Talk:Manifold (automotive)

Archives of past discussion

Merger proposal

I propose that Intake be merged into this article. The subject matter is identical, and combining the two articles into the larger, better one (this one, Manifold (automotive)) will improve the overall quality of coverage while also focusing contributors' efforts rather than splitting them. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that such a merger would be appropriate. While the Intake article is rather poor, I'm not sure merging the two articles would solve the problem. As I'm sure you're aware, a lot of the interesting development in small engines on the intake side has been mainly on the pre-carby/throttle body side, with dual ram intakes and other wizardry. Meanwhile, American manufacturers have made a bunch of variations on their intake manifold designs. Merging Cold air intake into intake.. now that I can agree with. Nevard (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the nom. I'm sure some of the things that Nevard is referring to can still easily be incorporated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizard191 (talk • contribs)

More importantly I am absolutely opposing merging the intake article into this article on the basis that even if this were an article on intake manifolds alone.. which it isn't.. an intake manifold is still only one part of an intake system, not the other way round. Nevard (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If this was purely an automotive wiki then I would support the merge but the intake article has to allow for jet engines, power station engines (piston, gas-turbine or other), steam engines, etc. Much better to let the intake article remain general purpose, pointing to multiple specialist intake and/or manifold articles. Stepho talk 07:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn the merger proposal; looks like there's room for both articles to develop independently. They both need a lotta work! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split

This should be split between inlet manifold and exhaust manifold (or exhaust header, I don't care).

At the level of "manifold" meaning basic pipework, there is some commonality. Once we become as specific as Manifold (automotive), then the functions are already defined and thus quite distinct. It would give two more manageable and coherent articles than one single. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support split per nom. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - plenty of material for two articles. Stepho talk 23:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - with exhaust manifold as the new article on that side. Header is less general. Nevard (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that Exhaust manifold should be the title of the apposite article. A header/extractor is a type of exhaust manifold, not vice versa. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete split

I think the problem is that in splitting the article, we didn't finish the job and split the links to it. It would only make matters worse to redirect manifold (automotive) to a bigger more cluttered disambig. As long as articles are linking there, we need to keep it, so users can find their way to one or the others. If someone fixes all those article links, making it no longer useful, we can delete or redirect it; but not until then. Dicklyon (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just posted on your talk page. Raising this issue at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Manifold (automotive) France3470 (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page you said there's a string of these. Is there a bigger issue we should be discussing centrally? Can you point us at it if so? Dicklyon (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]