Jump to content

Talk:Zodiac Watches

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Zodiac killer"

[edit]

Why has this been removed? Yes there was an IP account who has been blanking the content (without providing any sort of rationale behind their edits); however, labeling the removed paragraph as "speculative guilt by association" is equally incorrect. Letters from a serial killer called the "Zodiac Killer" featured a circle with crosshairs and the name "Zodiac" which were directly borrowed from the watch brand of the same name and same logo. Zodiac watch ads were the only known source where both the name and logo were used together before these letters showed up at the Vallejo Times Herald, the San Francisco Chronicle, and The San Francisco Examiner in 1969. This is without discussing coincidence that the prime suspect in the case wore a Zodiac Sea Wolf (which I'm assuming is where the "speculative guilt by association" rationale is comeing from).

I'm going to propose that the section be re-added at the very least as popular culture reference. I don't see how this is any different from the Rolex Submariner page that contains a section on how it has appeared in 11 James Bond films, or the page for the TAG Heuer Monaco has 4 pargraphs devoted to it's appearance in the 1971 file Le Mans. Text would be as follows:

[edit]
The symbol used by the Zodiac Killer to sign his correspondence

The Zodiac watch cross-circle symbol was the same symbol used by a serial killer who operated in Northern California in the late 1960s. The Zodiac killer coined his name in a series of taunting letters he sent to the press which he signed using the Zodiac watch symbol.[1]

The popular Zodiac Sea Wolf model was featured in the 2007 film Zodiac, which was directed by David Fincher and was based on Robert Graysmith's non-fiction book of the same name. In both the book and the film, a Zodiac Sea Wolf was worn by murder suspect Arthur Leigh Allen (actor John Carroll Lynch in the film).[2][3]


  1. ^ The Zodiac Sea Wolf: Inspiration for a Serial Killer
  2. ^ WornandWound.com, Watches on the Screen: Zodiac
  3. ^ Graysmith, Robert. 1986. Zodiac St. Martin's Press ISBN 0-312-89895-9
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankees76 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 15 April 2013
When I removed the section, it was sourced only to the wornandwound.com article which was focused more on the watch's appearance in a fictional work. With the additional sourcing and the new wording focusing more on the "in popular culture" aspect, I'm happier with the content. The hodinkee.com blog and wornandwound.com are not great sources, but with the addition of the Graysmith book (which I assume, based on brief descriptions of the book and author, has some real journalistic or documentary value to it), I don't object to adding the reworded section back in. Thanks for following up on this. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hodinkee has been used as a reference in other watch-related articles on Wikipedia, but more importantly it is a WP:RS as it's author (Benjamin Clymer)[1][2] is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. WornandWound was more for the the video/image content.
Graysmith is probably the leading authority in the world on the Zodiac killer, and would have a first hand account (through Dave Toschi) of the prime suspect and the watch as it was portrayed in the film.Yankees76 Talk 20:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like 99% of "in popular culture" sections, this is of little if any relevance to the subject of the article. If the "Zodiac killer" is notable to have his/her own article, then a link to that article could be created from this one, but the content tells us absolutely nothing at all about Zodiac Watches, which is the subject of the article. 80.168.237.80 (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zodiac killer is notable enough to have its own article. You suggest that this article should therefore have a link to that one, yet you removed that link. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed content that did not belong in this article. That content happened, I see, to contain a wikilink to another article. If you think that there is enough relevance to justify putting some other sort of link to that other article, then please go ahead. 80.168.237.80 (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"this is of little if any relevance to the subject of the article" - So the Zodiac Killer didn't use the Zodiac brand name and logo for his identity? Reliable sources are pretty sure he did. After all, he wasn't called the "Rolex Killer". And you're saying that wasn't a Zodiac Sea Wolf that was called out on the arm of historically significant prime suspect Arthur Leigh Allen in the film?[3] No need to watch the clip, we have reliable sources who are firm that it was indeed a Zodiac.
WP:POPCULTURE states that content should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader. It also states that detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not. It looks like we have all of that covered off in the section you deleted.
"but the content tells us absolutely nothing at all about Zodiac Watches" - it doesn't? It tells me that the serial killer known as the Zodiac Killer one of the most notorious serial killers and unsolved cases in United States history and the subject of numerous books and films most likely originated the name "Zodiac" and the cross symbol from this watch brand. This is no less useful than the sentence that states the Zodiac Autographic became the official watch of the Swiss Federal Railways. The infomation in the section of the article you're removing concisely outlines what an otherwise irrelevant brand is probably most famous/best known for (notable enough to appear in numerous books on the subject, well-respected horology websites, and in a major film). Can you provide a better rationale for removing the content that cites relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines? Yankees76 Talk 13:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can't provide a better reason for removing it than that the content tells us nothing about the watches, as there can not possibly be a better reason for removing content than that it tells us nothing about the subject of the article. We do not include everything that has any remote connection with the subject of an article. At least, when I say "we don't", I don'[t include the kind of people who come to Wikipedia to post endless trivia about their favourite television cartoon series, video games, etc etc, as such people are for ever creating "trivia" sections and "in popular culture" sections and suchlike, full of stuff with only marginal connection with the subject. If I come to the article Zodiac Watches, I can learn various things about Zodiac Watches, such as what company makes them, when they were first made, and so on. If I read the "in popular culture" section, what do I know about Zodiac Watches that I didn't know before? Nothing. I know a couple of trivial details about other subjects, with some sort of connection with the subject of Zodiac Watches, but nothing about Zodiac Watches themselves. You ask for me to cite policies or guidelines, for some reason or other. How about Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections, which says "Trivia sections should be avoided". (I don't see the fact that the heading of the section is not "trivia" is relevant. We are dealing with a trivia section, whatever it is called.) 80.168.237.80 (talk)
Except that this isn't "Trivia". Per the guideline that you just quoted, "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list." See Gillette (brand) as an example of what an unsourced random "Popular culture" section should not be (will we see you on that article too?). The content you've removed from this article is not that, it is well-organized prose centered around one theme with sources. And this article is on the Zodiac brand, which should cover "what company makes them, when they were first made, and so on" - and "so on" also means that article should not neglect to cover the Zodiac name, logo, and everything notable related to it.
When pop culture sections are sourced and contain only significant, relevant examples they help someone even without advance knowledge of the culture providing the reference understand the impact and importance of the article topic. Since this brands name and logo have been firmly linked with a notable event in 20th century American history, adding these facts to the article can hardly be considered "trivia". Yankees76 Talk 13:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
80.168.237.80 when you're done removing the "trivia" from the Gillette article, please don't forget to remove the paragraph from the TAG Heuer article that discusses Steve McQueen wearing a a blue Monaco in the 1971 movie, Le Mans, and the "trivia" that Swiss Formula One star Jo Siffert customarily wore a white-dialed Autavia with black registers. Also on the Rolex Submariner page, you should probably take out the "trivia" that the Rolex Submariner has appeared in eleven James Bond movies. Also, on the Breitling SA article you should probably remove the "trivia" that Sean Connery wore a Breitling heavily modified Top Time model as a radiation detector in the 1965 movie Thunderball, and the other mentions under the "Notable appearances" section of that article. And then there's the Omega SA article which is a bounty of useless "trivia". A whole section is devoted to sponsorship, product placement, advertising, and sport. Did you know that Omega has been associated with James Bond movies since 1995? Well they have! That year, Pierce Brosnan took over the role of James Bond and began wearing the Omega Seamaster Quartz Professional (model 2541.80.00) in the movie GoldenEye. In all later films, Brosnan wore an Omega Seamaster Professional Chronometer (model 2531.80.00). It even tells you what particular Seamaster Daniel Craig wore in specific sections of the Quantum of Solace film. We can't be having that - if I read this information in these articles, what do I know about Omega, Rolex, TAG Heuer or Breitling Watches that I didn't know before? Nothing. I know a couple of trivial details about other subjects, with some sort of connection with the subject of Omega, Rolex, TAG Heuer or Breitling Watches. There's a fair bit of work there, removing all that material - you should probably start editing/deleting it right away. Don't worry, I'll pass along any more as I find them. Thanks! Yankees76 Talk 14:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
80.168.237.80/JamesBWatson - what sort of progress have you made on removing the trivia of little relevance from the pages above? Let's not hold this article to a different standard than the rest of Wikipedia... Yankees76 Talk 14:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the material in the other articles above remains intact 12 days later. Since this article has such a low amount of traffic, we need to look at highter trafficked articles to get a sense of what is acceptable on Wikipedia and what is not, as there will never be enough regular users visiting this talk page to rech a consensus. I'm going to assume that there are indeed no issues with adding sourced/verifiable facts of genuiune interest to the reader into articles provided it's not an indiscriminate collection of trivia or cruft. Unless anyone has any immediate objection (that doesn't simply re-hash the tired material above), I'm going to re-add the proposed paragraph at the top of this page. Yankees76 Talk 17:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.articlesbase.com/shopping-articles/zodiac-watches-something-for-every-adventurer-1243571.html
    Triggered by \barticles(?:base|vana)\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Zodiac Watches. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zodiac_Watches&oldid=1257917662"