Talk:Diaphragm

Article text on disambiguation page

Removed this text that was on the disambiguation page. It looks like it should belong in one of the sub articles. Diaphragm Breathing starts with a dome-shaped muscle at the bottom of the lungs called the diaphragm (DY-uh-fram). When you breathe in, the diaphragm contracts. When it contracts it flattens out and pulls downward. This movement enlarges the space that the lungs are in. This larger space pulls air into the lungs. When you breathe out, the diaphragm expands reducing the amount of space for the lungs and forcing air out. The diaphragm is the main muscle used in breathing.

Sectioning (and other things too)

(I'm just moving this discussion here since it applies directly to the page.)

I've simplified the sectioning used on this page - while sectioning is important, it should not overcomplicate the page. The layout at MoS:DP#Longer_lists is pretty much as detailed as it should get.

Also, entires should almost always be sentance fragments (see MoS:DP#Individual_entries for the specifics), so some of the entires have been modified. -- Nataly a 14:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of entries

Please take a look at Deciding to Disambiguate. This details what should be included on a disambiguation page, and what should not. Things that have recently been removed from this page (or should be removed, once the guidelines are understood) are:

Dictionary definitions
Links that contain part of the page title

Just because an article has the word "diaphragm" in it does not mean it should appear on the disambiguation page. The disambiguation page is for all meanings that would be confused were someone to search for the word "diaphragm". The most important links to be included are those of the form "Diaphragm (clarifier here)". Next come those links that are related to the topics at hand, and contain the word "diaphragm" - this does not mean that every article containing the word "diaphragm" should appear on this page! If we did that, disambiguation pages would go on for miles! To quote Wikipedia:Disambiguation, "Disambiguation pages are not intended for games of "free association."" Just because an article is related to the disambiguation topic does not mean it should go on the page.

Additionally, all disambiguation pages should be crafted by following the Manual of Style for Disambiguation. By following the guidelines, disambiguation pages can be easily navigable and allow the reader to find the meaning they are looking for as quickly as possible. When edits are made to conform to the Manual of Style, please be sure that when changing them, the guidelines are still followed. Entires should not be complete sentences.

This disambiguation page contains a number of unconventional entries. However, they do have some use, and I have formatted them as best as possible to match with the rest of the page - if you think they should be changed, please discuss it here first! That way we will not keep making edits back and forth. Thanks. -- Nataly a 02:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying things there, Natalya. I am much happier with the look of the page now. About not including everything with the word diaphragm in the page, my reasoning here would be that rather than being a game of "free association", what we are seeing is the use of a word evolving. What I really need is some etymological evidence to back that up. You might be interested in the discussion here.

And to explain why I think it is helpful to mention iris and eardrum (now on the dab page), and that the diaphragms used in loudspeakers and microphones are acoustic ones (not on the dab page): I did this because I came across widely-varying uses of the term diaphragm when cleaning up the pages that linked here, and redirecting various links to diaphragm to point to the correct one. My argument would be that having a wide-ranging list of uses of the word diaphragm helps people trying to disambiguate links to diaphragm. This is, admittedly, a function aimed mainly at editors, and may conflict with the style intended for a reader who is trying to find an article, but surely there are good reasons to avoid a dab page being too narrow? What do people think? Carcharoth 09:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're more satisfied with it now. The problem with many of the links saying that "foo" acts as a diaphragm is that there is still no appropriate article to link to. If an article says "foo acts as a diaphram", they will certainly link to "foo", but if they link to "diaphragm", there is no appropriate article to link to, because there is no general definition of a diaphragm, since that is a dictionary definition, and would not be appropriate here. -- Nataly a 11:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is probably because the necessary article hasn't been written yet. Is it better to create a stub article and link to it, to guess at the name of a future article and create a red-link, or to delink altogether? For example, there should be something on the electrochemical cell diaphragm on Wikipedia, even if we are calling it by the wrong name. Carcharoth 14:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electrochemical cell diaphragm

Um, why was the electrochemical cell meaning of diaphragm removed? If you do the following Google search, you get over 88,000 hits: [1]. Carcharoth 14:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iris and eardrum - both anatomical and optical/acoustic

The current dab page puts iris and eardrum under anatomical diaphragms. This could be misleading, and could cause someone to link to diaphragm (anatomy) if they didn't stop and read more closely. It is also misleading because it could be taken to imply that eardrums and irises are only anatomical diaphragms, when they are 'also acoustic and optical diaphragms respectively. In fact, I would even question whether it is correct to call them anatomical diaphragms. It depends on the history of the use of the terms, and what order the following terms began to be used:

"anatomical diaphragm"
"acoustic diaphragm"
"optical diaphragm"
"diaphragm" used to describe eardrum
"diaphragm" used to describe the iris.

In other words, current usage (which should be what Wikipedia should describe) might describe them as examples of both anatomical and other sorts of diaphragms, but looking at the history of the terms might show something different. Carcharoth 14:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic diaphragms

Another example is someone with a background in acoustical equipment writing a series of articles on that subject. The article includes some references to structures called "diaphragms". But the original author, or someone coming along later, wikilinks diaphragm. Then, a while later, someone on the DAB clean-up crew arrives and wonders what these diaphragms are? I want to leave the dab page for diaphragm in a state that allows the reader and dab cleaners to find the correct term. So that is why I think it would be a good idea to give examples even if there is no page to link to - these may be technical terms, not just dictionary definitions. Carcharoth 14:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether they are dictionary definitions or not, one should not leave a link directly to a disambiguation page (unless it is specifically supposed to be used for disambiguation). There is an entire project, Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, that deals with correcting such links. -- Nataly a 16:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply below. Carcharoth 16:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diving regulator - which diaphragm?

I just checked "What links" here, and a perfect example came up: Diving regulator. The link to diaphragm got dabbed to the mechanical definition here on 10 May, but then got lost somehow and restored here. I'm going to ask User:Anthony Appleyard (who made that edit) what sort of diaphragm this is. Carcharoth 14:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "diaphragm" link in Diving regulator#Demand valve now points to Diaphragm (mechanics), which is correct. Anthony Appleyard 17:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't sure, as it also sounds a lot like a diaphragm seal. Is 'diaphragm seal' a separate term, or just a type of mechanical diaphragm? Carcharoth 20:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that they are the same thing, and that diaphragm seal should probably be merged into Diaphragm (mechanics). Although currently, I think that diaphragm seal better describes the action of the diaphragm in a scuba regulator, whose purpose is to transmit pressure without allowing water to enter the regulator. -- David Scarlett^(Talk) 02:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting use of 'diaphragm'

Have a look at The Rome-Berlin Axis, where we have this chapter title: This Berlin-Rome Line is not a Diaphragm but rather an Axis...! Note that axis also leads to a dab page! Carcharoth 14:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean the link is correct - see my above note about Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. -- Nataly a 16:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the project. Thanks. I have been discussing similar things on the talk page of that project. Maybe I should take general queries about style of dab pages there. Carcharoth 16:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just about everything mentioned is a type of mechanical diaphragm, or a type of X implemented via a mechanical diaphragm. Dicklyon 22:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find the Rome-Berlin Line being referred to as a diaphragm is a metaphor! :-) The question is, which sense of diaphragm is the metaphor referencing!! Carcharoth 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is from a speech Mussolini gave (1 November 1936) after the completion of an Italo-German Agreement: "But these understandings which have been sanctioned in fitting and duly signed agreements, this Berlin-Rome line is not a diaphragm but rather an axis around which can revolve all those European states with a will to collaboration and peace." (p. 68) So I believe that axis is used in the sense of an axis of rotation. But a diaphragm... perhaps he meant a connection which "divides or separates"...? —Morning star 14:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quote. I made a change to the link, but feel free to change it (it might be seen as rather unorthodox). The above quote might also be a better link if it is on Wikisource, or maybe add a footnote to The Rome-Berlin Axis? Carcharoth 14:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]