Talk:Hydrodynamic stability

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Article is too narrow: Hydrodynamic stability in ships and other floating structures

Hydrodynamic stability is an important subject in the design and operation of ships, submarines, sailboats and other floating structures such as offshore oil platforms and floating wind turbines. For example, "Spar buoys ... have been used in the offshore oil industry for many years. They consist of a single long cylindrical tank and achieve hydrodynamic stability by moving the center-of-mass as low as possible, placing ballast beneath the buoyancy tank." is found in Feasibility of Floating Platform Systems for Wind Turbines, NREL/CP-500-34874, NREL, November 2003, page 3.

I think this should probably be represented in a somewhat broader article. I'll try to find the time to get back here and do that sometime. N2e (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is a split into two articles, because the subjects are soo different: "hydrodynamic stability (fluid dynamics)" and "hydrodynamic stability (naval architecture)". -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of developing the distinction you suggested: "hydrodynamic stability (fluid dynamics)" and "hydrodynamic stability (naval architecture)". However, I suspect we would want to see considerably more well developed sections on each topic before considering separate articles. For example, the current article (which focuses as you noted on fluid dynamics) is pretty undeveloped, and needs inline citations for the few claims it makes. In this state, not sure it is worth more than a section. N2e (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my opinion, although desirable, there is no necessity for that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. So the articles are, in principle, on subjects, not on their name. There is no rule that any of the same named (but different subject) articles need to be well developed. Anyone who likes to do so (not me) may further develop the present article (on which a large amount of scientific literature exists). So, if you like to, just start an article on the stability of floating bodies, as long or as short as you wish. -- Crowsnest (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, To my opinion, the article is way too short and insufficient on its body: it is even shorter than its references! Now, check the usefulness of the several articles on Adimentional Numbers in Fluid Mechanics; those, in spite of their brevity, are well explained and give a lot more insight. As this theme is important in the body of knowledge, the treatment is simply too lean. I do not concur thatWikipedia is not a dictionary, as the best definitions of both an Encyclopaedia and a Dictionary are not that limiting in regards to their richness. LEt the reader decide if the material presented is too long for his/her interest. On the matter of separating these two subjects with the same name, it is mandatory as their meaning corresponds to two widely different areas. Amclaussen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.19 (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement

Hi guys, I am currently undertaking a Physics project for my last year at university. The aim of this project is to improve an article on wikipedia and i have chosen to make improvements to this one. Any suggestions that you guys may have would be welcomed. Thanks Jkelly108 (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jkelly108, it's great this article is going to be expanded. A lot of useful tips on writing style for scientific Wikipedia articles can be found on MOS:MATH. The most dangerous pitfall often is original research, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a publisher of original research (like scientific journals). Wishing you a pleasant Wikipedia experience, best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the main points I would like to include in the article include:

both stable and unstable flows and the consequences of each, to put forward the work of Kelvin, Helmholtz, Rayleigh and Reynolds, as already mentioned in the article,in more detail and to elaborate on the applications to real life problems and situations.

Any suggestions/opinions from everyone would be very much appreciated as it would help add to my project.

Thanks Jkelly108 (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I am currently coming to the end of my project and putting the final few touches to the article. I was once again looking for everyone's feedback to include in my final report. Thanks again Jkelly108 (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"More citations needed" template

Recently a "More citations needed" template was added to the article. Of course references can always be improved, but there are already quite some references/footnotes, and the template does not specify what the specific problems are. -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crowsnest. It would be more helpful to flag specific unsourced statements in the article, rather than adding the general maintenance template. Duncanpark (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]