Talk:Gasoline: Difference between revisions
Ridenshark (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Gasoline/Archive 4) (bot |
||
(179 intermediate revisions by 61 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{American English}} |
|||
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Technology|class=B}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Chemistry |
{{WikiProject Chemistry |importance=mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Energy |
{{WikiProject Energy |importance=high}} |
||
{{WikiProject Automobiles |
{{WikiProject Automobiles |importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject Climate change |importance=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Citizendium Porting |date=Never |outdated=yes}} |
{{WikiProject Citizendium Porting |date=Never |outdated=yes}} |
||
{{WP1.0 |class=B |category=category |VA=yes}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Old moves|list= |
{{Old moves|list= |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:: |
Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:: |
||
* Move: |
* Move discussion: Gasoline → Petrol, 2005: '''Opposed'''. ([[Talk:Gasoline/Archive 2|Discussion]]) |
||
* |
* RM: Gasoline → Petroleum-based fuel, 7 November 2007, '''Withdrawn'''. ([[Talk:Gasoline/Archive 3#Requested move|Discussion]]) |
||
* RM: Gasoline → Petrol, 24 August 2019, '''Not moved'''. ([[Talk:Gasoline/Archive 4#Requested_move_24_August_2019|Discussion]]) |
|||
* RM: Gasoline → Petrol (gasoline), 22 March 2023, '''Withdrawn'''. ([[Talk:Gasoline/Archive 4#Requested_move_22_March_2023|Discussion]]) |
|||
* RM: Gasoline → Gasoline also known as petrol, 7 August 2023, '''Procedural close'''. ([[Talk:Gasoline#Requested_move_7_August_2023|Discussion]]) |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
Line 27: | Line 30: | ||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |
||
{{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes | bot = MiszaBot | age = 6 | units=months|index=/Archive index| |
{{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes | bot = MiszaBot | age = 6 | units=months|index=/Archive index| |
||
*[[/Archive 1|Archive 1 (~ |
*[[/Archive 1|Archive 1 (~2004–2006)]] |
||
*[[/Archive 2|Archive 2 (Naming dispute |
*[[/Archive 2|Archive 2 (Naming dispute; 2004–2005)]] |
||
*[[/Archive 3|Archive 3 |
*[[/Archive 3|Archive 3 2006–2012]] |
||
*[[/Archive 4|Archive 4 2012–2019]] }} |
|||
== molecular expansion == |
|||
== Edit conflict: Environmental effects of gasoline == |
|||
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 == |
|||
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: |
|||
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|||
''"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)"'' |
|||
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|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: '''speedily uncontroversially closed per [[WP:SNOW]]'''. <small>[[User:Paintspot|Paintspot Infez]] ([[User talk:Paintspot|talk]])</small> 22:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
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: |
|||
[[:Gasoline]] → {{no redirect|gasoline also known as petrol}} – Lots of the world calls it petrol. We should have both words in the title to avoid confusion. No one else has suggested this yet. Sure some articles use different spellings like [[color]] instead of [[colour]] or [[litre]] instead of [[liter]] but that doesn't cause confusion in the way that [[gasoline]] or [[petrol]] does, which are completely different words, not merely spelling variants. Alternatively [[gasoline, petrol]] or [[gasoline or petrol]] [[User:Marsbar8|Marsbar8]] ([[User talk:Marsbar8|talk]]) 18:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
''"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."'' |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. [[Petrol]] redirects to this article, and {{xt|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. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 18:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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.--[[Special:Contributions/65.93.193.235|65.93.193.235]] ([[User talk:65.93.193.235|talk]]) 19:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::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.--[[Special:Contributions/65.93.193.235|65.93.193.235]] ([[User talk:65.93.193.235|talk]]) 19:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Further, [[:Petrol]] is already a redirect to [[:Gasoline]], so a simple search will return the correct article. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<span style="color: #006633;">General <i>Ization</i></span>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:General Ization|<i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i>]] </sup> 22:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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. [[User:Rreagan007|Rreagan007]] ([[User talk:Rreagan007|talk]]) 19:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' we don't use dual names like [[Derry also known as Londonderry]] etc so per [[WP:RETAIN]] just keep as is. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 20:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Speedy close''' per above. '''[[User:Old Naval Rooftops|<span style="color:#002244">O.N.R.</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Old Naval Rooftops|<span style="color:#002244">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 22:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' and support speedy, for reasons previously mentioned and because we just had the same discussion in March of this year. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<span style="color: #006633;">General <i>Ization</i></span>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:General Ization|<i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i>]] </sup> 22:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] --> |
|||
And significant global effects ''are'' speculated. |
|||
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div> |
|||
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: |
|||
== "Petrol" is not exclusively used for gasoline, and should be indicated as a colloquialism, as "Gas" is. == |
|||
''"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."'' [[User:ReeceTheBeast15|ReeceTheBeast15]] ([[User talk:ReeceTheBeast15|talk]]) 01:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC) |
|||
"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. |
|||
:Not speculated. See [[Global warming#Greenhouse gases]]. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 06:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
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. |
|||
The only proper name for gasoline is gasoline. Both "Gas" and "Petrol" are colloquialism and should be indicated as such. [[Special:Contributions/142.189.17.53|142.189.17.53]] ([[User talk:142.189.17.53|talk]]) 18:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
If, by a natural mechanism, the stark population growth rate differences of CO2 producers and consumers can be compensated for, then |
|||
:This is news to me. To be fair, {{xtg|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? --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 23:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[User:ReeceTheBeast15|ReeceTheBeast15]] ([[User talk:ReeceTheBeast15|talk]]) 15:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::In Australia, "petrol" is the stuff you put in your car with an internal combustion engine. It doesn't refer to anything else. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 02:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
