Jump to content

Talk:Gasoline/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Gasoline versus Petrol

The term petrol is not the name of the substance, but actually a genericized term. If you look up the history of the Petrol company in Britain, you will see this to be true.

Gasoline is the name of the substance. Petrol was the name of a service station company in Britain, and people there would say that they were going to get some Petrol, in reference to visiting the filling station. Over time, the name Petrol became a genericized term in Britain and Commonwealth countries who Britain had influence over. This doesn't change the fact that the name of the product itself is gasoline, any more than a portable music player is a Walkman or iPod, nasal tissue is Kleenex, or window cleaner is Windex. They are all brand names and shouldn't be used as the primary name, regardless of the common usage. It should be mentioned in the article, but with the notation that the name is a genericized term, and not the name of the actual product itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.194.236 (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Gasoline" is not the name of the substance. Petrol is the name of the substance. That is the British term, and hence the standard. It has nothing to do with any service company. Get over the fact that you're wrong. Morganson691 (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A very pedantic post. I do wonder what you make of people who call the stuff simply "gas". HiLo48 (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and where did the Petrol company of Britain get its name? HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I read that it is derived from "petroleum spirit". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Correct: the term 'petrol' is a shortening of 'petroleum spirit' (what you get if you distil petroleum). MrDemeanour (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah. "“Petroleum” includes crude petroleum, oil made from petroleum, or from coal, shale, peat or other bituminous substances, and other products of petroleum:
[F11“Petroleum-spirit” means petroleum which, when tested in accordance with Part A.9. of the Annex to the Directive, has a flash point (as defined in that Part) of less than 21°C


This discussion seems to be missing some points..

The article is labelled as being 'Gasoline'. The justification for this seems to be explained in the etymology section. However, The statements made aren't backed by sources.

Petrol -

Variant spellings of "petrol" have been used to refer to raw petroleum since the 16th century.[32] "Petrol" was first used as the name of a refined petroleum product around 1870 by British wholesaler Carless, Capel & Leonard, who marketed it as a solvent.[33] When the product later found a new use as a motor fuel, Frederick Simms, an associate of Gottlieb Daimler, suggested to Carless that they register the trade mark "Petrol",[34] but by this time the word was already in general use, possibly inspired by the French pétrole,[32] and the registration was not allowed. Carless registered a number of alternative names for the product, while their competitors used the term "motor spirit" until the 1930s.[35][36]

This reads as suggesting the origin of petrol is vague, dismissing it as confusing (i.e. any petroleum has been called such for centuries), and 'possibly inspired' by a French word. Both these points refer to a single source, the Oxford English Dictionary. Here's what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say (source direct from their website):

Definition of petrol
noun
1a light fuel oil that is obtained by distilling petroleum and used in internal-combustion engines
2 (also petrol blue) a shade of greenish or greyish blue.
Origin
late 19th century: from French pétrole, from medieval Latin petroleum (see petroleum)

So, no doubt about the origin then.. no mention of it's general use since the 16th century either.

As to Gasoline?

"Gasoline" is cited (under the spelling "gasolene") from 1863 in the Oxford English Dictionary. It was never a trademark, although it may have been derived from older trademarks such as "Cazeline" and "Gazeline".[32]

Same source - the OED. Which says -

Definition of gasoline
noun
North American term for petrol.
Origin
mid 19th century: from gas + -ol + -ine4 (or -ene)

Which says.. none of the 'facts' stated are sourced. :(

Thoughts? Bertcocaine (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"Petroleum" of course means something like "rock oil" or "rock stuff" from the ancient classical root that also calls rock carvings "petroglyphs".I think it's Greek. But I have no objection to the term "gasoline" until it gets abbreviated to "gas".72.66.49.107 (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 (UK) MrDemeanour (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

information Note: Before getting into this you should read the extensive discussions contained in the archive link at the top of this talk page. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed (though I'll likely regret it) it should be petrol. For such a globally-important substance it seems absurd to insist on the article retaining North American usage. GoldenRing (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
OH MY FUCKING GAWD. this fucking argument has been done to death, there's already been a ridiculously drawn-out edit war, and it's been decided that the pages name will remain "Gasoline", get over it and move on with your fucking life. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that's a convincing argument. HiLo48 (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


Yeah, you're right that was a bit immature, kind of like starting another edit war over bullshit.

Bumblebritches57 (talk) 07:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Production

Nowhere is mentioned it can be produced from natural gas, see Gas_to_liquids Add in article KVDP (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

An oil?

The lead sentence currently reads

Gasoline ... is a transparent, petroleum-derived oil ....

Gasoline is an oil? It's not very oily. I'd call it a "mineral spirit", maybe, if I had to qualify it in that sense. How about replacing "petroleum-derived oil" with "petroleum fraction"? That seems both more accurate and more informative. --Trovatore (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the potential problem with "petroleum fraction" is that, while raw gasoline is a petroleum fraction, it's not clear that the stuff you put in your car is; a lot is done to it post-distillation. For now I've changed to the non-committal "liquid", which is pretty hard to argue with. I really think "oil" was sub-optimal -- I did a little web search, and it appears that the viscosity of gasoline is actually less than that of water. --Trovatore (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Needs an other applications section

It's not just a fuel, it has other applications such as being used as a solvent or as the primary ingredient in napalm. I'm sure there are other uses as well. ScienceApe (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Second paragraph needs cleanup

The second paragraph reads like a disorganized list of facts. 108.184.7.20 (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Long-term storage of gasoline?

[ removed non-editorial question ]

Hi User:DMahalko. Per the talk page guidelines, the talk page is supposed to be used to discuss improvements to the article, not for asking questions about the subject matter. Please feel free to ask this question at WP:RD/Science. You don't have to re-type it -- just go to the history tab, bring up the version that had your question, and copy-paste it. --Trovatore (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

BTU/gal

The BTU/gal values for Autogas seem extremely off --AkariAkaori (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The mason jar image

Recently, there has been a very strange sequence of edits revolving around the image of gasoline in a mason jar. One editor was apparently shocked by it and added a sort of "don't try this at home" disclaimer with an edit summary about how we shouldn't be teaching people to make Molotov cocktails.

My personal view is that idiots will be idiots, and that it is fairly pointless to call out everything they could possibly be idiots about with disclaimers. The point of the image is simply to illustrate gasoline, not to say that mason jars are a good receptacle for the stuff. However, it's not clear that it's a very good illustration (who knows what the liquid in the jar is? there's nothing you can see that distinguishes it from any other clear liquid of similar refractive index, and even the color is obscured by the color of the glass). So maybe the best solution is to find a different image — maybe an industry worker taking a sample from a refinery or something, if such an image can be found. In the meantime I would rather have no image than one whose caption goes off on a silly legal tangent that has nothing to do with the image's purpose. --Trovatore (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the image. It contributes little with or without the warning. Sandcherry (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Still, it would be nice to have an image that actually shows gasoline, not just retailers and such. --Trovatore (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Huffing

Does huffing/inhaling gasoline as an intoxicant really rate third-paragraph prominence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnazola (talk • contribs) 15:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Addressed

Factuous (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

translucent?

The opening sentence, as of today, describes gasoline as a "translucent, petroleum-derived liquid".

Now, it's true that taken literally, translucent just means that it allows light through, which is true. But it usually also suggests that it's not transparent, because otherwise, why wouldn't you just say transparent?

I'm going to change it to "transparent". A better word might be "clear", except some people take clear to imply colorless (they shouldn't, really, but sometimes they do). --Trovatore (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Undyed, the liquid is clear.27.33.81.78 (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Picture of gasoline

Should we add a picture of actual Gasoline to the article? For example:

gasoline in a jar

—andrybak (talk) 22:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

If you in the archives, you can see that there was a bit of a fuss over this picture. It was actually in the article for a long time.
But some editors were concerned that it wasn't a safe way of handling gasoline, and started adding distracting disclaimers to the caption. I thought that was frankly a little silly, but I guess I can understand how a certain sort of cautious mind would be concerned. Anyway I thought the picture didn't add enough to the article to be worth the disclaimers. It doesn't look that different from, say, water, in the same jar. So I just removed the picture to cut the Gordian knot.
I agree that it would be nice to find a picture of actual gasoline, ideally one that doesn't trigger this reaction from sensitive editors. My ideal picture would be something like a worker taking a sample from a large tank, where you can see the color of the gasoline through the glass of the graduated cylinder or something. I don't know where to find it, though. --Trovatore (talk) 23:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

American Bias

It is incredible that there are people justifying the use of "gasoline" based on google searches. It cannot be refuted that "Petrol" is used by many, many more people around the world than gasoline. Hiding behind some BE v. AE rules of Wikipedia is cowardice and the Gasoline page ought to be called Petrol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uday911 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 25 July 2015‎

Those are the rules. Like it or lump it. Or you could try to get them changed. You won't succeed, of course, and a good thing too.
As for your factual claim about the number of users, can you prove that? Are you aware that Americans make up roughly 2/3 of the world's native English speakers (and when you add in Canada it's even higher)? Of course that's just first-language speakers; when you throw in second-language speakers the picture is more muddled, but how often are they saying "petrol/gasoline" versus whatever it's called in their own language? --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Say, what do you mean by "people are justifying it based on Google searches"? Google Trends says that petrol is a considerably more popular term than gasoline: https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=gasoline%2C%20petrol. 167.220.196.143 (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Due to the American origin of Wikipedia, of course most articles have been started using American aberrational terms. This isn't a good reason to keep articles under names which are only used by a small minority of the English-speaking world, regardless of their over-representation on the internet. English is an international language, with indigenous and second-language speakers all over the world. One group cannot dictate its unusual terms for universal objects and concepts based on the petty rule of "I called it first".

--151.225.64.63 (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC) (A first-language English speaker)

Sounds good to me. But I sure am glad that I don't go around hoovering things that could just as easily be vacuumed with an Electrolux, Eureka, Bissel, a Kirby, or a Shop Vac. I would feel a bit foolish if I did!! And it sure makes me feel better to use I put a percent sign on a percentage instead of "pc" abutted to the numeral. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
No, it should be at gasoline, because nearly all English-speaking people, regardless of where they are, understand what "gasoline" is. No English speaker from the USA who hasn't been exposed to a lot of Commonwealth English knows what "petrol" is. It's the same reason why the page for a large cargo transport vehicle is at "truck" instead of "lorry," and why the page for the season that comes after summer is at "autumn" rather than "fall." If there are two competing words for the same thing, use the one that's understood by everyone. Most Americans don't know what petrol and lorries are, and English-speaking people outside the Americas haven't called autumn "fall" since the 17th century. Jsc1973 (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Gasoline origins is a brand of petrol. It is like calling all pens Bics. Stop it. It is Petrol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.201.51 (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
So it's a genericized brand name. Wikipedia has an article about Aspirin too, but that used to be a brand name of the Bayer corporation. Does that justify moving that article to Acetylsalicylic acid instead? ihatefile007 (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

They are both trade names no longer in use. Petroleum Spirit (English, Iraqi Petroleum Co?) and Gasoline (US, Getty Oil?). White spirit was an early generic name, before its use in cars. Benzene was a common term for it before tetra ethyl lead.27.33.81.78 (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

If nobody outside the US calls it "gasoline" then it's silly to call the page "gasoline". HTH. - 124.168.79.42 (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not true that nobody outside the US calls it gasoline. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
BTDT. Please all exhaust yourselves arguing about this. When fully exhausted, read Talk:Gasoline/Archive_2#Article_name. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Gasoline. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Gasoline. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gasoline. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gasoline. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Colloquial?

"In many countries, gasoline has a colloquial name derived from that of the chemical benzene ... " Really? Benzene is THE PROPER name of the chemical. IE: it is the literal and most formal scientific name. Avoids all misunderstanding. Nothing 'colloquial' about it. As against all other meaningless and confusing misnomers used in the English speaking countries that ARE colloquial. The sentence should read something like: Many countries use the proper chemical name 'benzene' - spelt to the requirements of the language - ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 08:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Certainly "benzene" is the correct formal name of the chemical benzene, but it is not the correct formal name of gasoline, which is what the sentence is trying to express.
Maybe I see what you're driving at — are you trying to expand the sentence as gasoline has a colloquial name derived from the colloquial name of the chemical benzene? I suppose that's a possible reading, clearly not intended; maybe we could reword to avoid it. Suggestions? --Trovatore (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The lead is very badly worded

the lead states 'Gasoline (American English), or petrol (British English)'... there is Gasoline(informally called Gas) and Petroleum(informally called Petrol) Shouldn't the lead either use the formal form for both american and british english or the informal form for both. Why does it mix the shortened form of Petrol with the full form of Gas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

"Petroleum" is not the formal form of "petrol". Petroleum is crude oil, as it comes out of the ground. --Trovatore (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Why no image of gasoline?

Shouldn't there be an image showing what gasoline looks like? --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 16:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

There used to be an image of gasoline sitting open in a mason jar. If you look through the archives you'll see discussions about it.
Basically a few editors were upset that it wasn't a safe way of storing gasoline, and they kept trying to put distracting disclaimers on the caption. I didn't think the image was worth the trouble and I just removed it.
It wasn't really a very good image, because the glass was green and you couldn't distinguish the color of the gasoline from the color of the glass. It could have been almost any colorless liquid in a green mason jar.
I personally wouldn't mind having the image restored as long as there are no silly and tangential disclaimers. But even better would be to find a better image (ideally of course without trying something at home that's going to start a fire). If you know where to find one with an acceptable license, that would be super. I envision something like a refinery worker taking a sample from a tank in a graduated cylinder. --Trovatore (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I see having an image of a mostly colorless liquid as kind of pointless, if you describe its appearance readers should have no problem visualising it. However if a photo is needed this one would be good. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Assumption of Familiarity

This article assumes that, because gasoline is so common, people actually know what it looks at smells like. Consider improving the physical and chemical properties sections by adding a scientifically informed comment about its appearance, smell, and taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.135.150 (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Toxicity

Swallowing gasoline with no ill effects is inconsistent with published literature. Sandcherry (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Changed wording to "doesn't generally require special emergency treatment". Of course it would still be unhealthy, as mentioned elsewhere in the article. Benjamin (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think healthline.com is a very high quality source. It appears to be a commercial website, rather than a scholarly one, and looking around the site, several of the other headlines look kinda like clickbait headlines. Benjamin (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Vapor Lock

The techniques and technologies described for preventing evaporative emissions and vapor lock in automobiles are terribly obsolete. The conversion to electronic fuel injection and pressurized fuel-rail delivery was largely complete more than 20 years ago and vehicles without fuel injection are now reasonably considered antique. The paragraph needs a total rewrite to be current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcampbell (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2 October 2012

Autogas

Hi. The following is contradictory and I have taken it out of the article until it can be clarified.

The first sentence says that autogas refers to gasoline, while the next sentence says it refers to LPG. Which is it?

"The terms "mogas", short for motor gasoline, or "autogas", short for automobile gasoline, are used to distinguish automobile fuel from aviation fuel, or "avgas".[1][2][3] When used with reference to cars, Autogas refers to LPG."

References

  1. ^ Federal Aviation Administration (5 April 2000). "Revised Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) Number CE-00-19R1". Archived from the original on 12 October 2006. Retrieved 28 October 2006. The FAA highly recommends installing placards stating the use of 82UL is or is not approved on those airplanes that specify unleaded autogas as an approved fuel.
  2. ^ Pew, Glenn (November 2007). "Avgas: Group Asks EPA To Get The Lead Out". Retrieved 18 February 2008.
  3. ^ [1], Mogas, Alcohol Blend, Octane, Aviation Fuels and Specifications

Stability and ethanol

The "Stability" section says: "Gasoline containing ethanol is especially subject to absorbing atmospheric moisture" but the Dry gas article says "The belief that dry gas is not needed because of the significant amount of ethanol is largely true because ethanol is a drying agent." Neither sentence is attributed, but I do not think both can be true. Thoughts? 45.46.252.14 (talk)

Edit conflict: Environmental effects of gasoline

So I read a part of this article and realized it had some presuppositions and had some text was very opinionated toward gasoline being destructive to the global environment. This particular sentence pretty much sums it up:

"Gasoline used in internal combustion engines has a significant effect on the environment, both in local effects (e.g., smog) and in global effects (e.g., effect on the climate)"

What is even more disturbing is the fact that they used a strong term "significant" which lacked clarification. Seeing that such views were a matter of controversy, I had decided to lessen this article's polarization by changing that sentence into something more or less like this:

"Although gasoline used in internal combustion engines can have significant effects on the local environment(e.g, smog), significant global effects(e.g, climate change), are speculated."

And significant global effects are speculated.

Four or five times, somebody would revert the article and then I would change it again. Finally, someone else somehow managed to force his opinion, and now whenever I try to edit, I get a page that says the page needs to have a "neutral point of view." But the original page was anything but neutral. It had unverifiable facts and no significant data to support them. I will not agree with you that my text was biased, but the least we can do to help Wikipedia and its reputation is reach some sort of a compromise. Perhaps this is neutral enough for Wikipedia:

"Gasoline used in internal combustion engines can have significant effects on the local environment(e.g, smog), and significant global effects(e.g, climate change), are speculated." ReeceTheBeast15 (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Not speculated. See Global warming#Greenhouse gases. HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the green house effect and global warming are both very real, but gasoline's contribution to them might only be negligible. Thus saying specifically that gasoline's global effects are significant is by no means a neutral point of view. Yes, minor global effects are not speculated. But significant global effects are. There really isn't enough data for either side to prove themselves, so all we can really do is look at the cold facts regarding what is actually happening. This could just be a normal temperature oscillation produced from a healthy natural balance. So maybe it would be all right to say "gasoline used in internal combustion engines can have significant local effects, and is a major contributor to global CO2 emissions." Because it is said constitute around 20%-50% of yearly human emissions.

If, by a natural mechanism, the stark population growth rate differences of CO2 producers and consumers can be compensated for, then the same could just as easily be done for nonliving CO2 producers. So really, this biased statement in this article is just another reason people are questioning Wikipedia's authenticity. ReeceTheBeast15 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"There really isn't enough data..." Yes there is, and I really can't be bothered with you any more. This science is settled. It was settled for me 40 years ago. HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Better Opening Picture?

The article is about the substance of gasoline, as we all know. This is more of a nitpick than anything, but could somebody find a better picture to reflect such? A picture of a tank of gasoline, the molecule of gasoline, or an infobox on the topic would work more wonders than just a Shell gas station, which is currently the preview picture for the article. It isn't too big of a deal, which is why I'm not looking for one desperately, and I'm not saying that a gas station picture isn't warranted. Just... it should probably go later in the article if it will be present. There are better images to use as a lead off than the place that sells the topic of the article. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

We can't do the molecule because it does not exist, gasoline is a blend of many molecules. Toasted Meter (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
You're right, not sure where I was going with that example. Still though, a tank of gasoline would do nicely.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting to move to Petrol

I have read the discussions on this, but this needs to be said. Please move the page to Petrol as this is causing necessary confusion for the rest of the world. Especially school children who get confused by the word 'Gas'. As mentioned in countless discussion threads, 'Petrol' is used globally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridenshark (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves for the procedure to request a page move. Before you make the formal request, you may wish to review WP:ENGVAR and WP:TITLEVAR to understand the background against which the decision will be made. --Trovatore (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Just how often are these little school children doing activities that involve petrol? Are they pumping it into their little cars on their way home from the playground for their afternoon nap? Are kindergartners unsure which pump to drive to when they see it marked 'petrol'? How do they see over the steering wheel and reach the pedals? I have a feeling that by the time these confused school children are entering late adolescence, and are possibly starting to have actual opportunities to be confused about petrol and gasoline, they will be old enough to have figured out that Americans say elevator and Brits say lift. English is a confusing language, it has many tricky words and phrases. If you're a native English speaker, you are immersed in this reality. If not, why are you insisting on reading Wikipedia in English when it's available in every language?

It really doesn't add up. And if it did, why stop there? All of Wikipedia should be changed to UK English, if the globe is filled with anglophones who are incapable of adaptation. And yet, the very fact that English is a global language means that it's used by several billion multilingual people. If anyone gets that fact that we have different words for the same thing, it's them.

You know who we need to condescend to? Who is least likely to figure out an unfamiliar word? Monolingual Americans with their failing educational systems. It's us in the US who are too provincial to deduce what petrol means. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Just how often are these little school children doing activities that involve petrol? Are they pumping it into their little cars on their way home from the playground for their afternoon nap? Are kindergartners unsure which pump to drive to when they see it marked 'petrol'? How do they see over the steering wheel and reach the pedals?

This is plain stupid. I don't know about the US, but the majority of English speaking population calls it as Petrol and not Gasoline. And apparently you have no clue about something called school projects. It's okay that English language is complex and evolved with different terms due to geography. But it doesn't mean that it should stay that way forever. And expecting a majority of the population to 'adapt' to a confusing term made up by a minority population, that too on a knowledge hub like Wikipedia is irresponsible. And I am not speaking this as someone who follows UK English. If I were born in the US, I would be doing the same.

One step at a time, maybe, we all can agree on one term. It's Petrol today, something else tomorrow.

I am not arguing this any more. I'm merely suggesting my opinions as a Wikipedian. So if you can engage in a civil conversation, please do that, instead of making this as a 'provincial' issue. - Ridenshark (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Mockery is a very poor form of argument to use in discussions regarding this encyclopaedia. I don't think American editors understand that "gas" means something very different in most of the English speaking world. It does not mean gasoline, or petrol. There IS confusion with this piece of English. Americans, please accept this truth. OK, it's probably not the biggest problem here, but mockery is rather disgusting. HiLo48 (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
This article isn't called gas. Gas is a different article, and it's on the same subject in either kind of English, a state of matter. The shorthand "gasoline -> gas" is a problem (actually a non-problem but I'll humor you) that isn't addressed by moving gasoline to petrol at all. People use the shorthand 'Thrones' when they mean Game of Thrones and that works because context is everything. If you lack context, you virtually incapable of communicating at all. These are very basic truths about how language works.

I'm open to being clued into these "school projects" you speak of. Precisely how are school children being harmed here? Not mocking anybody. Just say in simple terms what exactly is happening to them.

I'm especially interested in understanding who is so confused. English is global, but as a second language. English speakers in India have wholly different native languages, and are also conversant in English. How exactly are ESL speakers grievously confused by an article titled gasoline, any more than they are confused by all of the other hardships of English? That 'here' and 'there' don't rhyme. That we drive in the parkway and park in the driveway. Hand waving allusions, "think of the children" arguments, invite mockery. To be taken seriously, specify exactly what the damage is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

"Not mocking anybody." Nonsense. The whole of the quote Ridenshark provided above is mockery. And it never helps mature discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I made pretty clear that I will not take you seriously if you fail to cite examples of how this is causing harm. Here you had yet another opportunity to do that, and instead you're infighting, bickering. As I said, that invites mockery, and I did indeed mock those who practice this kind of non-argument. I am this very moment mocking those (you, I'm mocking you, don't be confused) who post and post and post and post again, continuing to waste our time when all of us are begging you to cite the evidence that would justify an exception to WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. Everybody knows that exceptions are allowed. Editor after editor has cited those guidelines, and I believe those editors have actually read them. Or they're pretending to have read them, which is tantamount to having read them. All of us are implicitly -- and I am explicitly -- stating that our opposition will turn to support as soon as anyone cites evidence that an exception is warranted. You have no excuse for not knowing that, since I keep saying it in such pedantically clear terms. Having no excuse, you are silly. I'm tempted to say I fart in your general direction, or something of that kind.

I swear, my mind can be changed. Show me the necessary evidence, and I will support renaming gasoline to petrol. I don't care either way, and I don't see any difference. All I care about is sticking to the rules because adherence to the rules is the only bulwark we have against these WP:LAME, WP:LAME, WP:LAME discussions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You have missed my point entirely, and while it may be possible for me to still assume good faith, I can only do that by seriously questioning your logical abilities. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 August 2019

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: Not moved. - Unfortunately per MOS:RETAIN - never happening, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 22:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Gasoline → Petrol – Please move the page to Petrol as this is causing necessary confusion for the rest of the world where 'Gas' means LPG. School children often get confused by the word 'Gas' when they land here after a search made for 'Petrol'. As mentioned in countless discussion threads, 'Petrol' is a globally used term in contrast to 'Gasoline'. Ridenshark (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Splitting "Chemical analysis and production" section

I intend to split the "Chemical analysis and production" section into (shock) "Chemical analysis" and "Production" sections. As is, they are intertwined in a way that is unhelpful when just interested in the components of gasoline/petrol.

I'm bringing this comment up in the talk page A) in case I don't get around to accomplishing the split, so that others might see that this would be a good thing to do. And B) the "chemical analysis" (or perhaps "chemical makeup"...I think I like that better) section might be biased towards the US standards, given that I know next to nothing about how the chemical makeup of the stuff varies by governing region. So, whatever I come up with will likely have clear paths towards further improvement. -Verdatum (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Dubious claims in stability section

The contents of the "Stability" section is largely unsourced and contains some dubious claims, e.g. "as gasoline is a mixture rather than a single compound, it will break down slowly over time due to the separation of the components". In fact gasoline is a homogeneous mixture (a solution) of mutually miscible substances, so it should not separate over time any more than ethanol and water will separate in stored vodka.
As for reactions producing gums or other residues: that may be true of some formulations, but not in general. At the very least, that claim should be better qualified -- and sourced.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Depending on storage conditions the more volatile components can evaporate, the significance of this depends on many factors. I agree that unless it has been contaminated it will remain homogeneous, but it may not be the same mixture as it was. It seems like solids formation is caused be oxidation and can be mitigated by blending[2]. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Fuel stabilizers

Fuel stabilizer redirects to this article, but it doesn't give information differentiating between the additives used by gasoline manufacturers and the stabilizers sold as aftermarket products. This article also needs to indicate the concentrations of "unhindered or partially hindered phenols and oil-soluble strong amine bases" and the type and concentration of metal deactivators. 71.230.16.111 (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed removal of sentence on price relative to density

I propose removing the sentence included in the section on Density as follows:
Finished marketable gasoline is traded (in Europe) with a standard reference of 0.755 kg/L (6.30 lb/US gal), and its price is escalated or de-escalated according to its actual density.
It is flagged with clarification needed. While I could write an analysis of how to make the calculation, it is difficult to find a good reference of how this is done, and it is just one small aspect in the pricing of gasoline. It does not add anything to the article. PengChaLi (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Is that possible?

In the article there's this statement "About 2.353 kilograms per liter (19.64 lb/US gal) of carbon dioxide (CO2) are produced from burning gasoline". How come a litre of Gasoline weighing about 0.72 KG can produce 2.35 KG of CO2? doesn't it defy conservation laws? If this equation (another claim within the article) is correct then it should be about 68.5% of the weight turns into CO2. Please explain, correct my confusion...thank you.79.182.192.237 (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

CO2 is one atom of carbon, C, and two atoms of oxygen, O. The C comes from the hydrocarbon (HC aka gasoline), but the O is from the air. The weight comes from the air. Not unlike Von Helmont's willow tree experiment, revealing that the mass of vegetation isn't from the soil or water, it's from the carbon in the air. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Dennis Bratland. The Gas is only about a fifth of the total combustion material.79.182.192.237 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It appears that we have a bunch of overlapping navboxes pertaining to gasoline's abuse throughg vapor inhalation, that are far in excess of what is appropriate for a substance that is primarily a fuel. We certainly don't need three navboxes, just because the substance appears in them. Acroterion (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 September 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xxlunlunxx.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Herb Needleman?

What gasoline industry hack is editing this page ?!? You skip straight to "The EPA banned leaded ..." Without once citing Herb Needleman , which is yet another injustice foisted upon this great man, who recently died. Don't know who Herb Needleman is? He's listed in Wikipedia, but since Wikipedia has gaping holes in their articles, maybe try Google instead. But you'll find him! 24.154.37.209 (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the articles Chidgk1 (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

What cleanup tasks are needed?

Recent addition of the {{cleanup}} template states the concern as "The specific problem is: Correction of units of measurement is needed (e.g. kg to kilograms, spacing / etc.)" Is anyone clear on what this means exactly? What can be done to improve the article? signed, Willondon (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Willondon: I have readded (Special:Diff/1092734681/1094145846) that template, now to specific sections. kg/U.S. gal or kg/US gal would mean kg divided by U.S. multiplied by gal i.e. kg divided by US multiplied by gal. Use {{\}} for wikitext and modify modules that run {{Convert}} to have multiple words of second unit in unit format one unit per second unit aparted from first unit by spaced divisor (same applies if first unit has multiple or more words; two units of measurement must then be separated by spaced divisor: e.g. ' / '). Problem might be if module somewhere renders such units of measurement as real fractions (one unit above, second one below) and just replaces horizontal fraction line with inline divisor symbol... --5.43.78.53 (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Huh?

The article currently asserts:

In August 2021, the UN Environment Programme announced that leaded petrol had been eradicated worldwide, with Algeria being the last country to deplete its reserves. [...] However, leaded gasoline continues to be used in aeronautic, auto racing and off-road applications.

Now, as far as I know, gasoline and petrol are just different words for the same exact thing, and this also is the impression one would get from a casual reading of the lead section and "Etymology" section of this article. So if they're going to be used distinctively, then we owe the reader an explanation. Is it possible that what we have here is conflicting sources, one claiming that leaded has been eliminated and the other saying it hasn't, rather than a genuine distinction between the two words? Or perhaps, on closer examination, the UNEP's statement would be found to have qualifications in it, say "for road vehicles on public highways"? --Trovatore (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


Update: I looked up the source for the UNEP claim convenience link and what it actually says is There is now no country in the world that uses leaded petrol for cars and lorries, the UN Environment Programme has announced. That would be "cars and trucks" in the ENGVAR of this article. So almost resolved; the only remaining point I'm aware of that needs attention is leaded gasoline for racing cars. Can someone find a more direct quote of the UNEP announcement? Maybe it will address that. --Trovatore (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


I found this UNEP press release — unfortunately, it seems to be actually less careful than the BBC announcement; it does not qualify the statement to apply only to "cars and lorries" but simply says the use of leaded petrol ended globally. That is clearly not accurate. We have to reconcile this somehow, but what is quite clear is that making up a nonexistent distinction between gasoline and petrol is not the way to go about it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  • We should modify the article to consistently use "gasoline" rather than petrol (unless in quotes) to avoid this confusion. Otherwise, the article is fine - it keeps the word "eradicated" in UNEP's voice, then provides countering evidence with "however". The problem is with UNEP's statement being unqualified. I suspect they are referring to ordinary vehicle fuel when they say petrol (though I can find no such qualification in their statements). GreatCaesarsGhost 16:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Formal register is fine, but it does not mean that Wikipedia trips over itself to avoid ever mentioning or explaining common names of things

@Trovatore: I won't bother to edit this article further on this point, because the instance isn't worth it to me right now, but you need to know that the epistemology of language that your edit summary mentioned is not entirely accurate. Formal register is fine in general, but it does not mean that Wikipedia trips over itself to avoid ever mentioning or explaining common names of things even once, as part of a terminology exposition in a Terminology or Etymology section. That in fact is not how Wikipedia works (regarding the edit summary "This is Wikipedia; we don't do those"). Forgetting about the hatnote itself (OK, never mind), the body text snippet in your recent reversion edit has no business being reverted. It is a misapprehension of Wikipedia's epistemology of language to imagine that Wikipedia does not provide exposition of terminology in a Terminology or Etymology section in a way that extends to all common names even in colloquial register. If I have to start dredging up dozens of counterexamples, it can be done. A subclass of examples is that Wikipedia mentions slang terms enough to acknowledge their existence. That doesn't even touch the other subclass of merely colloquial (but not slang) clippings such as exam for examination or lab for laboratory or gas for gasoline. Wikipedia is certainly and definitely allowed to mention them at least once. Quercus solaris (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

TVE

What type of piston engine that uses gasoline as fuel? A. Compression ignition engine B. Engine C. Spark ignition engine D. Wankel engine 2001:4455:4C9:5B00:F99D:9905:A7CC:F5B5 (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this a request for help with someone's homework? This isn't really an effective place for that purpose. Tip: The answer is the spark ignition type, but if you're merely looking for some cribbing, again, this isn't the place. Quercus solaris (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources for "Stability" section

I deleted one claim, "as gasoline is a mixture rather than a single compound, it will break down slowly over time due to the separation of the components", which is obviously incorrect (see Solution (chemistry)).

However, while the remainder sounds plausible, the whole paragraph seems to be uncited (unless "Ullmann2" is meant to be the citation for the entire thing). So we should find citations for the specific claims. 2620:15C:7C:700:752D:748A:9297:8646 (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Petrol Vs Gasoline

I think the case can be made that Petrol should be the headline with Gasoline in the sub text. Or does Wikipedia pander to the whims of ONE nation when Petrol was commonly used across much of the world via the British empire as well as friendly nations allied to the empire e.g. Argentina. We forget too the Petropound and how even after WW2 it was still a formidable currency which only dwindled when the Arab oil states began to pull away from Britain's sphere, with the Iranian revolution the demise of the Petropound was fairly certain as British oil giants lost a great deal of commerce. Yes its argued Gasoline is likely also a British invention in name but the empire that the sun didn't set upon didn't trade and use Gasoline but Petrol or will this be another enactment of rewriting history etc just to satisfy one nation in maintaining that they somehow are the "primary" nation inventor of everything, champion of all when they are neither and seems to me American's dislike intensely British folk invented the modern world and have been trying to usurp many crowns since WW2 ended in many disciplines and technologies. Older Canadians would remember the usage of Petrol which was forced to change to gasoline by the US oil companies trading in Canada once Britain's closed shop trading bloc exclusivity ended opening the door wide for US corporations. There have been attempts in Australia to do the same but BP and Shell are still considerable entities in the Antipodes and the Australian's less likely to change in that regard. Finally, the chemical itself is not called "gasoline spirit" but "petroleum spirit" and even Wikipedia refers to such as Petroleum Naptha and other distillates of Petroleum on the fraction index, we don't have "gasochemicals" or the "gasodollar" so logically the primary term SHOULD be Petrol/eum. 92.31.59.8 (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RETAIN — Moops ⋠T⋡ 04:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Wow. This is complete misapplication WP:RETAIN. That refers to English style within an article, not article titles. —Quondum 13:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The rule is still the same for titles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#National_varieties_of_English Apstockholm (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
You can read in the Etymology section of this very article that the term petrol(eum) didn't even originally refer to motor fuel but general mineral oils made from petroleum. Cazeline/gasoline was the first term ever used to specifically refer to the motor fuel product. The vast majority of your argument boils down to "British Imperialism said so" which isn't a great argument. They're not called "gasochemicals" or "gasodollars" because the base substance is petroleum and gasoline is a substance derived from petroleum. Gasoline is a petrochemical. Apstockholm (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Look, this is a pointless discussion. There's a big yellow box a few screen inches up from this text detailing the move discussions, the most recent one in 2019. That's long enough ago that someone could start another one without it looking like "vexatious litigation", but in my estimation the chances of success are low. If someone insists on trying anyway, the process is detailed at WP:RM
Otherwise everyone please leave it be, and let this page be used for discussing other sorts of improvements to the article. --Trovatore (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Other uses

This article seems to ignore uses other than as ICE fuel. I know that the substance sees use as a solvent, and that it can be used for buoyancy tanks in deep-diving undersea vehicles, such as the bathyscaphe Trieste. It would make sense to include all relevant uses. 62.3.68.174 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article Chidgk1 (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 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: Withdrawn. SriHarsha Bhogi (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Withdrawn the proposal to change the article title to "Petrol (Gasoline)" as as per WP:NCDAB, it is preferred to have a naturally unambiguous name over paranthetical disambiguation.

