text:
Talk:Uvula

Unsorted talk
The uvula is lymphoid tissue, this should be placed within this article at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.78.45 (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * This is incorrect. Where did you read that the uvula is lymphoid tissue? Prophylax (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

This topic was defaced by a member from 4chan with the somewhat hidden ", such as /b/."

My uvula usually becomes swollen after drinking a lot of alchohol, especially spirits. When I wake up I feel that I am going to Swallow my uvula. It helps when I sleep for a little bit longer then usual (about 10 hours). It makes me worry that there is something wrong with me, but I know that it is definetly related with alcohol consumption. Best to drink less hey!!!

'''My uvula had swollen to the size of a grape once. This had happened once before. The first time it went away after an hour of sucking ice and gargling with cold water. The second time it grew to the size of a grape. Cold water didn't help, so I had called a relative to take me to the hospital. There the doctors at the emergincy room gave me an IVE with a steroid and an antiallergin. Two shots of antiallergins through the IVE and 5 hours later they sent me home. '''I trace it back to alcohol. High proof vodka was the problem. It didn't happen all at once, the alcohol numbed it. However, while trying to sleep, it grew so big that it woke me up gagging. The best thing to do if you are gagging is to remain calm...It sounds stupid, but when you get worked up you breathe heaver and panic which makes it a lot worse. What I do is put on a Pink Floyd DVD and let it drift me back to sleep. All it takes is time. Now I am more concious about the damn uvula so I have become some sort of psycosamatic. I constantly worry that it will happen again. I quit drinking, cut down on smoking, and cut down on coffee. My social life is scarred. Most of the time I just want it removed.'''

Thought I should pop in my exp here. Similar thing happened to me and indeed, just gotta stay calm and breathe through your nose. I couldnt even speak. Usual causes are burns and viral things. Nothing long term, and nothing too serious, providing you dont choke on it, but im not a doctor.

'''I severely doubt that ANY child has EVER injured anyone trying to imitate the 'punching bag uvula' thing in cartoons. All in favor to remove that bit?

I was personally injured in this manner during my childhood. I was five years old, and was watching a cartoon with my friend. He saw one of those damnable scenes, and decided that it would be humorous to try: on me! Before I could say anything, he had reached to the back of my throat, grabbed my uvula, and stretched it to insane proportions. It was intensely painful, and it has remained elongated all of these years. It scarred me emotionally during this time, as well. Whenever I would sneeze, the uvula would retract into my sinus cavity and emerge from one of my nostrils, which caused me to have very few friends when I was growing up.'''

'''Your touching story has convinced me that this warning MUST INDEED REMAIN. Keep on truckin', brother.'''

'08/08/05'' I have been diagnosed with uvulitis and my uvula inflammation matches the description of the first one on this page ("My uvula had swollen to the size of a grape"). It is quite simmilar to the appearance of a red grape. I tried to say uvula as much as possible because it such a funny word (and has also appeared in the Cartoon Network cartoon Cow and Chicken). The GP (General Practitioner) concluded that I had a bacterial infection, and therfore prescribed me with Aspirin to be gargled with water 4 times a day, aswell as Erythromycin Enteric coated tablets.'''

I`ve just got out from hospital after having abdominal surgery ,and my uvula is inflamed and strecthed.Apparently this is a common reaction to being intubated for general anestesia. I must have a particully sensitive uvula as it also happened a few years ago whilst on holiday in Furtaventura.(too many pina coladas) A trip to the local clinic for a shot of hydracortizone and within the hour,and £150 lighter, it was back to normal.

The secret is not to panic.

'''Today, I went to the hospital after having a 4-day sore throat, which just today I noticed was joined by an incredibly elongated uvula (it was literally past the back of my tongue.) I got tested, and came back positive for mono. The more you know~'''

Just thought I'd drop in some interesting primary source material: Re: What effect does the uvula have on swallowing in humans? Iskunk 22:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Would you like to add more on this topic in the article? If so, please cite other more credible sources. Prophylax (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Question....
Is it uncommon to get an ulcer on the uvula? If you get an ulcer on your uvula, will that make your tonsils swell up and make your throat sore? And what do you do to lose the ulcer, that far back in your mouth...gargle saltwater???

Work To Be Done
One thing not covered is the actual function of the uvula. I mean, I have a good guess, but someone probably knows more.

The page calls the uvula "cone-shaped", which it can be, but not always, and not in the visuals that accompany the article. This phrase, "cone-shaped" seems to have been copied from another source.

The page later says the uvula got its name from its "grape-like shape". This also is not always true, and is not seen very much in the visuals. Other sources say that the word uvula in latin meant a swollen uvula, which do look like grapes.

The page also says the uvula "plays an important role in the creation of the sound of the human voice." Outside of helping with a uvular trill, this doesn't ring true to me...Someone probably got a little ambitious, and confused about the word "uvular". The fact that Wikipedia's "Uvular" page also is a bit confused probably didn't help.

I got reverted when I just tried to edit this willy-nilly, so I thought I'd bring it up here....meditate on it....

-Misha

--216.254.12.114 05:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * There is now a section on function that discussed swallow, saliva, speech, and gag reflex. Prophylax (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I also like this sentence about the uvula:

"[I]t closes to prevent air escaping through the nose when making some sounds, such as /b/."

I must be some sort of physical freak, because I can't seem to close my uvula, no matter how hard I try. I mean, I can close my airway using my velum with the best of 'em, but my uvula? No luck.

-Misha

216.254.12.114 20:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Typically it is the soft palate that helps close off the nasopharynx from the oropharynx. The uvula alone may not be sufficient to separate the two. Prophylax (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

the current form of this, "In English (as well as many other languages), it closes the nasal passage to prevent air escaping through the nose when making nasal consonants." is actually incorrect. the uvula, in combination with the velum (soft palate) closes the nasal passage when making ORAL or non-nasal sounds. it is open for nasals, with the result that air is forced through the nasal passages. for clarification on this, see the section on speech under "soft palate." this confusion is also evident when comparing with the sections "Velopharyngeal insufficiency" and "Nasal regurgitation" in this article.

24.101.51.109 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Excellent point. Looks like this has been resolved. Prophylax (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The uvula is not at the back of the throat. It is at the front, i.e. anterior face, of the throat. It is, however, at the back of the mouth.

140.90.159.106 22:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 * It looks like this has also been corrected. Prophylax (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Salt water gargling
I've changed that material because the explanation was incorrect: there is no molecular iodine (which would have antiseptic properties in low concentrations) present in iodised salt. The iodine is added as sodium iodide, which is not an antiseptic.

Kay Dekker 22:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we have enough photos of the uvula?
Ironically, some of them could make you gag. Wahkeenah 18:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC) don't look at them then. I wonder if I should add a photo of my uvula? it has somthing which is not mentioned here: I have a 'balloon' on it's side since I got glandular fever as a teen. that's 13 years ago now and it still hasn't gone. sometimes the 'balloon' inflates... when I have a virus; and gets itchy so I suck on it and then it pops :s but then grows back. moderately discomfortable. the balloon's colour ranges from the normal pink to a distinct white. and is large enough to be considered a cleft uvula, but it isn't. what do u think? problem is I have nothing to cite about the photo. email suggestions to padswaggle@hotmail.com if u want. 60.242.72.197 (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Consider getting checked out by a doctor. Prophylax (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Popular culture
Honestly, who is intrested in the uvula in popular culture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blackfield (talk • contribs) 19:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC). you need more photos

I certainly am interested in it, I mean, it's confused for vulva all the time, to comic effect. Also mine's itchy a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

 * If your uvula is itchy, you may consider seeing a doctor. Prophylax (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I restored the bit about the uvula in popular culture, there was no real reason for it to be removed IMO. Indigestion (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Adjectives?
Nearly all the pictures have adjectives calling the uvulas "big"... are these larger than normal or something? or is it just unnecessary use of adjectives?