: |
:::That was my understanding as well. {{u|142.189.17.53}} can you give any examples of "petrol" being used to mean other petroleum products? Nothing relevant seems to be mentioned at [[petrol (disambiguation)]] either. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 18:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::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”. |
|||
::::I would never refer to petroleum jelly as “petrol” — and if I did, people would have no idea what I meant. [[User:Foxmilder|Foxmilder]] ([[User talk:Foxmilder|talk]]) 06:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Better Opening Picture? == |
|||
:::::The Wikipedia page [[Biofuel in Australia]], for example, refers to “petrol (gasoline)”, suggesting these terms refer to the same thing. [[User:Foxmilder|Foxmilder]] ([[User talk:Foxmilder|talk]]) 06:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It suddenly occurs to me, incidentally, that the name of a well-known American petroleum jelly product rhymes closely with “gasoline”. |
|||
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. [[User:UtopianPoyzin|UtopianPoyzin]] ([[User talk:UtopianPoyzin|talk]]) 03:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::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. [[User:Foxmilder|Foxmilder]] ([[User talk:Foxmilder|talk]]) 06:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
==Split proposal== |
|||
:We can't do the molecule because it does not exist, gasoline is a blend of many molecules. [[User:Toasted Meter|Toasted Meter]] ([[User talk:Toasted Meter|talk]]) 03:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
The article has a large section devoted to the use of gasoline in WWI and WWII with particular emphasis on the US. I propose to shift this content to its own article (maybe [[Gasoline in World War II]] or [[Petrol in World War II]]?). But readers who seek general info on gasoline are unlikely to be so focused on the military angle and the US. --[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 16:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::You're right, not sure where I was going with that example. Still though, a tank of gasoline would do nicely.[[User:UtopianPoyzin|UtopianPoyzin]] ([[User talk: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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ridenshark|Ridenshark]] ([[User talk:Ridenshark#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ridenshark|contribs]]) 16:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
: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. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk: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?<P>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.<P>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. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 02:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::<blockquote>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? </blockquote><p>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.</p><p>One step at a time, maybe, we all can agree on one term. It's Petrol today, something else tomorrow. You either</p><p>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. - [[User:Ridenshark|Ridenshark]] ([[User talk:Ridenshark|talk]]) 06:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)</p> |
Latest revision as of 12:11, 21 October 2024
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 level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination::
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
molecular expansion
[edit]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
[edit]- 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: speedily uncontroversially closed per WP:SNOW. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Gasoline → Gasoline also known as petrol – Lots of the world calls it petrol. We should have both words in the title to avoid confusion. No one else has suggested this yet. Sure some articles use different spellings like color instead of colour or litre instead of liter but that doesn't cause confusion in the way that gasoline or petrol does, which are completely different words, not merely spelling variants. Alternatively gasoline, petrol or gasoline or petrol Marsbar8 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Further, Petrol is already a redirect to Gasoline, so a simple search will return the correct article. General Ization Talk 22:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose we don't use dual names like Derry also known as Londonderry etc so per WP:RETAIN just keep as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy close per above. O.N.R. (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose and support speedy, for reasons previously mentioned and because we just had the same discussion in March of this year. General Ization Talk 22:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
"Petrol" is not exclusively used for gasoline, and should be indicated as a colloquialism, as "Gas" is.
[edit]"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.
The only proper name for gasoline is gasoline. Both "Gas" and "Petrol" are colloquialism and should be indicated as such. 142.189.17.53 (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- In Australia, "petrol" is the stuff you put in your car with an internal combustion engine. It doesn't refer to anything else. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- That was my understanding as well. 142.189.17.53 can you give any examples of "petrol" being used to mean other petroleum products? Nothing relevant seems to be mentioned at petrol (disambiguation) either. --Trovatore (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- 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”.
- I would never refer to petroleum jelly as “petrol” — and if I did, people would have no idea what I meant. Foxmilder (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia page Biofuel in Australia, for example, refers to “petrol (gasoline)”, suggesting these terms refer to the same thing. Foxmilder (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- That was my understanding as well. 142.189.17.53 can you give any examples of "petrol" being used to mean other petroleum products? Nothing relevant seems to be mentioned at petrol (disambiguation) either. --Trovatore (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- In Australia, "petrol" is the stuff you put in your car with an internal combustion engine. It doesn't refer to anything else. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Split proposal
[edit]The article has a large section devoted to the use of gasoline in WWI and WWII with particular emphasis on the US. I propose to shift this content to its own article (maybe Gasoline in World War II or Petrol in World War II?). But readers who seek general info on gasoline are unlikely to be so focused on the military angle and the US. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Technology
- B-Class vital articles in Technology
- B-Class Chemistry articles
- Mid-importance Chemistry articles
- WikiProject Chemistry articles
- B-Class energy articles
- High-importance energy articles
- B-Class Automobile articles
- High-importance Automobile articles
- B-Class Climate change articles
- Mid-importance Climate change articles
- WikiProject Climate change articles