- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Inline-twin engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a POV fork created in the midst of a move discussion at Talk:Straight-two engine. Bridge Boy (talk · contribs) was unable to win consensus to move Straight-two engine, and was unable to win consensus for the idea that the terms straight-two engine, inline-twin engine and parallel-twin engine are not synonyms. This page was created in spite of clear opposition from multiple editors, with no editors supporting a new page. Inline-twin engine exists on the basis of cherry-picking sources which support the belief that the term is a distinct engine type, and stubbornly ignoring all the sources that treat the terms as interchangeable. Straight-two engine is less than 1,000 words in length, and Inline-twin engine is barely over 500 words, not even counting duplication. Wikipedia:Summary style doesn't recommend spawning child articles until length is in the 6,000 to 10,000 word range. Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close AfD is not the appropriate forum for this. There's an attempt at a serious discussion to sort out this broader issue at Talk:Straight-two engine I'd invite those interested to contribute there, not piecemeal here. If deletion looks like the best result after that broad decision, we can delete then. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unneeded content fork. This AfD can continue during the more detailed discussion at Talk:Straight-two engine. Deleting this article is a strong signal to Bridge Boy that consensus must be won; cross-grained independent action will not suit. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close. While I agree with the nominator's rationale, and agree that this article should be deleted per policies and guidelines, I also agree with Andy Dingley. I feel that the timing of this AfD is an unnecessary escalation of a WP:BATTLEGROUND content dispute. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. 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. The argument that the longitudinal versus transverse arrangement is fundamentally flawed; if that's a reason to split the two, then the transverse-mounted V-6 engine in my Buick would require a different article from the longitudinally-mounted V-6 in either the Ferrari Dino or the Honda NSX. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as content fork. As to the close arguments above, your discussion can continue on the talk page, but this AfD gives a broader consensus on if the subject needs to be in a separate article. Forking the article was itself an escalation of the dispute. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 05:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close AfD is not the appropriate forum for this. Having failed in an attempt to have the article Reversion Deleted, the proposer is carrying on a WP:BATTLEGROUND content dispute. The topic is clearly not a content fork and anyone with any industry and engineering knowledge would have to concede these two configurations of twin cylinders engines, parallel and inline, are so significantly different, widely used and raise such significantly different problems that they would benefit from separate or different topics. The comparison to automobiles does not apply most of the application in which these engines are used and relate to body/chassis effects and design . --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I wish to note that when I called it a "WP:BATTLEGROUND content dispute," I was in fact referring to behavior on both sides of the dispute. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 12:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is the appropriate forum for a WP:POINTy WP:POVFORK, and this needs to be speedy deleted as such forwith. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per various arguments, above. The article is redundant, and this IS the correct venue for the deletion discussion. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article for an internal combustion engine with two cylinders in line along a common crankshaft already exists. The characteristics of such an engine do not change significantly with the orientation of the engine in the frame of a vehicle, and the changes in characteristics caused by orientation are better suited to a general article on different cylinder orientations than a specific article on a specifically configured two cylinder engine. Whether the engine is mounted along the frame, across the frame, or even upside-down with the crankshaft at the top and the cylinder heads at the bottom, it still has the same general configuration and characteristics. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Merge any well sources information back to the main article at Straight-two engine. Design and use variations are best dealt with in separate sections of a single article so readers can see the differences without a need to jump between several smaller articles. Creating a WP:POVFORK article against consensus during a discussion was/is disruptive. DocTree (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mick Walker on the difference between inline and parallel
Dennis. in previous discussion you stated 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."
I pointed out politely how this was a clearly an error or misreading, probably on your lack of knowledge of the Rotax 256 and other inline engines at that time, and as across numerous books Walker clearly uses the convention of calling the inline twins "inline" and the parallel twins "parallel".
You've consistently refused to acknowledge this, or remove your assertion, and continue to use highly loaded and prejudicial language in the introduction above.
If we are going to make progress across these articles, it will really have to be based on fair and honest communication, and it would go a long way to prove good faith to me if you can admit that were wrong here and Walker, one of the "foremost experts of today" as you call him, was clearly differentiating between the two.
I also underline that in Talk:Straight-two_engine#What the trade, manufacturers, experts etc call them, all of the manufacturers used the term parallel and we have not resolve that topic yet, so we cannot know how this one will lie.
Examples:
and, most notably, in
Where he differentiates between the two differently configured KR Kawasaki models, again, by the terms inline (early) and parallel (later).
Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And where are your, and everyone else's, references to support that? The industries involved disagree with you.
