Wikipedia

Talk:Straight-twin engine/Archive 2

< Talk:Straight-twin engine
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Malcolmxl5 in topic Requested move 2
Archive 1Archive 2


Move discussion: Straight-two engine or Parallel-twin engine?

Latest comment: 12 years ago21 comments7 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was No consensus to move article

This article, Straight-two engine had been cut and pasted into the redirect Parallel-twin engine. Since the cut-and-paste move was done in such a way as to obscure the edit histories of the article and the talk page, which is unacceptable to Wikipedia as it violates the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GNU Free Documentation License under which Wikipedia operates, it has been reverted.

However, the action does bring up a point. Is "straight-two engine" the best name for this article? Does it follow the naming guidelines of Wikipedia? It is probably best to discuss this and come up with an established consensus on what the name of the article should be.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The move was not done "in such a way as to obscure the edit histories". The move was done in good faith, and based on the expert knowledge of the reliable sources, by a beginner at this game who was trying his best to help and you've created a tangle of related short-cuts and talk pages now.
By all means, please work out how to transfer the page "properly" but in the meanwhile learn to speak to willing volunteers in a way likely to engender their cooperation.
Straight two? If you don't know anything about engines, try starting with Google Books or Scholar.
In the future, try approaching someone new politely and ask them, "Can I help you? What exactly was it you were trying to do?" etc instead of accusing them. You will find it elicits a far more civil response, and then you will be able to judge their intention. --Bridge Boy (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to keep it the way it is until we can straighten out the edit histories. One might be slightly more common than the other, but I don't see a compelling reason to clobber the history over semantics. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, I think I've sort out the tangle of all the related short cuts and have the discuss in the same place. Please don't mess with it until we resolve this issue.
As fas as I am concerned, the argument for "Parallel twin" over "Straight two" is clear.
I followed the style of other engine configurations to include the hyphenation, although I have no strong position in support of that, and tidied up many of the rest of them so that they all matched, there were obvious shortcuts, and there was some sense of logical consistency.
I suggest any changes should be conceived of in consideration of the bigger picture.
Daniel, stop your gaming. My comment to you was not "vandalism". Please learn to speak to people with civility, approach them first to see what it is they are doing and understand what is going on, try offering help before you accuse them, especially dishonesty or with prejudice. --Bridge Boy (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
O.K., since you will not go to WP:MOVE and read why you should not do this, let me bring the relevant part of WP:MOVE to you:
Please do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so fragments the edit history. (Wikipedia's copyright license requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.) - from WP:MOVE
I will now ask an administrator to try to undo the tangle you have created.
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


  • Sorry for coming to this so late, but isn't this a case for splitting? Straight twos are a fairly humdrum entry in the inevitable list of basic engine configs. They're found everywhere. Parallel twins though are a narrow, albeit well-populated, subset of this. They imply a timing that just isn't used for the other straight twos. The term is also, IMHE, only applied to motorbikes.
Parallel twin warrants its own article, under that title. Yet we certainly can't rename straight-two to it, as that would be way inaccurate for the others. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you give us any references or citations to differentiate the two, and clarify what precisely you are talking about? I'm finding it difficult to find any reference to "straight-two" at all, except those referencing the Wikipedia. On the other hand, I can find plenty that use parallel twin for 180, 270 or 360 degree twins, and referred to it as "most commonly known". If you read the references I gave, you will also see it is widely used for automobiles, snowmobiles, ATV, jet skis and so on, and has been for decades.
Even if you cannot provide references, I'd genuinely like to know where and from when the term was used. (What I think you are suggesting is that parallel-twin is used only for 360 degree engines but that is just not so). --Bridge Boy (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This bit of the article has not only survived B-Boy's editing blitz but seems to have actually gained a reference from it:

"Parallel twin" refers to an engine which has its crankshaft mounted transversely across the frame; and the term "inline twin" refers to exclusively to an engine with its crankshaft mounted inline with the frame, such as the Sunbeam S7. - from Straight-two engine#Motorcycle use

If this is to be believed, then the term "parallel-twin" is specific to straight-twins that are mounted transversely in the frames of motorcycles. Therefore, the more general term, "straight-twin", should be the title of the article.
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 
Apparently, this is not a "parallel-twin" but an "inline twin".*
Here's a reference for "parallel-twin"... that goes against it being the general term because it reinforces that the term is a specific case:

"parallel twin A two-cylinder engine layout in which both cylinders are side by side and mounted across the frame" – Wilson, Hugo (1995). "Glossary". The Encyclopedia of the Motorcycle (in UK English). London: Dorling Kindersley. p. 310. ISBN 0-7513-0206-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

I maintain that "straight-twin" is a more general term describing all engines with two cylinders in line with each other on a common bank, whether the cylinders are across the frame ("parallel"), along the frame ("inline")* or not in a motorcycle at all. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
*Apparently, this should not be "inline" but "in-line", according to the reference in the article, the OED reference shown by Dennis Bratland below, and the glossary in The Encyclopedia of the Motorcycle by Hugo Wilson. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
That's a compelling argument, and with more sources saying the same thing, I'd be convinced. It might have been an important distinction in the past, but in my list of quotes below, I have a large number of cases in motorcycling books and magazines where they treat inline and parallel as interchangeable. In almost every instance of "inline twin", they're referring to a bike like the BMW F800, with a transverse crankshaft. It does, however, strongly undermine the idea that "parallel twin" is the only true and correct term. Sources have been found for every variant term, and the only question for the page move is which one is most common. For the article content, they all should be mentioned. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I find the editing blitz - specifically the repeated insertion of the term "parallel twin" into the article - to be somewhat tendentious editing and rather WP:POINTy. For now I have reverted the multiple additions of the term following further discussion. Last night's clumsy work followed by today's blitz do little to help an editor to win favour with others. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Votes


Could people actually sustain their positions using references because I realise I snubbed enough noses for people to just vote against whatever is being propose rather than depend on what the sources say?
I added 35 references from reliable sources at the top of Google to support parallel-twin. I don't see any of you doing the same work. Unless you can, I think any decision going against that will merely illustrate that you are acting out of person prejudices rather than common sense or knowledge of the subject.
I spent quite a while looking at this and could not find any good sources to support straight-two at all which underlines the ridiculousness of all this. Whilst you're willing to play the game with policies, not one of you is standing to defend straight-two, developing the article, nor even reading the references given. Look out there in the real world, there is a clear preponderance to parallel-twin. There could be an argument for splitting off inline-twin (e.g. like a Sunbeam) if someone is willing to do the work but I think it would be wrong to confuse them with V-twin Sam ... unless you have any strong sources to support that use. In such an application it would generally be an "inline V twin-engine" to differentiate from an inline parallel-twin engine. Correct me if I am wrong.
I'll do a breakdown of current manufacturers over the next day or so, so as to establish the most current common usage. In the meanwhile, I encourage you to survey Google Books to gain an impression of the most common use of the term "straight twin". Straight-twin engine does not score any higher, although it is "straighter"
Can anyone come up with where the current term actually came from and where is used apart from here? If not, can we remove it immediately? Thanks --Bridge Boy (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Parallel twin sorry, that and vertical twin are the only two I have ever heard out in the real world, and parallel is the better of the two. I have never heard straight two or inline two. Greglocock (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons

See also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bridge_Boy Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 1

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Straight-two engine → Parallel-twin engine – see discussion above. relisted-please see comment below --Mike Cline (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Bridge Boy (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't remove this tag. If you read what it says, its use does not stipulate that consensus has been achieved but places it on the page for moves where it will attract other editors and allows for 7 days related discussion.
Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Articles needed?

Latest comment: 12 years ago59 comments5 people in discussion

Which articles do we need, in terms of articles with scopes? - we can discuss their naming afterwards

Please post your vote and comment below. Yes/No/Maybe are acceptable, and if it's a Maybe, please state what the conditions would be for it. If you have another idea, please add it - but also state its scope.

I'm going to mercilessly refactor other editor's talk comments here. Anything that isn't a straightforward opinion pro or con is going to be moved into the discussion sub-section below. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles

Engines with two cylinders that aren't Vs or opposed.

Scope: Engines with two cylinders in a single cylinder bank that aren't Vs or opposed. Any use, any orientation. Non-monobloc blocks too.

Twin cylinder transverse motorcycle engines

Scope: Motorcycle engines with transverse crankshafts and two parallel cylinders.

I doubt there is any opposition to having the content, but should this be a separate article? There may also be a view that this should be a broader article on transverse motorcycle engines (triples and fours too).

