Talk:Calculator watch

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.WatchesWikipedia:WikiProject WatchesTemplate:WikiProject WatchesWatches articles

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

this full of editorializing and speculation on fashion/pop-culture.Not a single technical detail,model list or any feature descriptions. This should be an article describing a electronic device.All these speculation belong in trivia. MidNiteNeko 15:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however, as someone genuinely coming to this page for a summary about calculator/databank watches, this article has plenty of information. If it was only formatted better, and contained citations for some of the speculation/opinion (or just toned that aspect down), this could be a competent article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.251.182 (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

Unfortunately my redirect of this article to the appropriate section of watch was undone. Let's look at what this article consists of:

The lead is largely useless.
The only sentence of the history section which is sourced is the first sentence. The first reference doesn't actually back up what the article says and the second does no more than the existing references in watch.
The rest of the second section is pure original research, mostly pop culture junk.
The "future" section is cimpletely unreferenced.

There's nothing to save here. I'm going to re-merge unless there's any reasonable argument for why in its present form this article is productive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Granted the article needs a bit of editing. I personally like the history, fluff, and fashion statements because it is interesting information that will be lost when it is merged into the Watch section under a single word "calculator watch" in a list of watch features.If WP was running out of room I can see a point to eliminating interesting bits of information. I say we just keep the article, add even more interesting information, and put a link in the Watch article to this article so people can learn more about calculator watches.Septagram (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Touch screens

Casio made at least two models of calculator watch with capacitive sensor touch screens. One version used an on-screen keypad, the other used character recognition as the user drew numbers and operation symbols over the full screen with a fingertip. The digitizers were fragile, easily destroyed with a scratch, so finding one with a working digitizer is difficult. That makes them a sought after collectible. I bought one of the character recognition type at a thrift store for 50 cents and sold it for 50 dollars on eBay. Bizzybody (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And do you have any verifiable proof of this? U¹ _quattro TALK 09:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Cost of Casio dbc-600 and cfx-400 watches during 1986.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]