Talk:Gasoline/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE PLEASE ADD ANY NEW COMMENTS TO Talk:Gasoline

Contents

Archives

Archived discussions:

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 Wikipedia: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[1] and 2 million for petrol[2] 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. Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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-Wikipedia-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 Wikipedia 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. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]). 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)
Behold!
Behold!

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: [12] [13] 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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
[French (essence de) pétrole, (essence of) petroleum, gasoline, from Old French petrole, petroleum, from Medieval Latin petrōleum. See petroleum.]
  • gas·o·line (găs'ə-lēn', găs'ə-lēn') pronunciation
n.
[GAS + OL(E) + INE2.]:
  • 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.
  • ine2
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 [14]
Jean-Joseph Etienne Lenoir explains, and concludes:
"si cela marche, jajouterai un carburateur à réchauffage et à niveau constant dans lequel on introduira soit de lessence, 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 [Taken from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition] - 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)
If you are just talking about origins, petrol is British and gasoline is French. There can be no such thing as chiefly. Nevertheless, petrol today is not "chiefly British". It is a globally-used term. — Yama 12:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just as gasoline is not chiefly American. It's a globally-used term. ℬastique▼talk 14:19, 13 Jun 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 Wikipedia'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)
Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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)

Um... nobody complained because nobody saw it. ℬastique▼talk 22:47, 5 Jun 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. In Hungary, for instance, "petrol" does not mean gasoline.



  • This is explained further down the page. In Magyar, gasoline (gázolaj) is Diesel and petróleum (which is arguably different from petrol, since petroleum also means something else in English) is used for lighting. 202.139.41.194 03:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "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)   —TeknicT-M-C 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.   —TeknicT-M-C 07:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    The majority of English speakers use Petrol. Why do you ignore them? Do you think they are insignificant because most of them can't afford the internet or buy a magazine? Stop flaunting your money and have some respect for others. Anonymous 202.139.41.194
    Irrelevant. Wikipedia policy is not to change articles from one version of English to another unless the article is particularly pertinant to one nation or groups of nations. If it depended on the number of speakers of whatever version of English, then every article would be written in BE instead of AE and there'd be no policy. But there is. And changing an article based on number of speakers is against that policy—as is the action that would result in a converse result, that is, changing an article based on the number of speakers who use the internet. The original action violated that policy. This heated debate is the result of that violation. This is why we have these policies. To prevent debates like this. ℬastique▼talk 17:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    It is not irrelevant. We are talking about the name of the term itself, not about the spelling within the article. If more people use one term than another, then it should be used as the title. 202.139.41.194 08:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Are you implying that every British term should be assigned precedence over its American counterpart? —Lifeisunfair 09:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    The name that the largest group of people can relate to (with some exceptions, e.g. if there is an 'official' term) should be the title of the article. Whether it is BE, AE or something else is irrelevant. — Yama 11:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The name that the largest group of people is firstly, difficult to define and prove, because you're making up rules as you go: Second language counts, adopted words don't count. Second official language counts (as in India), half a billion to a billion speakers of rudimentary English, wherein gasoline is a pretty basic word, don't count (as in Latin America, China or Japan). I'm certain I could spend a few hours compiling the data that would unequivicably prove my case that gasoline is twice as common as petrol and post it here, and it wouldn't matter one iota. What you say is most common, and what I say is most common causes the argument to fail entirely. ℬastique▼talk 12:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do you believe that "petrol" is the term to which the largest group of people can relate? Assuming that it's preferred by more people, that doesn't mean that it's known to more people. It appears as though most "petrol" users are fairly familiar with the term "gasoline," but I seriously doubt that most "gasoline" users would recognize the term "petrol." —Lifeisunfair 15:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Why do you believe that "gasoline" is the term to which the largest group of people can relate? I just polled all my Indian friends. Almost none of them knew what "gasoline" is. Obviously this kind of research is entirely unscientific, but at least it is one step better than your guesswork. — Yama 12:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Entirely subjective. Your Indian friends are in England and probably don't watch much television or see many movies except British or Indian ones. Over the weekend I took a poll of all the Indian convenience store owners from whom I buy cigarettes, and they all think that petrol is archaic. ℬastique▼talk 14:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly my point, as I thought I had clearly explained ("this kind of research is entirely unscientific"). I was just trying to point out the silliness of the parent post's assumptions.
I don't know what you hope to gain by fabricating things about me. I don't live in England and I don't have any friends there. — Yama 15:06, 13 Jun 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.   —TeknicT-M-C 22:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    What exactly does "greater" mean? Does it mean "greater than British English"? Or maybe it just means "greater than it had in the past".
  • 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)
  • Wikipedia 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)   —TeknicT-M-C 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.   —TeknicT-M-C 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, Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia" 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.   —TeknicT-M-C 04:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    Wikipedia exists to provide accurate information about the world, not its own users. If this argument were heeded, we might also be considering using gas for the title of this article, since that's how it is more commonly referred by most of the (predominantly AE-speaking due to various economic/political factors) Wikipedia community. We are writing about world knowledge, not forking the world and creating our own reality. — Yama 12:57, 13 Jun 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 Wikipedia 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.   —TeknicT-M-C 23:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    My response is below. - Yama 01:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia 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.  —TeknicT-M-C 04:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    Once again, Wikipedia 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   —TeknicT-M-C 08:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    It is not incorrect. That article is about people who speak English as a first language. There are many millions of people who learnt English as an additional language, and they use it on a daily basis (oftentimes more so than their first language). Many multilingual nations (most of which use British English) use English for communication and trade. Anonymous 202.139.41.194
    • 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.   —TeknicT-M-C 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.   —TeknicT-M-C 08:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    It's common for organisations to have standards on definitions and terms. Ignoring that fact doesn't make it go away.
    • 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 :).   —TeknicT-M-C 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.   —TeknicT-M-C 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.   —TeknicT-M-C 04:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    You are proposing the inbreeding of information. Wikipedia should focus on overall accuracy, not on the whims of a subset of the Wikipedia 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.   —TeknicT-M-C 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)
    Gas is natural gas. Ask anybody in the oil industry. Confusion must not reign. 202.139.41.194
    Irrelevant. Nobody's making a proposal to use gas instead of gasoline or petrol. Stop bickering over pointless things. ℬastique▼talk 16:51, 6 Jun 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 Wikipedia. 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."[15]
  • "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)."[16] 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)." [17]
  • 1991 Indian census says 90 221 085, if I am interpreting correctly:
    • "40 ENGLISH 178,598 0.021%" 1991 Indian census - [18] (that must be first language only or something.)
    • Second language total: 64,602,299, third language total: 25,440,188 - 1991 Indian census - [19]
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 Wikipedia, 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.
Even if their English isnt fluent in India, everyone calls it petrol. There isnt even another word for it in the other languages. Until a few minutes ago I had no idea what gasoline was. (I thought American cars were built differently, and ran on gaseous petrol. No, really. It would explain their bottomless appetite for the stuff, at least.) Hornplease 04:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This applies in a great many countries, spanning many millions of people. It is not restricted to India.

English in USA

  • And the number of people in the US speaking English was 262,375,152 in 2000, according to the US census. [20]
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.
That is a vile, pointless and incendiary comment and has no basis in this debate. You can't even acknowledge who you are. ℬastique▼talk 22:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

English in Canada

  • 20,014,645 English only + 5,231,575 English+French = 25 246 220 in 2001 [21]

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 Asia

In China, when using English, the word is "gas." In Thailand, it is also "gas." --AStanhope 16:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shell in their Hong Kong website uses "petrol", so I guess the Cantons probably use the p-word. GraemeLeggett 16:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Petrol in Malaysia too it seems, fascinating Website [www.shell.com]GraemeLeggett 16:41, 22 Jun 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)

Your logic is entirely flawed. Try looking up how many searches are done for either term, rather than how many websites yield results. There's a much better way to figure who's actually online and doing searches. Overture, an international search tool, gives us 443,078 individual searches for gasoline and, what...only 1823 for petrol? Maybe people who look for it know to look for GASOLINE rather than petrol. Oh dear. 30 kilobytes of typed text presented here and you've proven absolutely nothing except that how stubborn people can be. We are now watching you guys. If an article was written in US English, according to the rules here, it should remain in US English. Putting a note on the talk page that nobody will see doesn't qualify as a consensus...and it will be changed back until a proper vote in a public place will be taken. ℬastique▼talk 23:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are talking about English usage as a whole. That includes things like conversations, not just over the Internet. While it may be true that people type gasoline when using Google, this is more a factor of US dominance over the Internet (i.e. they are forced to use gasoline to retrieve results from US sites) rather than an indicator of their true preference. — Yama 13:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

English in the UK and Australia

  • I can overwhelm this board with insignificant and pointless facts as well. These are facts all the same:
  • Gasoline, while not the preferred word, is in use in the UK. A small but not insignificant number of articles written by BBC News correspondents use the term, gasoline. UK citizens know what you mean when you say Gasoline.
  • Gasoline, while not the preferred term, is in use in Australia. A small but not insignificant number of articles written by ABC correspondents (not Reuters, etc.) on ABC News use the term, gasoline. Australian citizens know what you mean when you say Gasoline.
  • Petrol is still not being used by American news correspondents at all. Most Americans don't know what petrol is, yet still use the internet on a regular basis. Please don't draw this one little sentence out of context. There's a whole slew of facts here.
  • Reuters, one of the primary sources of American, British and Australian news yeilded the following on today's date: 100 articles for gasoline, 73 articles for petrol.
I live in Australia and I've never heard the ABC use gasoline except when discussing the USA. I get 124 results for gasoline at abc.net.au, most of which are talking about the USA or Iraq, and 7,930 results for petrol at abc.net.au, most of which are talking about Australia. The word gasoline is hardly in use in Australia. --bainer (talk) 01:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have noticed the same thing. Often an article/report will use the term preferred by those who are being reported on, rather than the preference of the target audience. — Yama 11:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the United States, this does not hold true. Non-American terms are almost never used in the media, unless no American equivalents exist. —Lifeisunfair 15:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

English in Latin America and the Caribbean

  • British Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean favor the term gasoline over petrol.
  • Nations in Latin America use American English as their preferred English of business over UK English. This represents some 40 trillion people (I don't have the specific figure here).
    I don't think English is a widely (and fluently) spoken/read language in Latin America, but I could be wrong. If so, it lends no weight to this debate. — Yama 13:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

English in Space

  • Alien beings, if they have not yet, will likely begin receiving television broadcasts over the next decade or so. This represents some 600 bazillion entities. They will receive about 20 times more broadcasts in American English than British English to begin with. When English television does get big, and the Benny Hill and Monty Python begin to reach them (after airing on US Public Television in the late 70s), they will probably vote to eradicate our Mostly Harmless planet.

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)

Anybody can pick and choose international organizations and come up with a massive amount on one side and very little on the other. There's not even any source for this information. Once again, this proves absolutely nothing. ℬastique▼talk 23:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that's why the list was titled "Use of English by Major International Organisations". The focus is on the big ones, not the small fry. — Yama 13:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And as we've seen elsewhere, even on these organization's websites, the use of gasoline over petrol is often preferred, in spite of their choice of English. Plus, you forgot to mention that the majority of your UK-using list preferred a modified form of Commonwealth English over the standard (-ize over -ise, and it seems sometimes, gasoline over petrol) ℬastique▼talk 14:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I did not forget, I make mention of the variant elsewhere on the page. Please read all of my new comments before replying. I seriously doubt whether gasoline is part of this variant. I see this variant being used all the time (it is relatively common, but hardly dominant, where I live) but I never see gasoline. — Yama 15:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for neutral article title

What about using Petroleum gasoline for the title? It may be redundant, since gasoline by definition is made from petroleum, but it seems more neutral to me since it includes both colloquial terms, "gas" and "petrol". --Poiuyt Man talk 09:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I wish I thought of it when I changed the article title to Gasoline/Petrol. Now I'm stuck having to defend my change. (Some of these people don't like compromise, though. They have to win...) ℬastique▼talk 22:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I, for one, am in favor of a compromise, though I don't think a very accurate one can be found. "Petroleum gasoline" is decent. - Omegatron 14:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind this idea, either. It's not perfect, but it works. — Yama 13:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's a good compromise title. I'll accept it. - OptimusPrime 03:52, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
It's redundant (nothing else is called gasoline), and just about never used (biggest argument against it), and IMHO still gives preference to "gasoline". I honestly don't care, but Gasoline/Petrol sounds better to me. Nickptar 18:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, but Gasoline/Petrol isn't a good title, either. Just like Aluminum/Aluminium isn't. It would seem to a newcomer like we can't make up our minds.  :-D - Omegatron 19:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I think it was mentioned elsewhere on the page that the title Gasoline/Petrol is actually two pages: an empty Gasoline page, and a Petrol subpage (which contains the actual article). — Yama 13:18, 13 Jun 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)
I'm just shooting in the dark here, but what about "Automobile grade petroleum" or "High-octane refined petroleum".—Sean κ. + 16:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Or "automobile fuel" or "motor fuel" or something like that. Hard to think of something that is specific and all-applicable, though. - Omegatron 14:05, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
How about changing the name to Internal combustion engine fuel? That seems like an accurate description, and it fav...I mean...it incorporates preference toward neither contested term. — Lifeisunfair 06:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, because an internal combustion engine can really be any engine that operates by burning fuel internally - even if you restrict it to piston-based vehicle engines, diesel and ethanol would also qualify for that title. I "think" it should be Fossil fuel for spark-plug-containing internal combustion engines. Nickptar 19:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I realized that my suggested phrase was too inclusive shortly after I posted it, but the Wikimedia downtime already had begun. Perhaps Petroleum-based engine fuel would be appropriate. This contains the root of the word "petrol," but that shouldn't offend any reasonable individual. (I'm American, and it wouldn't bother me.) The substance is refined from petroleum, and factual accuracy should outweigh a linguistic similarity. — Lifeisunfair 19:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As as aside, does anybody know what white gas is commonly called outside North America?   —TeknicT-M-C 22:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind, I found it. It's called "white gas".   —TeknicT-M-C 23:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
What is "white gas"? - Omegatron 19:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I think white gas is synonymous with naphtha in common usage, though I could be mistaken. For what it's worth, that's how the redirects work out here on Wikipedia. :-) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 19:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
White gas, naptha, and coleman fuel are camp stove fuels. They can often be used interchangeably so many people assume they are the same thing. They are distinct fuels however, and white gas is just gasoline without additives like detergents and such. It's known as "white gas" everywhere in the world, but it's usage seems to be uncommon outside North America. For the record I think White gas should redirect here instead of Naptha.   —TeknicT-M-C 21:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like the same stuff as "lighter petrol" in the UK, as occasionally used in "petrol stoves". It's not common, though - most camping stoves are either paraffin (older ones), meths (alcohol) or gas (ie not liquid). PeteVerdon 20:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hungarian naming

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.
Not at all. It's just as relevant as non-English-speaking Indians using petrol. - Omegatron 19:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand how you could interpret things that way. The discussion was about English-speaking Indians, of which there are many millions. Besides, in Magyar neither petrol or gasoline mean what they do in English, so I don't see how it applies to the debate. 202.139.41.194 03:07, 7 Jun 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▼talk 23:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Not meaning that everyone in the UK is a troll... just those who sneak around changing article names when they know that nobody is paying attention. Immature little children, you are. ℬastique▼talk 23:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The trolls haven't changed Truck to Lorry because Lorry is a disambiguation page. It wouldn't work. Of course, now that they have to follow due process because there are so many more users online. I'd advise looking in certain people's contribution history and see what sort of other things they did while nobody was paying attention. ℬastique▼talk 23:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Wikipedia is full of this bickering, from spelling disputes, to where to place commas, to where to place quote marks. Calling some editors trolls does not help the situation. I suggest that you read (or reread) No personal attacks, and WP:Civility. BlankVerse ∅ 04:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah, see, I know nothing about Internet trolls, thanks for the link. It appears that there are cultural differences in language, even from computer to computer. I was basing my use of the word troll from the behavior exhibited by fairy tale trolls, as I mentioned below. And since I didn't specify who did it, only those guilty of troll-like activity should feel insulted. Personal attacks actually involve identity, the language I used gives the person an opportunity to explore their own behavior, and decide whether or not they've been a troll. But thanks for the heads up, BlankVerse, I'll try to be even more clear about that in the future. And I'm trying not to write this with sarcasm, so don't add any sarcastic tones—it's not warranted. ℬastique▼talk 21:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry. There's plenty of trolling on this page. - Omegatron 14:12, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it. Looks like they reverted it again, though. - Omegatron 13:00, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Since I was the one who reverted it, I hope you're not calling me a troll. Proteus (Talk) 17:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since I said, "troll" before you reverted it, Proteus, means you obviously didn't read more on the debate. Try seeing what we mean before you take things personally.
Putting a few sentences on a talk page asking for opposition may seem like a good idea, but the proper response after two weeks with no debate whatsoever would have been to say to oneself, "Maybe this was the wrong place to search for an opinion, since nobody has responded, maybe nobody sees this page. I should make the question more public." instead of, "Oh well there's no opposition, I'll change it." Please recognize that there was only one individual even offering support. This sort of activity is unexusable. The person who initially changed it should have acknowledged his or her mistake instead of creating this ridiculous debate.
Many people are disregarding the simple rule fact that articles should not be changed from original language, overruling Wikipedia policy on article spelling conventions. The original change was done in a halfhazard manner with no proper opportunity for objection, and there has yet been no vote taken on the matter. This happens constantly with articles, and more often going from AE to BE. This article's original title was Gasoline and for the people who changed it to break Wikipedia policy on AE/BE lingustics it should have been done so in a public place rather than on the articles talk page. This article should be entitled Gasoline or at the very least Gasoline/Petrol until this dispute is resolved. ℬastique▼talk
Pages are moved all the time. It'd be a nightmare if every page move had to be discussed before it happened. It's always been proper procedure to ask for comments on talk pages, and if no objections appear it is safe to procede with whatever was suggested. The Manual of Style is not official policy to be slavishly followed without discussion or deviation, and consensus on talk pages almost always trumps it. Coming to a page months later and saying "But if I'd known at the time, I'd have objected!" is just absurd. And don't try to appoint yourself the arbitrator of Wikipedia policy. Lecturing me on it is also a slightly pointless idea - as an Admin it's likely I know far more about it that you do. Proteus (Talk) 22:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Moving a page from one english variant to another is prohibited ("the original contributor's usage should be followed.") Yet people keep doing it whenever they see a word that looks foreign to them. It should have been reverted immediately after the move. If you want such a page moved, you definitely definitely need to bring it up on the talk page and get a clear consensus. Leaving a message about it on a talk page and getting no response after only two weeks is not consensus. - Omegatron 14:12, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Clearly pages that are moved from US English to UK or vise versa need to have a stronger look taken at them, since as you well know, Proteus, the action engenders very hard feelings on both sides of the Pond. ℬastique▼talk 22:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The move was made because there are (or at least perceived to be) more people who use the word petrol. It is a valid reason and it was clearly explained on this page at the time it happened. Please stop trying to play the victim. Anonymous User 59.167.21.48 11:34, 6 Jun 2005 (Name, date and time added by Bastique)
Sorry, but that's not a valid reason for a move. This sort of behavior happens all the time, and we have policies to deal with it. Please read these for more info:
It's illegal on Wikipedia. Nobody's playing the victim. Please stop trying to "win" and making anonymous AE to BE changes on Wikipedia. (see LapLink cable) ℬastique▼talk 16:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Stop this. I was the original author of that article and I fully intended it to be BE. — Yama 00:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please excuse me a moment while I eat my words.
You're absolutely right, you were the original author. Stop making changes anonymously :)! It just seems evil. Please accept my sincerest apologies. ℬastique▼talk 00:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't understand what was wrong with this solution. - Plexust 23:24, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
My addition of {{TitleNPOV}} was removed, too? - Omegatron 00:11, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Proteus is just doing what, in his opinion, he thinks is right. Maybe he doens't realize that most of us prefer compromise to discord. ℬastique▼talk 21:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I realise that Wikipedia exists for its users, not its editors, and putting pages at idiotic titles is stupid and makes us look ridiculous. Proteus (Talk) 22:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Idiotic titles? Seems that some people liked the compromise, as evidenced here. Your opinion is that the title is idiotic. Perhaps your opinion as an administrator codifies the definition of it being an idiotic title. It most certainly does not appear idiotic in my opinion, nor am I an idiot for having come up with it. You should recuse yourself from performing any maintenance on this article. ℬastique▼talk 22:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Someone disagreeing with you does not make them a troll. smoddy 16:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Trolling is when someone hides out from plain view awaiting, possibly for long periods of time, some passerby to take notice, after which they pounce on them. The person who changed this article did so, leaving a change to be discovered much later on, just awaiting someone to bring up the debate. It appears that the two individuals above, who are no stranger to this sort of controversy, did so, knowing that a great many people would in fact object had they known about the change. They had done so with the support of much of the UK Wikipedian's board to back them up. It is perfectly applicable in this case, because the individual who changed it did so. ℬastique▼talk 21:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You need to calm down and take a deep breath. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Proteus (Talk) 22:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I have and will. You also know that I've been very active in Wikipedia and am not here to create problems but to help solve them. It's why I had my say at Yoghurt and left without another word. However, this problem needs to be addressed, and in my own personal and perhaps incorrect opinion, someone who is an administrator and involved in the debate should address the issue rather than consistently taking one side over the other. We are not just screaming ignorant people here, we are people who are actually involved in Wikipedia and would like due process and consideration, not mob mentality wins over independant voices. ℬastique▼talk 22:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that there was all this fuss. I made the change over a year ago according to policy (most common term, agreement on talk page - IIRC I waited a month before making the change). It would have been nice if someone would have pointed out to me that Bastique is having such fun accusing me of being a troll, failing to assume good faith, and other unfortunate violations of policy in their argument that my move should be undone. It saddens me rather that there should be such a fuss, really.
James F. (talk) 18:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Failing to assume good faith is rampant around here. Of course, should you have bothered reading any follow up, you would have seen that the "assume good faith" portion has already been resolved. I'm sorry it seemed as if I called you a troll. I didn't call you anything. Assume good faith and all that. My language was careful and clear; I said people who sneak around changing article names when they know that nobody is paying attention, is a troll. If you were not doing that, then I didn't call you anything. If it is a practice you engage in, well... Only you can know what goes on in your head. But one thing you are not, is a martyr, so stop playing one. This was not your first foray into the BE/AE debate. I wouldn't have known about this article until someone emailed me to take a look because they saw that I was involved in a similar debate with James F. on another article about the exact same type of thing. Furthermore, if you were not last summer aware of the ill feelings this sort of modification can cause, you should be well aware of it by now. ℬastique▼talk 19:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, actually, feel free to recant but please don't attempt to claim that it was not a direct personal attack on me (saying that the user who moved the page is a troll is a direct personal attack on - guess who? - said user). HTH.
I am concerned that you seem to be rules-lawyering over this issue, and further that it seems to be somewhat of an emotive one for you. Perhaps it would be better for your wikistress if you didn't engage in such debates? :-)
You say that you were "involved in a similar debate with [you] on another article about the exact same type of thing"; when? Where? I generally avoid AE/BE discussions, as they are so essentially pointless and drone on and on without end...
James F. (talk) 19:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say the person who moved this page was a troll. I beg of you, show me. Assume what you want about what you didn't read, but don't take words from my mouth. I didn't attack anyone. The only legitimate way you can consider yourself called a troll is if you behaved in a sneaky manner, as I pointed out above. Did you behave in a sneaky manner, James? Are you a troll? Only you can decide that, not I. As far as other debates, go read the talk page on Yoghurt. You are prevalent on that page. And thank you for your false concern about my stress level, but I'm doing quite well, thank you. ℬastique▼talk 20:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I now see that I did say that whoever moved the article was trolling. Sorry there, old chap... I can see how describing a behavior can be confused for an attack. But I was wrong in assuming bad faith. Hardly an attack. My sincerest apologies. You know how these things are. ℬastique▼talk 20:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Saying that someone is "trolling" is identical to calling them a troll, I would say, but I'm not overly annoyed by it (I've been called a great deal worse ;-)); thank you for your apology - it is heartily accepted. I'm well aware of how easy it is to get overly upset and do the wrong thing from time to time. As for "Yoghurt", I made 3 comments (count them ;-)) about proceedure, none of which were directed at you or a train of thought you had posted in, as well as a single vote; hardly "prevalent", I think (compare to others', for example).
To get back to the matter at hand, policy (and by this I mean actual policy, not whatever poorly-worded codification happens to be the current version written on Wikipedia) on naming articles is as follows:
Chose the title such that it is as much as possible (in decreasing order of importance):
  • ... not strongly POV
  • ... near to the modally common term
  • ... widely understood
  • ... simple
The first can be pretty-well discounted from concern; the last strongly favours either "petrol" or "gasoline" over some made-up medial term that is acceptable to none, merely equally detested; for the second, this is a matter of some debate (as evidenced above), but I would suggest that "petrol" probably edges out "gasoline" (taking the whole globe, rather than just UK, AU, &c. vs. US, CA, &c. that is); finally, for the third, well, I was under the impression that "petrol" and "gasoline" were understood pretty much everywhere, but this is allegedly not the case - if this is so, and a significant number of Americans really don't understand the term, then this is a possible cause to tip the scale more in favour of "gasoline" over "petrol".
Certainly, if I had known a year ago that, 12 months hence, I would be accused of trolling or otherwise acting other than in good faith, well, I would have let another sysop carry out the request to move the page. :-)
James F. (talk) 22:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If the most common term referred to how many speakers in the world spoke what version of English, then UK English would nearly always win out over US English. Thankfully, that is not the case, which is why the final say goes to the original contributor. This debate has nothing to do with how many world speakers speak what version of English, so stop trying to make it that. It is entirely about the original contributor's intent. ℬastique▼talk 03:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought the policy of leaving articles in BE or AE as originally written was well understood. Apparently there are some folks who are sent into quite a rage at seeing an article given an American name. Look, I don't much like the location of Aluminium, having called it something else for several decades, but I realize the benefit of leaving it in peace. Why can't you folks do the same? Also, are you aware that color has been through this process, albeit somewhat more peacefully? (And please don't spread this madness over there.) --Yath 00:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article title and article wording are treated differently; the policy you allude to applies only to the latter, not the former. This is perhaps not ideal, but it is what it is.
James F. (talk) 00:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hope I haven't missed something obvious, but I can't find anything that supports your assertion. The only statement I could find related to it is in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English:
If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a redirect page to accommodate the other variant, as with Artefact and Artifact, or if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses.
From that same section: If all else fails, (which it seems to have) consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article. i.e. Gasoline. 5 times at Yoghurt, James, and you were involved in the Aluminium debate as well (one where I would have, surprisingly agreed with the UK spelling). Oh, and that policy about article title does not negate the "original writer" policy, unless you take it out of context, which you have. ℬastique▼talk 03:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We are not talking about alternate spellings of the same word (do you pronounce gasoline like petrol, or vice versa?), we are talking about different words which are synonyms. Spelling guidelines don't apply. — Yama 13:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Check the date on the above comments, Yama...you're arguing things a week old. This has already been debated into the floor. This is what I'm talking about going in and picking things out to propigate the furtherance of this discussion rather than making an attempt at concession and resolution. ℬastique▼talk 16:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In any case, using a different policy for the article text and the title seems rather absurd to me. Why would you want to do that? --Yath 00:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It does seem absurd, and the justification for doing it contains faulty logic. First it's, "The rule doesn't apply to article titles," which has no credence, and then it's, "Well, we might as well change the rest of the article to match the title." If the intent was not malicious, it was certainly inconsiderate and foolhardy. ℬastique▼talk 03:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The policy for naming articles is at the Wikipedia:Naming convention (recently moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, I note); the policy for content of article is at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. They are different. No, really. It has been this way for well over two years now, the policies specifically seperate and distinct. Please don't suggest that I'm the one inventing the distinction; I'm not. I even disagree with the policies being seperate (it is, indeed, rather quixotic), but my opinion of policy should not colour my attempts to uphold it, the same as with all other contributors to Wikipedia.
My input to the self-evident discussion on Talk:Aluminium was both a very long time ago (and so irrelevent to modern discussions) and under a rather different set of policies (and so, again, irrelevent). Over the last 3 years I've made about 16k-ish edits, including my bot's - are you going to examine each and every one and complain about them as you find them? :-)
James F. (talk) 19:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