Fair use rationale for Image:Scoblehd.jpg
Image:Scoblehd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Looks like the image you're referencing does not exist. Prophylax (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Please remove edit protection
Bad POV protection to preserve a disruptive edit made by the protecting admin. Indefinite full protect to avoid trivia sections - immediately after the admin changes the article to his liking - is way over the top and inappropriate. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections Wikidemo 15:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The protection is inappropriate and I have removed it. I will say, though, that these trivia sections are wholly unencylopedic and should be removed from articles.  This is not an encyclopedia of pop culture phenomena.  The protection of the article may have been unfortunate, but Alkivar is 110% correct that this stuff should not be in our articles. -- B  16:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In this particular case I don't think any of the trivia items are notable or relevant, even if worked into the text, so I won't add them. They could be the subject of an independent list / article.  A single sentence to the effect that the P.U. is often featured as a sight gag in American cartoons (or something similar, once researched and sourced) would be reasonably relevant.  As to the broader question of trivia and pop culture, that's a big debate on Wikipedia, and protecting admins should not be taking sides or protecting simply to shut down the debate.Wikidemo 16:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am fairly certain that if someone tried to make the list of uvula-related trivia into a separate article, the article would be nominated for deletion very quickly due to its insignificance. However, I do feel the list has a place in the uvula article - I find the facts very interesting and clearly others do.  Furthermore, the article contains a significant amount of scientific information about the uvula; some pop culture can't really hurt the quality of the article.  Caution: Wet Floor (talk) 04:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Vibrato
the article has this line: " This affected her voice by eliminating vibrato, she said [...] although the uvula is not responsible for vibrato (the vocal cords make this happen)." ...so DID the removal of the uvula remove her vibrato, if so how and if not what did? Otherwise this sentence is kind of useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.2.92 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the vocal chords have anything to do with amplitude, just pitch. The uvula can, however, be used to vary the character of the sound over time. 66.118.149.200 (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed this section: Anita O'Day, a popular big band singer, had her uvula accidentally removed during a childhood surgery when only her tonsils were intended to be removed. This affected her voice by eliminating vibrato, she said, in an interview with Terry Gross of NPR's "Fresh Air" radio show, although the uvula is not responsible for vibrato (the vocal cords make this happen). It was tagged with a citation needed tag anyway and I agree that it's pointless to have a sentence discussing one person's mistaken belief.  howcheng   {chat} 03:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge Bifurcated_uvula?
There's an own article for Bifurcated_uvula, but it doesn't offer much more than is already written here, except for some unverified claims. It doesn't have a picture and the statistics are different ("1% of Caucasians" vs. 2%, both numbers without any source). Then there's the issue of the name.

I have looked looked at Help:Merging and I don't think this merge is controversial, but the task is a bit too complicated for me. Is someone feeling bold and knowledgeable enough to do it? 92.203.13.157 (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

 * ✅.  howcheng  {chat} 03:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The myositides?
And what, pray tell, are the myositides? rowley (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Please see the linked article: Myositis Prophylax (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hypouvulitis
Deleted this false information, was clearly vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.10.144 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Musculus uvulae
Musculus uvular is inherent to the palantine uvula, and should be covered on the same page. This would be of benefit to readers, having information in one place, and by virtue of having the context of incresed information would enhance readability. LT910001 (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 * It's useful to have the muscle be its own article so that it can be structured appropriately. Prophylax (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Function?
The Function section talks only about its use in speech, other languages. Yet it has other functions such as to close off the nasopharynx, preventing food from entering the nasal cavity, or to pronounce "b," drinking, etc. That section should be expanded. --71.133.254.31 (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

 * Looks like the section has now been expanded to include swallowing and gag reflex as well. Prophylax (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead section does not meet Wiki specs.
It's as if the authors had never had a writing class, nor bothered to take a gander at Wiki guidelines.

Hint1: poor communication is poor writing. Hint2: by definition, it takes more than one to communicate. Hint3: high expertise suggests little about the ability to communicate. Hint4: The entire Lead section is written in argot or jargon. Hint5 hyperlinks do not much improve nor excuse lazy writing. ("lazy-links") Hint6: see Hint2 Last clue: see Manual of Style (lead section). Thanks! --71.133.254.31 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford
 * Thanks Doug. Wikipedia's a collaborative effort where anyone can contribute, so if there's any way you feel an article could improve, feel free to make the changes yourself.--LT910001 (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

uvula
Information seems to be lacking on cases where there is an absence of the uvula - notably, what causes this defect, and what is the incidence in the population of people lacking a uvula. Denys Wheatley April 1, 2015 Editorbiomedes (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Perhaps someone could add more information in the uvula variations section. Prophylax (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WilliesUvula.jpg

 * Looks like this has been deleted. Prophylax (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc . talk  06:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Palatine uvula → Uvula – "Uvula" is clearly the common name for this organ; most people are unaware of the uvula of cerebellum and of the structure in the prostate noted in Bladder. I would treat this as an uncontroversial move, except 1) it was previously moved from "Uvula" (way back in 2009), which may suggest that at least one editor may disagree; and 2) given the large number of incoming links, a bold move would be a hassle to undo, so I'm erring on the side of caution and treating this as a potentially controversial move. TJRC (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Strong support per WP:COMMONNAME. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

title: Talk:Uvula


text:
Talk:William of Malmesbury

Comments
Small typo fixed - "andmany shrewd judgments" under "significance" heading.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/conquest/norman/william_the_conqueror_02.shtml here's a source regarding the statement of his parents' origin- not sure how to cite sources with the wiki
 * Unfortunately the BBC isn't a reliable source for medieval history. And rew D alby  22:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 * What does being "English" mean in 1095 CE? Is it Angle, Saxon, Welsh, Celtic, Danish, all of the aforementioned? Who are the indigenous "English?" Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Good question. "English" means "Englisc", much as "England" means "Englaland" and "the English" means "Angelcynn".The Welsh or the Danish, unless they had been absorbed by the English and Anglicised, weren't English of course. Are today's Poles in England English? I am not certain if this is what you mean by 'What does being "English" mean in 1095?'

Please have a look at eg https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/transactions-of-the-royal-historical-society/article/making-of-angelcynn-english-identity-before-the-norman-conquest1/C5032BF7E315B32A23AEF461920CB63E or Foot, S. (1996). The Making of Angelcynn: English Identity before the Norman Conquest. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6, 25-49. doi:10.2307/3679228

or

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199212149.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199212149-e-1 2A02:A312:C442:D000:E080:B978:FE1A:8320 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William of Malmesbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050314053949/http://www.csun.edu/~sk36711/WWW/engl443/malmesbury.html to http://www.csun.edu/~sk36711/WWW/engl443/malmesbury.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:William of Malmesbury


text:
File:Layourbattleaxedown.jpg

Fair use in Layourbattleaxedown
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * 1) It's a low resolution copy of a CD/album cover.
 * 2) It doesn't limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the CD/album in any way, in fact, it may encourage sales.
 * 3) Because of the low resolution, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD.
 * 4) The image is itself a subject of discussion in the article or used in the infobox thereof.
 * 5) The image on the cover is significant because it was made by a famous artist.

