Talk:Wave tank

Merger proposal

I propose that Wave flume be merged into this article. There is not much text in either article yet and the difference in characteristic between a wave flume and a wave tank is not large.

Ripple tank could possibly also be merged into wave tank although that article focusses more on practical issues. KaiKemmann (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

oppose – Wave flume, wave basin and ripple tank are different subjects within the category of wave tanks, which each its specific uses and research/practical aspects. E.g. regarding wave flumes and wave basins: the effects of diffraction and refraction do not occur in wave flumes, many wave flumes have glass walls through which all kind of optical measurement are possible (PIV, LDV, etc), methods of wave generation have to be (very) different, different uses, etc. See e.g. Lynne Frostrick et al. (2011) "Users Guide to Physical Modelling and Experimentation: Experience of the HYDRALAB Network", ISBN 978-1-4398-7051-8, pp. 4-11, who discern: current flumes, wave flumes, wave basins, wave-and-current basins, oscillating water tunnels, and annular cells as common laboratory facilities for studying hydrodynamics and sediment transport.

According to WP:MERGE, merger should be avoided when the "separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles" and the "topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short". Best regards, -- Crowsnest (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Crowsnest. The differences between different varieties of experimental water tanks should not be blurred by any means. My starting point mostly is to try to make Wikipedia as easy to use for an occasional visitor as possible. And it might be considerably easier to understand and compare the differences between the different categories you mention if these were presented in a single article. If you expect the indiviual articles to possibly grow in size to an extent which would be to large for a single article then it is fine by me to leave them separate as they are. It would be a good idea to cross-link them in a hatnote, though, to make it easy to view and compare similarities and differences of hydrodynamic tanks. --KaiKemmann (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello KaiKemmann, your suggestion to make it easier to understand and compare the differences and similarities between the different types of experimental facilities sounds great. To my opinion the potential of the individual articles to grow to mature articles is there, but if that actually will happen I don't know. Your suggestion of using a hatnote is one good option to indicate the relationship between the articles. Another one would be to use an infobox on experimental facilities/techniques used in hydrodynamics. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)