Talk:Slave clock

Merge slave clocks

Wikipedia format is to use the singular form for titles. User:Deben Dave contends that "slave clock" and "slave clocks" are different, but I see no significant difference. Regardless, the purpose of both is stated as time synchronization, which suggests that one article can cover various devices that achieve that thru master-slave methods of any sort. --Tysto (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree: the two articles should be merged. Plural and singular forms seldom change the substance of the item being discussed, and certainly don't here. The articles should be merged (and reorganized in the process; they're both pretty stream-of-consciousness at this point). --Dan Griscom (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have lived with slave clocks for 50 years and can assure you the two sites cover different subjects. How long have you known slave clocks? Deben Dave (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there may be two different kinds of slave clocks. But, here's a quiz: which kind am I talking about when I say "slave clock"? And which am I talking about when I say "slave clocks"? And if you're sure you know the answer, what should I say when I'm talking about more than one of the former, or talking about a single one of the latter? The point is that here (as in most situations) singular versus plural has nothing to do with the type of item, just of how many there are. It's as if we had two articles for the two types, one called "Slave Clock 1" and the other "Slave Clock 2". If we need a disambiguation page, then so be it, but differentiating by quantity is absurd. --Dan Griscom (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If we need separate articles for different kinds of slave clocks they should be given descriptive names. Slave clocks, which just contains a few pictures and a brief description, should be merged into this article. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that if you go to the work of building a master/slave clock system, you would use more than one slave, but I agree that the title should be singular. Gah4 (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

merge master clock?

Seems to me that, since master and slave clocks are used together, and especially that the article isn't all that long, they could be merged. Gah4 (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Agree. What should the merged name be? Neither one really works. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Since you can use a master without a slave, but not (properly) slave without master, Master clock makes some sense. Gah4 (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

But I suppose it could be Master/slave clock, with two redirects. Gah4 (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Master-slave clock? The system is a hybrid, not a choice between them. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Master/slave clock system? Gah4 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Could do, but 3 is shorter than 4, no less clear, and brevity is its own virtue. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

sensibility

While there might not be so many slave clocks around, just about all digital circuits are based on the master-slave flip-flop. Gah4 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)