Revision as of 23:05, 3 June 2005

Lead, additives, environmental effects

The environmental effects of lead in gasoline are extremely difficult to measure and have not been measured in real world settings. Theory suggests that there should be some bad effects, but it is very unclear if these should be called "major". There has been and still is some controversy about this.

off the top of my head, lead is emitted along with the exhaust gas as volatile halides as well as particulate oxides. It is a proven neurotoxic, especially in children.--134.121.3.150 18:00, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also lead was used in high performance military gasoline during WW2. I'm not sure if it might be even older than that. "1960s" is certainly too late for its introduction.

The form of lead used in gasoline is tetra-ethyl lead.

There are several lead substitutes used in modern lead-free gasoline:

dimethyl sulfur: smells horrible. Slightly corrosive to engines. Not sure if it is dangerous. This was used in small quantities back to the 1930s. The amount used is now much higher in some countries where cheap high octane gasoline without lead is desired.

is there a reference on this useage? sulfur heterocompounds are usually inherited from the crude oil as mercaptanes, dialkylsulfides and disulfides. While they can act as radical traps (anti-knocking), their effect on the octane number is weak. Following burning in the engine, toxic sulfur oxides generally denoted as SO_x are formed.--134.121.3.150 18:00, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

aromatic hydrocarbons (especially benzene, toluene, xylene): Really seriously poisonous and carcinogenic. Much more dangerous than lead. Slightly corrosive to some engine parts. Civilised countries limit these by law to a very small percentage. These are present to some extent in crude oil, and small quantities have always been present in gasoline.

commercial, or pump, gasoline is actually a blend of several fractions, or components, originating both from the primary processing (distillation) and from the secondary processing (which includes conversion.) Most of the aromatics are added as a fraction called reformate, which is obtained in the catalytic reforming (a.k.a. platforming) process. Aromatics have a very good octane rating, however, they tend to generate increased carbon particulates in the exhaust (black smoke), and the vapors emitted are carcinogenic, as mentioned.--134.121.3.150 18:00, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

branched hydrocarbons: comparitively safe, but they add significantly to the cost, given the large quantities needed.

again, i think this needs to be clarified: pump gasoline is a blend of fractions. On the one hand we have the so-called straight-run gasoline, which is a product of distillation from the crude oil, and inherits the chemical profile of the crude blend. On the other hand we have the commercial gasoline blend(s) which has to conform to commercial standards (octane number, point of crystallization, polymer formation potential, moisture content, acidity, vapor pressure) as well as to regulatory standards (emissions by evaporation, sulfur content, total aromatics, benzene, total oxygenates). The lists in parantheses are not exhaustive. The different blends are made up of similar components and additives in different proportions optimized to yield the desired properties. The blending process is half art half empirical science.--134.121.3.150 18:00, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oxygenates are other high-octane components of gasoline that allowed the complete phase-out of lead. They include alcohols and ethers. Methanol is -I think- widely used, although exposure to vapors and liquid can cause irreversible blindness. MTBE (methyl-tert-butyl-ether) is notorious in that shortly after virtually all refiners invested in plants, the ether was found to easily contaminate aquifers and bans were considered in California and Connecticut. Don't have current information on this to hand.--134.121.3.150 18:00, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

MMT (Methylcyclopentadienyl Manganese Tricarbonyl if you must know) is used in Canada (for a long time) and Australia (recently) to boost octane...also helps old cars designed for leaded fuel to run on unleaded fuel without need for additives to prevent valve stem problems. It's the Manganese that has the effect.

--GPoss 10:21, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Someone should write something about Ignacy Łukasiewicz. He was a man who discovered paraffin lamp and he opened in 1856 year, first in the world petroleum refinery. ]

Q&A's

--QUESTION What is the generated heat (J/kg) obtained by burning gasoline?

--ANSWER

Fuel      kJ/g     kwh/kg
Kerosene  48       15.5 
Gasoline  50 
Diesel    45       15.5

--QUESTION What is the freezing point of gasoline?

Being a mixture of various components, gasoline does not have a well-defined freezing point. Depending on the region where a blend is sold, the so-called crystallization point, or clouding point, should be lower than the expected minimum temperature in that specific region. Complete freezing occurs at a much lower temperature. Will return with some numbers soon.--Unconcerned 08:52, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Article name

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to move this article to Petrol? Use of the term Gasoline is very much restricted to North America. It would make more sense to have the article named after the (overwhelmingly) more popular name. --Yama 17:46, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. What do others think?

James F. (talk) 14:11, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It has been two weeks and there have been no objections. I think this change should go ahead. -- Yama Wed Jun 30 01:46:08 UTC 2004

Very well, done; the original page at Petrol has been moved to Petrol/Temp, as it had some page history (not sure if we will want to keep it or not)...

James F. (talk) 02:10, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think it would also make sense to change all mentionings of gasoline in the article to petrol, to provide consistency with the title. The beginning should say "Petrol (or Gasoline)" instead of "Gasoline (or Petrol)". I thought I'd propose this before making such a big change myself.

-- Yama Thu Jul 1 08:08:42 UTC 2004

Ah, oops - I meant to do that as part of the move, but evidently forgot.

James F. (talk) 16:08, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Everything looks fine to me. Nice work :)

-- Yama Fri Jul 2 12:21:26 UTC 2004

I strongly object. This is against the Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling. The page should be moved back. Maximus Rex 17:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, it isn't. MoS policy is to have articles located at the most common term for them, and the one least likely to be confusing to the greatest number of readers (or, indeed, editors). "Petrol" wins over "gasoline" on both of these counts.

James F. (talk) 23:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No the article was written in AE and you switched it to BE, against the MoS. A google search shows 3 million hits for gasoline and 2 million for petrol so the "most common name" argument does not hold. Maximus Rex 23:40, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Google is hardly representative of the entire population of the world. Most pages on the Internet are written by Americans or for Americans, but Americans at best consitiute 4% of the world's population. Petrol is an internationally used term; the same cannot be said for gasoline.

