Talk:Cuckoo clock/Archive 1

Archive 1

World's biggest cuckoo clocks

• Images and Google Map locations of World's Biggest Cuckoo Clocks

Unfortunately this is a self published source and unsuitable for citation in Wikipedia. — Brianhe (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I found what is supposedly the worlds largest cuckoo clock (located next to a restraunt in Ohio im told) can anyone find out more about this? Here is the link to the shot... http://pages.sssnet.com/glg/photo/clock.jpg . Mabye it is the same clock, but modernized. --Timmah01 11:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)-

Who invented it?

-Audz

A blogger (http://www.theconglomerate.org/2004/06/worlds_largest_.html) talks of his trips to various sites claiming to have the "largest cuckoo clock"'s around the world. He concludes that the one mentioned is the biggest. There is an image of this cuckoo clock which shows the buildings it is attached to.. http://www.touring-relaxing.de/tourist/kuckuck.htm (although the site is in german, the image is at the top of the page). I think that the clocks mentioned in his blog deserve a mention too.

--Timmah01 11:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)-

Actually, my father and his uncle built that big cuckoo clock in Ohio. You can find more about the clock store founded by these men at www.SuburbanClock.com[1]

It's not the biggest in the world anymore though, that title is being passed around by a few shops and tourist destinations in Schonach and Triberg in the Black Forest.

The smallest cuckoo clock in the world is being passed back and forth between Hubert Herr and Hoenes (both cuckoo clock manufacturers in the Black Forest).

For a lot more information on cuckoo clocks (including styles, history, care, and more), visit: www.GermanClocks.org[2]

- Dolf

I remember visiting Edinburgh in 1961 and seeing in a park on Princess Street a cuckoo in a bush calling out the hour. The clock itself was part of the landscape.

--ricgal 04:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)-

Cuckoo clocks invented by the 9th century AD?

Someone raised an interesting point on the Help Desk at Wikipedia:Help desk#No obvious insertion point in existing article today suggesting that a cuckoo clock had been invented by the 9th century AD, many centuries before the first known record of them. From the Charlemagne article: "In 797 (or possibly 801), the caliph of Baghdad, Harun al-Rashid, presented Charlemagne with an Asian elephant named Abul-Abbas and a mechanical clock, out of which came a mechanical bird to announce the hours." Any comments?

Removing from the article, there is not any proof the cuckoo clock is based on this clock or cited by horologist as a precursor: "A precursor to the cuckoo clock was the elephant clock invented in 1206 by the Arab inventor, Al-Jazari. It featured a humanoid automaton in the form of a mahout striking a cymbal and a mechanical bird chirping after every hour or half-hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.119.218 (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing "Conclusion" from "The cuckoo clock in culture"

It doesn't serve any purpose in the context of the article. Whitehat 13:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing "The cuckoo clock in culture" from the article

This section is unencyclopaedic and does not provide any relevant information.

A section on the cuckoo clock in culture is vital. It is more important that the trivial design/production history of a kitchy item. The cuckoo clock is only important because of its life in culture - as a reference and a signifier. And the cuckoo clock is perfect example of how such objects function semantically - especially since they are firmly associated with Switzerland and Swissness, but in fact only have a slim connection with that country in terms of production. Tsinfandel (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the design and evolution is what it is really vital for the article, the essential information people need to know and learn about its history, more important than its influence in the Western Culture. As you know this is an enclyclopaedia not a sort of a detailed list where we can add everything we want to, this way the articles would become endless as there is always something to add, if for every single article on wikipedia a "culture" section is added; in music, literature, cinema..... the articles would be tiring to read and with a very large size, something that Wikipedia discourages and this is the case. On the other hand the guidelines also clear up that "Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details". Last but no less the cuckoo clock in culture is on this section so it has not been deleted. Jafd88, 24 september 2009.