Source

 * 1) Derived from a digital capture (scan/photo) of the album/CD cover (creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party). Copyright held by the record company or the artist. Claimed as fair use regardless.

title: File:Layourbattleaxedown.jpg


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Karl

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Redirect. I've heard the term, and redirects are cheap. Golbez 08:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hot Karl
Basically this is a pile. Hot Carl has it right, but is itself a piece of sh*t. Denni ☯ 01:46, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
 * Merge with Ass to mouth. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mentioned once in a South Park episode. So what? -- BD2412 talk 03:11, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
 * Merge with Ass to mouth --Phantym 04:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect. -Sean Curtin 07:39, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge, South Park fans need an encyclopedia to answer their questions. Kappa 07:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * See Votes for deletion/South Park sex positions. Dunc|☺ 08:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Ass to mouth. -- Lochaber 09:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Information has been merged to Southpark episode guide Wikibofh 14:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, just reference the term in ATM.
 * Delete, another gem made up by Trey Parker.--EatAlbertaBeef 02:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Damn prudes deleting any pages they don't like. Wikipedia says that's bad policy to delete pages if you just don't like them!  Thodin 15:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see any prudish voting here.Tobycat 06:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeahwhatever. Bad physics is bad physics. Denni ☯ 01:35, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
 * Delete Yesterday I merged this (trivial at best) content into the South Park episode guide for the episode in which it originated. With the information now properly located in the episode guide, I believe it is appropriate to delete the stand-alone article on Hot Karl.  As a stand-alone concept it is nothing more than trivial South Park minutiae.  It needs the context of the episode guide article to be meaningful.Tobycat 06:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: an anon IP keeps on making a Hot Carl page which now is the second time I have asked for it to be speedied. Can someone help me watch this page to make sure these annoyances don't keep returning? Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not merge them all and them make it a redirect? That could solve it. Someone kept putting ASCII art of oral sex on that page a week before the votes.  Thodin 15:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, info merged already. Alphax τεχ 11:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drum wrench

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. mikka (t) 16:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Drum wrench
Delete... WikiDictionary at best. Totally non-notable and non-expandable topic. Most of the text discusses Operator Training and Safety 'stuff'. IMHO, this is a joke article, or possibly an Advert trying hard to present the last line with the phrase 'Man Tool'. In comparison see: http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=6970&productId=40554&R=40554 Fabartus 01:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep This article seems like it has potential to expand much further and improve.  тə zє ті  07:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Metropolitan90 17:18, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with drum, partially redundant. Radiant_ >|< 09:57, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I created this article to be the first in a series of articles about esoteric tools. There is still much more I could write about this tool, so it could be expanded. I am not trying to advertise for a product, and i guess you guys don't like the "man tool" business, but it is a correct slang version for a drum wrench. User:Garfield 686
 * Keep, real tool, better separate from drum. Kappa 12:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Kappa. One of a series of specialized wrenches. DialUp 13:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Radiant. --Xcali 15:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Modification: merge to Drum (container). --Xcali 19:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kappa. Its a wrench, not a drum. Don't merge. DS1953 17:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Drum (container) --Carnildo 21:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Drum (container) Shimmin 12:36, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Wrench. Manufacturers of these things have less information than this on their websites.  A lot of this article is nonsense; "Considered by many to be the standard in drum opening technology, the 168 is quality constructed in the USA and needs almost no service." how can a this wrench require service?  It has no moving parts! --Robojames 18:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Prejudicial Comment - The user "User:Garfield 686" is not a log in name. I'm inclusionist by nature, but the article has very little Fact and a lot of fluff. As I sit here, I have three drums less than 100 ft from me. The whole arty is nonsensical. If it were expandable, why has it not changed? Fabartus 23:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment-2 - Since nominating this article, I expanded the Drum (Container) by about eightfold. But it itself needs merged with 44 gallon drum (Brittish) or we should keep both since the idioms vary so much. I just added both links to the above as see alsos   [[User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 03:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple bong

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep as merge and redirect.

The destination of the merge is not so clear from the discussion below. Reviewing the article and the comments, I am going to be bold and make the merge into smoking pipe because there doesn't seem to be anything intrinsic to this design that limits it to drug paraphenalia. Rossami (talk) 22:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apple bong
Wikipedia is not a howto. Whig 01:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Expand apple bong's section in Bong and delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say Wikisource, but should we really be dispensing this at all? Merge non-how-to content with bong. -- BD2412 talk 03:20, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
 * Delete. Or add to WikiDrugDic! Fabartus 03:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. NeoJustin 04:28, June 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Smoking pipe, create redirect at Apple pipe, then delete Apple bong. This device is not a bong.    — Teknic T-M-C 04:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as outlined by Teknic. This is definitely not a bong.—chris.lawson (talk) 07:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Teknic. -- Lochaber 09:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with bong --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 10:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * weak merge No one should make one of these, but the concept is intresting/bizarre --The_stuart 14:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into relevant article. The apple smoking aperatus may not be truely considered a "bong". --Howrealisreal 18:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Apples are hard to light, and the genius of stoners is considerable. If we merge every hare brained toking system, this article will be several megs and have obscurred its information behind gleeful expositions of favorite things. Geogre 18:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into article about drug paraphenalia. These exist, but don't really deserve their own article.  Tombride 18:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into smoking pipe. Apples and other fruit are commonly used as an improvised pipe. The idea that it can't work or that it does not work well is simply incorrect. Additionally, it is not a bong by any definition. Triddle 00:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect -- and merge anything useful into bong. - Longhair | Talk 07:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * M/R to smoking pipe/bong. Alphax τεχ 11:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Talk:Ford small block engine

I believe the reason that the Ford 302 was called a 5.0 was to avoid confusion with the Ford pickup and truck 300 straight six that they called a 4.9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyderdavee (talk • contribs) 18:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Early connecting rod revision
The early design engines showed a weakness in the big end of the rod so Ford quit machining the lubrication squirt hole and revised the bolt clamping to solve the problem? This was not just isolated to the 351 (no 351s were made with the weaker type rods? due to that problem being solved earlier on?), where the rod revision is mentioned, but should be discussed earlier in the article in the appropriate chronological order of the engine's history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.212.177 (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Answer: No there was no weakness there due to the hole, just that it was found that there was enough oil inside the crankcase through what was coming out of the bearings etc to fully lubricate the pistons, rings and gudgeon pins etc. Any other changes would have been due to a developing fault history.

Boss 351 shouldn't be here, should it?
The Boss 351 has a very brief description saying it's a crate motor, and the link goes to an article about it that describes it as a Cleveland motor.

Since it is neither a production engine, nor, according to the link, a Windsor engine, shouldn't the whole Boss 351 section be removed?--King V (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Boss 302 claimed power potential?
I know the Boss 302 was a pretty impressive engine, but I question the validity of this statement: "Removal of the limiter could allow nearly 400 hp (298 kW) at 6500 rpm or more, but voided the Ford warranty."

So, only (supposedly) 310 horsepower at 6000 RPM, but 400 horsepower at only 500 RPM more, from 302 cubic inches, naturally aspirated, with 1960s technology, delivered to the consumer? This seems incredibly unlikely, even in the pre-1972 horsepower measurements. Cleveland heads are good, but not that good. Does anyone have any information to back this? I'm otherwise tempted to remove that sentence.--King V 15:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment on this, even if it is 2+ years later! ;-) The Cleveland heads weren't really very good by modern standards, however they were very good for high rpm on the tiny 302. These little engines liked to scream even with the SBF heads, which are considered downright horrible by modern standards. Anyway, my point is that you talk down to the old technology, but fail to remember that fast cars are NOT a new occurence. Not too very long ago, at least to someone my age, there were no aftermarket heads, roller rockers were not common, and EFI was non-existent... Yet there were some VERY fast cars! Surprise! Wheelstands and 10 second street cars didn't just appear with the advent of AFR heads and popularly available speed parts. Now, to your gripe about the fine points: Ford underrated it's performance engines during that era. Just as GM did the LSx engines until recently. So, the rated SAE power means nothing to what the engine was really doing 500 rpms beyond rating. So that fine point is probably unproveable and inaccurate. However it is probably wrong in the opposite direction that you assume, and surely at a higher RPM than claimed. Dave 65.0.158.174 (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

 * In which case you're doing a very bad job of comparing apples and oranges. If the 310 horsepower at 6000 RPM is official, but you're saying that 400 horsepower at 6500 RPM is probably real, but not officially stated, then the comparison is completely meaningless. I'm aware of what technology wasn't available at the time, but really, 10 second street cars?  Not from an as-delivered-by-the-factory engine to a customer in a dealer showroom.  This is an encyclopedia, and not really an appropriate place to speculate on what some engine or other might or might not have been doing.  Further, where, ANYWHERE, can you show an engine of any design, naturally aspirated, that produces at 29% increase in horsepower by increasing the RPM by only 8.3%?  What you appear to be suggesting is impossible.--King V (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitive cc size of 5.0?
I see both 4949 and 4942 cc listed for the "5.0" engine. Anyone have a definitive source? --SFoskett 01:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * The actually cc conversion of 302 cubic inches is equal to 4,948.89 cubic centimeters or 4949cc/4.95L rounded up.

 * 302 X 16.387064 = 4948.893328

 * A cubic centimeter = 1 milliliter = .001 Liter

 * Since the rules for rounding state that if the digit to the right of the number you want to round to in a fraction is a 5 6 7 8 or 9 you round UP. Thus 4.95 gets rounded up to 5.0 and not 4.9 as contended in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17:16, 2006 June 27 (talk • contribs) SternLX

 * There are two reasons your logic fails. Firstly, 4.948893328 would round down to 4.9.  Without that added intermediate rounding step to 4.95, even your own logic would conclude that it's 4.9L instead of 5.0L.  Why are you rounding 4.948893328 to 4.95 before applying the rounding rule you state in your last paragraph?  The digit to the right of the number you want to round to is clearly 4, not 5.

 * However, even that is irrelevant, because your basis for the math is incorrect. The 302 is not actually 302 cubic inches.  Displacement is (pi × r2 × h × cylinders), which becomes (pi × 4 × 3 × 8), thus pi × 96, thus 301.59289 cubic inches.

 * Using 16.387064 cc per cubic inch, we get 4942.222068 cc, which, if you were going to add that extra rounding step (going 3 places past the decimal to 2 past the decimal to 1, instead of doing a direct rounding), still comes to 4.9L.
 * --King V 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Acutally King V they DID do the math for 302 cid did they not? And yes to round correctly you start at the furthest digit out and keep rounding in. It's more accurate. And if you apply the rounding rules to 301.59289 you get.. oh look... 302. Please stop removing Displacement that actually exsists. 4.9 is as incorrect as 5.0. By the way, 4.9L = 299.01634609 cid or 2.5 cid less than actual. It would be more proper to call the 302 Windsor a 4.95L. SternLX 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 * No, you don't start at the furthest digit out and round them inward one at a time. Please see the rules of rounding, particularly the section titled "Rounding to the Nearest..." on this page.

 * Further, you don't round off cubic inches, then convert that rounded number to metric, then again round off the metric value. You take the original values, convert, then do your rounding at the very end.

 * I'm not "removing displacement that actually exists", but rather, applying the correct mathematical rules to rounding. Let's keep accuracy here in Wikipedia and leave the marketing gimmicks to the car companies.
 * --King V 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are we worried about the whole 301 vs 302 arguement? The engine isn't even a "Windsor"! Also, they aren't really "marketing gimmicks"... All auto companies regularly twist engine measurements and stats slightly to meet common sense needs that have nothing to do with sales. The group of "351" engines introduced by Ford in 1969-1970 is the perfect example. All 3 engines 351w, 351c, and 351m round out to 352 cubic inches. HOWEVER, think about it!!! In 1969 Ford dealers were still regularly servicing 352 cubic inch FEs! There may have even still been some under warranty at that time. They attempted to avoid confusion in their dealerships by rounding the new 352 cubic inch engine down to 351. No sales gimmick here. Then we all know they shot themselves in the foot by introducing 2 more 352s as 351s immediately following. So, they only cut the confusion from 4 different 352s, down to 3 different 352s... labeled as "351" engines. Anyway... let's get the SBFs out of "Windsor", and stop arguing about half a cubic inch or the 8CCs needed to make an acceptable 5.0 rating. 65.0.158.174 (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're about 2 years late to the party on this one. The argument was because the original poster was stating that the engine actually displaces 5.0 liters, where it doesn't.  Again, this is an encyclopedia, the goal here is accuracy.  Also, the Windsor vs. SBF issue is discussed further down on this page.--King V (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ford calls it a 5.0
This could go down below but it sort of goes along with this last posting above mine. About the 4.9L vs. 5.0L thing, why is it an argument as to what's technically correct when the company that made the engine typically referred to the engine as a 5.0L V8? Shouldn't that end the argument? Ford did put 5.0 badges on a number of Mustangs for a reason, right? I understand that 4.949 is not at least 5.000 but isn't it more important to refer to the engine as it is commonly known? Making a sidenote that the displacement is not technically 5.0 liters is fine, but when I see people on Wikipedia saying "Ford car X had the 4.9L V8" I think "what 4.9L V8?" When referring to the metric displacement of the Ford 302ci V8s, ANY of the car guys that I know call it "a 5.0" not "a 4.9". The engine may not technically be a 5.0 liter engine (as if 4.949 is so far off anyway), but that's how the engine was referred to historically and that's how it should continue to be referred to. I believe that referring to the engine as having a 5.0 liter displacement in articles should be standardized (or 302 cubic inches if the article prefers it, such as with older Fords before metric displacements were commonly used in marketing). Making a sidenote that the engine may technically have a 4.9 liter displacement is fine if it's relevant to say in the article. Otherwise, any inquiry to the true nature of the 5.0/302 V8 can be addressed by its main article here. Just my $0.02 (or £0.03 using another measurement ;P) --MN12Fan (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

 * No, Ford's marketeering and advertising does not end the question. This is an encyclopædia. We report engine displacements as they actually, physically are, with appropriate mathematical expression. We do not substitute fibs from any particular company's promotions-and-PR department for actual, real displacement. We have very good uniform provisions for the expression of engine displacement in all automotive articles on Wikipedia. In cases like this one, the 4.9-litre actual, 5.0-advertised discrepancy is cleanly and clearly handled by those provisions: the actual displacement is expressed, and the advertised displacement is treated as part of the engine's name (designation): The 302 cuin Ford Windsor 5.0 V8 engine. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Very well. I understand that when writing or ammending an article it is appropriate to refer to an engine in full detail, as you did with "302 cuin Ford Windsor 5.0 V8 engine", but what if you have to mention the engine multiple times in the same article. Is it fair to say "302 cuin Ford Windsor 5.0 V8 engine" initially and then informally refer to it as "5.0 L Windsor", "5.0 L V8", "302 Windsor" et cetera with each additional instance in the article? My point in all of this is to emphasize how the engine is commonly known without compromising the accuracy of the engine's description.--MN12Fan (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

 * That's a good and fair question. Probably best to pick one or the other: either refer only to the engine's actual displacement ("the 4.9 L V8") or, probably easier, refer only to the engine's numerical sales designation, without a litre unit abbreviation ("the 5.0 V8"). —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

 * After the initial 5.0 Windsor 4.9 L (4942 cc, 302 cu in), it would be fair to say "the 5.0 V8" or some variation without the litre abbreviation for most of the article. One may want to repeat the 5.0 Windsor 4.9 L (4942 cc, 302 cu in) a second time in the article if the context is right.  Oilpanhands (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Sounds good. Oh, and I like the subheading ;).--MN12Fan (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Sounds reasonable. The initial argument, by the way, was because someone objected to the fact that the article states that the engine actually displaces 4.9 liters, and appears to have thought that 4.9L was a misrepresentation of the engine's actual displacement.  Using 5.0 because that's the name of the engine is fine, but insisting that it actually displaces 5.0 Liters is problematic, for the reasons Scheinwerfermann stated above.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by King V (talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ford called it 5.0 to show it slightly larger than the 4.9 300 CI 6-cylinder, and due to the 5-Litre Trans-Am racing engine sizing - the same reason Chevrolet also made a 302 by installing a 283 crank in a 327 block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C5:C000:1941:B139:24B6:F14E:C554 (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

In 1968, nominal sizing was more likely 5.0L than 4.9L
Ford specified piston diameter of around 4.000-4.005", and then specified bore from that piston, so that the bore diameter could be anywhere from 4.0014" to 4.0078" and still be in specification. Average is 4.0045", which with a 3.0" nominal crankshaft stroke is 4953cc.

I do not have a source for the 1978 5.0L (or any other year).

Eljamoquio (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 * The published cc size of the 5.0, and by extension, the 302, is 4,942 cc. That's per Ford. Carguy1701 (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Firing order
Around 1985~1986, Ford changed the 302 to the 351W firing order, so it's important when changing camshafts to know the right firing order for the engine.

The FO for the 302 HO was actually changed a bit earlier. Around 1982 would be more accurate. Another thing you need to consider is that the firing order only changed on HO engines! Non-HO 302s/5.0s continued with the 'old' FO.

The 'new' FO relocated stresses on the crankshaft to spread the load out and effectively make the crank stronger. One could argueably put a 351w or HO cam in a 'regular' SBF and effectively make the engine stronger with only a cam swap.

Anyway, the 351w FO is only used on specific 302s built during the years in question. Not all.

A far more important tech item to know is that ALL SBFs changed flywheel/flexplate and dampner balance in 1982! The Windsor was NOT changed! Only the SBF balance. This tidbit will damage parts/engine if not addressed. The FO will only inconvienence on one occasion until a couple wires are swapped. Dave 65.0.158.174 (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Answer: There are two issues here. The 351ciW used a different firing order to move the acceptable noise (knock) from the front of the engine to the rear, that's the two adjacent firing front cylinders. The problem was there on the 289ci but it wasn't all that pronounced, it was on the 351ciW. The firing order reduced the problem to an acceptable level - was nothing to do with crankshaft stress or strength. Secondly, for the 1981 car model year (October 1980), Ford changed the crankshaft of the 302ci/5.0L to a lighter weight version and altered the amounts of external balance from 29 ounce-inch to 34 at the front and 50 at the rear. The crankshaft was termed the 'Unequal Balance' crankshaft. This was all to do with an engine lightening programme. The crankshaft assemblies do not inter-change.

 * AFAIK, when Ford changed to roller lifters in the 5.0, all 5.0 engines used the 351W firing order. Bizzybody (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Cam and fuel delivery
The steel roller cam was introduced in 1985, not 1986. It came for certain on the 5.0 HO engine in the Mustang. Not relavent to this page, but the rear end was still the old 7.5" which wasn't upgraded to the 8.8 until 1986. I'm not certain about other Ford models, but sequential EFI didn't get introduced to the Mustang until 1987.  I left that portion unchanged.
 * I was under the impression that both the regular 5.0 and the HO version got sequential EFI, at least in the cars (not trucks), from 1986 onward, and that the only difference between the 1986 5.0 HO and 1987 was the switch to the E7 heads. Don't hold me to this, though.--King V 15:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I was thinking of the prior year. It was sequential EFI in '86, but carbureted in 85 for manuals and CFI for the automatic. BTW the E7 heads you mentioned were the truck heads. 1986 was the attempt to used the "swirl" design that failed to acheive the power goals Ford wanted. They scrapped them and had to use the E7 since the '85 molds were gone.

Just a few notes worth mentioning...
This is very nicely written, but it has one major flaw; the 351W was the only one of the bunch that was actually a "Windsor", according to Ford. The others are, again, according to Ford, "Windsor style" engines.

Whether or not "all SBF blocks were superior in strength to most late model, lightweight castings" is debatable, but one thing that's not was one of Fords biggest weaknesses with their engines; not enough head bolts. Suggesting the Ford small block is stronger than other makes is misleading because they don't handle boost very well without modification. They blow head gaskets like no one else. Ford engines are not necessarily the best choice to modify, except of course for the 429/460, which can be bored and stroked to give more displacement than any other American production car engine (810ci).

As far as the displacement, the 5.0L is actually a 4.9L, when rounded properly, but Ford didn't want their V8 confused with their 4.9L inline six truck engine, so they called it a 5.0L.

Also worth mentioning is that as of 1988, the 5.0L block used in the trucks was the exact same one that was used in the Mustangs (it was a roller block), but it wasn't fitted with a roller cam until 1992. In other words, you aren't limited to Mustangs if you want a roller 5.0L engine.

Take care, -Chris

PKRWUD 09:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a few points:
 * 1 - Whether or not the head gaskets blow due to insufficient head bolts has nothing to do with the strength of the block itself. The block might well be capable of handling far more abuse than can ever be thrown at it in a practical sense because of the weakness of the head bolts (er, rather, insufficient numbers).  In essence, an analogy to what you're saying is "his arms aren't that strong because his legs are weak."
 * 2 - As to the 4.9L vs 5.0L designation, I hardly think anyone is going to confuse an inline six with a V8. I understood it to be a marketing issue more than anything else that made Ford decide to call it the 5.0.  That label simply sells better.  Don't hold me to that, though, because I can't for the life of me find the reference where that was mentioned.
 * 3 - Since the 351 didn't exist until after some of the smaller displacement Windsors did, then what did Ford call them? Isn't the only difference between the 351W and the other blocks simply a matter of deck-height?  Why would one be called a Windsor and not the other?
 * --King V 00:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply sooner. Time flies, and all that.

According to “The Official Ford Mustang 5.0 Technical Reference and Performance Handbook”, by Al Kirschenbaum, ''Conventions can be confusing. Enthusiasts typically refer to Ford’s popular V-8s by names that describe the combustion chamber/valve arrangement in the engine’s cylinder heads. In enthusiast parlance, Ford Windsor engines are V-8s built with inline valves, while Cleveland powerplants have staggered, compound-angle (canted) valves. Ford understandably prefers to apply the Windsor and Cleveland nomenclature to engines produced by those particular plants. According to the factory way of thinking, the Fox Mustang’s 5-liter V-8 was manufactured only by Ford’s Cleveland Engine Plant, so therefore it can not be a “Windsor V-8.” Enthusiasts see inline valves and know it can not be called a “Cleveland.” For this reason, this guide refers to the 5-liter V-8 only as a member of Ford’s small block V-8 family and not by its popular (but formally inappropriate) “Windsor” designation. The Ford FRPP catalog refers to the 289 and 302 V-8s as “Windsor-style” engines. This series of small blocks has also been referred to as Ford’s ‘90°V” powerplant family.''

''The 302 cubic-inch engine was first referred to by Ford as a “5.0-liter” V-8 (using metric rather than U.S. customary notation) when it was part of the 1978 Mustang II King Cobra package. Mathematically, the engine’s displacement actually measures closer to 4.9 liters than 5.0, but Ford understandably wanted to avoid confusion with the Cleveland Engine Plant’s other 4.9-liter engine, the dependable 300 cid inline-six.''

