|WikiProject Physics / Fluid Dynamics||(Rated Template-class)|
|This template was considered for merging with Template:Topics in continuum mechanics on 8 April 2014. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".|
It is a field that studies substances which are between solids and fluids. it mustn't be in solid mechanics. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeed.Veradi (talk o contribs) 04:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Do we real ly need this equation as the header of this template It is applicable to only some of the topics. And it's a distraction. This template is supposed to be a navigation template. The equation does not help a user one whit in finding his/her way to the various articles. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
(My apologies if I'm not following proper protocol, I am new to editing these boxes but I think it's important to point out this issue)
I find the current image and subtitle on this box misleading/confusing. The current image is a flow visualization and it currently says "Navier Stokes equations" below it. Since this toolbox covers many pages that are only tangentially related to fluids (e.g. solid mechanics page), it is confusing. If you load the wiki page on Solid Mechanics, you see an image of fluid flow and a reference to NS eqns via this toolbox. While I understand the connection via continuum mechanics, I think this would be very misleading/confusing to the casual observer. I suggest eliminating the image and equation. If you want to replace it with something, I would suggest using something that refers to the overall concept of continuum mechanics (relationship btwn characteristic length and mean free path, for example). simpleton100 (T)
This navbox uses valuable screen space at the top of the articles, with a picture that conveys no useful information.
Moreover, popflock.com resource is not a textbook, it is a reference work. Few if any readers will want to read several articles of discipline in the sequence presented by a navbox. Readers almost always get to an article by searching for a specific topic, or by following a link embedded in the body of another article. Even readers who want to know about continuum mechanics in general will start from the Continuum mechanics article and surf from there theough embedded links. So, navboxes are mostly useless. Creating and maintaining navboxes and inserting them in articles is essentially a waste of effort that could be used to imprve article contents.
Therefore please consider eliminating this navbox, or at elast turning it into a horizontal navigation bar, to be placed at the end of the article -- like the Physics-footer bar already there. Thank you...--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)