This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ebikeguy (talk | contribs) at 15:43, 9 July 2012 (→Scope of article: No personal attacks, please). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:43, 9 July 2012 by Ebikeguy (talk | contribs) (→Scope of article: No personal attacks, please)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Straight-twin engine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 | Motorcycling Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Automobiles Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Comments
I changed the entry to reflect the fact that a parallel twin is NOT equivalent to a straight two. I have updated this and other articles to remain consistent with the original assertion that "straight twin" is not equivalent to "straight two" but rather means there is a common crank pin (ie making it equivalent to the true meaning of parallel twin), although I don't know whether this is true or not 220.237.161.186 14:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl
- And what documented evidence of this convention do you have? Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Surely not
Current article reads the left cylinder fires, then 180° later the right cylinder fires, then the engine rotates 360° before the left cylinder again fires. Ummm, you could split hairs and argue that this is true, the engine does rotate 360° before the left cylinder fires, but it then rotates another 180° before the left cyinder finally fires... 540° in all. Andrewa (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Big Bang
The supposed firing sequence of the 270° twin is not "big bang", since it's 270° between ignitions, then 450 degrees of "rest" - that is in order to get the compromised smoother firing than a 180° crank (180°-540°), but less smooth than a 360° crank (360°-360°). Firing 90°-630° would be considered big bang, but it is unknown (to me) whether any engine actually does this, and would barely be more refined than a single.
As for the 2009+ Yamaha R1, that, too, does not use a big bang firing sequence. It is 90°-180°-270°-180°, like one bank of a cross plane V8, or identical to a 90° V4 (e.g. Honda VFR 800). Yamaha have expressly stated that they no longer believe "big bang" to be beneficial now that they have eliminated the oscillating inertial torque resulting from the periodic kinetic energy exchange between the crankshaft and pistons. See this article, and this one.
--Identiti crisis (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Any discussion of the supposed traction / "power delivery" advantages with the 270° crank, if indeed due solely to the uneven firing interval, would surely also apply to the 180° crank, given that is more uneven; similarly, it would apply equally to a 90-degree V-Twin, as that has exactly the same inertial torque characteristics and power stroke timing. Presumably, the "power delivery" is "improved" with the 270° crank for much the same reason it was with the R1 above, simply by significantly reducing the oscillating torque resulting from kinetic energy exchange between the rotating and reciprocating parts ("inertial torque"), a characteristic it would share with the 90° V-Twin.
--Identiti crisis (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
What exactly is a parallel twin?
I have now twice tried to imply in the article something I think it ought to contain, which is the fact that some people believe that there are TWO kinds of inline twin engines,(not counting the newer 270° variant) which is the PARALLEL and the VERTICAL twin. These designations describe the positions of the crank pins rather than the placement of the cylinders. Some "experts" stubbornly state that the placement of the crank pins has nothing to do with (the origin of) these terms, but that the term "parallel twin" exclusively means that the cylinders are placed in the same parallel plane, as opposed to in a V-engine, and that "vertical twin" exclusively means merely that the cylinders are placed vertical as opposed to inclined. I find that nonsense! In case you mean the latter is true, I ask you: Why are there no such terms on engines with other cylinder numbers, where they should be fully applicable as well? And why is there no such thing as a "horizontal twin" when there is a vertical one in existence? Ever heard of a "Vertical single" or "Parallel four" used as a term? Hardly, even though they are fully existent. I have no particular "reliable source" on that my explanation is the correct one, other than articles I have read that clearly states that it is the case, without giving any "reliable source" on the origin of the term. Try to google "vertikaltwin" in Swedish pages and tell me what you find. I also read an article in Norwegian about the Jawa OHC 500, which normally was a "Vertical twin" (after my explanation), but kits for racing were available, with 360° crank and different camshaft thus making it a parallel twin. I did not read this on the net, but if I found it, could it be regarded as a "reliable source"? Can my old teacher, that was an old motorcycles nut, be regarded as a "reliable source"? He explained me the difference of a parallel and a vertical twin and why they are called so. Unfortuneately he is dead now, so I'm the only one left to tell what he told me. Does that make me a "reliable source"? Hardly, but those who advocate the other explanation does not have any reliable sources either. The truth is that there are no reliable sources on the term, only different opinions. But I think the article should contain my explanation as well, as opposed to only the other one, as it clearly seems to be two different explanations present.(and since Swedish sources exclusively use my version.) I therefore think my first version that stated that SOME SOURCES(e.g. all information in Swedish) claim that this is what the terms Vertical and Parallel twin is about. If you read on the top of this very page there is another contributor which has about the same explanation for the "True meaning of Parallel twin. Which should about state my case. Which is, that if the article cant contain both explanations, it should not contain any of them.
Arve Kvalvik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.84.36.158 (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but in WIkipedia truth is trumped by verifiability. Whatever you put in the article, without sources, is original research and therefore doesn't belong (see WP:RS). From my perspective I have seen the term used for 180, 270 and 360 degree configurations as a generic term for how the cylinders are arranged in relation to each other e.g. at Totalmotorcycle.com, at MCN, at Howstuffworks.com, by Yamaha for their 270 degree XT1200Z, etc. This book explicitly states that parallel twins can have any crankpin alignment. Similarly you can find references that use the term vertical twin to refer to engines with the 180 or 360 alignment. Try as I might I could not find a single reference that supports your assertion that parallel is 360 and vertical is 180. Most references to vertical are simply that the cylinders are aligned vertically, rather than at an angle (as they are on the BMW F800 bikes) --Biker Biker (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, take a look here: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmetrobloggen.se%2Fmotorblogg%2Fhonda_cb_450%2F
As you can see in the last article there is a full article on the subject in Classic Motor no. 10/1991. Is that a "verifiable source" enough to you, like that book of yours? Those who wrote them are anyway in both cases only people. My guess regarding the explanation of the terms in your books is that the authors or their source knew about these much used terms, but not really what they meant, so they stated in their scripts that they meant the most obvious they could think of. Like it has been forgotten with time so to speak. The version in the current article was even another new one, that "parallel twin" is cases where the crank sits across the frame, longtitudal ones is only an inline twin. As far as I know the term "parallel" means something very close to "in line with" so how the author figured that one I can only wonder. Anyway as you can see from these articles, there are more people that uses my explanation of the terms, so now you know that I'm not taking it out of the blue. My suggestions are to either write in the article that there is more than one explanation on the subjects vertical and parallel twin, or to simply only write that they are terms that are often used when talking of two cylinder motorcycle engines, leaving any further explanation out.
AK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.84.36.158 (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Move discussion: Straight-two engine or Parallel-twin engine?
- 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 Misplaced Pages as it violates the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GNU Free Documentation License under which Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? 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)
- Please do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so fragments the edit history. (Misplaced Pages'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.
- 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.
- 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
- Straight-twin or Parallel-twin are the general terms I've always known for motorcycle applications in the UK. Straight-two sounds like the american version.Mighty Antar (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Parallel-twin for the reasons given. Vast preponderance of references in favour. Matches style for other engine formats. It's also used widely in the US, e.g. cycleworld.com, motorcycle.com, Polaris, Honda USA etc. It is universal. --Bridge Boy (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Straight-twin engine, as descriptive of a straight engine with two cylinders, in line (no pun intended) with V-twin engine and Flat-twin engine. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)- Parallel-twin engine as Misplaced Pages has no formal engine-naming convention (possible to-do for Automobile, Motorcycling, Aviation, Truck, etc. projects?) and as parallel-twin appears to be the most widely used term. In any case, it's better than the existing name for the article. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Either
Straight-twin engineInline-twin engine or Parallel-twin engine is fine with me. Straight-two engine is too obscure. It only needs to be moved correctly. I strongly oppose a move without solid consensus, meaning clear support from Biker Biker and Andy Dingley (and others who may join the discussion). It's not a vote. See also Misplaced Pages:Consensus.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC) - Straight-twin engine as it then fits with the other engine articles - as per Sam Blob. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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/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.Request page history merge
{{Histmerge|Straight-two engine}}
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Moved back
Moved back... I think. I'm not sure which page it was at originally. Let me know if I made a mistake fixing the cut-and-paste move. NW (Talk) 02:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is right. I've requested comments from WikiProjects Motorcycling and Automobiles to see where the consensus is. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you made a mistake. All Sam asked for was a history merge, not a page moving. The topic and talk page should be at Parallel-twin engine. --Bridge Boy (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is as it was. Discussion will (hopefully) bring consensus as to where it should be, at which time it will be put there. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- If this page is titled what it was a month ago, I'm satisfied. The move discussion above should establish a new firmer consensus. NW (Talk) 12:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Do you know anything about engines? Can you supply any references to support the predominance of the term straight-two? Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- I will try to explain this to you: The page has been brought back to where it *was*. Where the page *will be* depends on the outcome of the above discussion. Until the above discussion is concluded, the page will remain where it *was*, regardless of where anyone, including you or I, thinks it should be. Do you understand this? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- There is no point in feeding this troll any longer. He doesn't listen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- A troll? No, he is not a troll. I'm pretty sure he is upset because he is a bit new. Don't bite the newcomers. --J (t) 00:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- He's not that new. There have been repeated discussions where he simply doesn't care to listen to other editors. For example, numerous requests to not leave all his edit summaries blank. He's been told at least a half dozen times by different editors that the problem here is that this page was moved incorrectly, and his response is "do you know anything about engines?" He's repeatedly been asked to supply sources for his POV-pushing edits, and all he offers is bluster. For example, do you see one single source cited to support the move to "parallel-twin engine"? None. Just bluffs about sources that we never see. And then there was this.
It's like talking to a brick wall. Someone whose comments are not constructive, and only serve to draw out pointless replies, and who does not respect the collaborative editing process, is a troll. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- He's not that new. There have been repeated discussions where he simply doesn't care to listen to other editors. For example, numerous requests to not leave all his edit summaries blank. He's been told at least a half dozen times by different editors that the problem here is that this page was moved incorrectly, and his response is "do you know anything about engines?" He's repeatedly been asked to supply sources for his POV-pushing edits, and all he offers is bluster. For example, do you see one single source cited to support the move to "parallel-twin engine"? None. Just bluffs about sources that we never see. And then there was this.
- A troll? No, he is not a troll. I'm pretty sure he is upset because he is a bit new. Don't bite the newcomers. --J (t) 00:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just the sort of answer I would have expect from you Dennis, and precisely the same manner and attitude others users have complained about you too.
- Half a dozen times?
- Prove it. I see one, and it's from you. You are trying to prejudice others against me, here and on my talk page, with falsehoods.
- The problem was, Dennis, you "told me". You did not "ask me". You did not politely explain why or show me as a newcomer. My response, at that time, was your attitude, and you need to modify it. I inferred that "you were not paying me", so don't speak to me as if you are my boss. This isn't your website.
- I'll respond to anyone that approaches me reasonably and intelligently in a reasonably and intelligent manner, but what you are doing is gaming, as with your misrepresentation and little "tell-tale" above. I read your talk page and elsewhere. You have a history of doing this to others.
- FYI, I added 35 references to the article. How many did you check and how many did you add?
- I encourage others to check the other articles I have worked on and again you will find a very high proportion of edits with good references, so please allow me to politely call BS on this one and let's all move on.
- If you all care so much about policy, what offends me, as someone who does know a little about engines, is the ridiculousness of the title of this topic. Despite all the quibbling, not one of you has been able to support it with references, how absurd is that? All someone had to do was merge the history, one person one click. It's SamBlob you should be pissed at, not me. --Bridge Boy (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
What the trade, manufacturers, experts etc call them
OK, as promised. With links to the international websites where possible. This is what the trade and manufacturers call them.
If you disagree with the use of parallel-twin, please provide your evidence or otherwise justify your opinion.
If I have missed out any important reference, please correct the list.
Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, for each of these searches I did two searches; one for "parallel twin" and one for "straight twin", using Google to search the site, e.g. site:xxx.com. In every case, one or more variation of parallel twin came up and none for straight twin. --Bridge Boy (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
| Source | Terms used | Alternative? | URL |
|---|---|---|---|
| * Honda | parallel-twin, parallel- twin engine, parallel twin-cylinder engine | Straight twin - zero | bit.ly/LkrxDz |
| * Kawasaki | parallel-twin, parallel twin, parallel-twin engine, parallel twin cylinder engine | Straight twin - zero | bit.ly/LyTEgz |
| * Yamaha | parallel twin, parallel twin engine | Straight twin - zero | bit.ly/METfxN |
| * Suzuki | parallel twin, parallel twin-cylinder | Straight twin - zero | bit.ly/NURI71 |
| * BMW | parallel-twin, parallel twin engine | Straight twin - zero | bit.ly/LyVMoL |
| * Triumph | parallel-twin, parallel-twin engine, parallel twin | Straight twin - zero | bit.ly/MbkkKv |
| * Norton | parallel twin | Straight twin - zero | bit.ly/LUWhfk |
| * Polaris | parallel twin | Straight twin - zero | bit.ly/KH9Tbz |
| * Ducati | parallel twin-cylinder, parallel twin | Straight twin - zero | bit.ly/LIbUKY |
| * Husqvarna | parallel-twin | Straight twin - zero | bit.ly/MDxKMx |
| * Motorcycle News | parallel-twin, parallel-twin-engine, parallel twin | Straight twin - zero | bit.ly/OGZjsq |
| * Motorcycle | parallel-twin engine, parallel-twin, parallel Twin | Straight twin - zero | bit.ly/N2spPC |
| * Cycle World | parallel-twin | Straight twin - zero | bit.ly/LIcMPH |
| * National Motorcycle Museum | parallel twin engine, parallel twin | Straight twin - zero | bit.ly/Qxrmb4 |
| * AMA | parallel-twin engine, parallel twin, parallel twin engine | Straight twin - zero | bit.ly/LUYN5r |
| * DOT | parallel twin | Straight twin - zero | dot.gov |
| * Nat. Museum Motorcycling, Aus | parallel twin | Straight twin - zero | bit.ly/L71fJB |
| * International Motorcycle Show | parallel-twin, parallel twin | Straight twin - zero | bit.ly/NJbBdL |
| * Cycle Trader (181,000 bikes for sale) | parallel-twin, parallel twin, parallel twin-cylinder | Straight twin - zero | Link |
| * Ebay | parallel twin | Straight twin - zero |
Do I really have to go on? Oh, why not ...
- The trouble is that they're all motorbikes - the term parallel twin is used around motorbikes, there's little question of that. However two cylinder engines have broader uses than that. Can you show any use of "parallel twin" in a non motorbike context? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Polaris isn't. Please read the references already given on the topic. I am sorry Andy, I've done my work and all I have to prove is a reasonable preponderance, not document every case. If anyone can better it in other areas, please do. Otherwise it's a a ridiculously clear slam dunk.
- I've added plenty of references regarding cars to the article itself, e.g. NSU related, John Deere. It's the same again. Parallel twin.
- But I am looking forward to seeing how the other motorcyclists enthusiasts argue otherwise. It'll be good for a laugh. I tried. There are basically no references to back alternatives up.
- Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Again, so what? No-one is disputing that parallel twin is in use (there's some question as to just how broadly). Your assertion though is that this is the only name used for any two cylinder inline engine, and so the article should be renamed throughout. Go back to pre-war diesels and the Junkers HK series - you won't find those described as parallel twins. Look at half a century of medium-sized stationary and boat engines with two cylinders inline. The "parallel twin" designation just isn't used here.
- What's the most common (only common?) two cylinder car engine at present, the Fiat TwinAir. Now find a decent source describing that as a parallel twin and you'll see that it's also a 360°, with a balance shaft. A parallel twin, but just that type of engine that is (I think generally) agreed to be the classic "parallel twin", balance problems and all. Hard to find a god picture online, but try this
- Are there any two-strokes ever described as parallel twins?
- Of the four strokes, how many are 360° apart? Looking back at '50s & '60s motorcycles, what's the relation between the "parallel twin" designation, and it being reserved for 360° four strokes, even if this has blurred since?
- There's also the issue that you appear to be citing eBay as a source, and others no more credible. That's the "billion flies" argument. Of course there are "sites on the web" that will call anything anything, but that doesn't mean they're correct to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, if you read the references you will find two-strokes named as parallel-twins, e.g. Japanese Grand Prix Racing Motorcycles. Mick Walker. Redline Books, 2002.
- No, I did not assert it is the "only". I assert that it is the predominately Recognizable, Natural, Precise, Concise and Consistent title inline with Misplaced Pages title naming policy.
- I have presented a balance of evidence that it is impossible to argue against honestly. Way beyond what is necessary.
- Neither you, nor anyone else, are offering any alternative reliable sources at all. Nor the greater balance of evidence to counter my position which you now need to. The fact is, you cannot. I've looked. (And, as it is general and not specific topic, the Misplaced Pages is not bound by what an engine may or may not have been called in the Victorian or Edwardian period).
- I am sorry but by having to latch onto and exaggerate the very final of 64 fair to excellent new references in order to establish any weakness to my argument, you've damaged the credibility of your opposition. There is no onus on me to do any more work.
- If the alternative titles were in anyway common one would have expected to see evidence of it all over the place. They are not and the fact that you are all willing to sit there, dig your heels in and argue because WP:IDONTLIKEIT instead of go and add reference to a topic such as Straight engine that had none until I add ones says it all really.
