Talk:G-Shock

Fair use rationale for Image:Cockpit G-Shock.jpg
Image:Cockpit G-Shock.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Information about time signals is wrong
The "Wave Ceptor" watches from casio can at least receive the German and UK time signal since as far back as 10 Years. See the module page for 5033 Edifice Module. So you really can't lump this together like that or at least it needs to be qualified by a credible source. I really can't be arsed to make changes in the article, since any Edits by lowly anonymous users are not even looked at before putting them in the trash lol, so if anyone wants to have a got at that, feel free. 2001:16B8:6063:DA00:BCCB:B7E4:AD76:7EA4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Then don't be arsed to make asinine remarks if you cannot improve what you complain about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.39.41.123 (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

DW-5600E (Module 3229) NASA flight qualified
The information is not correct. There are no proper links which say that the DW-5600E (fifth letter E) is flight qualified by NASA. The 5600-C is. This model will be deleted if no links are given. -59.95.11.45 (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT an authentic site for info about G-shocks
Please refer to www.mygshock.com, or watchreport.com for authentic info. -59.95.11.45 (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop promoting sites over an informative article. 110.39.41.123 (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Dr-K removed TZ article source I added replacing with citation needed. How is this not a reliable source?
http://people.timezone.com/library/cjrml/cjrml631728462093125000 TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * When you click on your source at the top of the page it says:
 * Who is Carlos Perez? Why should we trust him? What are his credentials? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  22:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is friday's featured article SheiKra. The RCDB is a largely user generated. Does every one of the referenced periodicals publish corrections? Are their published corrections reliable? Is Bestrollercoasterpoll.com reliable? What about johnnyupsidedown.com? Or newsgroups.derkeiler.com, Fox news, coasterforce.com, Discovery channel, newsplusnotes.blogspot.ca, about.com, thecoastercritic.com, rollercoasterphilosophy.com. What about today's featured article, Operation Charnwood, replete with published book titles... Who's to say any of those books are at all reliable. Which of those books have been factchecked? You show me proof that the average book referenced on Operation Charnwood has been fact-checked more than timezone. Timezone is a fine, well respected horological site. For what it's worth, the author's referenced here http://www.calibre11.com/tag-heuer-movements/ not that I'd expect anything to satisfy you.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as far as the examples you put forward. The fact remains that Perez is a watch enthusiast as he admits in his article. That doesn't make him an expert or a reliable source. Given however that you don't seem to agree with me I invite you to go to the reliable sources noticeboard located at WP:RSN and ask them what they think of Perez's website. That will certainly save a lot of my time trying to argue with you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  23:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
All the stuff in the article about special forces use, shock resistance etc. is just Casio PR. G-shock is another high profile fashion brand, no more no less, just like Swatch before it, and the article should say so. --Ef80 (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

G Shocks are used by military personnel. It's a fact. U1 quattro  TALK  18:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

New source
I added a good source I found that could be utilized much more: http://www.nippon.com/en/views/b00105/. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

module links need fixing
the external links in the modules tables are broken and need fixing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-Shock#Modules — Preceding unsigned comment added by YipC (talk • contribs) 12:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Which type of watch?
Are they necessary wrist-watches or can be pocket watches? I has boldly changed to wrist-watch class at Wikidata item. Infovarius (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)