PKRWUD 23:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that's information I've been waiting to see for a long time. Thanks. Gzuckier 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Windsor" incorrectly used
Many people call almost all small block Ford engines, following the Y block series, "Windsor" engines. This is incorrect however. The one and only "Windsor" engine is the 351W engine. The reason for this is all of the other small block ford engines were built in the Cleveland pland, while the 351W was built in the Windsor plant. Hotrod2005 04:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Actually, that's not quite right, but you're on the right track. The 351W was the only "Windsor" engine, but it was not the only small block built at the Windsor Engine Plant Number Two. From 1980 through 1982, the 4.2L V8 was built there, and starting in 1994, the 5.0L truck engines were built there as well.
 * PKRWUD 01:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we correct this issue? Even the summary at the begining of this page says that the "Windsor" name "stuck" to all small block Fords. I am sorry, but I have been working on these things for several decades, and until the misinformation here, I have NEVER confused SBFs with any term like "Windsor". To Ford, serious hobbyists, and auto pros, the idea of a "Windsor family" of engines is grossly incorrect and ludicrous. How do we extracate the 221, 260, 289, and 302, aka (correctly I might add) as the "Small Block Ford" or "SBF" from this wiki page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.131.131 (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The 260/289/302 Fords are actually the "Fairlane" series according to literature from the 60s and 70s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.240.64.130 (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I will add to the coments that these are not Windsor engines. There is no windsor engine family within Ford. The engines were officaly called 90 Degree Small Blocks with in Ford Engineering and unoffically were called Ford Small Blocks. Calling the 302 and the other FSB's Windsors orginated with Hot Rod Magazine in the mid-late 1980's.

This artical is incorectly titled. The Term Windsor was applied to the small block 351 to differentiate it from the 351C (clevland) and the later the 351M (modified) a 400 with a 351W crank installed. Both the 351M and the 351C are 335 Series engines. The 351W belongs to the 90 degree Ford Small Block engine family.

This artical needs to have it's title corected. to 90 Degree Ford Small Blocks or Ford Small blocks. The Fairlane Series was a marketing lable and not the actual engines family name used internally — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.198.168 (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please correct this Windsor family BS! The 221,260,289.302,Boss 302 and 351W are the 90 degree engine family with the Windsor being the largest.Small block and big block are GM terms just like "posi" is.The Windsor was the last of the series so how can a 302 be a "Windsor type block"? Good job Ford Racing!

I was gonna say, last time I checked, Ford never called the small blocks 'Windsor' engines as a whole, just the 351W, again because the 351C came online for 1970; the Fox-body Mustang reference book by Al Kirschenbaum even mentions this. This article needs a retitle, I think Ford small-block engine works. Carguy1701 (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Dimensions?
Can someone come up with physical measurements of the blocks themselves? Height, weight, etc which would be especially useful to people looking to swap engines. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.237.107.17 (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

CLEANUP TO DO LIST
--Lendorien (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Article lacks any sort of sourcing. There are all sorts of technical specs with no sourcing as well as assertations of popularity and use that are not verified.
 * 2) Needs to be added to appropriate wikiprojects.
 * 3) Some sections need wikification.
 * 4) Tone is extremely techincal. Perhaps a better description needs to be added explaining what cars this engine was used in as well as the laymans view of pros and cons of the engine before rushing head on into the technical specs.

 * Lendorien, your list is a good start. The article contains a great deal of specificity — part numbers, even — but as you say, there's little verifiability from reliable sources. Much use is made of terms like "HiPO", but without any reliable or verifiable support for their applicability and accuracy.

 * In addition, the article does not comply with WP:NOT, in that it contains a lot of how-to and diagnostic type language (for example The tappets on the left bank are the farthest from the oil pump and are last to be pressurized by oil upon a dry start. This gives an impression that there is insufficient lubrication, but this is normal and the noise ceases after several seconds of operation and It is possible to machine the bolt holes to accept 11/32 inch rod bolts used in the pre-1968 Chevrolet small V8 engines (265, 283, 327)) and vague, unsupported, unencylopædic references to allegedly popular modifications such as During the 1990's, motor enthusiasts were modifying 351 Cleveland 2V cylinder heads (by re-routing cooland exit from the block surfaces to the intake manifold surfaces) for use in the 351W resulting in the Clevor (a portmanteau of Cleveland and Windsor). This modification requires the use of custom pistons. This sort of language might be at home on an enthusiast web page about the engine, but does not belong in an encyclopædia unless substantial, reliable, verifiable support can be provided.

 * It also contains a lot of personal essay text (e.g., Something worth noting was the fact that the Ford Engineers designed the Cleveland heads with the same bore spacing and head bolt configuration making it possible (with some light machine work) to bolt Cleveland heads to the Windsor block and it was dropped after the 1982 model year, and is considered one of the worst modern Ford engines). The phrase It is worth noting that or Something worth noting... or It should be noted... almost always means the following text is unsupportable POV personal essay.

 * Beyond that, there are more prosaic faults throughout the article, with text that is awkward and ambiguous due to poor grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, all of which fit within the cleanup rubric.

 * I partially agree with your objection that the article is too technical, in that per WP:NOT, this is not the place to list connecting rod part numbers, cylinder head casting numbers, and suchlike. However, an appropriate balance could surely be struck between elucidating the technical features and evolution of this family of engines without writing a parts or service manual, and giving more general historical information without overly watering down the subject matter. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of inaccuracies of note: 1) 255ci intake description completely inaccurate (carb studs are separate from mounting pad, otherwise looks much like any Windsor 2V manifold); and 2) 351W was used with VV carburetion through at least 1991 (in Crown Vics, anyway). Now, how to make these common-knowledge itmes "verifiable" .... Wst7902 (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding to the Confusion
This whole article needs major repair for the following reasons.

I my opinion, Australia has a lot to do with the misinformation & confusion, associated with the terms Windsor V8 & the 4.9 moniker.

Firstly for our American friends, I’ll give a brief history of these engines in Australia.

The first Small Block Ford V8s to be seen in our country were in the ‘Compact’ Fairlanes from 1962 to 1964. These were cars assembled here from Canadian-sourced CKD packs & featured the 260 ci & 289 ci versions, I don’t think we got the 221 ci V8 in Australia, but somebody more knowledgeable than I, may be able to correct me on this. The next versions we received were fitted to our locally built Falcons & Fairlanes in the 1966 & 1967 model years. These were 289 ci engines in both 2-barrel & 4-barrel versions. The 289 V8 was also seen in a small run of CKD Mustangs assembled here in at that time. For the 1968 model year we got the 302 (in 2 & 4 barrel). For 1969 we got the 302 (2-barrel), but now the 351 Windsor (4-barrel) was fitted as the performance engine. For 1970 (& 1971) the new Cleveland 351 replaced the 351W, while the 302 soldiered on. For 1972, Ford Australian began casting blocks & building the Cleveland style motor here.

Note: Australia did get the 221ci engine. Ford Australia didn't start casting Cleveland engine blocks until 1976, made heads but not blocks in 1971. Ford Australia did get 260ci 289ci engines as said but the numbers were low over all compared to what the Americans were doing with these engines.

To avoid the costly & confusing procedure of building one motor here (the 351C) & importing another (the 302 Small Block), they built 2 different sized versions of the Cleveland, a 351 & de-stroked 302, which was unique to Australia. The 302 ‘Cleveland’ used all the components from the 351C with the exception of new crankshaft & pistons to suit. Unlike the USA, where I believe the 351 Cleveland ceased production around 1973, our two Cleveland engines remained in production up to 1983 & were stockpiled & still seen in production F Series trucks until 1985/86.

Now we get to the crux of the issue. Because we had two different 302 V8s in the same era, we had to name them. The Cleveland already had a name but what about the Small Block ? Australia already knew a Small Block as the Chev V8, so we couldn’t use that name, so they erroneously called it the 302 Windsor because it shared many design characteristics with the real Windsor V8, the 351. The earlier engines (221 & 289) were also retrospectively (& incorrectly) named Windsor V8s. Since that time, all non-Cleveland Small Block Ford V8s in Australia have been called Windsors.

The 4.9/5.0 thing is another Australian initiative. When the 302 V8 was first seen in the 1968 Falcon, Ford badged it as the 5.0 V8. Earlier that same year, GM-Holden was selling the 307 Small Block Chev V8, badged as the 5 Litre V8, so Ford just followed suit. The metric system was soon to be introduced in Australia, so the auto companies were just getting trendy. Strangely enough, a year or two later both automakers reverted to imperial measure & the 302 was again called the 302. In the mid-70s the Government made metric measure compulsory, so Ford (& Holden) again badged their engines in litres. At that time Holden’s ‘performance’ V8 was the 308 ci unit, now badged as their 5.0 Litre V8. Ford had the 302 & 351, with the 351 as the ‘performance’ option. Ford’s 302 was down on power when compared with the Holden 308, so they badged the 302 as the 4.9 Lire V8 so as direct comparison was avoided & this stayed until it ceased production in 1983. The 351 was badged the 5.8 Litre V8 & it had no equal from GM-Holden at that time. So there you have it. The whole 4.9/5.0 naming debacle was caused by two separate branches of Ford (USA & Australia), doing different things at different times. (Terrybebb (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

Actually, the 302C and 351 used the same block and pistons. The crank and RODS were different to compensate. The heads on the 302 were closed chamber vs the 351 open chamber. The 302 was only available as 2v, until the XC Falcon era when the thermoquad carb became standard. This was also used on the 351 and listed as a 4v 351. This created another problem in that the 351 4V of the late 60's/early 70's which was a hipo engine is mistaken with the smog dead 351s of the 80's. Great marketing if you want to sell one. Unfortunately it dilutes the reputation of the early engines. We had the 4 bolt main engines as well which have been found in many 'normal' cars and trucks. Ford didn't seem to care what the y put them into. (Including one XC wagon 302 that had the 4 bolt engine from factory. Odd!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.80.76 (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ford Motorsport parts.
Among the many parts Ford offered through their Motorsport catalog were roller camshaft bearings. For the FE series, they were direct replacements for the standard plain bearings. For the Windsor engines the cam bore had to be enlarged. A hard steel camshaft was also required as the hard needle bearings would quickly wear an iron camshaft. Provision for getting pressurized oil past the splash lubricated roller cam bearings was left to the installer. Bizzybody (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Heads and pistons.
In the 302 as used in the Mustang II, Ford used two different combustion chamber sizes and two different styles of piston. 1975 and 1976 used dish top pistons and a smaller combustion chamber size, but not as small as some earlier SBF heads. For 1977 and 1978 the pistons were switched to flat top (as used in some 1960's SBF engines) and the combustion chamber size was increased to keep the compression ratio down, but IIRC slightly higher than the prior two years. All the heads had Thermactor AIR passages and bumps in the exhaust ports, with the air supply being fed in via a pipe to ports in the back ends of the heads. To keep side to side interchangeability, the AIR ports were threaded and closed end threaded inserts were used for accessory mounting at the front ends. (Someone should get a side by side image comparing AIR heads to ones without that.) That's how it was in the Mustang II, dunno if Ford used the same heads and pistons on the 302 in other vehicles those four years. Makes for an easy power boost by swapping 1975-76 heads onto a 1977-78 302. Bizzybody (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Change the page name to Small Block Ford?
I noticed that Wikipedia does not have a page on the Small Block Ford (SBF). Today I set the page up, as a simple redirect to this page (Ford Windsor engine). However, in my opinion, I would like to rename this page as "Small Block Ford", and set up individual pages for each motor considered a SBF, such as pages for "289 Hi-Po" (and I'm surprised that Wikipedia does not have a separate page for it) the iconic 5.0L motor (yes, it's different from a 302 in my book, but that's another discussion). Thus, this page would then be an "umbrella" or "top-level" page with links to each individual engine: Ford 289 engine, Ford 289 'Hi-Po' engine, Ford 302 'BOSS' engine, Ford 5.0L engine, Ford 351W engine, and so-on. Per WP:SIZE, if we don't do this, including every single SBF motor here with all details will make the article way too long.

Before any of that though, there are some problems with the current way the page is, in that:
 * In the Ford Racing catalogs, the motors covered by the present article are listed as "Small Block V-8 Engines",
 * Ford itself does not use the term "Windsor" except when referring to the 351W; in the catalog it explicitly states under the entry "351W (Windsor)" -but not any other motor- "The Windsor engine plant builds this engine; hence the name", and
 * Ford includes the "351C, 351M, and 400" in the SBF category, but it does not use the term "Ford 335 engine family" anywhere I can see. However, other sources I've come across leave the "Cleveland" family out of the SBF by reasoning that it's "mid-sized", or just that it's a different design.
 * Using the term "Windsor" to identify 289s, 302s, etc. started in the automotive magazine and aftermarket parts press as a way to "group" these motors together, as Ford does not have a common name for these motors with the same bore spacing, same block design, same cylinder head design, etc. with only bore diameter, rod length, and crankshaft diameter being the few differences among the motors themselves.

I want to edit the page to take all of this into consideration, and I want to make this article clear, concise, and encyclopedic (something which it currently needs lots of work on), but first we must decide whether to leave the page title as "Ford Windsor engine" and all the problems that brings, or to rename it as "Small block Ford" or "Small Block Ford" (my choice), "Ford 289-302-351W engine family" or whatever you suggest.

Please let me know your comments, concerns, and ideas (especially about re-naming the article). MarkGT (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

 * As of March 2014, Ford Racing and Performance Parts refers to their 302 and 351 crate engines as "Windsor-style", so I think it's fair to say that regardless of how or when the term originated, Ford themselves have accepted it as common usage. See info text here:  Mr Wednesday (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ford Performance currently does not refer to these engines as "Windsor Style Engines" All the 302 and 351W based blocks are listed as Engine Type: XXX(displacement) based small block Ford. Source 2016 Ford performance catalogue Pg's 154-156 This page needs it title changed to Small Block Ford. There never was and never has been a Windsor family of Ford engines, the page title is factually incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F705:7800:5416:11BB:DAE5:DC09 (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Per the discussion(s) above, as well as my own knowledge, I moved the page to Ford small block engine; figured it was time to correct this mistake. Carguy1701 (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

289 K-Code in the Mercury Comet
The section on the K-code HiPo engine claims that Mercury Comets with the K-code actually came with the lower-performance 4V version of the engine. However, the reference that I have for Comet VINs shows both the D-code (lower-performance 4V) and the K-code. The suggestion that Ford would mix engine codes like that seems a little dubious; is there a reference for it? This is why I put a cite-needed tag on that statement. It seemed definite enough that I'm reticent to delete it, but it's not consistent with the limited info I've found. --Mr Wednesday (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Doing some of my own research, HowStuffWorks has an article claiming that the deviation on the Comet K-code was actually putting a 260 in the car! I don't think that's substantiated anywhere else.  I have forum posts claiming that Mercury originally intended to use the HiPo and got shot down by Ford, and, even more interestingly, that the very few that were made used the "D" engine code, while the "K" code was equivalent to a Mustang "D" code but with a different carburetor.  I don't think either counts for a valid source, but it's interesting info nonetheless.    The latter thread had images of brochures at one point, but they're gone now. --Mr Wednesday (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of "fuel injection replacing carburetor for the 302 engine"
In the 302 section it says that the first Ford product with the fuel-injected version of this engine was the 1980 Lincoln Continental and in 1983 it was offered for all other applications, except for the Ford Mustang and Mercury Capri. There are two key pieces of information missing from that section; 1) The Mercury Colony Park with this engine received fuel injection in 1981 (consistent with the "Mercury Colony Park" article) and 2) The Ford trucks with this engine didn't get fuel injection until 1985, and that information is consistent with Ford F-Series and Ford Bronco. Should there be any mentioning of all this in that section? Why or why not?--Kevjgav (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Australian "Windsor" V8
Someone (more dedicated and knowledgeable than me :)) needs to account for the Australian versions by Tickford Vehicle Engineering especially, which were hand-built and the most powerful naturally-aspirated versions of this engine. In fact, it was even renamed "Synergy 5000" in 220kW tune. To assist, it was fitted on the Ford Falcon (Australia) up to 2002. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford Windsor engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050518000641/http://www.fordclassics.com/enginespecs.html to http://www.fordclassics.com/enginespecs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