No, James, because in most cases, you've performed rather commendably in your edits, and have helped the growth of Wikipedia by leaps and bounds. However, again, if we had articles moved to UK names based on number of speakers, then everyone would be free to do it, and Wikipedia would be an exclusively Eastern Hemisphere enterprise. Luckily, we have both versions of English online here. I don't go around fixing colour to color and realise to realize willy-nilly, even thought they look strange to me. In fact, I was reading a book by an English author recently and got past the strange spellings after the first chapter. And the naming of an article has everything to do with the content. So both naming convention applies to the article title, and manual of style applies to all of the content, including the title, not just the body.ℬastique▼talk 20:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Color/Colour

For anyone who continues to believe that number of world speakers figures in to this debate, go read the debate when some people wanted to change Color. I think it will enlighten you. Luckily, people had taken notice at that time. This completely figures in to this debate here. ℬastique▼talk 03:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not the same. We are talking about different words altogether, not just alternate spellings of the same word. 202.139.41.194 08:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is the same. We are talking about US style versus UK style. Go eat some yoghurt ℬastique▼talk 12:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Of course it isn't. We are talking about different words which mean the same thing, not the same word spelt differently. Watch your language. — Yama 13:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Of course it is. Style. Spelled differently is part of different styles. Watch your language. ℬastique▼talk 14:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please stop this childishness. I am not dismissing people with "Go eat some yoghurt" as you do.
And no, it isn't. A different term is not a different spelling. Have the article text in AE if you wish, but keep the most appropriate title (term) for the article. — Yama 15:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It was humour/humor. And it was to an anonymous user. I'm very sorry if you took it personally, like I was saying it to you. ℬastique▼talk 16:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requested Move (also Listing on RFC)

Since this debate has heated up again, I just listed this on WP:RFC#Article title disputes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Petrol (gasoline) → Gasoline – Consensus has been reached. – The article's original title is Gasoline. It was moved to Petrol by someone who believed that the British term was more appropriate. This resulted in a heated debate and multiple page moves, until the location was locked in a temporary (and awkward) compromise title, and a formal request for comment was made. After more than five days of voting, 100% of respondents (speakers of both American English and British English) support restoring the original title (Gasoline). To prevent future conflict, this title should then be locked. — Lifeisunfair 12:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Add *Gasoline or *Petrol followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~


