This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Watches (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Watches, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WatchesWikipedia:WikiProject WatchesTemplate:WikiProject WatchesWatches

/ˌwɒtʃ fɪfˈtiː ˈəʊ ˈfɑːɪv/?

Like in 5005? I must have missed something. Azurfrog (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article may have been created as part of an advertising campaign by https://www.the1505watch.com ; which states

The world`s first watch 1505 will be introduced in 2019. For historical insight and facts review wikipedia page for more information.

Also, article creator LBEAS looks like a single purpose account whose contributions are centred around that supposed world’s first watch (apparently, this is disputed), which may be another sign of possible undeclared paid editing. Akela NDE (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Watch 1505 (Peter Henlein).tiff

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the worst factually wrong statements in the 'watch 1505' entry. It is still not very good as it is a totally unfocussed article that is mainly written to promote this one watch. I have also re-inserted the fact that the watch in question is considered 'very unlikely to be authentic' by serious experts. The 'Roman numbers' 1505 are considered as mere scratches — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:81BF:F278:6583:4D4C:4383:30D0 (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this unsourced and POV-based vandalism. --Allefrei (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This version stated that the watch is "most likely not authentic". This was reverted to an earlier version that states that it "is the world's first watch" and that it "was crafted by [...] Peter Henlein". This does not correspond to the sources. For instance, quotes from [1]: "Made by someone called Peter Henlein? Probably speculation. Made in 1505. The same." Orlodrim (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a complete mess. Why is there a citation to Pliny the Elder? There's a ton of irrelevant and improperly sourced information. It's as good as useless in this state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.49.61.203 (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took a jackhammer to the article, given its seeming UPE origins. It is still awful. I still do not trust anything in it to be accurate. But at least, it is awful in a way that is... not the way it was awful before. RIP Pliny the Elder 1brianm7 (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]