Talk:Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle

Untitled
I have reassessed the importance of this article and downgraded it to "mid-importance". As the creator, I would be delighted to be associated with a high-importance article, but I fear that is really over-egging it. This chronometer was not one of the earliest chronometers as suggested by the previous edit summary. It is not even the first of this design by Earnshaw. While Earnshaw's design is of some importance in chronometer history, this individual chronometer is important only in the role it played on the Beagle - but then only as one of many. Also I do not think the British Museum project rating is justified - while I am sure it is a treasured object, it is not up there with the Elgin Marbles for instance.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  18:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Article title
The List of chronometers on HMS Beagle shows that this is actually just one of two such survivors. Though this title was good enough in the context of the BM/s 100 objects, the Wikipedia article needs a more accurate title.--Wetman (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not really a problem unless someone writes an article about the Pennington chronometer. In fact, none of the Beagle chronometers are precluded from having an article - notability does not end after chronometer death any more than it does for person death.  It is a principle of title disambiguation that we "use only as much additional detail as necessary" (WP:NATURAL).  The current title is the 100 objects name for it and that constitutes a large part of its notability (WP:COMMONNAME).  Time enough to think again if more articles materialise.  Spinning  Spark  19:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)