  • Yes This is a valuable topic that fills an obvious need within the motorcycle project. It's a hugely popular layout. Writing it is little more than an editing task - we already have the content available. The firing order issues are such that this should stay separate from the fours or triples. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you please clarify "for all such engines". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
For all engines with two cylinders in a single cylinder bank, on a common crankshaft, that aren't Vs or opposed. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, accepting that the common term for them in the motorcycle industry is "parallel twin". We cannot avoid that just to appease the current personality disputes, nor allow them to cloud judgement. --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This section is not about names, just about scope of required articles. Any further digression into naming will be refactored. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Transverse motorcycle engines

Scope: Motorcycle engines with transverse crankshafts and multiple cylinders. Includes two, three, four, six and I think there's even a five.

  • No Also a POV fork. Both options must be explained in one article to make sense. Requires duplication of conent between two articles to show reasons for choosing each, and makes the reader flip back and forth. Difficult to maintain, hard to fix contradictions. See comments below. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Twin cylinder motorcycle engines

Scope: Motorcycle engines with two parallel cylinders in a single bank, in any orientation.

  • No This mixes the highly common transverse case with the obscure longitudinal case. I don't see enough commonality between these, just on the basis of cylinder count. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (SamBlob) - see comment on Twin cylinder transverse motorcycle engines above
    • Yes as a more general case, with the highly common case of the transverse engine placement being the majority of the article and a smaller section on the obscure case of longitudinal engine placement. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Longitudinal single-bank motorcycle engines

Scope: Motorcycle engines with longitudinal crankshafts and cylinders in a single bank. Includes the vertical twins and fours, also includes the BMW Ks. Excludes the Guzzi Vs and BMW boxers. Includes singles too, if they're a longitudinal crankshaft.

Longitudinal twin motorcycle engines

Scope: Motorcycle engines with longitudinal crankshafts and two cylinders in a single bank. There's little here except the Sunbeam and similar, as this was an obscure layout.

  • Yes I accept your premise, e.g. it would be good to have one topic for all motorcycles with longitudinally mounted engines, but it is best to have many topics to order information, help uninformed readers and direct them to more specific topics. We are not limited by space and the references support it. --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Longitudinal motorcycle engines

Scope: Motorcycle engines with longitudinal crankshafts and any cylinder layout.

  • Yes It is best to have many topics to order information, help uninformed readers and direct them to more specific topics. We are not limited by space. Perhaps a list. --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
You've voted a Yes to all three of 'Longitudinal single-bank motorcycle engines', 'Longitudinal twin motorcycle engines' & 'Longitudinal motorcycle engines'. As I can't see it as credible to ever have more than one of these three as articles, what's your preferred scope just between these? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
360° four stroke parallel twins

Scope: 360° firing order in the classic (mostly British) parallel twins

Inline twin engines with two cylinders that aren't Vs or opposed and a crankshaft that is specifically "inline".

Scope: Engines with two cylinders that aren't Vs or opposed.

Tandem twins

Scope: Tandem pairs of single designs (?) that are placed fore-and-aft on a commoned crankcase with two transverse single-piston crankshafts. Examples are the KR250 and the Rotax 256.

  • Yes These are obscure and they're best handled by giving them their own article with clear scope, and a one-para abstract with a more link that can be placed in other (probably more than one) motorcycle engine articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes This is a unique case that, beyond a brief mention in a section with a main article link to its own article, doesn't really fit in with the other cases where both cylinders are on a common crankshaft. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes We are not limited by space. U engine fails naming policy badly. These engines are made by numerous manufacturers. However, are you suggest just motorcycle engines or tandem twin engines? I guess I favour tandem-twin engines as a child of inline-twins. --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I make no comment on the "tandem twins" such as the Kawasaki KR250 (two vertical cylinders, inline fore and aft, two transverse crankshafts). These are highly obscure and should be fitted in somewhere (possibly more than once, we're not restricted) but they are so rare they shouldn't affect the structure of the broad articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There are evidently at least two of these: Rotax as well and Kawasaki. I'd now favour a "tandem twin" article, as above, with good linkage (one para abstract and a more... link) from other articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Mind you, Dennis' suggestion of adding this to U engine has some merit. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Thinking more about it, I still prefer tandem twin motorcycle engine.
There are four groups of U engines:
  • Locomotive engines. Large inline engines were needed, without the mechanical problems of V crankpins or the flexible length of a single inline crankcase. They were designed from scratch as Us
  • Bugatti's siamesed engine. Increase the power in the same space by placing two together.
  • Motorbike square fours.
  • Motorcycle tandem twins. Increase the power by using two pre-existing piston, cylinder and crank units, fastened to an ad hoc crankcase.
Admittedly I know little of square fours and why they were designed that way. For the others though, they were never designed from the outset as U engines (in the way that a 90° V8 might be chosen ab initio, because of its balance), this was just a design compromise forced onto them later as the result of other design pressures. As these design pressures were not the same across these groups of U engines, the article ends up as largely isolated sections with relatively little cohesion between them. It's a stronger structure for articles around physical principles and their implications than it is by arbitrary counts of components. Should opposed piston engines go in here too, because they also used two crankshafts?
If anything, the motorbike tandem twin has more in common with Bugatti's U. They were both two pre-existing engines coupled together, which the locomotive and the Squariel were not. However the tandem twin (as effectively a single) doesn't have the crankshaft issues of the other three groups.
I expect that this will end up as a section within U engine - but I don't consider it's an ideal fit. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
One of the problems with tandem twin motorcycle engines is that it would be a very short topic, e.g. description plus list.

As it is generally the same engine which is being widely used in other applications the actual engine design, tandem-twin engine, ought to have its own page in which motorcycle application is one section. In in the future you then want to break that off to a main topic, then fine. However, one of the major appeals of a tandem twin is not to do with engine design, it relates more to do with body and chassis design (narrow), and hence it should probably be tandem-twin engined motorcycles. --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I do not understand why so many articles are necessary to cover one basic engine configuration. Inline-four engine, which has applications in automobiles, motorcycles, and industrial and agricultural equipment, gets by on one article. Flat-six engine, split between aircraft, automobile, and motorcycle use, gets by on one article. V12 engine, split between aircraft, automobile (road use and motor racing use), heavy industrial, and heavy vehicle use, gets by on one article. Yet "straight twin" is believed to need three or four different articles for motorcycle applications alone, not taking into account use in automobiles or domestic or industrial equipment! Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
There are ten potential topics listed here. Several of them are triplets where it's at most one of the set that would ever be relevant. They're just listed here longhand for clarity of discussion, not because it's a serious suggestion that we need all of them.
If anyone thinks that none of them are needed, then just say no to each one. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Inline fours are relatively simple: there are some obvious "right" ways to make them, so that's just how they're made. All the same way. Twins are harder. There's no good way to make a twin - everything (esp. for four strokes) is a compromise as to which form of imbalance you have to put up with. This makes for a lot more ongoing variety.
Twelves are so big and complicated that again there's no single obvious way to do it. You either need to keep the cost down, or else keep the complexity down anyway just to limit block flexibility. Even a Lambo or Ferrari V12 is a compromise (when you'd expect them to be a "just do it right, regardless of cost" situation) - why Ferrari had two quite contradictory engines, the Lampredi and the Colombo, in production for years. Our current lack of V12 coverage is certainly a hole that wants filling. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • A mess of stubs based on every trivial difference between each kind of twin is not useful to the reader, and makes it much harder to fix contradictions between articles. The subject should be in one article that lets the reader compare and contrast the different types, and the engineering, business, aesthetic and marketing reasons for choosing each type. Inflammable redirects to Flammability because you can't understand one without the other. If the word length exceeds 6,000, or better, 10,000, then spawn child articles per WP:Summary style. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I can see two here that would make reasonable stubs (tandem twins and 360° twins), as they can express their narrow scope adequately within a brief stub. The others I'd agree would make a mess if they were only stubs, however that's not the situation - we already have plenty of content for nearly any of these potential topics, the question is just how to organise it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
First put the content into Straight-two engine and Motorcycle engine. Propose a child article once the length becomes great. This 1,000 word article, and the 500 word Inline-twin engine are pathetically short. Even Motorcycle engine, which should be the main article for comparing and contrasting the different motorcycle engine configuration strategies, is a paltry 3,500 words. Write it first, spawn new articles second. The Wikipedia:Summary style guideline says do it in that order not the other way around. Summary style has strong consensus Wikipedia-wide, because that strategy makes a better encyclopedia and serves readers better. All these stubs exist as feathers in the caps of editors, not the good of the project or the reader. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


The term "Straight two" has very weak support from references and I accept that the predominance of motorcycle engines, where they are clearly described as either parallel and inline first, is strongly influencing this topic.
The biggest problem is that the term "straight two" has not well enough established and is not well enough supported by references. Every two cylinder engine is "straight" in one axis or another. It is only once you add a third or additional cylinder that you start to describe the line of the array.
For me, "Straight-two" is the obscure term and I am yet to see which field it is commonly used. The balance of references is clearly in other directions. If there is any field in which straight-two is the predominate term, can someone please show it to me?


I'd like to point out something that came up in a discussion Andy and I had where we found that original, and genuinely appalling, Straight-two engine topic [1] was created by a non-native English speaker and we have been lumbered with it ever since. The influence of Germanic naming conventions was also raised. This is the English language Wikipedia and English language conventions should be rule, e.g. natural, recognisable, common use etc.
Widening the scope of our attention, as Andy has quite rightly done, it is clear that an entire group of articles have been bent out of shape by such influences, and often by the same authors (I am just at the start of my review), and they have had a disproportionate influence which has spread beyond the WIkipedia to Wikia, Wikipedia-scrubbing websites, eNotes, Google searches and so on (all of which will copy anything regardless of whether it is garbage or not).
Given the Wikipedia's influence, our responsibility to accuracy and following common use policy, rather inventing new conventions of our own, is something I take very seriously. Straight-two is one such case, the U-engine topic is another good example of this, and the term not even well supported by its references. Certain as far as motorcycles go, e.g. twins (tandem) and fours (square), it utterly fails policy. Show me one reference for "U-engined motorcycle" and I'll show you 1,000 for "square four" or "tandem twin".


Are you suggesting we have a simple summary, e.g. "many motorcycle's use two cylinder engines ..." and then break out to 'motorcycle only' related topics to the exclusion of 'configuration led' articles? I would say there is room for both views, e.g. inline twins are a rare configuration for motorcycles but are widely used in other fields. We can have both would be my position.
The field of 2 cylinder non-flat or opposed engines is too large and varied to be squeeze into one. As you have pointed out, there is plenty of material for more articles on specific elements.


There will always be conservatives in life who do not like change and whose first reaction is to defend the status quo. Let us also remember that this dispute arose not because of the topic title but merely because of a procedural error, i.e. the failure to transfer editing history, before it became an ego driven battleground and gangwarfare. However, we are not limited by space nor marketing constrictions so the more specialisation and acuity the better. ---Bridge Boy (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This section is deliberately not about naming, just on the scope of the article we need, in order to cover the content that needs covering. Let's keep it that way, so that we might at least get something agreed before we fall back into argument over naming. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think this article is long enough to justify a child article at inline twin engine. To my eyes, they're the same concept, and I haven't read anything in this discussion to convince me that they're fundamentally different. There's no point having forked stubs all over the place; the content is better of in this article. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 10:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The articles aren't perhaps justifying this at present, but familiarity with the topic and literature will show that there are a lot of subtleties involved here. Apologies to anyone who isn't already familiar with this stuff, or why I'm throwing "360°" around as if it's already a 10K char article. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Following on from comment below and the proposal of solving this by adding a "(motorcycle engine)" or "(motorcycling)" suffix, I would like to do a topic on Square four engine, e.g. "Square four (motorcycle engine)". Reminding others that it is actually NOT policy to have to discuss each and every page creation in advance, that the Wikipedia has a vast scope for precision and detail and that the reason of creating stub-like pages is to enable collaborative development, there are actually 3 separate forms of square four engines to be covered.
Although I consider that ultimately each in itself could warrant a topic page on its own history, use and merits, it would seem that Square four on its own would be a good place to start and have enough referential material to support it. Certainly within the motorcycling world, the term "U-engine" is basically unknown and unused and "square four" would meet naming policy best.
Would anyone care to suggest an acceptable topic title first? --Bridge Boy (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I suggest U engine#Square four engine. The entire article is 6.2 kB long, meaning it can be increased almost fivefold before being long enough for splitting. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


OK, here's a quiz for you. It is not too difficult. Which world famous square four engine is not a U engine and why?
I'd agree to a separate "Square four (motorcycle engine) but I would not give any credit to the suggest that the term "U-engine" has ever been used in the motorcycle world. Consequently, it fails naming policy, e.g. "common name, recognisability" etc.
With respect to "length" arguments, perhaps if those of us with an interest in the specialities of motorcycle engine design were allowed to work on the topics instead of engage in such discussions or defences against personal attacks the topics would be longer? --Bridge Boy (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead and work on them — within the existing articles. When they get big enough, they can be split off. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion: part II

Latest comment: 12 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

Based on the above, there is one point on which there is clear consensus and possibly outright unanimity: This article should not be named "Straight-two engine". The remaining contention is what it should be named.

The contenders:

  • Parallel-twin engine: Widely used term, quite possibly the most commonly used term, as proposed by User:Bridge Boy and as supported by User:Dennis Bratland, User:Mighty Antar, User:Greglocock, and, to an extent, me. One drawback is that at least one definition exists that identifies "parallel-twin" as a special case of tranverse mounting of such an engine in a motorcycle.
  • Inline-twin engine: Another widely used term, and closer to the current de facto naming convention. Supported by User:Dennis Bratland. There are at least two drawbacks to this, both related to ambiguity. One is that the term "inline engine" may mean any engine with banks of cylinders aligned along the crankshshaft. However, since the only other engine of that type with two cylinders would be the V-twin engine, and since this wider use of the term "inline engine" is mostly limited to aviation where two-cylinder engines would be limited to drones, ultralights, and other really small aircraft, this is not much of a problem. The other drawback is possible confusion (as happened in at least one earlier section of this talk page) with the term "in-line engine", which means an engine mounted with the crankshaft in line with the frame. If these can both be disambiguated with satisfaction, I would support "inline-twin engine".
  • Straight-twin engine: This term is not as widely used as "parallel-twin" or "inline-twin" and gains support mainly because it is not ambiguous (unlike "inline-twin") and is logically derived and falls within the existing but undocumented convention on describing engine configurations (unlike "parallel-twin"). Supported by User:Biker Biker and User:Mighty Antar. Personally, I agree with this argument, but I must admit that "parallel-twin" and "inline-twin" are much more widely used and, as a result, one of those should be the name of this article.

Other suggestions have been put forward, like "vertical-twin" (what if the engine isn't vertical?) and... well, the only other one I've seen is "tandem-twin", which is for a very specific case.

I propose that we have a civil discussion on this matter *here*, and not carry the discussion over five different sections, as happened the last time.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I am very happy with "straight-two engine" so there certainly isn't unanimity. The one thing it shouldn't be called is "parallel-twin engine" as that is a term mostly used for motorcycles and not other vehicles. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm strongly against "parallel twin". As (I think Dennis) pointed out, the term is "skunked". It's just surrounded by so much confusion that it is no longer a usable term for clearly conveying any sort of meaning.
I'm also wary of "inline twin", because that too has implications of being a longitudinal engine, when (in the top level article at least) the transverse motorcycle engines are a major group.
My favoured solution would be to give the motorcycle transverse twins their own article. This could use "transverse" in the name (although I wouldn't object too strongly to "parallel") and I think that would defuse much of the opposition to calling the top level article "inline-".
My second favourite solution, if the article is to be kept as a single article, is to stick with "straight-" as either "-twin" or "-two". This is far from a perfect name, but it's not as bad as the other options, each of which has a clear and significant problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Straight-twin or inline-twin isn't too bad and then it fits with V-twin and flat-twin. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Rdfox 76's point is quite correct. "From an engineering point of view, there is no difference between the two types; it's just a matter of the sort of transmission used to deliver the power from the output shaft to the final point of thrust." It's the same thing whether it's in an airplane boat, car, portable generator, choo choo train, or motorcycle. The same thing whether it's inverted, transverse, or longitudinal. It's the same thing if you unbolt it from the vehicle and put it on a pedestal and contemplate it's sovereign magnificence. Motorcycle engine is the best place to discuss the various packaging issues and compromises involved in choosing an engine and engine orientation for motorcycles. It's redundant and unnecessary for Motorcycle engine to re-explain what each type of engine is; it should explain what each type of engine means, what it does and doesn't do for you, when you put it in a motorcycle.

I've already expressed support for moving to Inline-twin engine. I think we have a winner.

(Can we also have a new section, page, or essay on Bryan A. Garner's "skunked term" from Garner's Modern American Usage? It is relevant to so many article title discussions it needs wider recognition.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

By the same token, the Orientations and Configurations sections in V-twin engine should be condensed to a few sentences, and the content copied to Motorcycle engine. Motorcycle engine should be the main article for the topic of packaging, cooling, marketing image, and jargon (like "parallel-twin" or "transverse") of the different types motorcycle engines. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you to strike out such a derogatory and prejudicial word as "jargon", Dennis and tone down the language. May I just remind Wikipedians that what matters most is not what we think but what the references and experts says, and if someone has a position, it should be supported by them. If the experts and the manufacturers use the term "parallel", then we are pretty much stuck with it.
Of course, the first problem that arose was that most two cylinder engines being made, and certainly the most visible or documented ones, were for motorcycles where the form factors have advantages and even elements of iconic symbolism.
It may surprise some of you but my decisions were made after reading across a large number of references (not just motorcycle) in which parallel and inline were clearly used predominately for transversely and longitudinally mounted engines respectively. That position has not actually been challenged on the basis of a predominance of references.
If page length is no objection, then in all truth, the only other term widely used for these configurations was "two cylinder" and, following your logic, if page length is no objection then the main topic should be moved back to there.
However, if something as obscure and unreferenced as "Hyundai U engine" can be afforded a page of all its own, I can see no logical reason why any other specific engine or engine configuration be afforded a page of their own and don't see why there is such a pressing necessity to crush‎ it all into one page and condense topics or sections.
  • Why? The Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.
If someone cares to work on it, and there are the references, why not develop it? It seems that behind the personal differences is strategic difference about what the Wikipedia should be like.
I see no reason why it should not be as wide and comprehensive as possible. Others appear to be grinding down and limiting to what might fit into a paper encyclopedia. I would argue that is a wrong and unnecessary attitude for the Wikipedia. The success of the Wikipedia is based on its breadth.


Yes, I agree that one way or resolving the impasse is to have a separate article for, e.g. "Parallel twin (motorcycle engine)" as no one can disagree Parallel twin is a commonly used term.
Consider that, I would argue on the basis of the 40 odd references given that inline twin engine is still most commonly used for longitudinally mounted engines and that the references show it used wider than just motorcycle. However, "Inline twin (motorcycle engine)" would also be a possibility leading to "Inline twin (aviation engine)", "Inline twin (marine engine)" etc where the engines are 'inline' rather than just 'two cylinders'. A point I raised with Andy, is that one common use, e.g. "inline, two cylinder" does not equate to a common usages of "inline-twin" or "inline-two". In that example, the engine is being called a "two cylinder". --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
"If page length is no objection..." – please read Wikipedia:Article size for the policy on page length, and Wikipedia:Summary style for what to do when an article gets too long. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
"Jargon" is derogatory? Silly. WP:JARGON redirects to Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. Good advice, that.

The rest of your comment is a repeat of things you've said at least three times, and nobody has been convinced. Please read WP:IDHT. Sometimes we fail to win consensus for things we want. I've failed plenty a time. Move on and do something productive. Harley-Davidson KR is a red link and that's a travesty. David Robb (motorcycling) is a red link. Motrice Pia ? Red link. There's worthwhile work to be done. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is still not one area where I am convinced that Straight two is most commonly used term, nor are their a weight of references to support it.
If we look at the genesis of the topic and titling, it was deeply faulted so move it all back to Two-cylinder engines with child pages as and when anyone feels the inspiration to do so.
Personally, I cannot see any great difference between the topics for V-twin engine and inline-twin engine in size and scope even though Inline-twin has had far less time to mature. However, I am in favour of a many specialist topics as references support and do not see that other comparables support reduction in the number of topics. --Bridge Boy (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Move to "Inline-twin engine"

In an attempt to get consensus for an actual page move, I here propose that the article be named Inline-twin engine, given that it is a widely used term, it conforms to the de facto naming convention for engine configurations, and it is not particularly ambiguous, since the motorcycling term for an engine in line with the frame is actually "in-line" and not "inline". Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I'm still okay with either parallel-twin engine or inline-twin engine, on the grounds of popularity only. Not meaning. The meta issue is that both terms are skunked. They each can have a second meaning, so sooner or later somebody will propose another move or split or merge because some sources define them narrowly. The advantage straight-two has is that it doesn't carry a second meaning; it's more neutral, and the authoritative DK books [2] [3], per tertiary, use straight-two. Since all of these names are in common use, I don't think it makes that much difference anyway, and so the real consensus needs to get behind putting a rest to this ongoing debate over such a low-stakes difference. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Would straight-twin engine be better in this regard? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe. Certainly no objection from me (and it should at least be a redir). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Scope of article

Latest comment: 12 years ago33 comments8 people in discussion

Another proposal that arose from the earlier discussion is the creation of different articles for different orientations of a two-cylinder straight engine in motorcycles. This was put forward by User:Bridge Boy, to the point where he actually started an article for the longitudinal arrangement of such an engine. The proposal is supported by the proposer and by User:Andy Dingley, and is opposed by everyone else involved in the discussion. The majority opinion is that all orientations of this configuration should be included in the article on the configuration until the size of that article is enough to warrant a split. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep as one article. Not enough to warrant a separate article. The inline-four engine article (about the most common configuration on the road) is just one article regardless of whether then engine configuration is transverse, longitudinal/vertical or longitudinal/horizontal (as in the BMW K100). Ditto V-twin engine (compare Harley-Davidson, Ducati, and Moto Guzzi for three different ways of orienting the engine) so I see no reason to split up this article. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Per Wikipedia:Snowball clause, it's time to stick a fork in this one. There is massive opposition to splitting. The delete !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inline-twin engine are virtually unanimous, coming from a wide cross-section of Wikipedians with expertise in engineering and transport, and a deep understanding of Wikipedia policy. The question of splitting needs to be closed, so we can move on. Anyone who wants to press for a split or child article should go to WP:DRN. When this article has grown to 6,000 to 10,000 words, then we can talk about a split. Beating this dead horse further would be disruptive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Biker Biker, one of the problems with using what already exists as an example is that it only exist by accident of someone coming along rather than by editorial design or expertise.
For example, although "Inline-four engine" may only includes a passing reference to the BMW horizontally mounted flying bricks but there is clearly a good case and references for a topic on the BMW K series engines if someone cared about them or could be bothered.
Again, I don't see the argument for having to condense everything into one topic or line. Why?
Isn't that just importing habits or values from outside of the Wikipedia where information needs to be quickly condensed.
What is your reasoning or justification for doing so? --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Article size, an ideal size for an article is about 30 kB to 50 kB, or a little shorter for technical articles. This article is about 15.3 kB in size, meaning it can be just about doubled before we have to think about splitting. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
SamBlob, the readable prose size is only 903 words, or about 6.7kB. 15kB includes Wiki markup, which isn't counted for this purpose. If the were six times larger, it still wouldn't even be 6,000 words. It would have to be eleven times larger to exceed 10,000 words. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Bridge Boy, the fundamental reason for condensing the article is to help the reader understand the subject. It's very hard to fully grasp the whys and wherefores of a transverse-crankshaft inline-twin if you aren't also thinking about the possible alternatives at the same time. The 2002 Haynes book Motorcycle Basics Techbook, by Matthew Coombs ISBN 9781859605158, has a chapter Engine and under that, on pages 1-29 to 1-30, is:
  • Engine arrangements - twin cylinder engines
    • The 360° parallel twin four-stroke
    • The 180° parallel twin four-stroke
    • Two-stroke parallel twins
    • The four-stroke V-twin
    • The two-stroke V-twin
    • The horizontally-opposed twin
Note that "parallel twin" is the catch-all term; there is no separate word in this book for parallel twins that are turned sideways or front-to back or upside down. Each of the above headings has a few paragraphs, and each references the adjacent sections. The reader is supposed to compare and contrast the different strategies and understand that trade offs are being made. And the section on twin cylinder engines is meant to be read in conjunction with the descriptions of triples, fours, etc. to realize all the choices a motorcycle designer has, and what limits those choices. You wouldn't want to split that apart unless you had to. Unless the article was so large that it was a monster. A "monster" being defined as at least 6,000 to 10,000 words. Hence that wide consensus on Wikipedia for the guideline WP:Summary style. Note that articles can be much larger. Elvis Presley is 15,000 words, and it's a Featured Article -- considered Wikipedia's best work by very strict criteria. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics#Ten longest articles.