-- Yama Wed Jul 21 09:30:01 UTC 2004

Again, I stress that this page should not have been moved from AE to BE to suit your fancy. I imagine you would be pissed off as well if I decided to move pages from BE to AE to suit my fancy. The "common usage" argument that you give to justify moving the page clearly does not hold, as indicated by the figures, which if anything demonstrate the opposite. Let me remind you that this is the english-language wikipedia so pointing out that Americans are 4% of the world population is irrelevant. In any event it doesn't matter since this page was originally AE so it should returned, per the MoS on usage. Maximus Rex 09:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a simple case of bitterness to me. Face the facts: USA != world. Gasoline is restricted to one (maybe two) countries. Get over it.

I tend to agree that this change was rather arbitrary. USA != world, but as previously mentioned, this is an English language encyclopedia, so the 4% figure is specious. Misplaced Pages's own English language article reports the number of English as-a-first-language speakers is approximately 402 million. Surely North Americans constitute the bulk of this population, so their vernacular should not be so carelessly tossed aside. mncuso 01:34, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is not an arbitrary change. English is an international language and I'm sure that the English-language Misplaced Pages is accessed by a great many people who speak English but not as a first language. For instance, English is an official language of India, and there are hundreds of millions of English-speakers in India. The usage petrol is normal in India, both in English and in many native languages. The international audience must not be ignored. -- Yama Tue Jul 27 04:20:39 UTC 2004

It should be changed back. You are the only one arguing for it to be under petrol, and it does violate the MoS. The article itself says "The term gasoline is the common usage within the oil industry, even within companies that are not American." The US is the world's largest consumer of oil, so most gasoline is gasoline, not petrol. India is 7th, and the U.K. 12th, so there is no comparison. --Ben Brockert 20:00, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

English is spoken in 103 countries. In all but perhaps one or two of those 103, it is referred to as petrol as opposed to gasoline. In addition, the 402 million English-as-a-first-language statistic is essentially meaningless. As an example, South Africa has a population of around 44 million people, yet according to studies at most 10% of the population are first-language english speakers. Yet at least 80% of the population understands and speaks English, and all refer to "petrol" as opposed to any other word. This situation occurs elsewhere in the world, where English is often popular as a second language, and those speaking it use the term petrol as opposed to gasoline. So, I certainly think the move made sense in terms of using the term used by most English speakers. Impi 20:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The criteria shouldn't be about amount of used - it's about what is the most common in terms of worldwide use. So if more countries call it petrol (when speaking English) than gasoline, then that's where the article should be. -- sannse (talk) 20:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've never seen one of those "talking countries". More people use gasoline when speaking English. Gene Nygaard 03:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

No, no they don't.

I disagree; this is an encyclopædia for people who speak English, not for those who use copious amounts of the things described. The "most common term" is and should continue to be be applied to users of a commodity by number, not by quantity.

James F. (talk) 20:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I too disagree. Aside from being in violation of the MoS, English Misplaced Pages is made for speakers of the English language, and North Americans make up a bulk of that. A simple redirect will solve any confusion that "gasoline" may cause.

Plexust (talk) 09:17, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

There is a redirect now. I don't see any problem now.

Your argument violates the NPOV. Why are Americans so self-centred? --203.122.205.145 04:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure I don't have to point out the hypocrisy of that post... (but I'm going to anyways).

Plexust (talk) 10:28, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

This comes back to the same controversy regarding whether the "en" in en.wikipedia.org means US English or British or Australian or Canadian or New Zealander or Indian English. I am aware of the decision to tolerate mixed use of English from the original authors and leave the wikipedia in "bastard" English. I was raised in a British colony and now live in the US. So I don't have a preference for one choice over the other. However, I disagree with the current policy which makes this encyclopedia so inconsistent in spellings. Splitting en.wikipedia.org into multiple English versions is one way to solve the problem, isn't there a Simple English version already? After the spin off, which country will be the lucky winner to inherit the default English copy? Who is going to maintain the on-going branches after the split?

An alternative to the branches is to implement some kind of language tags that allows the wikipedia software to present one language among many choices. e.g. {{en:fuel en_US:gasoline en_UK:petrol}} will make room for default, US and UK English respectively where the default will be left for the most common multi-national usage. This will solve the problem within the article body, but who gets the article title will keep the battle going forever.

Kowloonese 23:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does it seem that this was simply suggested to irritate Americans, that is, people from the United States (Canadians are much too laid back to get worked up over things like this, a quality I respect in them)? I mean, when it gets right down to it, both arguments, though sound, seem a bit childish. Sure, North America constitutes only two of the many official English-speaking nations in the world, but the fact remains that Misplaced Pages is going to be used primarily in the native first language of those using it, and in the English-speaking world, 300 million+ are from North America. With the 402 million number used from before, that constitutes more than 75% of native English speakers. In regards to South Africa, a simple redirect would not confuse most native speaking English speakers, Afrikaaners would probably use Afrikaans or Dutch, and the native population would most likely not be confused by the redirect. India is, however, a more interesting situation; with the many different langages and dialects used there, a more compelling argument for using recognizable English can be made considering their vast population that knows English. However, I believe that the most compelling argument is that the industry uses gasoline, thus a clearly international usage of the word (which is probably John D. Rockefeller's doing). Sorry about the novel of a post, it is my first talk post, but I look forward to further discussion, and a solution agreed upon by everyone. Perhaps identical articles with the different names (I know, terribly inefficent, and very un-Misplaced Pages-like but let's face it, we're dealing with people here, there are rarely logical solutions when that comes into play)?

