3
$\begingroup$

I just do not know where to write this remark. Apologies if this is the wrong place. Also I do not know whether the discussions about tag creation are available. I did not find the one about .

Is it reasonable to have a specialized tag, when a more general tag is missing. What I mean is that there is no tag covering fluid statics which might include both hydrostatics (a bad name, since there is more than water to it ...) and statics of gas.

The tag "statics" is not appropriate to fill the gap, given its definition.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ I assume the reason statics doesn't work for you is the "system of bodies" part? $\endgroup$
    – tpg2114
    Commented Jul 19, 2013 at 16:17
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, it is the "system of bodies" parts. And I think (unless corrected) that it is a standard meaning for it. Also, there is fluid dynamics. I have seen a question tagged fluid dynamics, though it was about the statics of gas. The other point is that hydrostatics does not seem so overused that it cannot be replaced by the more general fluid statics. But I do not know the discussions that decided its creation. $\endgroup$
    – babou
    Commented Jul 19, 2013 at 17:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ FWIW, the term hydrodynamics is often used to describe incompressible fluid dynamics, whether liquid or gas, so I guess the same idea could be extrapolated to hydrostatics. $\endgroup$
    – tpg2114
    Commented Jul 19, 2013 at 17:41
  • $\begingroup$ I do not mind that. So hydrostatics can cover the statics of all incompressible fluids. But I am concerned with the statics of compressible fluids. So I was suggesting fluid statics to cover all, since hydrostatics has the "incompressible" connotation. $\endgroup$
    – babou
    Commented Jul 19, 2013 at 17:56
  • $\begingroup$ feature-request? No, I think it should be support. fluid-mechanics is enough. Why do you want it to be more special than that (assuming that's what you're trying to convey)? . $\endgroup$
    – Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir
    Commented Jul 19, 2013 at 18:16
  • $\begingroup$ @babou I have no problem with the creation of fluid-statics once there is a question that deals with it of course. If you write such a question and need the tag, just leave a comment and somebody will create it for you. $\endgroup$
    – tpg2114
    Commented Jul 19, 2013 at 18:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Dimension I looked carefully at the tags comments. I did not choose support because I did not need help. I considered the choice of tags one of the very few features under user control. The tag fluid-mechanics might do, though it would be used only for "complessible fluid statics" since all other sub-categories have their own tag. As it stand, this tag does not show up when I type "fluid"or "mechanics". As it is, the classification is messy. But I will not fight if that is what is liked. As for a question that would justify fluid_statics : physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71355 $\endgroup$
    – babou
    Commented Jul 19, 2013 at 19:34
  • $\begingroup$ @babou: Oops, I meant discussion, but as for so many subcategories, there aren't that many fluid-mechanics questions... So I would go for merging fluid-dynamics and fluid-statics into fluid-mechanics. Of course, two tags fluid-dynamics and fluid-statics is fine too, but they're a bit similar. (But hydrostatics isn't that good, since it is a rarely-used, almost obselote term.) . $\endgroup$
    – Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir
    Commented Jul 20, 2013 at 4:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Dimension10 A unique tag fluid-mechanics covering everything about fluids statics and dynamics would be fine, as far as I am concerned. What bothered me was that there was no tag for the question 71355, and the imbalance on the tagging scheme, the loss of existing symetries, to state it pedantically. Actually, why not use compositionality of tags and have 2 tags statics and dynamics also. The only problem is that statics is already taken with a different meaning. Anyway, fluid-mechanics suits me well. $\endgroup$
    – babou
    Commented Jul 20, 2013 at 13:15
  • $\begingroup$ @babou: You're right, I guess... . Wonder why nobody +1ed this yet? ... $\endgroup$
    – Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir
    Commented Jul 20, 2013 at 13:37

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .