Talk:V4 engine

message: * 112bhp V4 Engine 350cc Scooter
* http://www.fasterandfaster.net/2007/01/team-cristofolini-racings-350cc-112bhp.html
This should have a 3rd party source -- not just press releases and publicity stills -- to take seriously. And even then, it's a prototype meant as a stunt. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: V4s are pretty common on bikes. A bike V4 thus needs to be of particular interest to belong here. What's the significance of this one? I'm thus against its inclusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team Cristofolini Racing v4 

message: I placed "See also:Motorcycle engine" on the "Motorcycle use" section of this article.  It was reverted, with the following edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by SamBlob: RV - "main" article is not specific to this type of configuration, in fact the short section about V4s states to see Main article: V4 engine, providing no additional information to the reader. ([[WP:TW|T..."
I have two objections to this:
# I made no supposition that the "main" article for that section was "Motorcycle engine".  This was the "See also" template, not the "Main" template.  Even if the section on "V4" in "Motorcycle engine" were completely identical to the "Motorcycle use" section in this article, is it wrong to suppose that someone wanting to know about the use of V4 engines in motorcycles might want to know about motorcycle engines in general?
# The statement that "the short section about V4s states to see Main article: V4 engine, providing no additional information to the reader" is not correct. Were one to read both sections, one would note that the V4 subheading in "Motorcycle engine" mostly talks about two-stroke racing V4 engines, a topic not mentioned in V4 engine#Motorcycle use.
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: SamBlob, my concern with adding additional article links (whether they be "see also" or "main article" templates) is they should enhance the amount of information for the reader. In other words, there is nothing to "object" about adding another link by itself. However, I would suggest a major expansion of the section about the V4 engines to include two-cycle versions that are used in motorcycle applications. This section already has a list of the makes and models using V4 engines. Why not explain the types that came in them within that section? In short, there is little benefit to have a link to find out in another article that motorcycle V4 engines are two cycle types. Additional referenced information in one article is better than shuffling and spreading out the information in separate articles and linking the sections. Just my thoughts, your individual conclusions and results may be different! Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is not necessarily for more information on V4 engines; it is for information on motorcycle engines in general, which a reader looking for information on the motorcycle applications of V4 engines might, just might, be interested in.  Furthermore, if there is information in either section that could be useful in the other, a link would give an editor or potential editor the perfect means to find it and the perfect opportunity to copy it. As WP:BUILD says: "Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?"" Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also Motorcycle engine - what's wrong with that?