Tom (talk) 02:32, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

To say that the English version of Misplaced Pages is only going to be read by native English speakers is naive to say the least. The English version is generally the most in-depth and up-to-date, and it is very likely that it would be consulted by non-native English speakers as well. The fact remains that most people around the world (including the majority of English speakers) say "petrol", and the blatant chauvinism displayed by some people in this thread isn't going to change that.

Google yields 13.9 Million results for Gasoline, while Petrol yields only about 4 million; we see here that gasoline is by far the most popular internet usage, and this doesn't even include the colloquial "gas". For native English speakers, Gasoline is by far the most popular term and I don't see how a simple redirect from petrol to gasoline would cause any more confusion than that of a redirect from gasoline to petrol.

Plexust 07:46, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I object to Google being used as a sole justification for the commonality of a word, and its acceptance/understanding by users of the various forms of the English language. Not to mention possible inaccuracy, just now I got "approx" 6.4 millions for petrol. GraemeLeggett 08:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Google.com:

Gasoline - 13,900,000

Petrol - 3,990,000;

Google.co.uk:

Gasoline: 9,190,000

Petrol: 3,990,000;

Yahoo:

Gasoline - 11,100,000

Petrol - 6,070,000;

MSN:

Gasoline - 471,800,051

Petrol - 471,111,536;

Ask Jeeves:

Gasoline - 3,428,000

Petrol - 2,481,000;

AlltheWeb:

Gasoline - 10,200,000

Petrol - 4,910,000;

Gigablast:

Gasoline - 17,429,369

Petrol - 9,179,473;

Looksmart:

Gasoline - 274

Petrol - 121;

-Plexust 01:09, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

You need to either throw the MSN results out, or tag them as irrelevant, since it is treating one as the synonym of the other, and finding pages which include either. Gene Nygaard 12:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I guess those numbers show something, even if it's just "don't trust search engines"GraemeLeggett 13:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isn't en.wikipedia.org an Internet based encyclopedia? So the distribution of usage on the Internet (i.e. google search result) is relevant to the decision. Forget about how people use English in each country. Just follow how English is used on the Internet. If en.wikipedia.org is to be printed on paper for the British market, then the Internet usage should be replaced with British usage accordingly. Is it safe to say US English is the Internet English? I vote for converting en.wikipedia.org into pure US English. Kowloonese 23:37, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

The USA currently represents something like half of all Internet users. Does that mean that they have half of the world's population? Of course not - the proportion is more like 3 or 4 percent. Due to various historical, political and cultural issues, there are many countries that do not currently have as high usage of the Internet at home. For instance, people in countries like India (the largest English speaking nation) often can't afford their own computer, but they may have access via an Internet cafe, library or community centre. Do they not also count as human beings? Also, as Internet usage is increasing in other countries, the overall share held by the US is falling.

This is why Internet usage statistics or simple Google searches cannot be used as a metric of English usage. - Yama 11:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

"I imagine you would be pissed off as well if I decided to move pages from BE to AE to suit my fancy."

But that's exactly what you're arguing. There have been plenty of good reasons given for changing the article name. All you have come up with are pseudo-arguments. You are living up to the "ignorant arrogant American" stereotype all too well, which is a shame since I know a lot of nice Americans who don't fit that mould at all.

Why do americans say their cars run on a "gas" when they clearly use a liquid fuel?

It's an abbreviation. A colloquialism. Slang. No one ever said we should move this to gas, and if they did, I would fight them, too. That's absurd. - Omegatron 15:29, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is misleading. Also, in many countries (and in industry usage), "gas" refers to natural gas (as in "oil and gas", e.g. , , , , , , , , ). Natural gas is a real gas, not a liquid. Like petrol, it is derived from petroleum extraction. It would be very confusing to have different substances that are derived from the same source known by the same name. The article title should be distinct and not create confusion. - Yama 12:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Might as well take a peek at this, too. --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃənz/ 20:46, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's true native speakers only. What's the data for second language speakers of English.GraemeLeggett 22:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Hard to find very good data, but here's some about non-native speakers: Americans still look like the overwhelming majority to me. - Omegatron 16:22, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

For someone who claims to be neutral, you sure have a lot of disdain for Britain, Ireland (see Omegatron's comments below) and other countries and peoples.

• Two wrongs don't make a right. One empire doesn't justify another. Empires were once commonplace and regarded by many to be natural or desirable, but in this day and age they are just undemocratic, oppressive and morally wrong.
• Many (most?) countries which use US English have been part of the US 'empire' at some time or other. It may not be officially called an 'empire' but it clearly is.
• The British Empire has been completely dismantled, in the largest case of decolonisation ever undertaken. Can the same be said of the US? British territories today are probably no bigger than US territories.
• An 'empire' does not necessitate direct political/military rule. It can manifest itself economically, culturally or in other ways. Often this control is indirect. The British Empire was not officially regarded as such until the dissolution of the British East India Company, but the Company's rule over two and a half centuries made Britain an empire by proxy.

BTW, what does your post have to do with the parent? It is very offtopic, and it looks like pure flamebait. - Yama 11:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

And your accusations of cultural imperialism are not? What does that even have to do with the article name?

I have disdain for anyone who wants to rename the article simply because it sounds foreign to them. Misplaced Pages represents the entire world, not just the part that hates the US. - Omegatron 15:29, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

What accusations of cultural imperialism??? I simply made a response to your offtopic/flamebait post, and nowhere did I mention cultural imperialism. Please keep your posts ontopic and cease your pointless and baseless accusations. And yes, I agree that Misplaced Pages represents the entire world, which is exactly why the article should stay as it currently is. - Yama 07:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The "offending" comment has been removed. My major argument is that "gasoline" is a neutral, chemical word, like kerosene, alkyne, alkane, ethylene, alkene, diene, cycloalkane, acetylene, codeine, hexane, valine, narceine, amine, aniline, serine, etc. and that petrol is a colloquial name derived from the word "petroleum", which is not the same thing as "petrol", and should not overwrite a chemical name. Just like we should not move kerosene to coal oil or methane to swamp gas.

