Danbooru

Wadokei, timeclock, and pendant watch

Posted under Tags

When looking up timepiece tags, I notice that there is no tag for Japanese clocks/watches, i.e. wadokei (和時計), as seen in post #5402685, for example. This would seem a fitting and useful tag, IMO, given the type of content/focus of this site.

Also, whilst there is a tag for pocket watches, there is no separate tag for its predecessor: watches worn around the neck, as pendants. (two quote from Wikipedia's articles on "Pocket watch" and/or "History of watches", which both have the exact same line: "Styles changed in the 17th century and men began to wear watches in pockets instead of as pendants (the woman's watch remained a pendant into the 20th century).")
Instead, pendant watches are now tagged as pocket watches, even though they aren't.

…and then there is the completely unexplained "time clock". Isn't that superfluous? Surely all clocks, are time clocks? A clock, is something that measures timer all, isn't it? If not, then surely it needs an explanation? (ATM, there is no Wiki page for it, and hence no explanation)

I created wadokei and added it to post #5402685, if you know more examples please add the tag.

I think it would be fine to create a pendant watch tag and sorting pocket watch to populate it. A link to it should be added in the clock wiki and it should also be mentioned it the pocket watch wiki.

Time clock was created for the device also known as punch clock among other names, as seen in post #1062920. I think all other posts that currently have the tag are wrong.

So that's what a time clock is? … If that is what the tag refers to, it should probably be renamed …and a wiki page should be made for it, either way.
As for pendant watch… turns out that tag already exists. It just isn't mentioned, in the clock-page.

I've gone through pocket watch, and tagged obvious pendant watches as such (removing the pocket watch tag, unless there is also a pocket watch in the image, as is the case in a few instances), but there are some cases where I've not been quite sure, where I've chosen not to make any changes. (also a couple of cases of where it wasn't a watch, at all, but a compass)
In the case of some of those instances, I've come to a personal conclusion, which I haven't acted on, due to being unsure how others would react:

I'd argue that any case of a timepiece that is worn, such that it hangs from somewhere (just as any other pendant would), clearly not meant to be in any pocket (hence cannot be called a pocket watch, IMO), then it should be referred to as a pendant watch, as it is clearly worn as a pendant.
Examples:
post #5454902
post #3882565
post #2996436

…and instances where you have a timepiece that is attached to, or part of, some bit of clothing or belt (), which doesn't hang nor is in a pocket, then it shouldn't really be referred to as either pocket or pendant watch. (watch yes, but not any of the related tags)
Examples:
post #4533091
post #3996936
post #1334939

If people agree with that, then I'll edit the related wiki pages, to reflect that, as well as going through pocket watch again.

(I'd argue that the watch in post #4087824, is a nurse watch [which notably have an upside down clockface, being meant to be checked by simply looking down at it] …but I don't think there is enough instances of nurse watches, to justify a tag)

Ah, now I look more closely, you're quite right, and I can't see any other watch, so it's probably a misstag. I spotted some non-watch misstags, but I missed that one.
The image is a good example, for my purposes, if the pressure gauge had been a watch. There are other posts, with a watch on an actual hat, but that one will do, and I can't be bothered to search for one, again.

Updated

The bulk update request #11580 has been rejected.

create alias pendant_watch -> pocket_watch

Sorry, gonna have to disagree with this one. There is no clear distinguishing factor between the two other than whether they're worn on the neck or not. Many of the things you tagged pendant watch look exactly identical to pocket watches on chains, which still exist and are not tagged pendant watch. Trying to enforce such a narrow distinction has historically been a futile effort, even on things with actual noticeable differences. If what you really want is a pocket watch on chain tag then you would have better luck just populating that.

Pendant watches are worn as a pendant.
Not necessarily round the neck, though that was how they were originally worn.
They can be worn pretty much anywhere.

Originally, the designs were quite different to those of pocket watches. (here are some, very early, examples: 1, 2)
When pocket watches were invented (to keep the watch safe from harm, as they were prone to damage), they were rounded and flattened, to fit into a pocket, hence leading to the typical pocket watch shape.
After that, pendant watches could use the same kind of design.
Indeed, you could use a different chain on a pocket watch, to wear it as a pendant watch (or, depending on the design, use a different chain on a pendant watch, to use as a pocket watch)
As for distinguishing between them, that can indeed sometimes be tricky.

As for pocket watch on chain
Pocket watches and pendant watches, both use chains. (or a string or strap)
Any pocket/pendant watch without a chain/string/strap, is incomplete.
No different than a wristwatch without its wristband. (generally called a "watch strap")
Similar to a bow without a bow-string, or a sword blade without a hilt.
(and one can, of course, have multiple chains/strings/straps, so one can wear the watch in different ways)
There are no significant instances of "pocket/pendant watch not on chain", whether among the posts here, or to be found IRL. (and when found IRL, the lack of a chain is noted, much as one would note a wristwatch without its watch strap)
As such, your comments on pocket watch on chain, make no sense.

All that said, it could, of course, be argued (as you do, if with some confusion and misunderstandings) that the pocket/pendant distinction isn't an important one to make, on Danbooru.
That there should be one tag, for both.
That would be perfectly fine, but would need to be noted, in the Wiki-pages for watch and pocket watch.
As long as things are clear, it's all good.

Talulah said:

The bulk update request #11580 has been rejected.

create alias pendant_watch -> pocket_watch

Perhaps for tagging purposes it may be worthwhile making that an implication and using pocket watch then as the parent tag for the design, while letting pendant watch become a subtype defining that specific manner of how it is worn. Later if we run into examples of pendant watches that don't share the pocket watch design, we may then consider renaming the current pendant watch tag to "pendant pocket watch" to reopen up pendant watch naming for the other designs.

I would argue that there is indeed no difference between the two as far as what you can see under both tags.
Pocket watches can have chains link to them for ease of use etc. Ive always thought of pocket watches as any circular shape watch that you cant really wear and its easily placed in a pocket. usually with a lid to cover it.

Dannk said:

Pocket watches can have chains link to them for ease of use etc.

There is no such thing, as a pocket watch without a chain.
There is no such thing, as a pocket watch that isn't clearly designed, to use a chain.
Note how all pocket watches have a bit that protrudes beyond its "circle"? …and how that protrusion has a metal loop? That is there for fastening a chain, to? (or string, or strap)

Ive always thought of pocket watches as any circular shape watch that you cant really wear and its easily placed in a pocket. usually with a lid to cover it.

All pocket watches are worn. (and most don't have a lid …though lids do seem a majority, in modern popular media. A clear minority, among pendant watches, though. It doesn't really make much sense, on a pendant watch)
Also, pendant watches are worn, by definition.
You cannot wear a pendant (and a pendant watch is a pendant, which also serves as a watch), without it being wearable. (that sentence is basically a tautology)

Also, here are some examples of pendant watches.
I'd like to see anyone argue, that any of these could be called pocket watches:
1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6
Arguing that all examples on Danbooru, nevertheless all have a "pocket watch design", and should therefore all be tagged as pocket watch, is not unreasonable, however
…though why you wouldn't make a distinction of how it is worn (and indeed designed to be worn), when such distinctions are made in many other cases, here…

1