1
\$\begingroup\$

I2C and TWI should be synonyms, they are the same thing with a different non patented name

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%C2%B2C#Derivative_technologies

TWI (Two Wire Interface) or TWSI (Two-Wire Serial Interface) is essentially the same bus implemented on various system-on-chip processors from Atmel and other vendors.[9] Vendors use the name TWI, even though I²C is not a registered trademark. Trademark protection only exists for the respective logo (See upper right corner) and patents on I²C have now lapsed.


There is also a 555 and 555timer tag, these should either be merged or synonyms.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Someone didn't agree with the suggestion (down-voted) and since this can not be related to the 555 tags it means that he wants I2C and TWI to remain individual tags. Please explain the benefit of that. \$\endgroup\$ – alexan_e Mar 4 '14 at 13:15
3
\$\begingroup\$

Good idea. Would you use as displayed tag?

| |
\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

Good idea. Would you use as displayed tag?

| |
\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

TWI doesn't really merit becoming a synonym... It only has six questions, most tagged with i2c anyway, most tagged because of Amtel implementation of TWI.

There is only one question that even warrants the tag in the first place, because it is the only one that addresses any difference between proper i2c and Atmel's TWI.

Why doesn't Atmel TWI support I2C START BYTE on TWI?

Personally, those 6 questions should just be manually retagged and forget about the synonym...

As for 555timer, unless they just did it, it's already a synonym. How many questions were tagged as 555timer anyway? https://electronics.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms shows that it had none. Why add an uncommon synonym when it did not need to be added?

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The synonyms were just made (check the creation date). What you're talking about would be merging the tags together, which is not really reversible. If we wanted to eliminate a tag by combining it with another, merging is much preferred over manually retagging as it doesn't spam the front page. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Mar 2 '14 at 19:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ @W5VO 6 questions does not a spam make. \$\endgroup\$ – Passerby Mar 2 '14 at 19:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ So rereading it, it seems like you're saying that there is enough difference between I2C and TWI to justify not making them synonyms. In terms of quantity, six questions is a low enough number to justify a synonym. If we (as a site) decide that TWI and I2C should fall into the same bucket, then synonyms are the most community and asker friendly way to enforce that. It's not hard for a mod to make a synonym or merge questions. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Mar 2 '14 at 19:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ @W5VO What I am saying is that TWI is insignificant, and doesn't merit being a synonym either, in terms of question quality and actual topic relatedness. Only a single TWI tagged question is related to TWI. But aside from that, here's a question. What's the minimum number of questions where a mod initiated merge or synonym should be required? 6? 5? 1? \$\endgroup\$ – Passerby Mar 2 '14 at 19:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ My threshold is pretty low - 3 or so. One or two is probably enough to just go fix by editing the questions with the tags (as you suggest), but more than that and it's getting used enough to avoid the auto-tag-delete routine. I wouldn't say it's a big problem, but there's a really easy fix so I don't mind. For reference, there were 8 questions tagged 555timer. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Mar 2 '14 at 19:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ The barrier to entry isn't really the merging part, but the synonym. Due to the way the StackExchange is set up, synonyms are really hard to put in place without moderator support. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Mar 2 '14 at 19:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .