The result was delete. Sandstein 16:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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
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
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 result was delete. Sandstein 16:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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
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
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