Gasoline → Petrol (gasoline) – I was searching on Google to read about this fuel and article with the title - "Gasoline" came up first from Wikipedia after a couple of other results. If I am not someone familiar with American English like other Indians, I would not know that this is an article about petrol. After reviewing the prior discussions for changing this article's name, I think its best to have both the names in the article's title with a precedence for the word "Petrol" as this is the term most English speakers (including L2/L3 speakers) are familiar with. BTW, I know that most native English speakers in the world reside in North America and they prefer the term "Gasoline". But when the non-native speakers are combined in this calculation, "Petrol" seems to be the most popular term. Please let me know your thoughts about the same.    SriHarsha Bhogi (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  • oppose per MOS:RETAIN—blindlynx 02:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    MOS:RETAIN states "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." So, if there is a consensus to the contrary, this need not be maintained.
    Also, I'm not sure if this policy applies to the article titles. I think the policy that we should look for is WP:CRITERIA. SriHarsha Bhogi (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    the next sentence says With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another. Moreover, you haven't provided any evidence for the assertion that petrol is the more popular term and ngrams seem to disagree [3]—blindlynx 18:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    Here you go, Petrol vs Gasoline - Google Trends You can clearly see that the term - "Petrol" is more popular worldwide compared to the term - "Gasoline". And Ngrams only account for how frequently a term is used in books and not how popular a term currently is with the general population. SriHarsha Bhogi (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if "gasoline" is recognizable enough to be a disambiguator, then it provides excellent MOS:COMMONALITY as a standalone term. -- Netoholic @ 02:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    The problem is that "Gasoline" is not a recognizable term atleast in the South, Southeast, East Asian, and African commonwealth countries where people know "Petrol" as the English word for this fuel. As the combined number of English speakers in these parts of the world along with UK, Australia & New Zealand is more than the number of native speakers in North America, I suppose, if we follow MOS:COMMONALITY, we should take the word - "Petrol". SriHarsha Bhogi (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per WP:RETAIN. And yes, that and the other WP:ENGVAR guidelines apply to article titles through the WP:TITLEVAR guidelines where that also says, for example, American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa. Otherwise, we could end up in situations where article titles would be in different varieties of English than their article bodies. Furthermore, the goal of MOS:COMMONALITY is to find vocabulary common to all varieties of English, not "most", and universally accepted terms, which I do not really see in this case. This debate regarding gasoline vs. petrol has already been beaten to death, and moving this to a more complex ad-hoc-parenthetical disambiguation titles like "Gasoline (petrol)" or "Petrol (gasoline)" seem to make it worse. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    I understand and totally agree that American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa. However, the proposal here is not to respell like chaging from Color to Colour, it is to change to an entirely different word.
    You say that the goal of MOS:COMMONALITY is to find vocabulary common to all varieties of English, not "most", and universally accepted terms. However, I do not see any thing in this policy that explicitly opposes the usage of vocabulary common to most variants of English when vocabulary common to all varieties of English is not found. I also see that this policy asks to use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. As the usage of the term - "Gasoline" is less widely distributed in the English speaking countries than the term - "Petrol", I suppose that MOS:COMMONALITY supports the usage of "Petrol" instead of "Gasoline" for this article's title.
    Thanks for referencing the policy about paranthetical disambiguation. I will withdraw my move proposal for moving the article to "Petrol (Gasoline)" and will make another proposal for moving the article to "Petrol". SriHarsha Bhogi (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Opppose per WP:RETAIN. And the proposed title would also be an incorrect usage of parenthetical disambiguators. It's the same reason why Football (soccer) was ultimately rejected as an article title. There are lots of article titles like this that use the term of one particular version of English over another, and I think most editors understand that if we start moving these articles we would be opening up a pandora's box. The fights over what version of English to use would be never-ending. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for the response to my proposal. I was unaware of the policy about paranthetical disambiguation. So, I'll withdraw my move proposal for moving the article to "Petrol (Gasoline)" and will make another proposal for moving the article to "Petrol". I understand that there are lots of article titles like this that use the term of one particular version of English over another and that the fights over what version of English to use would be never-ending. However, I believe that it is necessary to use the terms that are common to all or at the least most variants of English notwithstanding the usage of more common ambiguous names. In this case, the word - "Petrol" is used by people who speak English. SriHarsha Bhogi (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per MOS:RETAIN. I assume the nominator did not read the 2019 discussion or the consensus decided upon therein, so we get this pointless deja vu arguing the exact same thing. Either name we use, some group of people will be confused. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    I did read all those discussions. And I think that the consensus is not yet reached. SriHarsha Bhogi (talk) 10:53, 22 March 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.

[37] source change

The existing reference [37] comes from an untrusted site on Wikipedia. Instead of deleting the site, I inserted another rationale that guarantees the same content. The news on the site uses appropriate references, which are sufficient to be used as a basis. Existing references are based on SCRIBD, and the reason why this site is wrong can be found in the following framework. WP:RSP. Kloyan.L (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gasoline/Archive_4&oldid=1252450822"