- Why would an acknowledged expert differentiate between the two configurations? Neither you, nor anyone else, has addressed that. I am sorry but I did actually spent hours looking over this and the only other commonly used term to come anywhere near the industry use and predominance of parallel or inline twin is a simple "two cylinder".
- FYI, I think I found one solution for this and mentioned it on the Talk:Straight-two_engine. --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Tuttle of Rider magazine is an acknowledged expert. Why would he treat inline and parallel as equivalent? Spoiler Alert: that's what jargon is. Words that mean different things in different contexts, or to different people. Explaining those differences is an encyclopedic subject for one article. Because it is one thing, whether you turn it sideways, frontways, upside down, or don't even install it in a vehicle at all. What really changes is the transmission and the rest of the drivetrain. Same engine no matter what you call it or how you attach it. Everyone sees that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion to solve the fork: Why not simply have a section on Straight-two engine called "Variants," in which the differences between inline-twins and parallel twins can be discussed? Of course, I'd say that more than a paragraph would be undue weight, but while when you come down to it they both are straight-two engines, that doesn't mean the differences don't mean anything at all. They're just minor enough to not require two articles. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. There already is solid consensus for just this approach. Beyond that, it would not be undue weight to spend an almost unlimited amount of space discussing the pros and cons of the different packaging issues of each engine configuration and orientation in Motorcycle engine. And the contradictory jargon used by different experts. Its what that article is all about. It isn't as if the only choice is between a transverse and longitudinal crankshaft parallel twin. They could instead use a single, an I-4, a flat twin, the list goes on. The History of motorcycles essentially consists of 120 years of one guy after another trying yet another way of installing the engine, and they each had their reasons. Many of them attracted a loyal fanbase... which helps explain why there is an undercurrent of passion for this obscure technical terminology. It's a fascinating, encyclopedic story, and it belongs mostly in Motorcycle engine. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an excellent and common sense suggestion. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. This sounds like a good solution. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. That'd be perfect. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- a) because the scope goes beyond motorcycles, especially with inline twin engines, and
- b) unfortunately, no one has even yet to establish, with good references, an argument to support Straight-two engine. :: Is deleting Straight-two on the cards and moving back to two cylinder?
- As we see, from its history, Straight-two was started by a non-native English speaker, without any references and the Wikipedia and internet have been burden with that decision ever since. There is no "solid consensus" either, despite how often Dennis tries to impress it, just a personal assertion which is not back by an equal weight of reference to the ones given and an unwillingness to discuss the references which have been given.
- I've yet to see explained why there is the great need to condense these topics when comparing them to comparable topics in other fields (including horse and pony paddocks.
- BTW, Dennis, journalist Mark Tuttle goes on to describe the F800R exactly as I would, i.e. "liquid-cooled, transverse parallel twin" with no mention of inline and the Triumph as an in-line triple, not a "straight three" in his next article, so the balance swings back again. [1].
- Inline-twin engine sticks for inline twins, just allow me to develop it with others who care, (of course the premature delete tag is going to put people off doing so), and I am happy to move Parallel-twin engine to Parallel-twin (motorcycle engine) as it is so inarguably predominant in the industry and throughout its history. --Bridge Boy (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've mentioned horse and pony at least three times, and not one editor said, "gee, good point." Repeating that point, and not to mention other points you keep repeating, is WP:DISRUPTIVE, to wit: "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input."
For the third time, I repeat for you and you alone the Mark Tuttle citation: 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…" The bike is both an inline twin and parallel twin, because the terms are interchangeable. I said this three times, in three different venues, and once again you claim there is "no mention" of inline twin. Why? See WP:COMPETENCE.
The editor-in-cheif of the DK Visual History of Motorcycles is none other than Mick Duckworth, based in Nottingham, author of Honda CB750, TT 2007, TT100, Triumph and BSA triples : the complete story, Classic racing motorcycles, Triumph & BSA triples : the complete story, Norton Commando, Classic racing motorcycles, Original Kawasaki Z1, Z900 & KZ900, and Triumph Bonneville : portrait of a legend. English is Mick Duckworth's native language. Contributors to Motorcycle: The Definitive Visual History are Phil Hunt, Malcolm McKay, Hugo Wilson and James Robinson. Native English speakers all. Editor-In-Chief of Car: The Definitive Visual History, which uses straight-two 18 times is one Giles Chapman, contributors are Charles Armstron-Wilson, Richard Heseltine, Phil Hunt, Malcolm McKay, Andrew Noakes, and Jon Presnell. How much more English can you get?
Please stop your disruptive editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.