335 CID?
I see in the Specs a 335 cubic inch engine listed with a 3.90 bore and 3.51 stroke…It isn’t anywhere else in the page…and Likewise I have never heard of such of production engine. Can someone look into this? I think it was info from an earlier incorrect edit and was missed… BIGTAZ351W (talk)BIGTAZ351W —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the 5.0 Mustang Technical Reference and Performance Handbook, it was a Mexican-market engine, basically a de-bored 351W, and only available in trucks. Carguy1701 (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

4-valve heads
Maybe I just haven't done enough reading, but I've never heard of Ford truck division commissioning the study of 4V heads of the small block. My understanding has been that, by that point, it had been decided that the Modular V8 would be the go-to engine architecture for all new products going forward for the 90s, and that there wouldn't be any further development of the existing OHV V8 architectures beyond what had already been approved (such as the SN95 Mustang) and what was necessary for emissions compliance. Has anyone else heard anything about this? It really sounds like some fanboy dreaming, or a clever troll. Carguy1701 (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

750 hp
Recently change the infobox max power figure to 750 hp and  reverted him. I too was sceptical but a search for "750" in the article found it in the 427 Aluminum Block section. Is the 427 engine really that powerful? Is it a Ford factory engine or a tuner engine by Saleen? Either the max power figure of 750 hp should be re-instated or the 427 section should be fixed/removed.  Stepho  talk 09:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the Saleen S7 article, "The all-aluminium engine is a proprietary unit developed and built in house, it is a bored-and-stroked derivative of Ford's 351 Windsor small block architecture with Cleveland-style canted valve heads which have been extensively reworked and modified." This sounds like a tuner engine that Ford had nothing to do with. That would suggest to me that the section should be removed entirely - aftermarket builds are not pertinent to the articles for the production engines they're based on, in my opinion. If the vehicle they were installed in is notable enough for an article, the engine can be covered there. --Sable232 (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the S7 engine was a development of the engine Ford was running in NASCAR at the time (if I remember the C/D test correctly), which was/is an amalgam of small-block and 335-series dimensions and design (small block bottom-end and block and 335/Cleveland heads). I don't know if it'd notable enough for one or the other, honestly. Carguy1701 (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that I'm not entirely sure who was responsible for assembly; I'm guessing that was Saleen themselves. If true, I'd say that yeah, it probably should be restricted to the S7 article itself. Carguy1701 (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Cleveland 335 heads shouldn't be a problem - the Boss 302 Windsor also used Cleveland heads. As pointed out, it really depends on where they were assembled. Since the Saleen article says they were assembled by Saleen then they are tuner engines and should be moved to the Saleen article.  Stepho  talk 22:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 427 section has been deleted. Carguy1701 (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  Stepho  talk 15:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Manufacturing locations for 302
The section for the 302 says that it was built at Windsor engine from 1968 to 1978, but the next sentence in that section says that manufacturing was moved to Cleveland in 1970. Which is correct? It wouldn't surprise me if both plants were churning out the same engine for different models, but some clarification might be in order, if only because Windsor Engine is more commonly associated with the 351 cubic inch engine that was built there from 1969 to 1996. I'll add that according to the 5.0 Mustang Handbook, Windsor Engine #2 started cranking out truck-spec 5.0s after the 4.2L that had been built there was dropped. Carguy1701 (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ford small block engine


text:
Talk:Mariko Yoshida

Untitled
Sources:      — Gwalla | Talk 01:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mariko Yoshida


text:
Talk:Routh–Hurwitz stability criterion

i threw together this page really quick, but i didn't have the time (nor do i know enough of the specifics) to flesh it out right now. any help would be appreciated.--Whiteknight 01:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Table Method
I've added a table method for higher order polynomials. This method was taught to me as part of my Control and Mechatronics course and referred to as the "Routh-Hurwitz Method". Looking on Wikipedia, I couldn't find a mention of it so I've placed it here. If somebody could clarify if this is the true name, then make the required changes (also the page mentions the Jury Test, but theres nothing here.

Also could someone wikify the table?

And $$D(s)=a_ns^n+a_{n-1}s^{n-1}+...+a_1s+a_0$$ is a latex bug (the '-' shouldn't be there)?

 * It was taught (and I use that term loosly...) as "Routh-Hurwitz tabulation" in my Control course. 122.49.140.246 12:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem with the table given for the example. It should read:

[  1,   2,   3] [   4,   5,   6] [ 3/4, 3/2,   0] [  -3,   6,   0] [   3,   0,   0] [   6,   0,   0]

 * fixed now, 122.49.140.246 12:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is Hurwitz's original publication http://www.gdz-cms.de/index.php?id=img&no_cache=1&IDDOC=36175&IDDOC=36175&branch=&L=1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.62.174 (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Appendix A
Appendix A seems to proof "f is stable" from the assumption "f is stable". Seems like a useless statement. Or am I missing the point here?

Haha I don't know what point he is trying to make either. If q = 0, then 2q = 0...Are they joking? I reckon delete too. Jez 006 (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Fourth-order polynomials
For the criteria for a fourth-order polynomial $$a_4 s^4+a_3 s^3+a_2 s^2+a_1 s+a_0$$, the page stated that all coefficients be positive, that $$a_3 a_2>a_4 a_1$$, and that $$a_3 a_2 a_1>a_4 a_1^2 + a_0 a_3^2$$; but all coefficients being positive and $$a_3 a_2 a_1>a_4 a_1^2 + a_0 a_3^2$$ automatically imply that $$a_3 a_2>a_4 a_1 + \frac {a_0 a_3^2} {a_1}$$, so the criterion that $$a_3 a_2>a_4 a_1$$ is redundant. Am I making any mistake, or is there really redundancy in the page? Thanks! --131.111.5.177 (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

 * The element for s^4 is now just one so that we do not care that a_4 must be positive and could remove one of the elements. You are mistaken: the bigger statements imply that all elements are positive, okay? Certainly, the smaller creterion is redundent, sure, if we now assume all are positive, as required for any degree polinomial. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

2nd, 3rd, and 4th degree polynomials
The section Routh-Hurwitz stability criterion, which was added in 2011 by a single-edit contributor, cannot be right as stated, because the number of conditions is supposed to equal the degree rather than exceed it. I'm going to correct it in the 2nd and 3rd degree cases. Could someone who knows the 4th degree case check it? Loraof (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Seeing no response, I'm going to delete the 4th degree case. Loraof (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What? This is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eZVMftq94w or this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWb9sq35cNk, number of conditons is at least the degree, because all coeff. must be positive, see Lienard-Chipart! Wow. Yes, of curse technically, some of those coeff. > 0 are written inside the bigger statements, and the moment we understand they just be all postive, those are no longer independent. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Routh–Hurwitz stability criterion