Talk:Diaphragm valve

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Engineering This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. It is requested that a photograph, drawing, or other image be included in this article to improve its quality. An editor suggests the following: .

This article does not tell people what a diaphragm valve is and i don't think this article is up to wikipedia standards. I don't know what a diaphragm valve is and its uses so i can't really improve this section or get any pictures.(Sam giles2001 12:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I can provide an external link to a commercial website with pictures of diaphragm valves if you agree? --Ccknowles 13:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some references are also required.--Ccknowles 10:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be any active editors to this article, so I will do some edits and add some internal and external links if there are no objections? --Ccknowles 14:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standards and approvals are my thing for the plastic piping industry so I will added some detail over the coming weeks.--Pipeup 18:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have reverted the page back to how it was before some spammers got involved, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of discussion or meaningful additional edits with this article. If you understand the subject matter please can you think what you can add plus it needs more references. --Ccknowles 17:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider "three way zero deadleg valve" and "point of use zero deadleg", and also "GMP valve" and "sterile access port" to be so similar and more of manufacturer specific terms that it causes more confusion to list it than useful information, therefore I have deleted these alternatives. Valbow is also a manufacturer specific term, but it can stay. I have also re-entered the information around dual actuators, which I consider as an important variety of these valve even though it represents a small range of applications. Can anyone add some principle pictures of the various types, I think that would be the key for good understanding. Svanterusck 21:04, 5 April

I have added many links to help wikify the page. The description is still unclear and I am still not able to understand what a diaphragm valve is - pictures are need. Cleverbeans (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above-mentioned: The description is unclear and I am not able to understand what a diaphragm valve is. Pictures are needed. 93.176.67.66 (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since english is not my native language I can not be certain of the technical definition, but my impression is that a diaphragm valve is the same type of valve described in solenoid valve. 193.45.212.118 (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to Praher a European manufactuer of Diaphragm valves, I believe the link is valid as it is a deep link directly related to the article and the info on the linked page is not practicle to include within the article. All of these reasons are included in the Wikipedia EL policy. If you disagree please discuss thanks--Drpipe 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the Saint-Gobain EL as it was spam. --Drpipe 17:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added a useful link to pipestock, commercial site but within wiki guidlines for els.--Pipeup 18:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of commercial links added by st they did not point towards anything related to the article so they have been removed. Plus when I investigated one of the links, it caused IE to crash? --Drpipe 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no discussion regarding this article?--Pipeup 05:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the current links on the page pass WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a directory of links or a tool for advertising. DMOZ is a link directory. Feel free to submit it there. Also, external links should contain encyclopedic content. These current links are either direct to catalogs (not encyclopedic) or to general websites. Keep in mind also, that external links should link only to content that would not be included in the "featured article" version of this article. That is to say, even links that contain encyclopedic content need to be vetted. Please stop readding the links. You are welcome to discuss it here. Nposs 05:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on linking to the websites of manufacturers, it should be done from the article for that manufacturer - not this specific article. The "list of manufacturers" is dubious at best, since Wikipedia is not a collection of lists WP:NOT - but it is a better solution at the moment than this "list" of external links, which certainly does not pass the guidelines. Nposs 05:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started the page around Diaphragm Valves last year and at first I put no commercial references. However, I noticed that certain users (possibly employees of the present linked manufacturers) consistently put links and names into the article. I did not have a problem with that, as long as names and links of other manufacturers would be listed as well, that is why I added a large variety of other manufacturers. Though, I find that these lists and links consistently are being deleted. The present links are just as valid or invalid as the ones I added. I tried though to point to diaphragm specific webpages, whereas with the present links, the first pictures you see are of ball valves and plastic piping products which has nothing to do with diaphragm valves. Furthermore, these manufacturers are not even the major ones and I would like to see all links removed to get an objective site. Svanterusck 20:11, 5 April Tanveer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.163.43.70 (talk) 11:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The illustration lacks a cross-section edge on either side (across the entry and exit ports). As such it can be misinterpreted as two different, strange illustrations instead of a single cross sectional diagram.

152.3.34.82 (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]