  • Gasoline is the correct title. While I admire the energy and ingenuity of the people who filled this page with Google searches and population data and who knows what, that mountain of data establishes only one thing: that gasoline and petrol are both in sufficiently common use to be justifiable names. In such cases, Wikipedia policy is to follow the original contributor's choice. The very purpose of the policy is to avert the vast waste of time and energy that occurred when the Yogurt article was moved, and which has now occurred again here. Enforcing the existing policy is the best way to prevent a recurrence and save everyone this hassle. JamesMLane 00:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote for gasoline. It's the term globally used in industry, scientific and even activist literature. --Rev Prez 02:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Gasoline. It's the original title, and according to Wikipedia policy, original article text wins out over number of world speakers. ℬastique▼talk 03:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm an admin and would gladly move it to gasoline for the first several reasons listed in #Arguments for "gasoline", but I am hopelessly involved and American. We need to resist this move to Petrol so as not to set a precedent for more moves of the same type. There is a rule to prevent this nonsense, and we should not allow people to ignore it whenever they feel like it. - Omegatron 18:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Gasoline. I'm British, and I would prefer petrol, but the rules say original author. So that is where it should go. smoddy 19:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Gasoline, because that was the original author's choice and our policy is to go with that. If that's unfair because there are too many Americans on Wikipedia, well... it's more unfair to bloat talk spaces with silly arguments about inconsequential things. Tuf-Kat 20:15, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Gasoline. I'm American, but that's irrelevant to my opinion. (In fact, I actually prefer some British terms/spellings to their American counterparts.) In this case, both "gasoline" and "petrol" are used to the extent that neither can be deemed the preferred term within the global community. Therefore, the original author's selection should stand. Also, the "chemical name" vs. "colloquial abbreviation" argument is fairly compelling. —Lifeisunfair 02:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Gasoline because life is just too short for what seems to me to be frankly less than a vital matter of principle. I'm British, never say "gasoline" and rarely read it in anything written by a BE speaker, but would be quite content with a redirect from "petrol" as far as Wikipedia goes. As others have said, "Gasoline" was the original article title, and when two terms are both widely used it seems perfectly reasonable to stick with what the original author wrote. Loganberry | Talk 23:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Gasoline --Yath 00:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Gasoline. hydnjo talk 23:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It must go back to the original location, or we'll have more aguments like the one that followed when Yogurt was changed. Jonathunder 01:57, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Petrol. Really, I don't see the point in this type of vote. Invariably it will slant towards AE people since they have Internet access and the time to spend writing on Wikipedia. There are literally hundreds of millions of people without a voice. en.wikipedia.org should represent the realities of the English language as a whole, globally and both off and on the Internet. It should not be restricted to the socio-economic elite. — Yama 13:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Petrol, for the main reason that calling a liquid gasoline has to have been the most stupid thing anyone ever did linguistically. That and the obsessiveness of certain people to get the Wikipedia onto US English really starts to grate after a while. --Kiand 18:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Petrol - SoM 19:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Gasoline, because that's where the article started out. --Carnildo 20:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Gasoline, because in an AE CE dispute, it is best to stick with primary author of none stub, as it reduces the number of these types of arguments. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Gasoline. Gene Nygaard 14:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Gasoline. To protect the original author rule (I would expect respect for my (BE) articles. GraemeLeggett 14:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Moved from WP:RM

    • Consensus has not been reached. Not all of us visit Wikipedia every day. We have lives to live. — Yama 13:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • As stated above, the standard for a "rough consensus" is 60% after five days. After more than six days, Gasoline has received over 83.3% of votes. Until today (when you and one other individual voted for Petrol), that figure was 100% (including speakers of British English). If numerous Petrol supporters suddenly emerge from the woodwork, it's going appear rather suspicious. —Lifeisunfair 19:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • After five days of listing on WP:RM. It's not even been listed for 48 hours as I type. - SoM 21:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Like Lifeisunfair said: After more than five days of voting... was referring to the vote at Talk:Petrol (gasoline) in the section Listing on RFC, not any vote here as you have assumed. hydnjo talk 23:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Two identical articles (well, mirror-image copies) have been created, based on Template:Carfuel using either the Petrol or Gasoline parameter. They start differently, have different titles, but their content is identical. It only deals with the fuel's name at the beginning of sentences. I didn't bother to parameterize the lower-case instances yet. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • You took it upon yourself to implement this absurd, divisive "solution" (which contradicts community standards and creates brand new problems), thereby disregarding the overwhelming vote tally. You didn't even bother to propose it beforehand. I'm going to tag your misnamed (There are other car fuels.), ill-conceived template for speedy deletion. —Lifeisunfair 19:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gasoline is the correct title. While I admire the energy and ingenuity of the people who filled this page with Google searches and population data and who knows what, that mountain of data establishes only one thing: that gasoline and petrol are both in sufficiently common use to be justifiable names. In such cases, Wikipedia policy is to follow the original contributor's choice. The very purpose of the policy is to avert the vast waste of time and energy that occurred when the Yogurt article was moved, and which has now occurred again here. Enforcing the existing policy is the best way to prevent a recurrence and save everyone this hassle. JamesMLane 00:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We need an uninvolved admin to do so and protect the page from moving. - Omegatron 01:07, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
I'm an uninvolved admin and I lean towards gasoline, but I won't do it for two reasons: 1) because I'm an American and I would prefer someone else did, and 2) because I've been drinking, and anytime I wiki while drinking, I regret it. However, if some other uninvolved admin comes along and is unsure, you can consider me in favor of moving to gasoline because the rule says to use the most common English name if this is clear (all the talk above proves this is not clear) and to use the choice of the original author in disputed cases, thus meaning this should be moved to gasoline. Tuf-Kat 01:50, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
I favor returning the article to its original title, but I don't think any admin, even a teetotaller, should move the page when the RfC has just started. I responded VfD-style, envisioning that others would choose "Petrol" or "Gasoline" (with a bullet) to make it easy for an admin to prepare a tally. I doubt that a page move protection would be necessary. JamesMLane 01:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gasoline is the term globally used in industry, scientific and even activist literature. --Rev Prez 02:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't know where you live but I would imagine that what you're reading is more tailored to the tastes of the people where you live. The same goes for me. I've seen plenty of literature that uses petrol. What annoys me is that people are being ignored simply because they don't generate publications or websites on such a massive or global scale. They still exist, even if they can't aford internet access or to mass distribute material globally (there's plenty of stuff for local consumption/use, which won't spread too far beyond borders and so are unnoticable to outsiders). And yes, they use English. 202.139.41.194 03:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    It does not matter how many people in the world say "Petrol" over "Gasoline." Wikipedia is inclusive of both UK and US English, that's why the original author policy exists, and that's why this belongs at gasoline. Why is that so hard to understand? ℬastique▼talk 03:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gasoline. It's the original title, and according to Wikipedia policy, original article text wins out over number of world speakers. ℬastique▼talk 03:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Care to explain? Does the majority not count? 202.139.41.194 03:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Number of world speakers of English does not count. Else nearly all articles would be in UK English. Hello???? ℬastique▼talk 03:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I believe that that was the anon's point. Not that I necessarily agree with it. James F. (talk) 19:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Petrol. It's shorter so it's faster to type.   —TeknicT-M-C 06:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I hope that you're kidding. —Lifeisunfair 07:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nope, not kidding. It really is shorter! I've done the calculations 12 times and I always come up with 6 letters to 8. What numbers are you getting?   —TeknicT-M-C 07:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's clever, but this section of the page isn't a particularly suitable venue for humor. (Your vote might be taken seriously, thereby skewing the tally.) —Lifeisunfair 07:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know, I was just expressing my opinion (rather innapropriately) of what this entire discussion has turned into. I was very involved in the debate back when this page was about 40KB, but just watching the last 110KB or so of ranting has made me want to defect to BE.   —TeknicT-M-C 09:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that much of this discussion has been quite ridiculous, but you're adding fuel to the fire. (Can you guess which type?) —Lifeisunfair 10:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, Teknic, you were the one who pointed this discussion out to me...asking for some editor input. You got it! ℬastique▼talk 21:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know, I got more than I bargained for!  :)  My "vote" is obviously a joke, and I have always maintained support for "Gasoline". However, I am dissapointed in my "allies" regarding the use of the MoS cop-out when it's not even applicable and there are more than enough valid "pro gasoline" arguments to apply.   —TeknicT-M-C 23:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Much as I hate to disagree with you, Teknic, the MoS certainly covers article titles as well as content. Style comprises every portion of writing, including titling. Nowhere does the MoS exclude naming conventions--the only reason that there is a separate page for naming is that the MoS page covers overall style, and naming has enough particular issues involved that need to be addressed on a separate page. Naming is a subset of Style, not exclusive of it. ℬastique▼talk 23:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Petrol. Really, I don't see the point in this type of vote. Invariably it will slant towards AE people since they have Internet access and the time to spend writing on Wikipedia. There are literally hundreds of millions of people without a voice. en.wikipedia.org should represent the realities of the English language as a whole, globally and both off and on the Internet. It should not be restricted to the socio-economic elite. — Yama 13:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We've already proven that there is no agreement on whether Petrol or Gasoline is the most frequently used word in the world. Therefore, your argument about the realities of the English language as a whole combined with the furtive exploitation of millions of unvoiced individuals, whose voices you are not hearing either, are not valid. ℬastique▼talk 14:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How do you know what vioces I hear??? I am Indian. I speak to Indians every day. Stop making things up about me. — Yama 15:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Petrol, for the main reason that calling a liquid gasoline has to have been the most stupid thing anyone ever did linguistically. That and the obsessiveness of certain people to get the Wikipedia onto US English really starts to grate after a while. --Kiand 18:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • This article was created at Gasoline and moved to Petrol. An article was created at Yogurt and moved to Yoghurt. So, if you want to comment on "the obsessiveness of certain people" with regard to styles of English, you might want to cast your net a bit more widely. Let's be fair and note that there are people on both sides of the language divide who have the capacity to be grating. JamesMLane 23:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I suppose naming one of the hundreds of petroleum derivatives petroleum wasn't too bright either ( linguistically speaking). ;-) hydnjo talk 23:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
However, the obsessiveness of certain people to insist that UK English be used because it's the "international standard" doesn't bother you? ℬastique▼talk 21:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is an interesting move, as there has already been six days worth of voting going on. It is reasonable to count that every vote for gasoline counts as support and every vote for petrol is a vote to oppose this move. ℬastique▼talk 23:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry you saved this while I was half way through making these changes. I have changed Support and Oppose to gasoline and petrol so that the voting style does not need to change. Philip Baird Shearer 00:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Before another person asks me, the reason that I haven't said something one way or another is because I wish to abstain, despite being the scourge of Wikipedia for doing as asked and moving the page ;-), as neither side has convinced me one way or the other. However, I would say that page moves that have stayed current for nearly a year without being changed would strongly suggest that this is all a storm in a tea-cup, and it mildly pointless. :-) James F. (talk) 22:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirect Direct Redirect

  • The title Gasoline/Petrol is unacceptable. As it stands this talk page is a sub-page of Gasoline. Jooler 04:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm certain there's a beautiful explination as to why you've changed the title six times in the last five minutes... ℬastique▼talk 04:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Acceptable, at least to me, while the debate rages on. However, please leave Gasoline as the first word in the text--in the spirit of compromise. ℬastique▼talk 04:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Define More Common