Switzerland

There was a dubious claim that often people believe cuckoo clocks are associated with Switzerland. What is the source of this claim? Because of a movie made in the 1940's with that reference?? Often mistaken in the USA because of a Mark Twain story from the 1890's (A Tramp Abroad)?? Being unencyclopedic and having a lack of verifiability - I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackOL31 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Manufacturer external links

Anon editor who returns the manufacturers links to the article: Please explain to us why this is not a clear violation of WP:ELNO #5, "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services..." What is the "value add" of the manufacturers' websites to the encyclopedic content of this article? — Brianhe (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Constant editions from Jafd88

This user keep deleting valuable information from this page. Taking into account any concerns of Wiki guidelines all possible ad-wording has been re-written & copy edited out.

The section's of note for the development of the industry in general and for the public without pressing anyone into a particular type of unit. It is also not correct lines to remove whole sections. I am happy to hear you views on this issue. However, if you look at the user's talk page, you'll see several comments about edits to this particular article with some being viewed as possible vandalism.

Indeed Jafd88 has gone on to make a separate article of just this section alone, via copy & pasting, and keeps deleting it from this article with no internal links. That new stand alone stub should be deleted and discussed in context of this article as it was originally. Please reply to come to an agreement on this article. Black Stripe (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to user Curb Chain for their constructive edits on this page, by the way.

First of all, it is not your article and you are not the one who decide what is vandalism and what is not.

1) You say "valuable information" (for who?) and "the section's of note for the development of the industry in general and for the public without pressing anyone into a particular type of unit". On the contrary, you are only talking about the industry of a specific region; the Black Forest, and you dare to state without "pressing" anyone?, your information is not objective at all. Is the B. F. the only place in the world where c. clocks are made?

2) Hidden under the name "certification", you are advertising a private association established with the aim to promote, develop, market and in the end selling mechanical cuckoo clocks manufactured exclusively in the B. F. It is not an independent organization responsible for certifying the accuracy and precision of clocks, like for example the COSC in Switzerland.

3) The article is about the history and evolution of cuckoo clocks, not about a specific organization and that was the reason why I created the new article about the Black Forest Clock Association.

4) In the past, the section "Cuckoo clock in culture" was in the article too, but somebody made a new article because it was more appropriate one of its own, same as this case. So saying "..made a new out of context stub article outside of context". I wrote an internal link (you deleted) to the aforesaid article in the section "See also" so how can you say "with no internal links!"?

5) You try to discredite me by saying "if you look at the user's talk page, you'll see many comments about several edits to this particular article with some being viewed as vandalism". Who exactly? The word "vandalism" is only mentioned in 2009 by a robot, not an user and if you have taken the trouble to click on "changed" the reason was because I created the section "Cuckoo clock in culture", a section is now an article as I said above. Jafd88. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafd88 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to Jafd88 - Point by point

1) Not true at all. It is perfectly fair & true to say that in the Black Forest region clock makers have set up a syndicate to protect their tradition of clock making without in any way insinuating that it is the only place in the world that Cuckoo clocks are made. As stated form the article, and comments on images & video, the clocks are made all over the world, but the VDS syndicate was set up as well. It's an important part of this type of clock's overall information to know this. No-one will assume that ONLY the Black Forest produces cuckoo clocks, just there is a certificate programme in that region that manufactures, if they so desire, can obtain accreditation from.

2) Not at all! You suggest that the word certification is advertising. That's not true. It's of note that there happens to be such certification, set up by a specific named syndicate, in the industry. The comment to the video of the cuckoo clock locate the origin of the clock as China. The avant garde clocks in the contemporary section are Italian.

3) This evolution of syndication and it's own quality control in manufacture of a certain type of this timepiece is about the history of the development of the clock. You created a stub article that is stand-alone, unlinked and useless out of context for the reader. Are people going to look for VDS in anything apart form Cuckoo Clocks!? Indeed, if you search for the Black Forest Association on Wikipedia, you'll find Schwarzwaldverein. Hardly connected to Cuckoo Clocks. Very few indeed will look for a stand alone stub that's not linked to anywhere else called the 'black forest clock association' without being referred there from the certification section in this article, which is where it's in context.

