This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting articles
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
The primary dispute has been whether the article should be moved to Petrol. Many arguments were presented for both sides, but after all else failed, consensus was to keep the original editor's title, as per the
relevant style guideline:
"If an article has evolved using predominantly one [national variety of English], the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used."
Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination::
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
[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)reply
molecular expansion
i had in mind that the rafinage off pertroleum into petrol/gasoline coused an volume expansion with a ratio up to 1:4.
If i look at the refraction list from 42 gallons, 37 remains which is clearly less.
are the gasoline molecules larger or not at all? is there an "popcorn effect" in the molecule build??
Requested move 7 August 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.
Oppose.
Petrol redirects to this article, and petrol appears as the third non-parenthesized word in the article, so there is not a strong case that the title causes confusion. Moreover this "also known as" construct seems to be a new invention, not mentioned anywhere in
WP:TITLE, not used at other contentious topics such as football v soccer. I will allow that it might be useful to mention "petrol" in the short description (currently "Liquid fuel derived from petroleum"), but that does not require a move. --
Trovatore (
talk)
18:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose None of the terms the nominator mentioned are used and I see no valid case for petrol being forced in the title. I also don’t see a case for confusion since there is no other meaning for gasoline. The only argument I’ve seen for confusion was the fact that gas can also refer to
Liquefied petroleum gas however that was demoed irrelevant for a move request because gasoline doesn’t.--
65.93.193.235 (
talk)
19:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Regarding something the nominator later added, while it is true that gasoline and petrol are different words, petrol is is mentioned in the opening sentence and on the same line gasoline is. This should be enough for anyone with basic reading comprehension to avoid being confused meaning we don’t need to add petrol to the article title to deal with the possibility of confusion.--
65.93.193.235 (
talk)
19:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose and speedy close. Dual article titles of this sort are a terrible idea. There are plenty of examples of words that are different in British English and American English that aren't simple spelling differences (
Maize/Corn,
Waistcoat/Vest,
Cookie/Biscuit,
French fries/Chips,
Trousers/Pants,
Apartment/Flat,
Elevator/Lift etc.) and none of them have dual article titles. Moving this article would set a dangerous precedent and would open up dozens of article titles to fights over switching to a dual title.
MOS:RETAIN is clear and is there for a reason, to prevent this sort of endless debate about which version of English to use in an article. This article was started as "Gasoline" and that it where it should remain based on our policies.
Rreagan007 (
talk)
19:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
"Petrol" is not exclusively used for gasoline, and should be indicated as a colloquialism, as "Gas" is.
"Petrol" is short for "petroleum" and as a result "petrol" is used to indicate a whole range of petroleum based products in the world, not just gasoline.
While it is most commonly used in reference to gasoline, it is not exclusively used as such, and is also commonly used to refer to other petroleum distillates.
This is news to me. To be fair, petrol is not in my active vocabulary at all, so I'm not the best judge, but I don't ever recall hearing it used to mean anything but gasoline. Can our British/Australian/other-commonwealth-minus-Canada friends weigh in here? --
Trovatore (
talk)
23:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
As another Australian, my understanding is identical to that of the previous Australian: “petrol” is used exclusively to describe… well, I want to say “petrol”.
It suddenly occurs to me, incidentally, that the name of a well-known American petroleum jelly product rhymes closely with “gasoline”.
Is that a deliberate marketing device? If so, some of the secondary connotations of “gasoline” and “petrol” may differ between the American and Australian terms. I can’t imagine an Australia in which the name of a popular skin care product is named so as to bring to mind motor-vehicle fuels.
Foxmilder (
talk)
06:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply