| Revision as of 22:08, 3 July 2012 editBridge Boy (talk | contribs)1,682 edits →What the trade, manufacturers, experts etc call them← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:09, 3 July 2012 edit undoBridge Boy (talk | contribs)1,682 edits →What the trade, manufacturers, experts etc call themNext edit → | ||
| Line 427: | Line 427: | ||
| ::::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". | ::::: 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. | ::::: 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. | ::::: 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 was number copies based on the Rotax 256 engine format. Here's what they look like . --] (]) 22:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | ::::: There was number copies based on the Rotax 256 engine format. Here's what they look like . --] (]) 22:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:09, 3 July 2012
| 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?
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)
- 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 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)
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)
Commons
See also http://commons.wikimedia.org/Special:Contributions/Bridge_Boy Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
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.
- 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 was number copies based on the Rotax 256 engine format. 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. 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)