Talk:Rolex GMT Master II

Marine Chronometer

The first effective marine chronometers were developed in the 18th century, not "the 1800s." The first marine chronometer that was accurate enough at sea to use for celestial navigation was John Harrison's H4, finished in 1761. I've updated the article to reflect the correct century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.98.83.235 (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Rolex pretty much invented the GMT watch, and today it is available in the new supercase, with Maxi-Dial, upgraded bracelet and clasp featuring the 3186 Rolex calibre movement with their Parachrom Blu hairspring.

It is available in SS (116710), SS/YG (116713) and in 18K YG with the black dial or 50th Anniversary model with the green dial.

Unlike most other Rolexes, it also features YG hour-marker surrounds, and hands. Quite possibly the best modern Rolex compared to the technical innovation of the Yachtmaster II. Bsodmike (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why this model of watch is important? dima (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would nominate this article for deletion. We have enough rolex messages in emails, and there is no need to have the same in wikipedia. dima (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, we should delete Barack Obama's page: we see enough of him on the news already, after all. --194.98.58.121 (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to vote to RETAIN this article. It is a) interesting, b) a culturally iconic watch and c) Wiki is after all an encyclopaedia and surely should contain as much (accurate and informative) information as possible. I vote keep it. Captainclegg (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added properly sourced information which, I submit, has more than established the articles notability. Therefore I have removed the 'notability tag'. If I have upset someone and done this too soon I apologise, but I think that if you now read the article it is obvious that it stands alone in its importance. Captainclegg (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Compass bearing

Whilst I'd support this article as being a notable Rolex model, I would also point out that there's nothing special about this watch for use as a sun compass. That's an old Boy Scout trick, and works with any watch. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree on both points. The compass instructions apply even to digital watches. Dr.K. logos 15:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Websites meeting Wikipedia policy for references and external links

Websites and articles need to meet basic Wikipedia standards to be included in articles. The content and links being removed from a number of watch-related articles do not meet those criteria. Please review WP:RS, WP:EL, WP:SPAM, then visit WP:COIN and WP:RSPAM for the consequences of spamming Wikipedia articles. Flowanda | Talk 02:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Addition of non-notable websites to Rolex watch articles

I have been removing a number of blogs, auction image galleries and other non-notable commercial/auction/retail websites from articles dealing with high-end watches, including this one. These websites do not, and will not, meet WP:RS, and those that are being used to source "celebrity" sections will never meet the stringent WP:BLP. If there's a website that is a well-known, documented authority on Rolex watches, then please discuss it here, not do not add it to the main article or use it to source content. Flowanda | Talk 05:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No discussion or "compromise" in readding links

Just to be clear, there has been no discussion or agreement as to websites being used as WP:RS or WP:EL on any of the Rolex-related articles, so there is no "compromise" or verifiability anything "interesting" about the information and links being readded to these articles. Flowanda | Talk 09:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If I am reading this correspondence correctly, this applies to sections of the article being arbitrarily removed without any discussion and/or consensus being achieved. But Flowanda may be an administrator. However, if he is just an editor, like the rest of us, don't you think the correct procedure is to discuss before deleting? Just a thought. Berettagun (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you review my attempts to discuss edits and sources above and at the Talk:Rolex article and on my talk page. Also seeWP:TRIVIA and WP:V. Meeting basic Wikipedia policy doesn't need consensus, but even that has not been addressed here. I'm not the problem here; the edits are. That's why they keep being removed. Flowanda | Talk 10:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tired of this

I removed the trivia section. Source strictly per WP:RS and WP:BLP. No BS fan sites/watch company/auction/retail/commercial websites. Flowanda | Talk 12:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)