This article is within the scope of WikiProject Watches, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of watches on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team identified the following articles relating to Time as Vital: "for which Wikipedia should have a corresponding high-quality article, and ideally a featured article." Those marked with this icon: are also considered to be Core articles, "one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have."
Their quality-scale rating as of September 2010 is listed alongside each:
Here's an excellent example of how breaking down natural categories results in meaningless fragments, or ebauches in the more general sense. Why has this been relieved of its context? Wetman 21:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I respect your opinion that it seems meaningless to people only superficially interested in watches. However, what prompted me to take my time and try and make a breakdown of the watch terminology are the frequent questions I am being regularly asked about watches, its history: lots of time it is very difficult for people to understand, without a proper grasp of the terminology. Best regard. Claude Girardin
These other elements would make very small stub articles, and would reduce this main article significantly as well. Since there has been no discussion on the talk pages regarding this proposed split, I am removing the tag from the article page. However, feel free to discuss and re-add as necessary. Thanks. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)