Talk:Single-acting cylinder

Merge with Double-acting cylinder
It would make sense to merge this topic with "Double-acting cylinder" but I don't know how to do this. Any comments? Roly (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems like a reasonable idea, so long as the two terms both remain as redirects, as they'll be where most of the inbound links come from.
 * It should probably be left as it is, with merge discussion templates on it, for a couple of days - to discuss the new name, if nothing else.
 * Other details of the process are at WP:MERGE Andy Dingley (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think both articles are unlikely to grow significantly, so a merge is not unreasonable; however, neither article has a name appropriate to cover both types (and it doesn't make much sense for one to be a subsection of the other. Instead I would suggest that BOTH articles should become subsections of Cylinder (engine) -- although I'd imagine that that article will make you despair, Andy, in its current form. -- EdJogg (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd just use my favourite wikiblinkers and try not to lookoutside that section. A competent attempt at cylinder would be four times that size, and very likely split for steam and IC.
 * I'm against merging to cylinder - because "Single-acting cylinders" aren't really cylinders anyway, they're more about the piston. Overall though, I think it's just easier to come up with a fresh name for this aspect alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair points. Good luck with finding a new name. These two articles do feel like they should be part of a bigger article, which may not exist yet, so if you can work out what that article is, the name for these may become obvious.
 * Piston is not in much better shape than Cylinder, and these components are so inextricably linked that I've never really understood why they aren't treated together, although, yet again, lack of a 'common name' maybe the reason this hasn't happened. The 'redirects' considered here may hint at an article that covers all of them, maybe? EdJogg (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)