This has been explained by me, and by others, several times. I don't want to have to repeat the explanation again for why one article is desirable. Other editors made the point in various ways on this talk page, and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inline-twin engine. We can't go on discussing it forever. It has to stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

One more point. The current discussion of this issue has now reached 14,212 words readable prose size, not counting tables, citations, and templates. That's just this talk page June 28 and later -- the thing has been re-discussed on other pages for who knows how many thousands of words. If just over a third or so of these words here words had been written expanding the article, the size would arguably be large enough to justify a child article. And we'd not need to be debating; you'd like have the sub-article you are asking for. We're wasting time on the wrong thing here. Write, cite, check, copyedit. Discuss what to do with it and where to put it after it's written. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
"Not enough to warrant a separate article. "
Another way to look at this (section above) is less about current article size and more about topic scope. If you look at articles from the "immature" WP of 2005-2006 there are plenty of one or two-line stubs that have massive scope (such that article coherence would be impossible) and with hindsight it's hard to see how an article that broad could ever have been considered viable. If the topic scope is big enough, even if the article size is currently small, then we can still split the article. We can do it because of size, but that's no barrier to splitting because it isn't yet at that size.
Given Bridge Boy's evident keenness to split articles and write new ones like inline-twin, then I'd have little concern that splitting a currently small article in two would leave us with fragmentary articles, but rather that it might act as an incentive to produce some content. The current situation is far from being so good that we're at risk of breaking it! Still, it's far more important to BITE the new editors and maintain the status quo 8-(
Maybe Bridge Boy would like to write an article (in userspace, to defuse some of the criticisms?) on either motorbike twins, motorbike transverse twins, 360° twins or tandem twins. I'd even be happy to see inline-twin engine with a rewrite as a partial merge and a re-scoping to motorbike inline-twins. Then if this produces some decent content (which no-one else has yet done, myself included) we can either merge it as a section or mainspace it as a separate article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
@Sam - If you read the detailed section above, I oppose Inline-twin engine (as a split from the top-level straight-two). I'd support an article on inline-twins in motorbikes specifically, but think that a cross-application article would be too close to the basic top-level article. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


Dennis, can you give me a specific reference to support that "parallel twin is the catch-all term" and is being applied to inline/tandem twins? (And not the title is "Basics", not 'comprehensive' nor 'complete'.
I don't have a copy of " Motorcycle Basics Techbook" and so I cannot comment on whether it includes inline twins or just covers parallel twins (p.22), but I do notice it calls inline triple engines "in-line triples" rather than "straight-threes" as Biker Biker and Sam Blob here reverted it to. If this book is as canonical as you present it, would you therefore agree that inline triple would meet policy better?
Looking in the index, page 163, it only lists in-line four (p.26), six (p.28), and triple (p.25) engines. Personally, I think you are doing everything you can to admit Mick Walker and others, and numerous manufacturers, use the two terms for the two entirely different configurations. All the previews of this book that I can see discuss a shared single crankshaft rather than two separate crankshafts. However, if is genuinely important enough for you, and will decide the argument, I will go down to the British Library, dig out a copy and read it for you. I suspect it just does not include inline twins within its scope.
Let's look at comparables from elsewhere in the Wikipedia.
Why do we have a separate page for Horse and Pony? Both are the same configurations. Both are even equus ferus caballus. Indeed, their configurations have considerably more in common than a T120 and a Rotax 256 engine †. Then why do we have separate pages for Color breeds, Sabino horses, Hack (horse)s, Polo pony, Riding Pony and so on? Why aren't you applying the same logic to those pages? Why a Mare and Stallion_(horse)?
Why can we have reference-less pages like Hyundai U engine but not a page on a group of engines like inline or tandem twins? Please note a blog is not considered a a reliable source, so why aren't you gunning to delete such pages? There is no need to condense and doing so does not make it easier for individuals to understand. Well referenced topics do, and the Wikipedia encourages specialisation.
Listen Dennis, I know what I did to upset you, why you have personalised this so much, and why you have to win. Just don't tell me it has anything to do with the differences between inline and parallel twins, or adhering to the Ten Commandments of policy. What I have learned so far is that Wikipedia policy is like the Bible. You can use parts of it to justify whichever side of an argument you want, and people will ignore it as they wish, and ethics, if they think they can get away with it. --Bridge Boy (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
† Taking the analogy further, what we have in other such areas is the equivalent of one topic for 'black painted, cammy T120 engines' and one topic for 'red painted, STD T120 engines', so why the big deal if there are good references to support it? (And I have used good references all along).
I've already given multiple examples of experts using the terms interchangeably, with quotes. Mark Tuttle, above, for example. The OED as well. Scroll up and read the sources I posted. There are many.

If you can't find a copy of the Motorcycle Basics Techbook, your options are to accept what I say, per WP:AGF and WP:Offline, or you can borrow a copy from a library. That might take time. There is no harm being caused here, so put this aside while you search for sources, if you can't accept them AGF.

The point is not that there is any one source that is canonical. The point is that there are many authoritative sources, and it's a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE to treat the ones that give parallel a special meaning as supreme while ignoring the other sources.

The more editors who join this discussion, the stronger the opposition to splitting becomes. The more you post, the further behind you get. See WP:SNOW again. You're behind, you're losing, and the longer you go on, the more hopeless it becomes. Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inline-twin engine. Do you see anybody new showing up and saying they agree with you? It's not going to happen. It was three to one, then five to one, then ten to one. Do you want to keep going until it's 100 to one? Why? Merge the material into one article and go work on something else. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Bridge Boy, your language "Listen Dennis, I know what I did to upset you, why you have personalised this so much, and why you have to win..." borders on a personal attack against Dennis Bratland. Dennis's positions in this discussion have clearly been about the article content, not about any personal feelings he has toward you or your opinions on the subject matter. Please refrain from commenting on your fellow editors. Stick to commenting on article contents. Failure to do so could result in your being blocked from editing. Sincerely, Ebikeguy (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Ebikebuy. A combative, defense and accusatory tone isn't helpful. You've been given all the "final notices" and "one more chance"s that are going to be extended to you. I highly recommend you take a more conciliatory tone and learn to talk with others, instead of at them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Admin relisting comment

This RM discussion is virtually impossible to evaluate. Please subordinate all section headings if they are included in the RM discussion. Additionally, from this point forward please indicate with Supports or Opposes with rationale your position on this move and refrain from an incivility toward participants. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't trivialise a technical discussion merely so that WP admins can pretend to follow it, without understanding any of the background to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not that technical and most of the "technical" facts are red herrings. Common sense is sufficient. It defies common sense to tell anyone that when you turn a parallel twin engine 90 degrees, it becomes a new type of engine. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inline-twin engine several editors pointed that out, and they also pointed out that it's really jargon to make such a big deal over a change in engine orientation. What really changes is the motorcycle transmission, which is a different subject and a different article.

I want to emphasize again that every time a new editor voices an opinion here, it's always against splitting. The trend is only in one direction and it's pointless to keep dragging it out. Spend your time expanding the article and then once you've got something to show, present the article and argue that it needs to be split. This endless talk is disruptive if nobody is being convinced. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I am sorry that you feel clearly stating Support or Oppose in an RM discussion is trivalizing. Additionally, given that the RM discussion actually ends with the start of the new section Attempting to clarifying naming, asking editors to properly subordinate section heading seems reasonable if you expect the RM closer to evaluate the complete RM discussion and not other talk page issues. If you expect a rational RM decision, then an expectation that someone can rationally interpret what the various positions are seems reasonable as well. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Why don't we just move the whole lot back to one article called "Engines"? I mean, surely it defies common sense that when you put an engine in a motorcycle rather than an automobile it become a new type of engine?
On one hand it doesn't but, on the other hand, and from the specialist's point of view, there are very good reason why one engine configuration rather than another is chosen for various applications. Each group has its own strengths and weaknesses, each has its own history, and each has its own notable examples. Most are supported by detailed references.
Why this is more apparent with motorcycles and other light vehicles, rather than automobile is that both the form factors and the engineering difficulties become much more apparent, much more influence on both the design of the chassis and the experience or identity of the vehicle.
For example, why were inline rather than parallel engines favoured for outboards?
Other editors are correct to a degree. It really does not make that much of a difference if you stick a V or an inline engine into an automobile, nor which way it points. However, you try shutting off or changing gear on a BMW R100 in the middle of a corner and you have more than a topic's worth of discussion about why it is different from an inline two-stroke twin. Why do BMW chose such a configuration, Triumph a parallel twin and HD a V-twin, again for a documentable reason.
The Wikipedia allows for us to go into detail about expert subjects.
For some people motorcycle engineering is their specialist area, and I can genuinely confirm to you that there is considerably more difference between, say, inline or tandem twin engine and an OHC parallel twin than there is between a Horse and a Pony, so why do we allow separate topics for horses and ponies, pr Polo pony, Riding Pony? Surely common sense says they are all the same? --Bridge Boy (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Since these differences show up so readily in motorcycle applications, why not tell us all about them in the Motorcycle engine article? That article can at least be doubled (my conservative estimate) before it will need splitting. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging that they do. Why? Because, in my opinion, that topic is long enough and it is time to split off and build up more specific child pages. For example, I find it conceivable that someone will search the Wikipedia to find out what "parallel twin" means, it is so commonly used, and they ought to find something with visual representations and good references to follow.
The Wikipedia is a collaborative process. It is only by starting something up that others are attracted and enabled to help.
Anyway, we still have a problem with this title and I am suggesting moving the bulk of it to Parallel-twin (motorcycle engine), if you really insist it cannot be Parallel-twin engine, and the rest of it to Two-cylinder engine. How does that sound?
Given all the other 100,000s of short or medium length but specific topics, why all the resistance against this one? --Bridge Boy (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The reasons for opposition have been stated, and even re-stated, by each of the editors opposed to the move and the split. It's WP:DISRUPTIVE to ask, again, why they're opposed. The problem is WP:IDHT: "I didn't hear that". A host of editors disagreed, gave their reasons, and yet you say you don't know why they're opposed. Remember, "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point is accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
There's no problem with a redirect from parallel-twin engine, so there's no need to have an article under this as a canonical name before our poor readers searching for that term will become confused. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this guy doesn't give up. To be clear, for the benefit of the admin relishing I opposed renaming the article, and I oppose splitting it up for all the reasons I have previously given. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, BB, are you going to provide all the references to substantiate it then because I have provided more than sufficient references to prove it does not meet Wikipedia policy in the motorcycle world?
Dennis, resolving the scope of the topic and accuracy of the title is not "disruptive". What was "WP:DISRUPTIVE" was Sam and I moving back and forward according to our own points of view and breaking the various shortcuts. That stopped a long time ago.
Neither you, nor anyone else, have provided the references to substantiate Straight two meets policy and common sense says, looking at the very beginning of the topic, it was poorly composed, entirely unreferenced and written by a non-native English speaker. And when I have taken you to task on your interpretation of expert references (Walker), you have refused to discuss it.
What do you find difficult to comprehend? I've put up 60+ references. Show us an equal or greater alternative. Don't give us WP:SYNTH or WP:OR from a misreading of references (Walker), show us the references that say specifically that a parallel or inline twin are parts of the Straight two family. --Bridge Boy (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in spite of the citations right here on this very page, which everyone has seen, you keep repeating that nobody has provided citations. Please stop repeating it. Everyone heard you the first time. The other editors gave your assertion due consideration. You don't have to say it again and again. It's disruptive. You think you're right, but as WP:IDHT says, thinking your right is not a reason to go on ad nauseam. And, remember, "Do not confuse 'hearing' with 'agreeing with': The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, please stop misusing edit summaries in a prejudicial manner as you did there. The "community" has little to no interest (or expertise for that matter). It is really all down to your agenda, and a couple of other half-hearted supported.
I politely informing you that you have not provided sufficient or significant weight of references on the article, nor specific references which state what you appear to be claiming, or that Straight-two engine meets WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISE, WP:CRITERIA.
It does not. It is as simple as that, and you have refused to discuss where the references you gave actually support a split between parallel and inline.
Just list us all the manufacturers who call their engines "straight twos". --Bridge Boy (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
You've said all this before. Please stop your disruptive editing, as defined in WP:IDHT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Bridge Boy, Unfortunately, you are wrong on several counts:
  • The community does care, about disruptive editing and about the quality of articles on Wikipedia.
  • Dennis has provided plenty of RS references to support his position.
  • Dennis does not appear to be driven by his "agenda." Rather, he seems to be working to improve Wikipedia.
BB, I have seen so many new editors who believe they are right and the Wikipedia community is wrong, and dad-gummit, they are going to force the community to acccept that they are right, come hell or high water. In EVERY case of this I have seen, the new editor has eventually been indefinitely blocked, or has given up in frustration and quit Wikipedia for good. You are headed down that path right now, but you can stop yourself and decide that you really do want to edit according to Wikipedia rules and policies. The choice is yours. If you choose the wrong path, I will be sorry to lose your considerable experience here at Wikipedia. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Ebikeguy, can I ask you a couple of honest questions just so I can understand where you are coming from? Although the second has been misconstrued before, these are earnest; a) how did you get sucked into this, was because you read about it on ANI? and b) how much knowledge or expertise do you think you have regarding engine design etc? I ask the latter just to know if you understand what the disagreement is about.
I'll be the first to admit I really don't know any about the bureaucratic side of the WIkipedia, and every policy and rule that can be dug up to bolster one side or another. I depend on a common sense approach to all that. It all just seems to boil down to how much will and persistence anyone is willing to invest whatever they aim to achieve. You can say something like "edit according to Wikipedia rules and policies" but the "rules and policies" are inert. It is individuals who do stuff.
In this situation we have this crazy disproportionate balance where there is a list of 18+ major international manufacturers, and 40+ good references to support one side of the argument and, basically none to support the current status quo. Now, I can jump up and down and flap my arms and point out that crazy disproportionate balance but if one or two individuals don't want to or refuse to see it, there is no "rule and policy" that is going to come rushing to my aid.
If Straight-two engine is really so common, recognizable, natural etc, all the qualities required for the sake of policy, I'd like to see just some simple references that proves it, e.g. one that say, "parallel and inline twins are all members of the straight-two family", a list of manufacturers that list their engines as "Straight-twos", a book or two with it in title. Perhaps it was originally intend as "straight, two-cylinder", which might make a little more sense, but at present, the title does not meet with the policy guidelines and no one digging in their heels can prove that it does. It was conceived of by a non-native speaker, without references, and has stuck even since without being questioned.
What does the policy advise me to do when faced with unreasonable recalcitrant editors refusing to admit a disproportionate balance? --Bridge Boy (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
For the tenth time, here is what policy advises you to to: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Wikipedia:Let it go. Wikipedia:Just drop it. Wikipedia:Time to take the dog for a walk. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Wikipedia:The Last Word. Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process.

I can assure you that Ebikeguy has been involved in articles on two wheelers and related subjects for ages. And even if he wasn't he has every right to contribute. Stop demanding other editors show you their credentials. It is noxious bullying to try to assert ownership because you think have superior expertise. It violates WP:AGF and WP:OWN. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Bridge Boy, You did not address my input. Answering your questions would not be useful in any way. You've clearly made your choice of paths. Good luck to you. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


Ebikeguy, I asked you a couple of leading questions in order for me to gauge where you were coming from, or at what level or in which area I should respond to you. It's common practise and in no way impolite. Arguably, it is considerate but if you are going to be defensive about, what can I do? This is the way it goes; I ask a question or raise policy, individuals refuse to answered, and then I am accused to not discussing or reading to what others write.
How do you think that looks?
Dennis offered a handful of references, at least two of which also supported the split between inline and parallel twins (although he refused several times to discuss or admit it when the fact was raised - 'Walker, Mick').
I am not asking for "some" references, I am asking for an equal or greater preponderance of references to support the title according to Wikipedia naming policy. No one can provide that because it does not exist.
Policy also states that where there is a title dispute, the title should default to the title used by the first major contribution.
Dennis, rather than a little misleading "two wheelers", I see bicycles and electrical bicycles and so it is a fair question. I have no idea which acronym to use for "please drop the hyperbole" but please do. --Bridge Boy (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Needs verification of citations

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The source for the reference to the "supercharged" AJS Porcupine winning the 500cc MotoGP says in bold letters, at the top of the page, "Without its supercharger, this porcupine didn't have much of a sting in its tail, but it still won a world title." The central point was that the bike was not supercharged, yet the citation was used to claim the exact opposite.

This type of boner, along with blatant original research and POV-pushing, makes me realize that ever single new citation in this article needs to be re-checked for accuracy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So what's your point? Where is your claimed claim that the Porcupine was supercharged? It's not in the article now, or at any recent version that I can see. Are you claiming that it didn't win? That it wasn't a twin? That the cylinders weren't canted forwards? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The error, with the citation that says the opposite, was inserted two weeks ago by Bridge Boy on June 28 here and corrected by SamBlob this morning here. The familiar pattern of failed reading comprehension seems to extend not just to talk pages, but to the reading of sources too, and so I've tagged the article with {{Cite check}} until they can be reviewed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I did not put in the reference re supercharging. I put in the reference for it being called a parallel twin. Go ahead, keep trying to work up a case against me Dennis but try asking what I meant first before you labour on creating the next slur. --Bridge Boy (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you were in such a rush to cite anything you could find that was ammunition in your argument against other Wikipedia editors that you had no time to think about the content of the article itself. Your eyes were so riveted on the words "parallel-twin" in the book source that you didn't actually read the meaning, and the full context. Most of the expansion of the article was written in this tendentious, battleground mindset. Hence the need for someone else to re-check all of it for accuracy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean like mistaking an office printer for a motorcycle to substantiate your own POV or suggesting Mick Walker could not tell the difference between two configurations?
No, I just though the only parallel-twin to win a 500cc Grand Prix was notable and Sam was kind enough to correct the details without any fuss and point scoring Dennis. That is how the Wikipedia works, through altruistic collaboration. It was designed as a supercharged engine and then, it seems, stripped of it. Top marks to Sam for picking up on it. --Bridge Boy (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I object to being used as an example of altruistic collaboration by someone with no idea of how it works. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Inline-twin Article has been Userfied to my userspace.

Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

Hi All,

The AfD on the Inline-twin article resulted in it's being deleted. I asked the deleting admin to userfy the article to my userspace, and he did so:

User:Ebikeguy/Inline-twin_engine

Please feel free to use the userfied article to merge any relevant data into this article. I'm going to let editors with more knowledge of the subject matter decide what info should be merged and what should be sent off to that great Wiki in the sky. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

How would we attribute these moves in a way that satisfies the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licences? Is that article's history going to be kept? I await a reply because there's certainly a lot that would be useful, especially the marine and aviation sections and the tandem-twin section. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The answer is sort of explained in WP:RUD and WP:UFY. It's basically a merge back into article space. An edit summary that gives the version number of User:Ebikeguy/Inline-twin_engine you are copying from is sufficient, "Inserting content copied from revision 123456789 of User:Ebikeguy/Inline-twin_engine". You'd add {{Copied}} to User:Ebikeguy/Inline-twin_engine. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Does it matter that I am going to delete the page from my userspace eventually? Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
That's what I'm worried about: that we would eventually be making attributions to thin air. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
If anyone copies the content, then it will be tagged as {{Copied}} and so no admin will willingly delete it, even if Ebikeguy requests it. Either the page must remain forever, or a full or partial history merge of some kind will be required. It really depends whether the admin thinks it's worth his time to do a merge to free the storage space. If nobody copies directly from it, no problem, it can be deleted. Nothing to worry about. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but I was just about to copy directly from it, and had been editing it in preparation so to do.
Possible solution: Could it be moved to my userspace? I'll keep it as it exists at the time of the move until the movement of information is complete and then replace the remaining content with a statement to the effect that the page is being kept to preserve the page history, as content from the page was merged to the "Straight-two engine" article.
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to keep it in my userspace. I was worried about someone starting an MfD, but Dennis has allayed those fears. If you want to move it to your userspace, Sam, that's fine too. You have my permission. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what to do now, whether to move the article to my userspace, or to just start moving content. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll start moving content. If a move becomes necessary, or is requested, I'll do it then. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I added {{Copied}} to the source page. We can request a history merge to make it all neat and tidy, or just leave well enough alone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry but I am against it being copied into this topic until we resolve the title as I do not think it should be used to substantiate the current title. It clearly does not. --Bridge Boy (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Your position is noted, but I do not think it will carry much weight given that you seem to be the sole dissenting voice in a sea of consensus. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Ebikeguy, until you show me the courtesy of responding to my perfectly polite questions above it is impossible for me to comment. Given the lack of an equivalent amount of supporting references, e.g. a list of manufacturers using the term, I'd say there is a lot of illogical digging in of heels, and even if I was 100% correct some would oppose it merely because I proposed. --Bridge Boy (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Bridge Boy, Ebikeguy is not telling you anything about references, or about logic, or about how the article should be. He is telling you about how discussions work and how consensus works. You do not seem to grasp either the concepts or the fact that he is actually talking about those concepts and not what you are talking about. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Two stroke or Four stroke ?

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

All of the stuff about crank angles and firing cycles is useless unless you first clearly state whether you are talking about a two-stroke or four-stroke engine cycle.Eregli bob (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have since edited the article in an attempt to correct this. Please let us know what further needs to be done in that regard. Do you know where the remarks about Phil Irving's crankshaft angle idea should be placed? I don't have access to the cited sources so I don't know whether he was talking about two-strokes or four-strokes. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I don't know. I am not an expert on motorbike engines. However I know that two-stroke engines are very uncommon in cars, but quite common in motorbikes. It seems strange this is not mentioned anywhere, as all the stuff about crank arrangements and firing order make no sense unless it is clear what engine cycle is being discussed. There are plenty of good books about engine vibration and balance theory.Eregli bob (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Two strokes are probably equally common in cars, where we're discussing two cylinder engines. Four stroke inline twos have only rarely been used for cars - the Fiat 500 and the new MultiAir are some of the only examples I can think of.
This article (rather than some other forked articles) needs to cover both, but clearer labelling would certainly be an improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was Do not merge.

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 12 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion

OK, trying to resolve the topic title issue, I propose it is taken back to Two-cylinder engine.

Much of the arguments for doing so have been stated by all parties on this page, e.g. Wikipedia naming policy, topic length, topic origins etc.

There really are not sufficient supporting references for "Straight two" and to now bundle a number of other configuration to substantiate the titling is only making an even more confused mess.

I believe normal convention is to discuss a merge at the destination page but to avoid dfisruption, I am choosing to do so here amongst interested parties. I hope I have the tagging etc correct.

Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense IMHO. Two-cylinder engine article is about all configurations i.e. including flat and v-twin. It is perfectly valid to use this article for parallel-, straight-, inline-, horizontal-twin/two or whatever. No reason to merge, no reason to split. Leave as-is. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose There is something to say about two cylinder engines, if only to provide a supercategorisation. There is obviously something specific to say about V twins and flat twins, and their specific issues. The remainder is thus the straight-two engine. It is distinct from Vs and flats. It wouldn't sit well (per WP:UNDUE) if merged into the root article for twos overall, unless we were to merge all four articles.
I am finding it increasingly hard to assume good faith about some of your suggestions (and to be fair, the actions of some others). I've seen them as unduly critical and personally directed so far, but I'm now beginning to think they might have a point. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Andy, it is absolutely genuine and its not resolved so let's stick to the issue rather than the personal accusations.
Basically, no one uses the term Straight-two engine except the Wikipedia (and other sites that scrub content off it).
If you oppose, please just substantiate an alternative by showing us a predominance of references to support the use of the term "straight two" etc, by whom and for what? (This is normally the point at which every ones goes silent). Please just end the conversation by giving us a list of manufacturers using the term.
BB? Yes, the two-cylinder topic would then include brief introductions to all configurations, e.g. inline, v-twin, flat, tandem, horizontal, what have you each being supported by child pages as is required.
As someone else wrote somewhere, there really is not that much of a difference in the configurations, they are all just two cylinders and a transmission. They are all two-cylinder engines.--Bridge Boy (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Mick Duckworth, Phil Hunt, Malcolm McKay, Hugo Wilson and James Robinson use "straight-two engine" in reference with the 1956 TR5 Trophy. Giles Chapman, Charles Armstrong-Wilson, Richard Heseltine, Keith Howard, Phil Hunt, Malcolm McKay, Andrew Noakes and Jon Presnell use it too. Do we have to review the credentials of Chapman and Duckworth and Wilson and McKay and all these guys again? We've been through this. These compendia from DK help resolve contradictory sources, per WP:PSTS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Great. Well, that is 3 references against all 18 major manufacturers and 40 plus references for parallel and inline each. You've only got 19 manufacturers plus another 58 to go to prove a preponderance of common usage. What is your score so far? Do you see what I am saying? --Bridge Boy (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Other editors have already informed you that they recognize more than just 3 sources here; they've been cited already. Why must other editors go over all this for you three, five, six times? Repeatedly ignoring consensus, and repeatedly ignoring what other editors have told you is disruptive. Please drop this now. Please stop your disruptive editing.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I've always recognised that. I am asking what is your total score so far (less than 10?), and where is your list of manufacturers (nowhere, it does not exist). That is what you are ignoring and refuse to respond to.
I am sorry but, by now, you've sat and searched on Google and can see the truth of it. In terms of preponderance, I would say it breaks down as 1) parallel, 2) inline (or in-line), 3) two-cylinder with straight two hardly to be seen. --Bridge Boy (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Kawasaki uses both inline and parallel for the Ninja 500.[4]. The sources go on and on. This was already resolved; it is not relevant to this current DOA merger proposal. You're re-arguing the point that you lost here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inline-twin engine. Why? What do you think is going to happen? You've been warned that you will be blocked from editing if you do not stop beating this dead horse. Please stop your disruptive editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I watched the video and downloaded the spec sheet [5], in both cases they used "parallel twin". As you remember, I also reviewed and made a list of all 18 leading international manufacturers and they all used parallel. It is disruptive to the quality of the content to wilfully ignore that fact.
It is simple. If you want to follow naming policy just come up with an equal or greater list proving that some other term is actually the common, natural, recognisable etc one.
I am the one who is following policy to the letter on this one and who has put in the footwork to substantiate it. Yes, with your superior knowledge of how to game the system WP:GAMES you may be successful in sabotaging my editing account if that is what is most important to you but, for me, I am more interested in the quality and scope of the content and its effect on the rest of the internet and readership. Please stop creating all this distraction.
Andy, I don't know what you are conceiving the word "merge" as meaning. Please tell me what you think I mean. I am simply suggesting two cylinder becomes the master page and includes a reference to all two cylinder engine designs, off which sub-pages can arise when required by length. Having spent hours reading references, it is the other primary form description and the only non-controversial or non-confusing one. --Bridge Boy (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Click on Read more under introduction: "At the heart of this excellent platform is the Ninja 500R’s 498cc liquid-cooled, inline twin-cylinder four-stroke engine". Please stop making personal attacks. Please stop your disruptive editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I would support a rename of straight-two engine to <bettername>'-two engine. If you have any ideas of bettername that aren't either worse than current ideas, or haven't already been raised and rejected, then I'd love to hear them. So far we don't have them.
A merge is a whole different idea, and a bad one. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - per Andy's points. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - as per points raised by AndyDingley and Biker Biker. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment: It is interesting to note that Straight-two engine is being considered a "child article" of a disambiguation page. It is equally interesting to note that no similar action is being taken at V-twin engine or Flat-twin engine. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. As written above, obviously 'two cylinders' would become the main content page, Sam, not remain a disambiguation page as present. I don't see a strong argument to support the use of Straight-two engine as the major page at all. It is a very minor and obscure naming convention and not one of you have been able to refute that so far. We have a handful of references, against far more on other alternatives, the other clear leader which is simply "two-cylinder". It seems it is favoured by the car manufacturers.
And do we have any references to support tandem twins being called "straight twos". Strictly speaking, they are a pair of ones. I think that desperate to prove a point, you are introducing errors into the topic. --Bridge Boy (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
O.K., let us review what you have done here. You have put merge notices on both V-twin engine and Flat-twin engine, which is fine, if you are actually proposing to merge these articles into "Two-cylinder engine". However, at both Talk:V-Twin engine and Talk:Flat-twin engine, you say that "no changes to" those articles "are being suggested whatsoever". This tells me either that you don't know what either a merge or a merge proposal is or you are being dishonest about the whole thing.
Every time a proper attempt is made to have this article moved from "straight-two engine", so much antagonism is raised that we cannot get consensus on the title to which it should be moved. This serves only to frustrate everyone who thinks the article should be renamed. DO NOT blame the antagonism on Dennis Bratland, because he wants to see this article moved almost as much as you do, and possibly to the same title! The antagonism comes from you and your multiple attempts to game the system and your chanting of "Parallel-twin good, straight-two bad" like a sheep from Animal Farm.
Had the process been done in a civilized manner, the name would have been changed long ago! Instead, all we have is chaos, carnage, a gigantic talk page, and the name still stuck at "Straight-two engine"!
Do yourself and all of us a favour: Give it a rest. This crusade is not helping any of us, and is most likely to leave this article with its current name. Leave it alone, let the dust settle, suggest *politely* that the name should be changed (and suggest it ONCE), and it is quite likely that it will be changed.
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
If you know of a better tag, then please use it Sam and I don't take kindly to be called a "Spade" in public via a sneaky link. I've gone out of the raise the profile of black biking across a few topics and it is something I care about.
Seriously?! You are trying to say that this link is somehow a racial slur? That is utterly ridiculous. Sam was referring us to an official Wikipedia essay on a commonly-used Wikipedia editing term. I don't know if you are black, white, brown or purple, but if you have a problem with that editing term, please take it up through official channels, and don't try to use it as an excuse to call another editor a racist. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem started when you moved the topic back here without first checking on what work had been done, breaking all the shortcuts and links etc. It could have been avoided if you had just done so first and use the right history merge request. Yes, at that time I did not know the technique to do so. I think, in all humility, you need to look at your own reaction a little.
If you actually read the tag attentively, it says, "It has been suggested that portions ..." be merged. What is the problem? It is common sense that all that is required on a main topic is a short introductory paragraph (and I favour a gallery), with a link to the main topic. I looked but I could not find a more suitable one, hence the explicit note to any newcomers to the discussion.
As to the rest, Sam, you are essentially confirming what I have stated, that the stasis is purely down to egotistical personal reactions rather logic, reason or a commitment to accuracy. It may be inevitable for such reactions to arise in any group or individual but, ultimately, it is bad for content to be determined by that and professionalism requires us to rise above them.
The thing with Dennis started when I told him that I thought his statements about the Hells Angels MC were either ridiculous or a symptom of gross prejudice. He would not listen to what I was explaining to him in a perfectly reasonable manner. He claimed that they "had no interest in motorcycles" and that the fact that each chapter has its own terroritory was "proof" that they were a criminal organisation. A belief which defies the tradition is common amongst all motorcycle and goes back, even in the case of the Hells Angels, way before their criminal activities started. If it is true "territory denotes criminality", then every McDonalds franchise is also a criminal gang.
I offered to discuss the issue which him but, as in other cases, he refused to discuss it, and refused to discuss where he was coming from as another motorcycle enthusiast. Hence I find his later accusation of me not willing to discuss disingenuous. It is the oldest trick in the book to accuse someone of what you yourself have done. I was amazed by the amount of efforts he was willing to invest in bury all this, and trying to sink me, and, of course, I do not know the gaming elements of the Wikipedia as well as he does.
However, I think if he is honest there are element of this dispute which go back to that event and I am still willing to discuss and resolve them if he is willing.
I am sorry that we did not have the opportunity to discuss the build up to all this at ANI but they closed the case before I had the time to do so. It is also not my style to do so. It's like running to "teacher" or the school prefects to do so. Dennis had been simmering, or building up a case against me on my talk page for a while, and when you and I came together it gave him the perfect opportunity to fan the flames, and build it all up into what it is now - damaging for the Wikipedia.
I think he has a little bit of a tendency to exaggerate and state that which is not true misleadingly for the sake of effect and my experience regarding his opinions of the Hells Angels demonstrated to me that when he is pulled up for, even reasonably, he does not like it at all. --Bridge Boy (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The tag at Flat-twin engine says: "It has been suggested that portions of this article be moved into Two-cylinder engine."
Part of your statement at Talk:Flat-twin engine says: "No changes to Flat-twin engine are being suggested whatsoever."
How are you going to move content out of Flat-twin engine, as even a partial merge implies, while making no changes to the article whatsoever?
Thanks for letting me know that that dumb move was due to ignorance rather than duplicity.
BTW, when there is any controversy about a move, and the gigantic talk page tells everyone how controversial this attempted move has been, Wikipedia policy states that the article *stays where it is* until consensus is reached. This is why I tried to put the article back before I realized I didn't have the power so to do. This is why the administrator who had the power to put the article back together put it back *here*. No matter how much you talk about egotism, that's how the policy is. There will be no change without agreement, and you seem to be doing everything you can to make agreement *impossible*.
How much do you want the name "Straight-two engine" to go away? Is "Inline-twin engine" more agreeable to you? Here's one way toward having it happen: Go to Talk:Straight-two engine#Move to "Inline-twin engine", add "*Support" with a brief summary of your reason for supporting, and then watch and wait. It is not sure to happen, but what you are doing now is a sure way to have it *not* happen!
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Opppose The title issue was resolved. It is time to drop the stick. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Given that the editor who proposed this merger (and was the sole supporter of this merger) has been blocked indefinitely, would it be proper to close this discussion with a decision to not merge this and other articles that the proposing editor suggested? Ebikeguy (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Fully agree. He didn't drop the stick, it was taken off him. So let's move on to our usual job of improving articles, writing articles, and fighting vandals. Nothing more to see here people, move along now. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "tandem twin" section be moved to "U engine"?

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It suddenly occurs to me, a long time after I moved the content from B-Boy's content fork, that the engines described in Straight-two engine#Tandem twin engine is more like a U engine than a straight engine. It is understood, though not explicitly stated, that the pistons in a straight engine are connected to a common crankshaft, while the tandem twin has two different crankshafts, like a U engine. Should the "Tandem twin engine" section be moved to the "U engine" article? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Straight-two_engine#Discussion already. I'd favour a separate article, and certainly a separate one for the square fours. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


Straight-two engine → Straight-twin engine – Title "Straight-twin engine" is more in line with engine configuration naming convention (as per V-twin engine and Flat-twin engine, and is less contentious and less awkward than "Straight-two engine". Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but it's the main bit of unfinished business left over from the war. Although (and probably because) "straight-" is not the most popular prefix, it does seem to be the least ambiguous and least contentious one. I am sure, however, that the term "twin" is more appropriate than "two" in describing a two-cylinder engine.

No stick here, folks, just trying to find a pulse or a heartbeat. Maybe the third try's the charm?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'd just keep it with -two, but no objection to -twin. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


...erm; didn't realize the article already existed as a redirect. Sorry. Will wait for an administrator. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Straight-twin_engine/Archive_2&oldid=1092060049"