4) Cuckoo clock culture was made separate article (although I could hear arguments to merge it with this main article). So? Does that mean you need to delete out a worthy section of the mechanical clock's development and heritage? It seems you are defending your original deletion of the section by subsequently tucking it away via opening a new stub which will not be readily available, to cure what you see as bias to the VDS, which it isn't to start with. Indeed, the term syndicate, (which is linked) will tell everybody what this group is about - protecting it's own interests against the non-German made and Quartz influx of Cuckoo clocks from harming their business and diluting what they see as part of their heritage of a specific type of time piece manufacture. Readers will understand this. And yes, I deleted your internal link because at the time all it lead to is a carbon copy & paste of what is already in the article! People don't need to read it twice!

5) As anyone will see form your talk page history, you have made several edits to this article which seem on face value biased and have been questioned. One refers to vandalism. However, I do assume that you act in good-faith in line with wiki policies. Nonetheless, the creation of stand-alone stubs filled with deleted sections from within another article is non-constructive and in this case unwarranted as in the above points mentioned to do with it relevance to this subject matter.

Jafd88, I think if you read the section again, you'll note that it's been edited to weed-out any possible bias. If you don't agree, kindly edit it yourself until you're satisfied that it in no way acts as a bias. However, deleting it entirely is not the best move for the completion of this article's information. I appreciate your passion and dedication to having neutrality in Wikipedia. Black Stripe (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Third Opinion The certification section seems to be unduly focused on a small section of Cuckoo clocks. There doesn't appear to be a product protection in place from the EU (like champagne only being sparkling wine from the Champagne region of France), at least none is mentioned in the article. While the syndicate is potentially notable in its own right (although the section is entirely unsourced), I don't see a need for more than a sentence or two in this article with a link to an article for the syndicate. Eastshire (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply Actually it's not a small section of clocks at all. With over 300,000 sold to North America in the last few years (see the VDS Website). For mechanical cuckoo clocks it's the biggest market share. This is not reflected in the article due to perceived bias from Jafd88. The article section has been amended to prevent this misconception via data sourced from the VDS website. Black Stripe (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The section says that the clocks are made all of the world and then discusses just those made in a particular region. That's a small section of world wide production. For this section to be important, the vast majority of all Cuckoo clocks (not just the traditional construction clocks) would need to be produced by this syndicate. Otherwise, it's an undue focus on a small section of Cuckoo clocks. For example, imagine if a significant section of the Soft drink article was devoted to Coca-cola. Even though Coke has a huge market share in the soft drink market, it is only mentioned in passing in the soft drink article. Eastshire (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply The vast majority of hand made, mechanical, cuckoo clocks are produced in the Black Forest region. While it's true that there are many Quartz cuckoo clocks now made world over, that is not representative of 'traditional' mechanical cuckoo clock manufacture. The section has been modifed to point this out. As such, it's not an undue focus on one region, as if one goes to buy a traditioanl hande-made cuckoo clock it will almost certainly originate from one of the companies registered with the syndicate. This is just what the syndicate was set up to promote. In your soft drink example, it's like saying that almost all lemonade is made in one town in New Jersey only, with a syndicate set up to protect New Jersey traditional lemonade making. That would be of note to a soft drink article. Black Stripe (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. It would be of note to an article on lemonade, but lemonade is too small of a subsection of soft drinks. Likewise, this article is "Cuckoo clock," not "Traditional mechanical cuckoo clock." The focus on this syndicate in this article amounts to advertising them as the only "true" makers of cuckoo clocks and while you (and even many others) may believe that is true, it's not a position an encyclopedia should be taking. If the EU had made it illegal to refer to cuckoo clocks produced elsewhere as cuckoo clocks, a la champagne and sparkling wine, that would be notable. This, however, isn't the case. Eastshire (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply If you follow that example (which is not great here, as it's losing connectivity) it would be seen seeing it as clocks vs. cuckoo clocks (vis a vis soft drinks and lemonade). In the mechanical Cuckoo Clock sphere there is only really this region seen as authentic, which has been noted by the German trademark office as such. They would not have awarded it this distinction unless it was something the government would stand behind as unique. You're correct that it does not seem to have the same protection as Champagne which is commonly known to be a region, but with the trade mark awarded the syndicate based purely on region - even the parts have to be made regionally - it's fair to say that if another manufacturer was branding themselves with the seal fraudulently (e.g. a cuckoo clock made in Switzerland in the same style with the seal), the government would back-up the syndicate against the infringement of trade mark, just as the French would defend sparkling wine made outside the Champagne region calling itself such. This for sure is of note. Both Jadf88 & I both agreed that. Jadf88 was also concerned regarding neutrality, in that it seemed to him/her that the language inferred that no-one else but these makers made 'real' cuckoo clocks. That of course is not so, and has been reflected on the changes. I really appreciate this discussion and value your responses. Black Stripe (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Fourth opinion The article would need to be substantially rewritten to get it to "Featured" status. (See the section I added below, before I noticed this discussion.) For example, the information on trademark is marginal for Wikipedia, and doesn't need several paragraphs of description. It's sufficient to note briefly, if at all, that "Some brands are trademarked". Trademarks are to establish business turf, and that is of no interest to Wikipedia. That is, a "Black Forest Clock" is not, of necessity higher quality, a better value, or more reliable, it's just a branding. Just as an example of potential Wiki problems, imagine that the trademark was contested, as often happens. Then Wikipedia becomes a battleground for what is essentially a business dispute -- it's just whose lawyers win, according to terms in various agreements that could change at any time, etc. Nor does Wikipedia need a country-by-country list of accepted trademarks ... this is an English encyclopedia. Leptus Froggi (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Early & modern Cuckoo Clock certification seals.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Early & modern Cuckoo Clock certification seals.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Early & modern Cuckoo Clock certification seals.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor reworking needed.

I can see a couple editors have put a deal of work into this article, so rather than make changes, I'll make suggestions.

- Overall, this article is verbose, and would be difficult for many readers to finish.

- Phrasing such as "almost without variation", "now conventional", "so-called", and "almost always weight driven" are qualifications that for most readers muddle the reading, instead of clarifying it. A reader assumes what's being described is typical, unless otherwise stated. This sort of language should all be removed.

- Equally there's some aspect of this being informal language, as in, "It is hard to judge how large the proportion of cuckoo clocks" and "Regarding its murky origins" "prevailing in each moment". These kinds of rather flowery inspecific phrases don't belong in an encyclopedia. Perhaps unintentionally, the writer is making uncited and gratuitious observations.

- The article also needs to be rewritten with a more unified "voice". The opening paragraph uses "strike the hours" and "note", while the next paragraph uses "bird that appears", "strike" and "striking", and the next paragraph uses "melody sounds" and "sounds". These are really all the same, synchronized process, and shouldn't be presented to readers as six different things, just for the sake of literary variety. Remember that a substantial number of readers will not have seen a cuckoo clock outside of a video, and most of those will never have touched one.

- I removed what may have been promotion for the Cuckooland Museum, which contained the unencyclopedic word "finest". Checking the reference to see to what degree that sentence as a whole could be supported, I discovered the reference is by paid login only, which is contrary to reference guidelines. Seeing it, then, as promotional and unverifiable, I removed the unencyclopedic sentence. Leptus Froggi (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

- I removed link to the main page of the NAWCC. Links should go directly to the topic of the article, not the main page of some organization, and also not to the page of a forum (a social site). Leptus Froggi (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

First Cuckoo Clock inventor

Ancient Greek Ctisibius was the first inventor of the Cuckoo Clock. 2606:EC00:10F5:BE00:ECE6:5F4D:CA4C:E222 (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Bell

N 90.128.51.244 (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)