 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Image:Breitling logo.GIF 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 Wikipedia: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 16:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Breitling logo.GIF 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 Wikipedia: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 04:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This logo is outdated, the company now use the logo figuring in the french page : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Breitling_logo.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.57.90 (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they were based in La Chaux-de-Fonds, Canton Neuchatel. The La Chaux-de-Fonds page says so. --81.105.245.251 19:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's a "Breitling ambassador"? -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inthis edit (3 October), an IP removed a section on "Pricing" from the article. The section was utterly unsourced and -- as it had undated but specific prices (e.g. "Quartz models such as the Breitling Aeromarine Colt start at $2,055.00 on a rubber strap") -- had built-in obsolescence even if (denominated in some kind of dollar, at some time, somewhere) correct.
That was merely the first in a quick series of edits by the same IP. The remainder removed more unsourced material but also added unsourced material, some of which was obviously promotional (and copied from elsewhere).
The IP's first edit struck me as a good one. His/her subsequent edits seemed a mixture of good and very bad.
I therefore started by reverting all but the first of the edits by the IP. I quickly followed this up with a series of my own edits, each with an edit summary I thought reasonably informative. These edits of mine:
The result wasn't good. (I reluctantly left in trivia about a prop used in a James Bond film.) But I think it was distinctly less crappy than what had been there a day or so previously.
Less than half an hour later, Racklever reverted all these edits, with the summary "Last good version".
It seems to me that Racklever replaced a bad version with a much worse version. I'd be interested in an explanation. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this page gets ~300 views a day - "uncited for a year" doesn't mean much, unfortunately =/ Nikthestunned 15:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
. Nikthestunned 12:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]I read:
I thought that certification was needed for the term chronometer -- that today an "uncertified chronometer" was a contradiction in terms. (This doesn't deny that some non-chronometers would be certifiable as chronometers if their manufacturers bothered to submit them for testing.) Does the first sentence just mean: "All Breitling watches since 2000 have been chronometers"?
I long thought that "luxury" denoted an unusual degree of comfort. With this understanding, a "luxury watch" is rather nonsensical. But "luxury" here instead seems to mean a product whose demand curve works in a particular way. With this sense of "luxury", aren't all Breitling's products "luxury"? How about "Most models of watch are marketed for one or other among diving, aviation, and dress"? -- Hoary (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like a work of semi-fiction papered over by facts. The original Breitling company was liquided in 1979. The original company beyond that point does not exist. Various companies bought assets, one company, Sicura, bought the name and only the name, they then dropped the Sicura name and called themselves Breitling. An article on Sicura and how it morphed into a non-originally-named Breitling may be beneficial to Wikipedia. Middle More Rider (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discusses what happened and quotes some sources: http://breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=16070 I have not put in the hours myself to find documentation. I am more into Sicura watches and own two, the big irritation is sellers inflating the prices and claiming a Sicura watch made when Sicura was still called Sicura is a Breitling. Middle More Rider (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
German Wikipedia briefly mentions it: https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitling_SA&prev=search Middle More Rider (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Breitling SA. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add more detail for the Breitling for Bentley, from history to collections, etc. Also, should we add an article for Léon Breitling?2605:6001:E7C4:1E00:9D05:A495:28F3:6A94 (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
