Talk:Ford FE engine

Archive 1

Archive 2

1964/1965 NASCAR information
Please note; the changes I made to the 1964/1965 NASCAR info is correct, as the Chrysler 426 Hemi was NASCAR legal for the 1964 season, as a minimum number of engines wasn't required that year, as long as they were put in assembly line built vehicles. The 1964 NHRA Super Stock Hemi Mopars were built on the assembly line, therefore making the Hemi NASCAR "legal" for 1964.

NASCAR outlawed the Hemi prior to the beginning of the 1965 season, therefore the comment that it was allowed that entire season is incorrect. They didn't lift the ban on the Hemi until the summer of 1965, in July. If wanted I can present exact dates & additional info on said rule changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesman Mark (talk • contribs) 01:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-reference "references", deletion of tags/templates
The Wikipedia has rules (such as WP:V and WP:RS and WP:CITE) for what counts as a reference. You don't get to just make up random factoids that you think sound good and then put whatever random junkola you want in between the tags, close your eyes and wish real hard, and turn it magically into a reference. This is not a reference. Go on, click it and see where it leads you...absolutely nowhere! And this isn't a reference, either. It's a web page that doesn't say anything at all to support the claim it's being used as a "reference" for. There's a reason why tags and templates get put up on an article. It's so people will come and fix the issues. Taking taking down the tags and templates and putting in bogus "references" doesn't improve the article, it damages it. Cut it out! 06:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.84.143 (talk)

===actualy, those ARE references. You don·t decide alone what are and are not ·references·. It should be discussed. Also, it is common courtesy to request a citation, and give editors time to provide the requested citation before arbitrarily deleting entire paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.137.141 (talk)
 * Dude, no. Actually, they're NOT references, regardless of whatever discussion you think is going to happen here. That's because "reference" is defined for Wikipedia-wide use. See WP:RS for starters, and, once again, one of your so-called "references", which formerly went to nowhere, now goes to an advertisement (not legal per WP:RS, and even if it were, it doesn't support the assertion) another goes to a web page that doesn't support the assertion. FAIL, those are not references. The tags and templates are staying until someone puts up real references. And the paragraphs you complain about having been removed, were not germaine to this article. This article is about the Ford FE engine, not a much later engine not at all related to the FE except both were made by Ford. That engine has its own article. 03:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.84.143 (talk)

Excellent
There, you see? The system works! The two new references added are ideal. The two non-reference "references" still don't get to stay, so I've removed them. Neither does the off-topic material about the non-FE engine, so I've removed that, too. The article still contains a whole lot of unsupported, questionable assertions, many of which look a lot like WP:NOR violations, so the templates at the top of the article need to stay put. 22:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.84.143 (talk)


 * References are Excellent! as long as they include Barry R's book? When that is replaced by a different reference, then suddenly you're unhappy again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.237.22 (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, good, you're here. Look, it doesn't matter who writes the books used as references, it matters whether they're reliable sources as defined by this encyclopedia. References that meet WP:RS and support the assertions they're used on, get to stay in the article. "References" that don't meet WP:RS and/or don't support the assertions they're used on, don't get to stay in this or any other article. Off-topic babble about a 2010 engine completely unrelated to the FE engine also doesn't get to stay. If any of this bothers you, go participate in the ongoing effort to shape the Wikipedia rules and policies and perhaps your idea of how things should work will carry the day and the policies will change. Until that happens, nobody gets to singlehandedly decide the rules don't apply to this article, because guess what: Yes, they do. As for your disgust for the wording of the template which will need to remain at the top of the article until the indicated issues are addressed, take it up with those Wikipedians who work on templates. While you're taking the time to get at least a basic familiarity with how Wikipedia works (and how it doesn't), also read WP:UGH and WP:V and WP:BRDC. 24.87.84.143 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * added relevancy. What will you be unhappy with now? Are you using this contretemps as a substitute for real person-to-person interactions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.237.43 (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, madam or sir, you didn't "add relevancy". All you did was state right out in the open that the 2010 Hurricane engine is completely unrelated to the engine that is the subject of this article, the FE engine, and make a bunch of unsupported assertions about the Hurricane/Boss engine using valvetrain geometry from the FE engine. Remember, content on the Wikipedia must be WP:V. The "V" stands for "Verifiable". Questionable/unsupported/dubious assertions are likely to be removed, and that's what has happened here. If you can find some WP:RS support for your claim that Ford reused 1950s engineering in 2010 on a clean-sheet engine design, by all means go ahead and provide the citations. Please remember to keep talk page discussions WP:CIVIL. That means discussing the article, not what you imagine other editors' personal lives are like. 24.87.84.143 (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I added current references that refer to the Hurricane as the modern version of the 427 FE SOHC. Be happy.
 * As I asked above, I think some common courtesy is called for in your editing. The process, to my way of thinking anyway, should be to flag something as "citation needed" or "orignal research", and then allow some reasonable amount of time (I'm thinking more than a few hours), for other editors to note your concerns and take steps to address them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.238.42 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 28 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Third opinion
I am here because I saw the posting at WP:Third opinion. I'm not sure that I'm clear about all the issues, but regarding references, there is definitely an issue and I tagged the article with the Template:Refimprove tag.

There are also now Template:Better source tags with the reason on several of the citations (See: this edit, because:
 * a forum or a blog was used - this is not an example of WP:Reliable sources because there is no editorial control to ensure that the information is accurate and verifiable.
 * a book was used, but there's no page number, which means that it makes it very difficult to verify (WP:Verifiability) the information
 * one of the citations is to a commons image file, that is not a verifiable source of information (e.g., a person could create an image file, with the information, what is needed is a secondary, published source, which would include the publisher, title, etc.)

A lot of the citations do not have the common parameters for the cite type. From what I can tell, all of the citations should be reviewed to ensure the content is reliable, verifiable, with secondary sources and correctly formatted per WP:Cite web, WP:Cite book, and for a magazine Template:Cite journal, with review of the common parameters used. (I used these links because it seems that templates are used throughout the article).
 * The interactive portion of Reflinks utility tool was run that cleaned up 12 citations.

I have a couple of other comments about the article, but first I'd like to stay focused on the reason for the third opinion request. Is there something else besides needing references that is an issue?-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 17:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * they are moderated forums. If you compare authors with the "published" sources you would find that they are the same...the forum provides them a place to discuss and expand on their published work.
 * many of the sources flagged as inadequate are merely secondary to the primary reference and were added to bolster the primary source, so, eliminating sources for appearance sake is the recommendation?
 * thanks, no comments about abusive editors? AT LEAST WE KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT PROBLEMS TO ADDRESS.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.165.107.105 (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Added numbers to respond to the items. Please sign your comments by adding --~ at the end of the comment. When you "save" your response your user name/IP address will automatically be saved with a date/time stamp. Thanks!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 21:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A moderated forum still represents each individual person's comments without a true editorial function. And moderators are not likely to expect that content is properly reviewed (fact check, etc.) for use as a cited source. Further, if there is a question whether there are enough reliable sources in books, magazines, newspapers and other reliable sources, then you've got a WP:Notability issue. Since your saying that these people have written books - why not use the books as a reference? I'm confused.
 * Yep, it's best not to get in the habit of using non-reliable sources. It's a slippery slope. For instance a user might have gotten part of the information from a reliable source, and a bit from a non-reliable source. There should only be content from the reliable source - and adding unreliable sources is not needed. You just need one citation per cited text, so I am again confused.
 * If you have a complaint to lodge against someone's conduct, that's a different process. I am not seeing anything here, but most specifically on your talk page, that would be considered "abusive". If after reading the criteria you think the situation meets the criteria for WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE and you have specific examples of added content (link with compared text) that is abusive, click on the ConductDispute link and follow the process.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 21:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ford FE engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bluebird-electric.net/tony_densham_commuter.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Windsor Engine List is Incomplete
The Small Block Ford (90-degree, Windsor V8) began with the introduction of the 221-CID version, which was supplanted by the (mentioned) 260-CID version, which was supplanted by the (mentioned) 289-CID version, which was supplanted by the (mentioned) 302-CID version. Production of the 302-version was interrupted by the production of a 255-CID version not mentioned in the article. All of these were "low-deck" Windsor small blocks (by contrast against the "high-deck" 351-CID version. The Ford Windsor engine Wikipedia page mentions both of these engines (viz. the 221 and the 255), and others.

I don't know why the Editing Talk page associated my comments with the Ford FE engine, to which they obviously don't relate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.86.48.33 (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)