- So what is this really about? WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or a little gang of 2 or 3 people who think they own motorcycle related topics (and I am not including you in that statement) not liking someone new on their block?
- Show us your references. --Bridge Boy (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
| List of refs for straight-two, inline-twin, straight-twin, etc |
|---|
|
- I think it's notable here that so many of these sources are motorcycle-related. The use of 'inline twin' is not uncommon. It's also notable how many of them, like Mick Walker, are British. DK is German, and I wonder if the use of "straight two" isn't influenced by that language. Not that it matters how something got into English. It's here now.
Parallel twin is probably the dominant term, and the page should probably be moved there. But expunging all other variants, particularly inline twin, but also straight two and inline two, is not justified. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's notable here that so many of these sources are motorcycle-related. The use of 'inline twin' is not uncommon. It's also notable how many of them, like Mick Walker, are British. DK is German, and I wonder if the use of "straight two" isn't influenced by that language. Not that it matters how something got into English. It's here now.
- " 2 or 3 people who think they own motorcycle related topics"
- Why do you think this is a topic only about motorcycles? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- A number of those sources, which you don't properly reference, are merely blogs or PR releases (primary sources) and so would fail "reliable sources", Dennis, but thank you for conceding parallel twin is the most common use as I suggested. However, the use of term inline is normally used to describe a sub-set of parallel twin engines where the crankshaft is inline with the chassis instead of across is. In short, an inline twin is a parallel twin but not all parallel twins are inline twins hence we cannot use inline as the dominant term, see below (e.g. you will also find references to "inline parallel twins").
- No offence towards you intended at all Andy. We've never encountered each other before and you seem to be perfectly reasonable and polite. I am sorry if I was blunt to you. You are, of course, perfectly correct, the topic is not only about m/cs, however, it is pretty much only m/c and related product manufacturers that make and use parallel twins now and that is born out in the references. Believe me, I probably spent hours looking over references.
- Yes, I agree I was expecting to find more references to inline twins and was surprised by the predominance of the term parallel. The use of the term inline is more commonly used as a reference to the relationship of the crankshaft to gearbox and drive rather than the engine itself. "Inline", aka longitudinal or tandem parallel twins (Sunbeam S7, Rotax 256, Kawasaki KR250) are far less common. Given that the policy states "consistency", if we look at the V-twin page, longitudinal V-twins occupy a subordinate position reflecting that relative rarity. Actually, there are probably enough sources to split both transverse and 'longitudinal' parallel twins and transverse and 'longitudinal' V-twins into separate topics, if someone could be bothered to write them
- I cannot because I have had too much of time wasted by the stupidity and ignorance of having to question a choice as poor as "Straight-two engine", and all the bitch slapping and conniving that has ensued since. Something these people don't seem to realise detracts from the job at hand.
- I have had run ins with some of these other bods before and can see the psychology and the games that are being play. I find it tiresome and counterproductive to engendering voluntary cooperation in this project, and beyond what I consider to be reasonable. The system appears to defend ignorance and reward irrationality if expressed in the terms of various policies, and benefit those with a willingness and knowledge of who and where to rat on others.
- I have no idea why Dennis has fixated on me and was working up such a case, because he is obviously otherwise well informed and intelligent. Yes, I challenged his knowledge or prejudices in other areas but I don't see that as a good enough reason to be "punished" by him, or have him build up "bad marks" against me, often very falsely. He came out with strong statements elsewhere that led me to question his judgement.
- Of course, people do use the internet to behave in a manner towards other people that they would never do or get away with in real life. Perhaps it is just an unconscious sibling rivalry? --Bridge Boy (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- You still don't see it, do you?
- "Having to question a choice as poor as 'Straight-two engine'" is one of the cornerstones of Misplaced Pages. Action is based on consensus, and consensus is gained from discussion.
- Had you figured out, or asked, how to move a page properly, there would have been no time lost in trying to undo your cut-and-paste move that obscured the edit histories whether you intended to or not.
- Had you presented your arguments in the talk page instead of going on a unilateral vendetta, you would have achieved exactly the same results you are achieving now *without* an edit war and tons of acrimony, and you would have achieved it faster.
- Unless something radical that I can't foresee shows up, this article is going to be moved where you wanted it to be moved. This is because of the validity of your arguments and *despite* your contentious actions and behaviour. It is very refreshing to note that the discussion system actually works to find a valid answer despite attempts to undermine the system even when the attempts to undermine the system are coming from the editor *with* the valid answer.
- I would hope that you learn from this that the system of discussion works and achieves better results than charging around like a mad man. I understand, however, that this is a slim hope.
- Moving the page to Parallel-twin engine is probably a slight improvement, and that was mostly a result of my searching google books. Irrelevant links to ebay didn't convince me of anything. I have to go on record as saying that almost all of Bridge Boy's edits here have been harmful, and it is delusional to think he's won much support from me. The slight improvement gained by moving the page does not in any way justify the edit warring and the tirade of personal attacks and unjustified recriminations against SlamBob, NuclearWarfare, Andy Dingley, Biker Biker and me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well then, if we are all agree we are all agreed and there is nothing to argue about. No need to thank me for the "slight improvement". ;-) --Bridge Boy (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it have been easier, Sam, just to have done this ...
- We don't all agree. Biker Biker does not agree, and it's not clear where Andy Dingley stands. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm still against this move to parallel twin, although I'm not tied to any one particular version of inline/straight two/2/twin.
- The issue is that I see a need for this to be the "top level" description of such engines, not the "most popular". If all such engines are "inline twos", and most (but not all) are "parallel twins", then the canonical title should remain at the broader scope, even if most of the article (where appropriate) describes them with the narrower term. We would still need to express coverage of those that aren't parallel twins.
- This is not simply a motorcycling article. It has to cover the engines throughout: from the early examples, through the large pre-war twins, through boat and generator stationary engines, through motorcycles to microlight aircraft and small cars.
- IMHE, I've only ever used paralllel twin for those engines where the pistons moved in parallel, rather than in antiparallel, i.e. 360° four strokes. These are an interesting group of engines, owing to their balance (and would justify a wiki article), and there is clearly a need for a term to identify them specifically (rather than the arse-themed colloquialisms coined by some Britbike riders) - parallel twin does seem to have served as such. My understanding is that this was common use in 1960s Britain for this specifically, although the term does seem to have broadened since. However checking some two-stroke refs, I don't find anything to support that: Irving doesn't seem to use the term and in Smith, Philip H. (1965). The High-Speed Two-Stroke Petrol Engine. p. 287. it's very clearly used to refer to 360° & 180° four strokes, with the two stroke (thus not having the four's balance choice) being contrasted with them, and all three clearly under the same "parallel twin" name. As such, I'd have to concede that the term is indeed used like this, by WP:RS.
- I've never heard "parallel twin" used as an identifier for specifically transverse engines in motorbikes, but I have heard "inline twin" used specifically to distinguish those that aren't (and similarly for the BMW Ks, with their side-mounted triples and fours). Generally these transverse engines have been called "transverse", when needed. I thus wouldn't support that as an interpretation of "parallel".
- As probably the most common use, the transverse-mounted two-cylinder motorcycle engine easily deserves its own article. That might be termed "parallel twin", but I'll leave that up to its writer.
- Overall, I still prefer some name other than "parallel twin". Parallel twin seems unclear: the scope of the article is necessarily broad (this shouldn't become a motorbike-only article) and if parallel twin also implies connotations (even if incorrect) of transverse layout or firing order, then we should avoid that. I'm a lot happier though for parallel twin to be used within the article as an alternative name, even the primary alternative name, and not keeping it merely for a narrower scope.
- As to ideal naming, then I slightly prefer inline-twin engine over the other straight-/2- variants, but don't care strongly either way. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Inline-twin engine" seems reasonable as it fits with the existing inline-four engine. I'm not sure about your comment regarding two articles though - everything could and should be kept within the same article. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Whether you have "heard of it or not" Andy, there are now more than 60+ references to support the use of it, including manufacturers themselves. That you have not heard of it raises questions of credibility in your knowledge or judgement. See the list of major manufacturers above and references on the page all of whom do seem to have heard about it.
- "Inline-twin engine" seems reasonable as it fits with the existing inline-four engine. I'm not sure about your comment regarding two articles though - everything could and should be kept within the same article. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- You will find "inline" or "in-line" twin with confuse matter with the common terms used for longitudinal parallel twins. Common use has established various conventions in the use of the terms parallel, inline and straight. It is not for Misplaced Pages to set its own but for us to follow the most common usage. --Bridge Boy (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Apart from simply being too damned rude to even read what I wrote, just what are you griping about this time?
- If you think that "parallel" as a shorthand for "transverse" is the right scope for an encyclopedia, then that's just sloppy wording by (many) other writers and we certainly shouldn't propagate it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- @Biker Biker. Agreed. The two articles - even three - are because we obviously need the top level covered as "two cylinder engine with them next to each other". There's also a lot of potential in why the transverse vertical twin with integrated gearbox and chain drive became such a significant layout for motorcycles. After all, there are many, many possible ways to arrange this and yet most of the world's motorbikes are transverse crank verticals with 1,2 or 4 cylinders. How many inlines are there? I'd even like to see an article on 360° four stroke twins, because it's such an interesting layout technically.
- Per ANI, Bridge Boy seems to be thinking of an article split too and a new article under inline-twin engine, recognising that nearly all of this existing straight-two engine is actually about the motorbike situation specifically. Provided that we tag the histories correctly, that might be the simplest way forwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just want to point out that Mick Walker was cited to support use of "parallel twin", but this is grossly misleading. In the very same book, he uses "inline twin" interchangeably. Walker does the same in European Racing Motorcycles. It's strong evidence that there is no real distinction in the minds of the foremost experts today. Similarly, see Tuttle, Mark, Jr. "BMW F800S." Rider Dec. 2005: 15. General OneFile. Web. 29 June 2012. "BMW will tackle the middleweight market in the late spring/early summer of 2006 with a new F800S sport tourer, powered by the first inline twin-cylinder engine in BMW's history. The 800cc parallel-twin is produced in cooperation with Bombardier-Rotax…" Literally in one sentences it's inline, the next it's parallel. A historical distinction might be noted, but today they are equivalent. Historical sources also have placed more emphasis on whether the cylinders were vertical or horizontal than crankshaft orientation or firing interval (see Page, Victor W., Early Motorcycles: Construction, Operation and Repair. Dover Publications, 1924. 2004 reprint. ISBN 9780486436715. p. 122).
I don't favor these kinds of subject splits. I'd rather see these different issues, comparisons of firing intervals, and different opinions in terminology, historical and current, explained to the reader in one umbrella or parent article. There's a risk the reader will read one article and not the others, and fail to understand that experts don't all agree. If the article grows so large and unwieldy that something must be done, then multiple child articles can be spawned. Not content forks, but sub-articles under the main subject. We have a long way to go before it comes to that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just want to point out that Mick Walker was cited to support use of "parallel twin", but this is grossly misleading. In the very same book, he uses "inline twin" interchangeably. Walker does the same in European Racing Motorcycles. It's strong evidence that there is no real distinction in the minds of the foremost experts today. Similarly, see Tuttle, Mark, Jr. "BMW F800S." Rider Dec. 2005: 15. General OneFile. Web. 29 June 2012. "BMW will tackle the middleweight market in the late spring/early summer of 2006 with a new F800S sport tourer, powered by the first inline twin-cylinder engine in BMW's history. The 800cc parallel-twin is produced in cooperation with Bombardier-Rotax…" Literally in one sentences it's inline, the next it's parallel. A historical distinction might be noted, but today they are equivalent. Historical sources also have placed more emphasis on whether the cylinders were vertical or horizontal than crankshaft orientation or firing interval (see Page, Victor W., Early Motorcycles: Construction, Operation and Repair. Dover Publications, 1924. 2004 reprint. ISBN 9780486436715. p. 122).
I forgot to reply to the nonsense about "A number of those sources, which you don't properly reference", regarding my sources listed above. Not a single one is a blog, and not a single one is a press release. Exactly one is a newspaper ad. And what's wrong with press releases in this context, since supposedly manufacturers' language is relevant? After that annoying bit.ly/LkrxDz link to a list of Honda PR is cited as a source? Absurd.
Read Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and Misplaced Pages:Offline sources. There's nothing wrong with the citations I've given. Some of them are offline. So what? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dennis,
- no one questioned offline sources. That is a fallaciously distracting argument.
- However, I noticed that one of your "inline twin" references was for an office printer.
Océ ColorStream 3500. Severs, Jon. Printweek (Dec 17, 2010): 16-17. "...configurations, so as a single unit, inline Twin or L-, H- or U-Twin for simplex"
- The one I queried is straight off a PR release from Caterpillar Incorporated of Mossville IL USA.
"Emission-compliant diesel engines cover 83 to 1,350 bhp in 10 models ..."
- Please be less rash and more careful. All of the bit-ly links point to manufacturers only specifications list. All of them use the term parallel twin.
- Anyway, I have no further argument. The term parallel twin has clearly been proven to be the most commonly use term and meets all the policy requirement for renaming. --Bridge Boy (talk)
- Sorry about the printer thing. The "manufacturers only specifications list" is a list of press releases, company-owned web sites, and advertisements. There is no logic of saying the diesel engine citation is flawed in some way while anything you find at honda.com is acceptable.
This isn't only about renaming. The changes you made to the article need to be reverted so that it's clear that parallel-twin isn't the only term, that manufacturers have used inline-twin interchangeably, and so have top experts like Mick Walker. Misplaced Pages articles should not make new distinctions that don't exit in minds of expert sources. Speaking of expert sources, I still haven't seen where Cycle World's Keven Cameron stands, and I'd like to wait to find out.
As far as consensus, without Biker Biker's Andy Dingley's support, a move is unwise, even if I think parallel-twin is the common name. Waiting for consensus means respecting the opinions of other editors. And there is no harm in leaving the page where it is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Bratland (talk • contribs) 15:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry about the printer thing. The "manufacturers only specifications list" is a list of press releases, company-owned web sites, and advertisements. There is no logic of saying the diesel engine citation is flawed in some way while anything you find at honda.com is acceptable.
- Dennis, I am going to make you a set of colors and instead of a skull and cross bones, its going to have an laserjet printer in the middle. WikipediaMC, Motto: "We are the Misplaced Pages Larry Sanger warned you against".
- Now, read carefully. Where you are raising this point of Walker and "interchangeability", your lack of knowledge is letting you down. The Rotax engine is an inline twin, not a parallel twin (P.25) which is clarified further when he talks of the KR250 which is also an inline twin, not a parallel twin. In fact, both are "tandem" inline twins.
- So, please strike out, "It's strong evidence that there is no real distinction in the minds of the foremost experts today." It's strong evidence he knew the difference and was sticking to common nomenclature.
- There were a number of copies all based on the Rotax 256 engine format and, funnily enough, I actually know about all this stuff partly because I am old enough to have been around and involved when it all happened. Here's what they look like . --Bridge Boy (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Requested move
 | It has been proposed in this section that Straight-twin engine be renamed and moved to Parallel-twin engine. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move |
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)
- Comment this article has a history of movewarring and edit-history-orphaning. Straight-two engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ; commentors on this requested move should really read the discussions on this page, and check the edit history. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Attempting to clarify naming
Just what is known here? What can we actually source?
The scope of both articles is limited to two cylinder IC engines where the cylinders are mounted alongside each other. This includes two and four strokes, petrol and diesel.
All layouts and orientations should be covered somewhere within this group of articles, although just where is up for debate. Similarly applications: as motorcycles are such a major market for two cylinder engines, a separate article for some or all motorcycle applications is a possibility.
Beyond this, both the name, scope and even the number of articles is contended.
The name appears to be a composite of two parts. Both, particularly the first, are contentious. The first is mostly technically contentious, the second a stylistic issue. Examples seen so far are:
- Straight-
- Inline-
- Parallel-
- Transverse-
- Longitudinal-
- Tandem-
- -2
- -four
- -twin
To look at each term in detail:
- "Straight" is the current name, and appears to be unpopular, yet relatively uncontentious. It appears to have no connotations other than the engine being neither a V nor a radial. I think we can all agree this one.
- "Inline" starts to become a problem. Does this mean no more than straight (i.e. not a V), or does it also imply a longitudinal tandem arrangement? In general engine use, it means no more than "straight" does. In motorcycle use, an "inline twin" has sometimes been used to distinguish longitudinal arrangements specifically from transverse. However it's also cited above that it has been used for transverse engines too.
- "Parallel" is contentious. It is not widely used outside of motorbikes. Sourcing shows that it is used, to a notable level, in the same context as straight and inline, i.e. any two cylinder.
- AD's past claim that it referred to 360° four strokes specifically has been withdrawn, as sources showed good cites for this in the broader context too.
- Bridge Boy seems to have claimed it as synonyms for both straight (i.e. any non-V) and transverse (i.e. crosswise only). There is no sourcing to support this narrow use: cited examples of it applied to the narrow use (most motorbike twins are simply transverse) do not indicate that it is only applied to the narrow use.
- There is still no enthusiasm, except Bridge Boy, for renaming any article to parallel-twin, or for using it as a name in any article. Its meaning is just too ambiguous for us to use freely.
