Talk:Frictional pressure drop

message: There are a lot of wikipedia pages contains single equations relating to the frictional pressure drops.  Most of these are stubs, and have little prospect of progressing beyond stub-hood.  I would like to suggest merging them all under the name Frictional pressure drop Bluap 17:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: I'd definitely support the merging of the following:
*Darcy-Weisbach equation
*Colebrook equation
*Colebrook-White equation
*Haaland equation
*Hazen-Williams equation
*Swamee-Jain equation
*Serghide's solution
*Hydraulic diameter
For the others, I think it's better to keep them as separate, short articles.  Separate articles allow the nomenclature and description in the article to be tailored to profession most interested in using them, e.g. Manning formula is clearly written by a civil engineer, Friction loss by a piping engineer (possibly even a firefighter).  Neither type would be keen to read through text written by the other to get to the part of the merged page that interests them.
I'm particularly keen to keep a few things on separate pages, as follows:
:Firstly, Fanning friction factor and Darcy friction factor.  In the past I have found it difficult to get graduate mechanical engineers to understand the difference between these two friction factors.  It's much easier today, as they can find them on two separate wikipedia pages with unambiguous titles.  If we merged them into one article, next year's batch would get confused (believe me, any hint of ambiguity can cause a new graduate's mind to blow a fuse).
:Secondly, Atkinson friction factor and Atkinson resistance.  These are a bit specialized (they're only used in mine/tunnel ventilation).  The background detail on those pages (e.g. the summary of Atkinson's reasoning) would look excessive for a subsection of frictional pressure drop and it would end up being cut down.  But for the few thousand people in that field, it's useful to have the background detail on wikipedia, as many of the really experienced people in the field are reaching retirement and their knowledge of this background detail is being lost.
Ac44ck makes a valid point about the title being too broad.  I think we need to call it something else but I can't think of a good (short) alternative.
Ecb 20:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of which friction factor to use, I think that it's actually best to include both on the same page, and to be explicit as to which friction factor to use in which equation (and in some cases, to include the equivalent equations for each friction factor.  One advantage of keeping them on the same page is that all friction factors could have an explicit subscript stating which friction factor it is.  A lot of the applications (e.g. Atkinson resitance) could be written in summary style, with a brief introduction on the main page, and a more detailed page elsewhere. Bluap 00:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Limited merge

message: There seems to be a lack of interest in making this merge happen.
Since I started some work on this merge, I encountered an editor elsewhere who seemed to be tagging articles which were not necessarily of active interest to them.  They apparently saw themselves as "inspiring editors to improve articles."  I came to find their tagging of an article on my watch list to be much less than inspiring.
It also affected my thoughts about the "merge" tagging which points here.  And raised questions about why my attention was being drawn to this particular task.  Perhaps fairly, perhaps not.
I am reminded of garage sale signs.  People may be much more interested in putting the signs up than taking them down after the sale.  I recall it becoming my job to dispose of their signs after they lost interest in them.  They didn't frequent the area, so they weren't motivated to take them down.  Signs advertising yesterday's sale elsewhere were litter in my neighborhood.  It became my job to take them down.
Ditto the utility markers placed by MISS DIG or one of her sisters.  The markers were in my lawn long after any construction work seemed to be happening in the area.  I finally called and asked whose job it was to declare the project "done" and remove the markers.  They had someone whose job it was to clutter my lawn with markers.  They didn't seem to have anyone whose job it was to declare the project "done" and de-clutter my lawn.  Nor was anyone willing to tell me that it was okay with them if I removed the markers.  I finally declared the project "done" myself and took the markers out.  It could have been trouble for me if someone showed up later with a backhoe and ripped up a gas line.
I removed a Wikipedia tag that I thought was bogus and stirred up a hornet's nest.
Several articles are tagged with a "merge" suggestion that encourages discussion here.  Is it time to take those tags out?  Whose job is it to do that? -Ac44ck (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually am interested in this subject, and am not a random pass-by.  It's simply that "real life" has been taking a priority over Wikipedia...  I think that the work done on the Darcy Friction Factor formulae is enough - my original merge suggestion was patently too wide-ranging in scope.  Bluap (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Bluap.  And thanks for converting several of the tagged pages to redirects.  Your follow-through is inspiring to me.  I hope that "real life" is going better for you these days.  No rush or pressure to necessarily do it yourself – just to be on the same page: what would you like to happen to the remaining tags that point here: Frictional pressure drop?  And now that this article exists as its own page, maybe some of the links in the heading of this article become part of its body? I wouldn't suggest deleting this article because there is some good stuff in this talk page: the industries where the various factors are important, etc., which might eventually make its way into the article. –Ac44ck (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest closing discussion