Talk:Dual flush toilet

Australian vs. Dual-flush toilets

This article is off beam in comparing dual flush toilets with traditional American toilets. They were developed in Australia. ALL Australian flushing toilets, whether dual flush or not, have the low water level and reliance on gravity which seem to be intended to be read as being negative aspects of the dual flush toilet. The article is therefore criticising ALL Australian toilets, NOT dual flush toilets. Roblowe48 (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This Articles reads very negative about "non-american" designs and as such isn't objective. --149.217.40.222 (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I have had two month-long stays in Australia, but haven't been there recently. Could an editor with more direct knowledge of the current situation try to disentangle the dual-flush description from the Australian-style low-water toilets? A more neutral, more international perspective would definitely be an improvement. Reify-tech (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

An outsider's viewpoint: I tripped over this page by curiosity, coming from a link on Flush Toilet. I was rather surprised to see the dispute mark on the Disadvantages heading. There is a clearly stated Advantage, and that is quite properly listed first. Then as Disadvantages I see two things: a) it might cost a little more, but recent(?) changes make this not so much of a deal, and b) if you like a bowl full of water this might be a little off-putting.

I think both of those are reasonable statements, unless the first is now untrue for one reason or other. On the other hand, it would be reasonable to point out (as above) that all Aussie toilets are of this sort, so it will only be off-putting for the occasional foreigner. Would it help to change the section title to "Potential Disadvantages" and mention that all local toilets are of similar construction? If that seems like a good idea I'd be willing to make a first crack at wording it if nobody else wants to do it. If so leave a note on my talk page, I won't be monitoring this page. It may take me a week or so to get back, I'm not on every day.

BTW, I would not be in favor of completely removing the Disadvantages section. That, to me, would not seem fair and balanced, given there is also an Advantages section. An article listing only Advantages and not even having a Disadvantages heading ans saying "there are none" always makes me think someone is pushing an agenda. Loren.wilton (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As there has been no additional comment on this since I posted the above remarks, I have made an attempt to rework the disadvantages section without completely removing it. I am not compltely happy with the results, but maybe I (or someone else) can come up with some better wording. I admit to being a 'furriner' from Austrailia, but it seems to be that the dual flush improvement isn't ALL roses. If nothing else, there is the installation cost to consider. I have also removed the dispute tag. If anyone feels this was going too far, feel free to put it back! Loren.wilton (talk)

More work needed to globalise this article

I don't understand why this article focusses so much on Australia and on Caroma. In Germany, these dual-flush toilets are all over the place and I don't think they are all by Caroma. So I think examples from other countries (not just USA or Australia) are needed. EvMsmile (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

ACK. For at least 20 years there is hardly any new toilet installation without dual-flush in Germany. I guess it is same for most other European countries as major European manufacturers are offering only few cisterns without dual-flush. --2.203.127.126 (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dual flush toilet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100418000225/http://www.toiletrebate.com.au:80/ to http://www.toiletrebate.com.au

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)