Regardless of my "nationalistic agenda" or lack thereof, this is a valid argument, so cut it out with the personal attacks, anonymous trolls. - Omegatron 01:06, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

isn't gasoline the scientific name? like benzene or kerosene or toluene? petrol on the other hand is short for petroleum, which refers to a lot of different things. - Omegatron 23:31, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Petrol/gasoline is a mixture of compounds, not a pure substance. GraemeLeggett 08:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

So is kerosene. So what? Gasoline is the "official" "scientific" name for this substance, and "petrol" is a slang abbreviation for "petroleum", of which gasoline and kerosene are derivatives. (Like "gas" is a slang abbreviation for "gasoline", and is also not a very accurate word.) - Omegatron 15:42, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Quoting this very article: "The term gasoline is the common usage within the oil industry, even within companies that are not American."

--Plexust 07:58, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's not very responsible to quote the article itself in defence of one approach or the other. GraemeLeggett 08:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Is this article not a legitimate source of information?

--Plexust 23:21, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Possibly, possibly not. Is it peer reviewed? are the references good? Either way, you would not cite a scientific paper in defence of itself. GraemeLeggett 08:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this, but this is the similar case as with the football (soccer) article. Shouldn't both include the majority word for the English-speaking world? This is the English Misplaced Pages, after all. In my opinion, we shouldn't discuss the word used in countries lacking an English-speaking majority (which tends to be the case with the football (soccer) article as well), but rather the most common word in the English-speaking world. A standard involved would be a good influence, as with the aluminium article, which is influenced by the IUPAC name. And, as this article states, gasoline tends to be the word used in the industry. --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃənz/ 18:11, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Gasoline is the chemical name for this substance

Gasoline is the chemical name for this substance. "Petrol", like "gas" is a slang term. - Omegatron 15:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• pet·rol (pĕt'rəl) pronunciation

• gas·o·line (găs'ə-lēn', găs'ə-lēn') pronunciation

n.

:

• –ole or –ol

suff.

1. A usually heterocyclic chemical compound containing a five-membered ring: pyrrole.

2. A chemical compound, especially an ether, that does not contain hydroxyl: eucalyptol.

• –ine

suff.

3. A mixture of compounds: gasoline.

Very good, you've just shown that gasoline is a constructed word and that petrol means the same as gasoline. After a little looking I found that the french-speaking Lenoir developed the first petrol engine, using benzine, after working on (coal) gas engines. GraemeLeggett 17:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Very good yourself. From

Jean-Joseph Etienne Lenoir explains, and concludes:

"si cela marche, j’ajouterai un carburateur à réchauffage et à niveau constant dans lequel on introduira soit de l’essence, soit de la gazoline, soit du goudron ou du schiste ou une résine quelconque". (1860)

PS You didn't quote your source for the definitions. GraemeLeggett 17:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Answers.com - Omegatron 17:41, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

You're using an American dictionary to prove your point of American superiority? How convenient :(

Oh please. You're not volunteering any etymologies from a "non-American" dictionary. Probably because it says exactly the same thing. - Omegatron 14:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

You think a non-American dictionary would describe 'petrol' as "Chiefly British"? You obviously haven't been outside the USA.

Etymologies, my dear, anonymous friend. - Omegatron 15:29, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

WTF is that supposed to mean?

An "etymology" means "the origin of a word". You said your dictionary would be different than mine. I'd like you to show me the etymologies of these two words in your dictionary to prove it. - Omegatron 01:06, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Etymology.com has "gasolene" coined in 1865 from gas + ine/ene, same source has petrol as 1895 from Fr. pétrol (1892), but petrol (as the unrefined substance)was first used in the 16th century. GraemeLeggett 19:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

So by "petrol" in 1895 you mean "gasoline" and by "petrol (as the unrefined substance)" you mean "petroleum" = crude oil? You know they're not the same thing, right?

etymonline.com says:

• petrol

1895, "gasoline," from Fr. pétrol (1892); earlier used (1585) in ref. to the unrefined substance, from M.Fr. petrole "petroleum," from O.Fr. (13c.), from M.L. petroleum (see petroleum).

• gasoline

coined 1865 as gasolene, from gas (q.v.) + chemical suffix -ine/-ene. current spelling is 1871; shortened form gas first recorded Amer.Eng. 1905. Gas station first recorded 1932.

So, as I said earlier, "petrol" is a slang abbreviation for "petroleum" which is crude oil or, loosely, any of its derivatives, and "gasoline" is a chemical name specifically coined for the substance we are talking about.

I think it's pretty clear that even if "petrol" were used by a majority of English speakers (and it's not), "gasoline" would still be the most neutral, most accurate, most valid word. - Omegatron 19:48, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

It's already been explained in detail above that the majority of English speakers *do* use 'petrol'. Please respect Misplaced Pages's international (though linguistically-based) focus and stop trying to push your own nationalistic agenda.

It's already explained above that the majority of English speakers are American, and say "gasoline". REGARDLESS, gasoline is the chemical name for the substance. It doesn't matter how many people say either word in common parlance. Gasoline is obviously a more neutral word, without any "nationalistic agenda" connotations. - Omegatron 14:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Most English speakers are from India. In fact, it's one of their two official languages (at a national level) and it's the most widely spoken language in that country. Why must I repeat something that's already been explained? Are you even reading the comments or are you just posting knee-jerk reactions?

Isn't it assuming bad faith to say that people who want "gasoline" are pushing a nationalistic agenda? Nickptar 14:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Which is probably why they used an anon IP. - Omegatron 17:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's not assuming at all. Check Omegatron's comments on the Village Pump, he completely dismissed the concerns of someone from Ireland. --Golbez 16:47, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Not being au fait with the village pump, could you be more specific as to where to look. GraemeLeggett 16:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Gasoline_or_Petrol.3F. I think backtracking is occuring on both of our sides though. :P --Golbez 17:43, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Petrol#Talk from Village Pump

If, as some have stated, the scientific / technical / industrial community uses "gasoline" worldwide as the generic term for the substance, then that should be used here regardless of what term is used colloquially for it in any given region. This would be consistent with what was done, for instance, with aluminium, where the spelling (in this case "British" rather than "American") was chosen which was consistent with that used by international chemical bodies. *Dan* 19:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk from Village Pump

This talk moved from the Village Pump: Miscellaneous page

For me (Irish), gasoline is a foreign word. We use petrol. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ireland != The world. - Omegatron 16:30, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

You != The world. I'm not saying which is better, but don't just dismiss Ireland. A bunch of them speak English too, you know. According to your comment, perhaps we should only care what Indians use, since they make up the largest English-speaking bloc. Certainly a country as small as the UK doesn't matter. --Golbez 16:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

No. Obviously, we should use a term that represents everyone, not just British, Irish, Indians, or Americans. Misplaced Pages is for the entire world; not for one specific country. - Omegatron 17:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

If you want a term that represents everyone, then you won't have a clear winner. "Petrol" is foreign to Americans, "Gasoline" is foreign to the Irish. --24.74.46.255 17:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC) (This is me, User:Golbez)

That's why we need to choose a word that's neutral, not one that "minimizes foreignness". - Omegatron 17:54, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

That's why there are redirects. The page works well, and IMHO respects both camps. I don't know what you hope to achieve by your whining.

Stop pretending to represent the "world". Your country is not the "world".

"Gasoline" is definitely not a chemical name. It's a mixture of a number of chemicals, including decane, octane, alkenes, and alkanes. Read the article for details.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

A "chemical" can also be a mixture of chemicals. See the talk page for etymologies of both words. - Omegatron 16:28, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Petrol or gasoline are equally okay, though for reasons of birth I happen prefer petrol. Let's not get into sterile debates. Leave it where it is. Anyone dumb enough to move it should clean up the hundreds of double redirects as a penance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a huge if. It seems to me that the name used in these fields is a matter of national preference. IUPAC doesn't seem to have given it an official name, for instance, and while searching on the IUPAC site I found a nice introduction to petrochemistry that referred to Petrol. This isn't definitive, but it suggests that the terms are used interchangeably according to national or personal preference. It isn't important. If I'm talking to my American girlfriend I'll refer to gas or gasoline, and if I'm talking to my English son I'll refer to petrol. Misplaced Pages has to choose one or the other but it doesn't matter which. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter which we use, but we need to pick "the most neutral" one and leave a summary of why it was chosen on the talk page so people will see it before they try to move it in the future (and archive all this discussion!) Here is a summary of the points I have seen in favor of each - Omegatron 20:56, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Despite being from the UK and having called it petrol all my life, from the arguments on this page I think gasoline is the best place for it. However it isn't really fair to call the move arbitrary when it was brought up and there were no complaints for 2 weeks. Even after the move, there were no complaints for another 2 1/2 weeks. --the wub (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for each

Arguments for "gasoline"

• "If the subject is neutral (for example, science, etc.), the original contributor's usage should be followed. See American and British English differences if you have difficulty with this."
• "Gasoline" is an "official" chemical designation (like "kerosene") based on the root word "gas" (as in the phase of matter) + the suffix -ole which either means "A usually heterocyclic chemical compound containing a five-membered ring" or "A chemical compound, especially an ether, that does not contain hydroxyl" (Any chemists know which one?) and -ine "a mixture of compounds". "Petrol" originates from French, and originally just meant "petroleum".
• Gasoline was used for this substance first. Gasoline was coined in 1865. "Petrol" meant the same thing as "crude oil" until 1895, when it started referring to this substance specifically.
• "Gazoline" was the word used in 1860 by the inventor of the internal combustion engine, a Frenchman.
• "Gasoline" is used by a greater number of English speakers (debatable, see below)
• 73% of native english speakers are in North America (see English language)   —Teknic 06:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  How did you come up with that figure? According to the pie chart (which BTW has been reproduced on this page), 73% of native English speakers are in North America. Nevertheless, you are rehashing arguments which have already been raised several times on this page. Most English users are outside of North America, and the vast majority of them use the word "petrol". Please read this entire page before you reply. Circular arguments will get us nowhere. — Yama 06:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  Fixed it. Sorry. And this section was specifically created to be a compilation of the arguments elsewhere on the page. Most english use is definitely in North America.   —Teknic 07:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Internet is changing how the English language will evolve over time. Given the current distribution on Internet, Gasoline is the clear winner.
• "U.S. English is having a greater influence in the rapidly expanding area of English as a foreign language, due to the economical and cultural influence of the United States". (From International English)

Meaning what? That because AE is influential we accept gasoline and so continue the practice, or that English speakers in other parts of the world already use the G-word. GraemeLeggett 08:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Marginally both, however I'll admit the argument is far from paramount. I'm not sure where you are located, but I am curious as to how many of your neighbors would know what the word "gasoline" meant if they heard or read it.   —Teknic 22:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Twice as many wikipedia pages link to "gasoline" as "petrol"

  Only because the old name of the article was "gasoline" and those other articles have not been updated yet. - Yama 23:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• "big 4" oil companies: —Teknic 16:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • BP (formerly "British Petroleum") - bp.com search: gasoline = 117, petrol = 75 (London based company)
  • Total S.A. - total.com search: gasoline = 47, petrol = 30 (Paris based company)
  • Royal Dutch/Shell - shell.com search: gasoline = 1261, petrol = 1344 (London based company, results within 1.5%)
  • Exxon Mobil - exxonmobil.com search: gasoline = 634, petrol = 149 (Texas based company)
• Misplaced Pages search results: gasoline = 1198, petrol = 789 —Teknic 14:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

  This point has already been addressed above: "Only because the old name of the article was "gasoline" and those other articles have not been updated yet." - Yama 02:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  I am referring to the actual text of the articles, not the targets of the links. There is a difference. And I hope you aren't "updating" the original author's text in articles to use the language that you prefer as that would be against policy. The original authors of those articles didn't use the term they did because it matched some other article, but because it fit the context. Everybody knows that either petrol or gasoline would redirect to the other if necessary, so no author would use a term inappropriate to the context. Even if there was only one article to link to they would use a pipe to display the term they needed. Understand? (And please show some respect in the future and do not strike (or edit in any way) the comments of other editors on discussion pages. We all know how to read, so if you disagree with somebody's statement you can say so in a response. Thanks)   —Teknic 23:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  Sorry. Yama's only following my lead on that one. I struck out the "gas" argument below. Remove if I was bad. - Omegatron 00:44, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

  Your a bad influence :)  My apologies to Yama for being harsh. I'm gonna go ahead and unstrike everything because it's more civilized that way IMHO.   —Teknic 01:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  Yes. I apologise for that. I thought that if Omegatron was doing it then it was okay. - Yama 01:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  Just like Google hits, Misplaced Pages references do not accurately reflect the usage of a word/term/phrase around the world. See elsewhere on this page for arguments against using Google hits as a measurement, and substitute "Misplaced Pages" for "Google". - Yama 01:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  The focus is on en.wikipedia readers and nothing else. I agree that demographic is changing, so if ever there are more "petrol" users than "gasoline" users, that may warrant a change of title. But until then we are to continue to use the title that the original author used.   —Teknic 04:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for "petrol"

• "Petrol" is used in a greater number of countries

  Countries don't speak; people do. —Teknic 14:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

  "Petrol" is more inclusive of a greater number of English speaking countries. GraemeLeggett 15:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

  Let's try this again: Countries don't speak; people do. Your statistic is absurdly irrelevant. There is no correlation between the number of countries and the number of speakers. —Teknic 16:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

  Your arguments are inconsistent. You seem intent with including companies but not countries and their associated governments/bodies. A country is an organisation, just like a company. In fact, a country includes its government and many other organisations. It is very relevant that more countries use the term 'petrol'. - Yama 02:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  Ok, I'll spell it out for you as best as I can. A country is an idea, an concept of organizational structure, just like a corporation. My point is that ideas can't speak or use Misplaced Pages like a person can. A country, or a company can't read so the number of them is not relevant to this debate. What is relevant is first the number of en.wikipedia users and a distant second is all english speakers. Are you aware of the fact that different countries can have different populations? If you are only able to comprehend organizational concepts then another comparison would be of the number of unions like EU or US, or the number of corporations, but that too would offer no relevant information to this situation. And as far as my citing of the terms used by fuel companies; it's relevancy arises from the fact that they are the ones who produce the fuel so their preference of using "gasoline" (even by european based companies) carries much weight. Hope this clears things up.   —Teknic 23:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  My response is below. - Yama 01:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Misplaced Pages is a world encyclopedia. en.wkipedia.org needs to represent the best spread of countries/regions and population in the English-speaking world.

  Population yes, countries/states/provinces/prefectures/counties no.  —Teknic 04:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  Once again, Misplaced Pages is a world encyclopedia. Besides, even if you go by population "petrol" users outnumber "gasoline" users. — Yama 05:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  That's incorrect. Check out English language   —Teknic 08:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • A country (and its associated governments, organisations, etc.) is made up of people. All decisions and policies are decided upon by people. If an organisation uses a particular term (like "petrol" or gasoline") as a standard, all the people within are expected to use it.

  I'm not sure what organization governs you, but if you are not free to use the word "gasoline" then I'd seriously think about relocating.   —Teknic 04:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  Are you saying that there are no standards whatsover where you live? Do you live in complete anarchy? Of course not. Standards are important to facilitate communication and trade. — Yama 05:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  Standards are important when they are absolutely required. Common sense takes care of everything else. This is getting too off-topic.   —Teknic 08:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Organisations are also consumers. In most (if not all) countries, government is by far the largest consumer of automotive fuel.

  Yes, and out of every government in the world the US government is by far the largest fuel consumer. (They bathe in the stuff :).   —Teknic 04:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  The US government is the largest single consumer, but not the largest overall. This article is about naming and not consumption levels, so there is no point in debating this. — Yama 05:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  Sorry. I assumed that because you brought it up you thought there was a point in debating it.   —Teknic 08:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • The demographics (nationality, location, etc.) of en.wikipedia.org users is constantly changing. This is also a major reason why current Google statistics will be irrelevant in the longer term (see comments regarding this elsewhere on this page). The focus should be on English usage as a whole.

  The focus is and should be on en.wikipedia readers and nothing else. I agree that demographic is changing so if ever there are more "petrol" users than "gasoline" users then we will make the change. But until then we are to continue to use the title that the original author used.   —Teknic 04:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  You are proposing the inbreeding of information. Misplaced Pages should focus on overall accuracy, not on the whims of a subset of the Misplaced Pages community at a particular moment in time. — Yama 05:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Oil companies are focused around consumption and sales, not on usage of a word. They use "gasoline" because the USA is the largest single oil consumer (for whatever reasons that may be). They don't care who uses "petrol" and who uses "gasoline". They just want to sell oil, and they'll do whatever it takes to appease their largest clients.

