607:- 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.
509:
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
806:
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
694:
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".
688:
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
465:
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
994:
As we see, from its history, Straight-two was started by a non-native
English speaker, without any references and the Knowledge (XXG) 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
701:
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
906:
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
851:
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.
1021:
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.
902:. 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
846:
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
897:
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
738:
728:
487:
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. ā
1068:, 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."
716:
722:
167:
510:
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 . --
655:. 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
240:
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.
883:, 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. -
1034:
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
985:
b) unfortunately, no one has even yet to establish, with good references, an argument to support
Straight-two engine.Ā :: Is deleting Straight-two on the cards and moving back to two cylinder?
1078:
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
293:
1064:
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
269:
161:
344:, yet more example of this author's refusal to accept the principle of community consensus and an attempt to railroad that process. This is an unnecessary content fork. --
317:
122:
698:
You've consistently refused to acknowledge this, or remove your assertion, and continue to use highly loaded and prejudicial language in the introduction above.
879:
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
398:
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.
127:
1086:
is produced in cooperation with
Bombardier-Rotaxā¦" The bike is both an inline twin and parallel twin, because the terms are interchangeable. I said this
1004:
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
995:
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.
95:
90:
436:. While I agree with the nominator's rationale, and agree that this article should be deleted per policies and guidelines, I also agree with
99:
744:
Where he differentiates between the two differently configured KR Kawasaki models, again, by the terms inline (early) and parallel (later).
505:
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
82:
470:
engine in my Buick would require a different article from the longitudinally-mounted V-6 in either the
Ferrari Dino or the Honda NSX.
419:. Deleting this article is a strong signal to Bridge Boy that consensus must be won; cross-grained independent action will not suit.
17:
709:, 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.
236:
are not synonyms. This page was created in spite of clear opposition from multiple editors, with no editors supporting a new page.
217:
182:
149:
374:
1180:, contributors are Charles Armstron-Wilson, Richard Heseltine, Phil Hunt, Malcolm McKay, Andrew Noakes, and Jon Presnell.
1102:
394:
AfD is not the appropriate forum for this. There's an attempt at a serious discussion to sort out this broader issue at
1217:
1039:
588:- Per various arguments, above. The article is redundant, and this IS the correct venue for the deletion discussion.
40:
143:
767:. Two cylinders in a line = inline-twin engine. Saying "it's transverse therefore it's 'parallel' not 'inline'" is
249:
1191:
916:
857:
257:
1195:
1051:
962:
948:
934:
920:
892:
861:
829:
786:
756:
672:
660:
637:
616:
597:
580:
544:
528:
519:
506:
497:
479:
453:
441:
428:
407:
384:
353:
333:
309:
285:
261:
64:
1110:
817:
797:
And where are your, and everyone else's, references to support that? The industries involved disagree with you.
780:
706:
574:
416:
395:
203:
139:
764:
321:
297:
273:
86:
1091:
1065:
903:
403:
189:
1213:
930:
424:
349:
36:
1187:
1090:, in three different venues, and once again you claim there is "no mention" of inline twin. Why? See
1047:
1035:
912:
853:
825:
752:
515:
253:
211:
656:
628:, or whatever that article is renamed as, for the same reasons listed in my original "Delete" vote.
562:
199:
876:
776:
652:
625:
570:
241:
221:
175:
768:
1177:
1106:
958:
593:
490:
475:
377:
245:
237:
78:
70:
1070:
For the third time, I repeat for you and you alone the Mark Tuttle citation: Tuttle, Mark, Jr. "
880:
559:
155:
944:
908:
899:
888:
668:
633:
612:
540:
449:
437:
399:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1212:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
252:
doesn't recommend spawning child articles until length is in the 6,000 to 10,000 word range.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
926:
420:
345:
1043:
821:
748:
511:
207:
361:. Unnecessary content fork by an editor who's disgruntled about not getting his own way.
771:
at best and ignores completely the fact that regardless of terminology the engines are
55:
982:
a) because the scope goes beyond motorcycles, especially with inline twin engines, and
415:. Unneeded content fork. This AfD can continue during the more detailed discussion at
1023:
954:
589:
471:
362:
940:
884:
664:
629:
608:
536:
445:
116:
1042:
as it is so inarguably predominant in the industry and throughout its history. --
707:
Talk:Straight-two_engine#What the trade, manufacturers, experts etc call them
1071:
467:
440:. I feel that the timing of this AfD is an unnecessary escalation of a
816:
FYI, I think I found one solution for this and mentioned it on the
1005:
1206:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1009:
1164:
are Phil Hunt, Malcolm McKay, Hugo Wilson and James
Robinson.
224:, and was unable to win consensus for the idea that the terms
907:
fascinating, encyclopedic story, and it belongs mostly in
682:
Mick Walker on the difference between inline and parallel
651:
any well sources information back to the main article at
531:
content dispute," I was in fact referring to behavior on
248:
is barely over 500 words, not even counting duplication.
112:
108:
104:
174:
1160:
is Mick
Duckworth's native language. Contributors to
659:
article against consensus during a discussion was/is
925:
That is an excellent and common sense suggestion. --
875:
to solve the fork: Why not simply have a section on
729:
Mick Walker's
Japanese Grand Prix Racing Motorcycles
294:
list of Transportation-related deletion discussions
188:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1220:). No further edits should be made to this page.
686:Dennis. in previous discussion you stated that "
461:. From an engineering point of view, there is
270:list of Technology-related deletion discussions
1134:Triumph & BSA triplesĀ : the complete story
318:list of Aviation-related deletion discussions
202:created in the midst of a move discussion at
8:
1126:Triumph and BSA triplesĀ : the complete story
939:I agree. This sounds like a good solution.
316:Note: This debate has been included in the
292:Note: This debate has been included in the
268:Note: This debate has been included in the
527:: I wish to note that when I called it a "
315:
291:
267:
1162:Motorcycle: The Definitive Visual History
1154:Triumph BonnevilleĀ : portrait of a legend
244:is less than 1,000 words in length, and
1186:Please stop your disruptive editing. --
807:inline twin is a simple "two cylinder".
739:Japanese Production Racing Motorcycles
220:) was unable to win consensus to move
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1182:How much more English can you get?
1170:Car: The Definitive Visual History
24:
1040:Parallel-twin (motorcycle engine)
702:differentiating between the two.
1099:DK Visual History of Motorcycles
1:
250:Knowledge (XXG):Summary style
1166:Native English speakers all.
1082:in BMW's history. The 800cc
558:the appropriate forum for a
1097:The editor-in-cheif of the
1080:inline twin-cylinder engine
717:European Racing Motorcycles
1237:
1172:, which uses straight-two
1142:Classic racing motorcycles
1130:Classic racing motorcycles
953:Yup. That'd be perfect.
723:Italian Racing Motorcylces
1196:21:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
1052:20:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
705:I also underline that in
65:16:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
1209:Please do not modify it.
963:00:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
949:23:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
935:22:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
921:22:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
893:22:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
862:14:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
830:10:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
818:Talk:Straight-two_engine
787:16:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
757:20:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
673:04:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
638:14:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
617:02:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
598:19:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
581:16:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
545:12:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
535:sides of the dispute. -
520:09:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
498:05:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
480:01:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
454:20:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
429:16:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
417:Talk:Straight-two engine
408:15:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
396:Talk:Straight-two engine
385:14:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
354:14:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
334:14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
310:14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
286:14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
262:14:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
204:Talk:Straight-two engine
32:Please do not modify it.
565:, and this needs to be
492:The Hand That Feeds You
904:History of motorcycles
773:mechanically identical
734:and, most notably, in
1146:Original Kawasaki Z1
1036:Parallel-twin engine
234:parallel-twin engine
1168:Editor-In-Chief of
1101:is none other than
877:Straight-two engine
653:Straight-two engine
626:Straight-two engine
569:as such forwith. -
466:transverse-mounted
444:content dispute. -
242:Straight-two engine
226:straight-two engine
222:Straight-two engine
941:Sincerely, SamBlob
630:Sincerely, SamBlob
609:Sincerely, SamBlob
246:Inline-twin engine
238:Inline-twin engine
230:inline-twin engine
198:This article is a
79:Inline-twin engine
71:Inline-twin engine
48:The result was
909:Motorcycle engine
900:Motorcycle engine
336:
312:
288:
63:
1228:
1211:
1150:Z900 & KZ900
783:
577:
493:
381:
372:
367:
330:
327:
324:
306:
303:
300:
282:
279:
276:
193:
192:
178:
130:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1236:
1235:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1218:deletion review
1207:
1188:Dennis Bratland
1138:Norton Commando
1109:in Nottingham,
913:Dennis Bratland
854:Dennis Bratland
842:Mark Tuttle of
785:
781:
579:
575:
529:WP:BATTLEGROUND
507:WP:BATTLEGROUND
491:
442:WP:BATTLEGROUND
382:
379:
368:
363:
328:
325:
322:
304:
301:
298:
280:
277:
274:
254:Dennis Bratland
135:
126:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1234:
1232:
1223:
1222:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1103:Mick Duckworth
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
999:
998:
997:
996:
989:
988:
987:
986:
983:
977:
976:
975:
974:
968:
967:
966:
965:
951:
937:
923:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
835:
834:
833:
832:
811:
810:
809:
808:
801:
800:
799:
798:
792:
791:
790:
789:
779:
777:The Bushranger
765:WP:COMMONSENSE
742:
741:
732:
731:
726:
720:
684:
683:
678:
676:
675:
642:
641:
640:
600:
583:
573:
571:The Bushranger
567:speedy deleted
549:
548:
547:
500:
482:
456:
431:
410:
388:
387:
378:
356:
338:
337:
313:
289:
196:
195:
132:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1233:
1221:
1219:
1215:
1210:
1204:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1184:
1183:
1179:
1178:Giles Chapman
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1095:
1093:
1092:WP:COMPETENCE
1089:
1085:
1084:parallel-twin
1081:
1077:
1073:
1067:
1066:WP:DISRUPTIVE
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1024:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1011:
1007:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
993:
992:
991:
990:
984:
981:
980:
979:
978:
972:
971:
970:
969:
964:
960:
956:
952:
950:
946:
942:
938:
936:
932:
928:
924:
922:
918:
914:
910:
905:
901:
896:
895:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
871:
870:
863:
859:
855:
850:
845:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
814:
813:
812:
805:
804:
803:
802:
796:
795:
794:
793:
788:
784:
782:One ping only
778:
774:
770:
766:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
754:
750:
747:Thank you. --
745:
740:
737:
736:
735:
730:
727:
724:
721:
718:
715:
714:
713:
710:
708:
703:
699:
696:
692:
690:
681:
680:
679:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
620:
619:
618:
614:
610:
606:
605:
601:
599:
595:
591:
587:
584:
582:
578:
576:One ping only
572:
568:
564:
561:
557:
553:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
523:
522:
521:
517:
513:
508:
504:
501:
499:
496:
494:
486:
483:
481:
477:
473:
469:
464:
460:
457:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
432:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
411:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
390:
389:
386:
383:
375:
373:
371:
366:
360:
357:
355:
351:
347:
343:
340:
339:
335:
331:
319:
314:
311:
307:
295:
290:
287:
283:
271:
266:
265:
264:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
216:
213:
209:
205:
201:
191:
187:
184:
181:
177:
173:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:Find sources:
133:
129:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1208:
1205:
1185:
1181:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1098:
1096:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1069:
881:undue weight
872:
848:
843:
772:
746:
743:
733:
711:
704:
700:
697:
693:
687:
685:
677:
648:
644:
621:
603:
602:
585:
566:
555:
551:
532:
524:
503:Speedy close
502:
489:
484:
462:
458:
438:Andy Dingley
434:Speedy close
433:
412:
400:Andy Dingley
392:Speedy close
391:
369:
364:
358:
341:
329:PEANUTBUTTER
305:PEANUTBUTTER
281:PEANUTBUTTER
233:
229:
225:
214:
197:
185:
179:
171:
164:
158:
152:
146:
136:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1114:Honda CB750
1088:three times
927:Biker Biker
421:Binksternet
346:Biker Biker
162:free images
1044:Bridge Boy
873:Suggestion
822:Bridge Boy
749:Bridge Boy
712:Examples:
661:disruptive
657:WP:POVFORK
647:per nom.
563:WP:POVFORK
512:Bridge Boy
208:BridgeĀ Boy
58:Sandstein
1214:talk page
1111:author of
1072:BMW F800S
1012:paddocks.
769:WP:JARGON
560:WP:POINTy
37:talk page
1216:or in a
1174:18 times
955:Ebikeguy
590:Ebikeguy
472:rdfox 76
218:contribs
200:POV fork
123:View log
39:or in a
1176:is one
1158:English
1118:TT 2007
885:Jorgath
665:DocTree
554:- this
537:Jorgath
525:Comment
446:Jorgath
168:WPĀ refs
156:scholar
96:protect
91:history
1152:, and
689:today.
645:Delete
604:Delete
586:Delete
552:Delete
485:Delete
459:Delete
413:Delete
380:berate
359:Delete
342:Delete
140:Google
100:delete
50:delete
1122:TT100
1107:based
1076:Rider
1006:horse
844:Rider
649:Merge
622:Merge
320:. ā
ā
296:. ā
ā
272:. ā
ā
183:JSTOR
144:books
128:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1192:talk
1048:talk
1010:pony
1008:and
973:Why?
959:talk
945:talk
931:talk
917:talk
911:. --
889:talk
858:talk
826:talk
820:. --
775:. -
753:talk
669:talk
634:talk
613:talk
594:talk
541:talk
533:both
516:talk
476:talk
450:talk
425:talk
404:talk
370:lisk
365:Basa
350:talk
323:DUCK
299:DUCK
275:DUCK
258:talk
232:and
212:talk
176:FENS
150:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
1074:."
1038:to
891:)
849:one
691:"
624:to
543:)
468:V-6
452:)
332:āā
308:āā
284:āā
190:TWL
125:ā¢
121:ā (
1194:)
1156:.
1148:,
1144:,
1140:,
1136:,
1132:,
1128:,
1124:,
1120:,
1116:,
1105:,
1050:)
961:)
947:)
933:)
919:)
860:)
852:--
828:)
755:)
671:)
663:.
636:)
615:)
596:)
556:is
518:)
478:)
463:no
427:)
406:)
352:)
326:IS
302:IS
278:IS
260:)
228:,
206:.
170:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
52:.
1190:(
1094:.
1046:(
1025:.
957:(
943:(
929:(
915:(
887:(
856:(
824:(
751:(
725:.
719:.
667:(
632:(
611:(
592:(
539:(
514:(
495::
474:(
448:(
423:(
402:(
376:ā
348:(
256:(
215:Ā·
210:(
194:)
186:Ā·
180:Ā·
172:Ā·
165:Ā·
159:Ā·
153:Ā·
147:Ā·
142:(
134:(
131:)
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.