are marketed for one or other among diving, aviation, and dress"? -- Hoary (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Gave it a quick amend re: these comments and the info I could find in sources. Cheers Nikthestunned 10:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-Fiction

This feels like a work of semi-fiction papered over by facts. The original Breitling company was liquided in 1979. The original company beyond that point does not exist. Various companies bought assets, one company, Sicura, bought the name and only the name, they then dropped the Sicura name and called themselves Breitling. An article on Sicura and how it morphed into a non-originally-named Breitling may be beneficial to Wikipedia. Middle More Rider (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Got any sources to hand for this? Cheers, Nikthestunned 15:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This discusses what happened and quotes some sources: http://breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=16070 I have not put in the hours myself to find documentation. I am more into Sicura watches and own two, the big irritation is sellers inflating the prices and claiming a Sicura watch made when Sicura was still called Sicura is a Breitling. Middle More Rider (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

German Wikipedia briefly mentions it: https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitling_SA&prev=search Middle More Rider (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breitling SA. 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/20140713070723/http://www.esquire.com/features/the-digital-man/ESQ0505MAHBDIGITAL_48 to http://www.esquire.com/features/the-digital-man/ESQ0505MAHBDIGITAL_48

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

More detail on Breitling for Bentley

Please add more detail for the Breitling for Bentley, from history to collections, etc. Also, should we add an article for Léon Breitling?2605:6001:E7C4:1E00:9D05:A495:28F3:6A94 (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)