- "Transverse" has a clear and simple meaning, with wide currency in motorcycles and cars. It means a transverse crankshaft, i.e. non-longitudinal. If there is to be an article on transverse twin motorcycle engines (this is a possible topic with clear notability and reader value) then the term "transverse" is clear and unambiguous.
- "Longitudinal" also has a clear and unambiguous meaning and is commonly used with cars. It is not widely used in motorbikes, although it would still remain clearly understood.
- "Tandem" is obscure and rarely used. It is somewhat ambiguous as it is perhaps most commonly used for multiple engines (mostly in drag bikes) where they still have transverse crankshafts.
There is no unambiguous term available for the 360° four strokes specifically.
The scope of the two articles is now completely confused. Is straight-two engine about (broad) two cylinder non-Vs, or (narrow) about transverse engines only? Similarly is inline-twin about broad or narrow scope?
- If both are broad (as the general use of their names suggests), they overlap.
- If both are narrow, then we've lost a general article on two cylinder engines and these two articles have really become motorbike-only.
- If straight- is broad and inline- narrow, then the name is doubly confusing for an article that's only on an obscure motorbike layout. It doesn't explain what it does cover, it misleads as to what the name suggests it does. Non-motorbike layouts would be covered by a broad straight-two.
- If straight- is narrow and inline- broad, then the articles are completely about-face from where they were to begin with. Straight-two would also need to be renamed as "transverse twin motorcycle engine".
Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is actually almost as much ambiguity as to whether V or boxer twins should be called transverse or longitudinal, depending on whether you're thinking of the crankshaft or the line of the cylinders. Darwin Holmstrom, for example, used the terms in both senses in different books, and Moto-Guzzi habitually calls their configuration "transverse", even though the majority of sources are clear that it's the crankshaft that counts, so Guzzis and traditional BMW boxers are really longitudinal. Sorry to bring all that up, it's well discussed at Talk:V-twin_engine#Transverse_vs_Longitudinal. The only solution is to say "longitudinal crankshaft" or "transverse cylinders", and never assume the reader knows what you mean by longitudinal or transverse. The terms are skunked and require clarification at all times.
Parallel, inline, and straight are skunked too. So it goes.
My point -- the one I always make because I think it's a big deal -- is that these terms are not well defined. We can't impose order where there is disorder. It's one of the reasons we don't see dictionaries clearing this up for us. It's inherently unclear, because the experts use the terms in all sorts of different ways. So be it. Just give the reader examples of each different usage, and don't try to rationalize it. It's like English-language spelling reform. A great idea to fix the confusion, but it's not Misplaced Pages's role to do that.
Misplaced Pages:Article size says that perhaps at 6,000 to 10,000 words, spwawning sub-articles per Misplaced Pages:Summary style is in order. Currently it's only 945 words 1/10th, or perhaps 2/10ths as much as the rough maxim. So splitting should be off the table. When the article grows to at least five, even ten times, it's current size, then we can talk about splitting it up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd not heard of "skunked" before, but would agree that this is just what has happened here.
- Given the current articles, I'd prefer to see them merged into one. Clearly we will always need something that sits at the top level of "Engines with two cylinders that aren't Vs".
- I'm not against other articles, but this is on scope for readers, not for size. Transverse twin motorcycle engines has a sensible scope and target readership, and could make quite a good stand-alone article. Also 360° four stroke twins is a narrow, but interesting niche. Both would be there because there's need for that article specifically (and so they'd probably be written from scratch), not just to split off content from a larger parent. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Are there any ISO, JIS, SAE, EN, or DIN glossaries or vocabularies on engine configurations from which a convention can be established? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- The trouble is, there are probably several. Nor would a clear source for these engines being called "stereo pairs" in one unimpeachable source remove the situation that they're also called by the problem terms in other sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Are there any ISO, JIS, SAE, EN, or DIN glossaries or vocabularies on engine configurations from which a convention can be established? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry but straight two is contentious. No one uses it. Twin or two cylinder, yes; two, no.
- The bottomline is,
- a) there just isn't the weight of references to support "straight two" or "transverse twin motorcycle engine" and policy states "Recognizable, Natural, Precise, Concise and Consistent". The industry and authors have gone with parallel twin. Even if an engineering institute had their own, it would not pass the first two.
- b) if we go back to the original establishment of this topic , it does not exactly reek of inspiring competence, does it?
- Lastly, I'd really like to know just how the jump in the engine configuration template codification some anonymous editor made, here from here and where it came from? In English, common use has always been twin, triple, inline-four, straight-six and eight (from the Daimlers), never twos. --Bridge Boy (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, straight two is used. Here is the DK cite again:
- Car: The Definitive Visual History of the Automobile. p. 156. "Origin Germany/Australia Engine 392 cc, straight-two Top speed 65mph (105km/h)" and 17 other instances.
- I cited Mark Tuttle in Rider above to show that parallel and inline are used interchangeably. Mick Walker, too, uses them interchangeably.
- The OED says: straight eight n. Mech. (a motor vehicle having) an internal combustion engine with eight cylinders arranged in a straight line; freq. attrib.; similarly straight four, straight six; (cf. in-line adj. 1a). (citation: straight, adj., n., and adv. Second edition, 1989; online version June 2012. accessed 03 July 2012. Earlier version first published in New English Dictionary, 1917.)
- Under inline the OED says:
- Actually, straight two is used. Here is the DK cite again:
a. Applied to internal-combustion engines in which the cylinders are arranged in one or more rows (in contrast to radial engines); usu. restricted to those in which the cylinders are vertical (so excluding V engines). Also ellipt. or as n.
- 1929 V. W. Pagé Mod. Aviation Engines II. xlvi. 1886 Engines of the in-line type and both static and rotary radial two cycle forms continue to receive attention.
- 1934 Discovery Dec. 353/1 The tendency..is to develop..the large in-line engine.. composed of four banks of cylinders forming an H, and the corresponding radial engines with two circles of cylinders one immediately behind the other.
- 1949 I. Katz Princ. Aircraft Propulsion Machinery i. 13 The principal cylinder arrangements are: 1. Inline—Single crankshaft, one cylinder bank, one piston per crankpin. 2. Inline-inverted—Inverted version of inline to ease problems of installation and facilitate larger propeller swing in small aircraft. 3. Opposed-cylinder... 4. V... 5. V-inverted .
- 1958 R. D. Blacker Basic Aeronaut. Sci. ix. 145/2 In-line engines consist of one or more lines of cylinders placed one behind the other. The rows of cylinders may be arranged in an ‘X’ or ‘V’, as well as in a single line.
- 1961 J. Mackerle Air-cooled Motor Engines x. 200 Twin cylinder engines are arranged in in-line parallel twins, V engines or horizontally opposed.
- 1969 K. Munson Pioneer Aircraft 1903–14 22 Wright Flyer III, ca. summer/autumn 1905. Engine: one 20 h.p. (approx.) Wright 4-cylinder water-cooled in-line.
- 1970 Commercial Motor 25 Sept. 56/2 A 370 bhp version of the Cummins 335/350 bhp six-cylinder in-line was in production.
- 1971 P. J. McMahon Aircraft Propulsion xi. 312 By the early 1930s..the inline vee..was beginning to offer strong opposition.
- 1971 P. J. McMahon Aircraft Propulsion xi. 312 Even though the radial made a comeback..the inline always had this fundamental advantage of a lower frontal area.
- The cite for that is: in-line, n. and adj. Second edition, 1989; online version June 2012. accessed 03 July 2012. First published in A Supplement to the OED II, 1976.
The OED says nothing about engines under parallel. They only mention straight and in-line.
- Nice try, but no. Sorry, no.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- The cite for that is: in-line, n. and adj. Second edition, 1989; online version June 2012. accessed 03 July 2012. First published in A Supplement to the OED II, 1976.
- You state again that "Mick Walker, too, uses them interchangeably" but I have shown you above how, in the references you gave, Mick Walker is using "inline" for an inline-twin engine, e.g. the Rota 256 or Kawasaki KR250. Both are inline-twin engine.
- In the discussion above, I have evidence that the world's leading major manufacturers refer to transversely mounted two-cylinder engines as "parallel".
- Perhaps you can explain to us how they are the same?
- For the sake of non-technically minded editors, these are images of the two different engine configurations.
- Comparison of two separate engine designs
-
Parallel twin - side by side
-
Inline twin - for and aft
-
Parallel twin - side by side
-
Inline twin - for and aft
(I am limited by the choice of available images on the Misplaced Pages)
--Bridge Boy (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Articles needed?
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.
- Yes We need this, even if it's little more than a stub, to fill the obvious hole in navbox templates listing possible configs etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, as a general article covering all use, in summary style if any particular use is too large to fit within one article. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes One main article on inline/straight/parallel twins. One. Full stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes Fair enough. As you say, it is only likely to be a list and a few short-cuts. ––Bridge Boy (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- Maybe An alternative would be an article on the more general case: for all such engines ueed in motorcycles in any orientation, with this case being the majority of the article. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:08, 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)
- Can you please clarify "for all such engines". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 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 The issues between firing orders for two, three & four cylinders are too different. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- Probably not but worth looking at shortcuts. I am thinking what likely search terms might be used by youngsters or readers. --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:26, 5 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)
- Shortcuts if or where necessary. --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:26, 5 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.
- Yes The issues of the longitudinal crankshaft are significant and worth discussing. Boxers and Guzzis are already handled elsewhere, and rightly so and they're technically distinct. I see placing the BMW Ks in with the Sunbeam S7 as being a useful historical evolution more than a confusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- No --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes with links to other more specific pages. I am all for helping individual find information. We are not limited by space. --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- No We should choose the broader scope, not just the twins. Particularly for the very old slow-revving fours, these didn't have any characteristics that were substantially different because of their cylinder count, so we can reasonably roll them up together. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- No --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- No Too broad. We'll already cover the BMWs & Guzzis separately, so this would either be duplication or else it reverts to the same scope as "Longitudinal single-bank motorcycle engines". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- No --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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
- Maybe I'd like to see this, as it's interesting and WP:Notable. It illustrates a significant balance issue. However we would need to write it from scratch. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- No At the beginning, at least, this should be a section within Twin cylinder transverse motorcycle engines Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes There is the material to do so. We are not limited by space. --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- No It's difficult to describe engines in this context, rather than installations. Motorcycles are perhaps the only case where this transverse/longitudinal distinction is so important (especially for twins, which are short in any direction). " Engines with two cylinders that aren't Vs or opposed." is adequate here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- No --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- No. Basalisk ⁄berate 10:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- No U engine is sufficient, and not excessively long. Put it there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:49, 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)
- Mind you, Dennis' suggestion of adding this to U engine has some merit. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 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 Misplaced Pages:Summary style guideline says do it in that order not the other way around. Summary style has strong consensus Misplaced Pages-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 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages-scrubbing websites, eNotes, Google searches and so on (all of which will copy anything regardless of whether it is garbage or not).
- Given the Misplaced Pages'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 ⁄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 Misplaced Pages 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)
Move discussion: part II
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)
- 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.
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. The success of the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Article size for the policy on page length, and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)
- "Jargon" is derogatory? Silly. WP:JARGON redirects to Misplaced Pages:Make technical articles understandable. Good advice, that.
- @Dennis - please drop highly derogatory terms like "choo choo train". This article applies equally to all uses of the engines, not just motorcycles, Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Derogatory to whom? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Scope of article
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 Misplaced Pages:Snowball clause, it's time to stick a fork in this one. There is massive opposition to splitting. The delete !votes at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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
- Engine arrangements - twin cylinder engines
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's best work by very strict criteria. See Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
- According to Misplaced Pages: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)
- "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 Misplaced Pages.
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
- 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.
- 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)
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 Misplaced Pages: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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages: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.