  Come on now; you can't actually think the fuel companies call it "gasoline" so more people will buy it! They could call it diarrhea and you, I, and everybody else in the world would still have to buy it. Your right however about the US being the largest consumer.   —Teknic 04:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  They do it to facilitate communication and trade with their largest partners, namely those in the USA. What individual people call it is of no consequence to them. — Yama 05:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• "Petrol" is used by a greater number of English speakers (debatable, see below)
• The term "petrol" is not as misleading as the term "gas" for a liquid

  No one has suggested we move the article to "gas". That's absurd and misleading. gas != gasoline. petrol != petroleum. Both are colloquial abbreviations. - Omegatron

  Like it or not, people in North America call their automotive fuel gas. This is confusing because it is in reality a liquid and also because gas is a common abbreviation (globally and in industry) for natural gas (a true gas). Natural gas is an everyday substance for many people (used for heating, fuel, etc.), so confusing the terms can have a high impact. Petrol is derived from petroleum, but nobody uses (or even sees) petroleum directly so there is no confusion whatsoever.

  It doesn't matter if people in North America call it "gas". No one is saying we move the article to gas. This is irrelevant. No one is saying we move it to "petroleum", either. That would be stupid. - Omegatron 01:06, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  Ugh. Gas, in this case, is a colloquial shortening for gasoline, and colloquisms don't belong in an encyclopedia (that is, unless the colloquism is being described), which is the reason nobody has suggested moving the article to gas. Thus, the official name for it in North America is gasoline, and gas is just an informal name for it. --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃənz/ 21:49, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise

• Rename the article to "Refined petroleum", or some such thing. —Sean κ. + 17:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Other things that are "refined petroleum": kerosene, paraffins, toluene, Vaseline, propylene, ... - Omegatron 20:39, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

,or some such thing —Sean κ. + 16:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you think of a word that unambiuously means "petrol" without actually being "petrol"? The only one I can think of is "gasoline". - Omegatron 18:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

As as aside, does anybody know what white gas is commonly called outside North America?   —Teknic 22:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it. It's called "white gas".   —Teknic 23:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Most English speakers reside in India

The majority of English speakers reside outside the United States. Some users have been conveniently ignoring this fact, even though it has been raised several times on this page. English is an language that been spread throughout the world. Many countries use it for official purposes, and a great deal of nations use it to stride linguistic boundaries within their borders. India is one such example. The most widely spoken language in India is English, and English is used for official governmental purposes (e.g. in parliament). It is one of the two official national languages, and all children learn it at school. India uses British English, and so uses the word "petrol".

Using Google or percentage Internet share statistics is grossly inaccurate at measuring usage of any word or phrase. Due to various historical (e.g. the Internet began in the USA), political and economic factors, the USA currently has about half of all Internet users. This is totally disproportionate to its share of world population (3-4%). There are billions of people (millions of whom are English speakers) out there who can't even afford a computer at the present. There are also many who do not have Internet access at home for other reasons. Things are rapidly changing, however. As more people sign on internationally, the US share of world Internet usage is falling. Something as inaccurate and rapidly changing as Internet usage or Google counts should not be a consideration for anything on Misplaced Pages. It is unrepresentative of global realities. - Yama 11:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It could also be argued that petrol covers more countries/nations than gasoline.GraemeLeggett 12:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

From the sites previously cited by User:Omegatron. Feel free to add any other relevant figures than these provide.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/lan_eng_spe&int=50

• 50. India Second language speakers: 11,021,610 (1961 census).

http://alt-usage-english.org/Distribution_English_speakers.shtml

Number of Speakers				Country
English Mother Tongue	English (Lingua Franca)	English Bilingual	English Creole
310,000	30,000,000			India

Note further that "outside the United States" is not the relevant question. Gasoline is definitely the normal terminology in Canada, and has significant use in many other places. Gene Nygaard 13:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You can't be serious... using census data from 1961??? How does that relate to today? With that kind of logic I could use info from 1500 and conclude that nobody speaks English in North America.

India is a rapidly-growing and changing (in population, economy, education, literacy, etc.) country, far more so than most other countries and certainly more than developed nations like the USA and Canada (which are the only two countries you cite to back up your argument). India has a much bigger population now, and its people are more educated and literate. Also, it is not uncommon for an Indian to know more than two languages. There is a good chance that they will know English (a certainty if they went to school), but not necessarily as a second language. English might be a third- or fourth- language. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are not proficient or that they don't use it. Also note that India is only one of many countries which uses English.

People who have a smattering of English as a third or fourth language do not set the standards for English usage. Gene Nygaard 03:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Just because a person learns English after learning even two or three other languages it doesn't mean that they only "have a smattering of English". Most countries are multilingual, and that does not necessarily mean that they just know many languages badly. Also, the chronological order in which languages are learnt often has little bearing on the order of skill. Especially when it comes to English, multilingual people get a lot of practice because there is so much content available and so much opportunity to use it (it's a world language after all).

It's simply difficult to find good info - Omegatron 16:15, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

English in India

• "India currently publishes more than 8000 English dailies (Registrar of Newspapers for India, March 2004) reaching 142 million people, at a growth rate of 23.21 percent compared to the previous year."
• "Mr. Vajpayee recently lamented the dominance of English language in India and wanted that Hindi be popularized. He also said that primary education should be imparted in the mother tongue. He said, "Barely two to three per cent people speak English. In our country education of English language starts right from first standard." Hindi has the potential to rule the world, and don the status of an international language, he declared (The Hindu, May 21, 2003)." 3% * 1,080,264,388 (July 2005 est.) = 32 407 932
• List of Indian languages by total speakers, but that's taken from the same source as this:
• "National language. Second-language speakers in India: 11,021,610 (1961 census)."
• 1991 Indian census says 90 221 085, if I am interpreting correctly:
  • "40 ENGLISH 178,598 0.021%" 1991 Indian census - (that must be first language only or something.)
  • Second language total: 64,602,299, third language total: 25,440,188 - 1991 Indian census -

That is misleading. Anybody who has been to school in India knows some English. I don't know why the census numbers are low, but the real figures are much higher. Maybe they can't speak it fluently (and so aren't confident enough to put it on their census forms), but there are millions who can at least read it (eg. see "India currently publishes more than 8000 English dailies (Registrar of Newspapers for India, March 2004) reaching 142 million people, at a growth rate of 23.21 percent compared to the previous year.", above).

Don't forget to add in the rest of the sub-continent, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and there's parts of Indo-china too, eg Malaysia which have been influenced. GraemeLeggett 16:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You add it! This is tiring.  :-) - Omegatron 16:19, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

The Saskatchewan farmers who learn a smattering of French in school don't set the standards for the use of the French Misplaced Pages, are not a part of the French language police in France or in Quebec, and do not set the standards for French language use. Gene Nygaard 03:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

What ignorance! A great many people in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and many other countries speak and/or read English fluently. I don't understand why you dislike multilingual people so much.

English in USA

• And the number of people in the US speaking English was 262,375,152 in 2000, according to the US census.

One wonders how well that English is spoken/written. I often hear/read better English from people who speak it as a second or third language.

English in Canada

• 20,014,645 English only + 5,231,575 English+French = 25 246 220 in 2001

English in the EU

• 47% of 454,900,000 = 213 803 000
  • According to a Eurobarometer survey of 2001, 47% of the citizens of the (15-states) Union speak English well enough to hold a conversation. - English as a lingua franca for Europe
  • 2004 population 454,900,000 - European_union
• The European Union uses British English

How's this for a different barometer?

Google	hits
gasoline site:eu.int	4,700
petrol site:eu.int	14,900

That pretty much puts the kibosh on a notion of uniform European Union use of British English, doesn't it? Gene Nygaard 03:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Missed one. Search on Google (petrol gasoline site:eu.int) "about 8,650 results". Google is not a measuring device for language usage. GraemeLeggett 06:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

English in Africa ?

Any data on english in Africa, Nigeria is a large country with a hefty proportion of English speakers (email scams notwithstanding). GraemeLeggett 06:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The English spoken in most African nations is based on British English. Nigeria (pop. 128,771,988), like South Africa (pop. 44,344,136), is a member of the Commonwealth. - Yama 07:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Use of English by Major International Organisations

British English (and minor variants)

• United Nations system (UN, UNESCO, UNICEF, etc.)
• World Trade Organization (WTO)
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
• International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
• International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
• World Health Organization (WHO)
• International Labour Organization (ILO)
• International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
• Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
• South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
• International Criminal Police Organization - Interpol
• International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
• WWF - The Conservation Organization
• Amnesty International
• North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)
• European Union (EU)
• Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
• Commonwealth Secretariat (Commonwealth of Nations)
• Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS)
• International Olympic Committee (IOC)
• Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)
• Transparency International
• Greenpeace

American English

• International Monetary Fund (IMF)
• World Bank
• Organization of American States (OAS)
• NAFTA Secretariat
• and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

Octane of gasoline

The acticle overall is not that clear re octane rating for gasoline. In the US what you see on the pump when is says "87 octane" is actually not the RON (Research Octane Number) but an average of the RON and the MON (Motor Octane Number). Typical gasoline has a difference (called the sensitivity) between RON and MON of around 10: so in theUSA 87 octane is typically 92 RON, 82 MON.

Elsewhere in the world (gEurpoe, Asia, Aust: not sure about other places such as Latin America) what is normally quoted is just the RON (there will often be a separte specification for MON, but the general public does not tend to worry about it).

Question is: is this all too techy for wikipedia or should I go ahead and revise.

Also: re the debate re petrol and gasoline: within the industry people refer to "gasoline" all over the world: but the general public uses petrol in english speaking countries outside Nth America. The term Mogas, for Motor Gasoline (to distinguish from Avgas (Aviation gasoline) is also common everywhere). Another term is Motor Spirit, or Spirit for short. Once again...too much detail???

--GPoss 10:21, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

On naming matters: Here in Hungary, Gasoline (gázolaj) is the name for Diesel engine fuel. Benzene (benzin) is the name of fuel for Otto engines (which require spark plug). Petrol (petróleum) is the thing you put in the shiny brass lamp with wick to get light. It would be great if a worlwide standard was reached on mineral oil derivative naming. I guess some people must get killed every year filling their car's tank with the wrong kind of fuel when travelling abroad.

This difference should be reflected in the Magyar version, not the English one.

Units

Could we please have this in SI units instead of 40 hogsheads to the rod units?

As long as the article has that weird name, the weird units look pretty normal to me! The problem is, the people who use those units don't understand them, and the people who don't use those units don't understand them either. So nobody can figure out how to convert them to SI units. Okay, maybe a couple of us could; I've got that hodsheads to the rod stuff down pat, 40.00 hogsheads to the rod is 1.897 m², round off that result according to how precise your "40" is. (One problem, of course, is that people don't use the SI units for fuel consumption or fuel economy; a typical automobile fuel consumption is in the 50 to 100 µm² range, however, so 40 hogsheads to the rod takes an enormous amount of fuel.) Gene Nygaard 09:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, that means, of course, that Grandpa Simpson's vehicle would probably work fine if he had a two square meter (in cross-section) trough of fuel along the road from which he could suck up his fuel. Gene Nygaard 09:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Odd choice...

Why does it have this in the overview paragraph? "The United States use 360 million US liquid gallons (1.36 billion litres) of gasoline each day."

It seems as though it has been stuck in there as a quick shot against the US. I'm canadian, but i think it maked the entire paragraph flow oddly. any other opinions? SECProto 19:28, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

It does appear awkward, a better value would be the maount used in the world perahps with a couple of examples of vey high and low (per capita?) users. I suspect it was in there as an exmaple when the article was first written without an international flavour. GraemeLeggett 20:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. - Omegatron 20:40, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Problem solved

Sneaking in little notes on talk pages that nobody reads does not count as "no objections". You have to present it in a public forum that you don't send all your friends to. The article is now Gasoline/Petrol. Now you can have a real vote about it. ℬastique▼ 23:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look out for the Color article, because that's where the UK trolls will go hunt next... ℬastique▼ 23:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)