Talk:Complication (horology)

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

Time Low‑importance

	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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment[edit]

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving. -- Yamara 12:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only mechanical[edit]

The way the lead is currently worded ("In horology, the term complication refers to any feature beyond the simple display of hours, minutes, and seconds in a timepiece."), it sounds as though this applies to electronic as well as mechanical timepieces. I would guess that it should be limited to mechanical ones? --Macrakis (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Apple apparently uses the term "complications" to refer to something on it's new watch. <sarcasm - maybe/> Perhaps we should include it? Jimw338 (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism[edit]

It looks like user 175.176.173.30's edit at 2016-02-01T18:01:30 should be rolled back. Ultra-coglicatd? I'm not sure if that's a typo or whether (together with other issues) the entire edit is an act of vandalism. Perhaps someone more familiar with horology than I am can confirm? Dotyoyo (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the second hand?[edit]

The lede originally stated "In horology, the term complication refers to any feature beyond the simple display of hours, minutes, and seconds in a timepiece". At 16:20, 5 May 2014‎, an anonymous editor removed all mention of seconds (from the lede, and another paragraph). By implication, the second hand is therefore a complication, although this is not actually stated anywhere. Is this correct? If so, it should be made explicit. If not, the old text should be restored. Iapetus (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I once bought a Elgin pocket watch that was made without a seconds hand because I was amused to think "It took enough work to remove the second hand from a production pocket watch that it should be considered a complication." In any event, I corrected the issue at hand: seconds are a part of a simple movement and not a complication. I'd cite that but.....seriously....removing seconds was borderline vandalism.Mad Bunny (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article contradicts itself on which is the most complicated watch[edit]

This article contradicts itself on which is the most complicated pocketwatch in the world. The bulleted list says the Patek Philippe Calibre 89, Supercomplication, and the Star Caliber 2000 are the 3 most complicated, then underneath it says the The Vacheron Constantin Reference 57260. The few sources given are only based on press releases from the companies themselves, reprinted on watch promoting websites. If the article is going to make promotional claims like this, they should be supported by an independent WP:NPOV source such as a watchmaking book or Guinness. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]