Talk:Horology

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 16:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Modern precision clocks???

Is Horology used only for mechanical and historic time keeping? If so that should be clearly stated, if not the article is very outdated and should be complemented with development in atomic clocks and so on. Gr8xoz (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

HORA

I have added the links to hora meaning time and hour. In correct terms Hora means Hour, but can also be taken to mean time. My thinking is: for example Crown actually means the thing put onto a head but can also means the whole symbolism behind it. Is this a good compromise? --Edmund Patrick 12:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to become a horologist. Where I can learn more about the science of hores? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.27.245 (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Resources for Learning the Science of Horology

This site http://www.dawnapproaches.com/horology.html contains a wonderful compendium of 24 old classic watchmaking and repairing horology books on DVD-ROM. I highly recommend it to anyone in the horology field. I used these resources to learn all the tricks of the trade when I first started.

Wikipedia is not a how-to or repair manual. Please see WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:ELNO and WP:SPAM. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 08:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

History section needed

The article doesn't go into the history of Horology. Is there an expert in the field who can add this? — Safety Cap (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge with chronometry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge. TRL (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Either way. Horology is historically more attested while chronometry is somewhat more common now, but they cover the exact same topics. Obviously less common since it's newer and poorly phrased, but Time metrology currently seems confused about whether it's the scientific/modern version of horology/chronometry or if it really wants to talk about metrification of time (i.e. ordering it according to the Systeme International). Some should probably be merged into the single page here and some should probably be moved to metrification of time or just a time section of some general metric article. — LlywelynII 12:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Support the idea of consolidating all 3 pages. I suggest a merge to Chronometry the more modern term. The distinction between Horology and Chronometry (with Horology being pre-digital) seem rather arbitrary, and also isn't consistently maintained in the articles. The total length of all 3 (including Time metrology) is short enough to accommodate a merge. There is good coverage of the topic, too, at History of timekeeping devices, which makes a separate Horology article unnecessary. Klbrain (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Given the uncontested proposal to merge Horology and Chronometry,   Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

However, the Time metrology has nothing to do with metrification; the reference to SI in its lead is tangengial. The key idea there is the establishment of time standards and frequency standards as well as their dissemination; the term realization is used in the sense of actuation or delivery, rather that campaigning. So, it's more related to Time and frequency transfer; so I suggest that a merge to chronometry might not be the best fit. Klbrain (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.