Petrol is the International term and should be first. Like football. Jooler 04:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We're not in agreement about that. Gasoline is an International term as well, it's not limited to North America. This isn't football we're talking about. ℬastique▼talk 04:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note this page is only at Petrol (gasoline) because of your insistence on using both words. Petrol is the preferred international word. Jooler 04:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's highly debatable. Scroll up. The article should be gasoline according to the manual of style rule which is mean to prevent talk pages like this. - Omegatron 04:52, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Gasoline is the preferred English word in the western hemisphere...not just the United States. This even applies to BWI and British Commonwealth nations, Canada, Guyana, Belize and the English word used in Latin American nations. Also, at the World News Network], based in New York, London, and Asia, twice as many news articles use "gasoline" as "petrol". Soccer is basically only a word used in the United States. And I'm only telling you this so you can get off the "Preferred International Word" kick, because there is no preferred international word. It's inconsequential. The original author named it gasoline ℬastique▼talk 05:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Just a data point, but "soccer" apparently IS the official term for the sport: My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines soccer as "n. Association football", and cyfairsoccer.org defines "association football" as "[t]he traditional term for the game in England to distinguish it from rugby football. This was abbreviated "assoc". Over time, the prefix was dropped and in English custom, "er" added to the end to form the word soccer." I'm glad it wasn't invented by the Australians, or we'd be calling it "soccie".
Also, you left out Canada, which also calls it "soccer". --Calton | Talk 01:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Soccer most definitely is not the official term. It is association football or just football. We're way off topic here. — Yama 11:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We can go way off topic when it suits your ends, but not anyone elses? ℬastique▼talk 14:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Calton brought up the topic of football/soccer for god-knows-what-reason. I simply set the record straight and said that the issue was offtopic to keep the discussion on track. I don't see anything wrong with that. — Yama 15:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Firstly what the feck has the World News Network got to do with the price of fish? Secondly I don't give a rat's arse that countries in the United States sphere of influence use the American spelling , that's no big suprise. Also over time I've come to the conclusion that the "first author's choice rule" is crap. There are more Wikipedia contributors in the US so it's no suprise that articles tend to get started using US terms, this means we have to put up with non-sensical article names like moving sidewalk. When an article gets started using International English it very often gets moved due to US ignorance of the outside world, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Guerilla_UK_spelling_campaign. I've had enough of it. Jooler 05:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You've taken the inconsiquential stuff out of my argument and don't address the real stuff. We write articles in US and UK English, to placate everyone. And that other English? It's all in the UK Sphere of Influence. Spare us your arrogance, Jooler. You're wrong. ℬastique▼talk 20:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No you are wrong. What do you have against UK English speakers anyway? This has gone beyond a simple naming debate. You are outright abusive towards BE users, on this page and others. I know that I'm not supposed to assume bad faith, but we're clearly past that stage now. 202.139.41.194 04:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No you are clearly past that stage. Claiming abuse by others does not alleviate your own guilt. An insult is an insult. You, Anonymous User 202.139.41.194, have been abusive and insulting since the beginning. I guess that's why you remain anonymous, so you can insult freely. I adore the English, I work with English, I have friends who are English, I live in an American city with an amazingly high UK Expat population (Not a square mile exists in this town here without a pub with a Union Jack in front.) They never get over their quaint "-ise" spellings. Also, I write articles about Irish towns in UK English. Please check out my user contribution page. However, I despise being walked on, and tend to quick to respond...of course, I've made it a habit to check myself in the last 24 hours. Jooler's comment about "US Ignorance of the outside world", and other common remarks like, "What they speak in America you couldn't call English," are inflammatory, and tend to provoke a response. My last remark said, You are wrong, Jooler. Not abusive. Look in the mirror, Anonymous User 202.139.41.194, if you want to find abusive behavior. ℬastique▼talk 12:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Both of you, cut it out! From what I can see, you are both being abusive and are definitely not helping the debate. — Yama 14:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Has your denial since the very beginning of the validity of many portions of the debate helped it? ℬastique▼talk 15:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What denial??? I'm trying very hard not to sink to your level, but I could level the same charges against you. — Yama 15:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You've sunk lower than I, because you continue to debate minor points which have nothing to do with the debate, you use language that's incendiary, like level the same charges. What charges? Are you even aware what kind of extreme language that is? And you intimate that you are not a part of the problem. Denial is picking and choosing your responses to suit you. You ignore important things with which you cannot argue against and pick at minor points. That is entirely counter-productive. ℬastique▼talk 15:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jooler, I appreciate your intellectual honesty. Instead of trying to find some contorted rationale for using "petrol", in violation of the current policy, you come right out and express your disagreement with that policy. Nevertheless, if you disagree, attacking it case-by-case is unfair and inefficient. You should post on the Village Pump with a proposed change. We could switch to the all-BE rule, as h2g2 does, or allow AE for specifically American subjects, with all others being BE. I personally prefer our current policy. If you disagree with it, though, you should try to change it, not subvert it. JamesMLane 18:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And that other English? It's all in the UK Sphere of Influence. Well no, it isn't all, at least not completely. Certainly not in countries that weren't colonized/conquered by the British, as some random Google searches restricted to country domains would show.
  • Gasoline versus Petrol hits
  • Japan (.jp) - 48,600 / 18,500
  • Italy (.it) - 42,100 / 33,700
  • Saudi Arabia (.sa) - 260 / 178
  • Russian (.ru) - 34,300 / 33,600
  • China (.cn) - 23,200 / 15,500 (somewhat surprising, since given all the English-language stuff generated from Hong Kong)
  • Brazil (.br) - 14,900 / 7,750
  • Slovakia (.sk) - 7,390 / 3,420
  • South Korea (.kr) - 11,800 / 3,960

--Calton | Talk 01:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Things are usually written for the perceived majority. On the internet this majority is perceived to be AE speakers (which is correct since most BE speakers can't even afford net access). This in no way means that these people use the same language in their day to day lives. Often they don't.
Speaking of spheres of influence (bastique), several of the countries in this list (Japan, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and South Korea) are clearly in the US sphere of influence. This debate is pointless though. What matters is what people use in their day to day lives. It doesn't matter how they came to speak that way. 202.139.41.194 04:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Things are usually written for the perceived majority. On the internet this majority is perceived to be AE speakers (which is correct since most BE speakers can't even afford net access). This in no way means that these people use the same language in their day to day lives. Often they don't."
Both "gasoline" and "petrol" are correct, commonly used terms, and the article's subject is not applicable to a specific locality. The original author named the article Gasoline, and Wikipedia policy dictates that this title should prevail. I see no harm in modifying it to Gasoline (petrol), but the reverse is inappropriate.
"Speaking of spheres of influence (bastique), several of the countries in this list (Japan, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and South Korea) are clearly in the US sphere of influence."
Yes, UK English influenced some countries, while US English influenced others. What's your point?
"This debate is pointless though."
Agreed.
"What matters is what people use in their day to day lives. It doesn't matter how they came to speak that way."
Both "petrol" and "gasoline" are used by many, many people in their day-to-day lives. Do you dispute this? —Lifeisunfair 06:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was simply trying to point out that talking about "spheres of influence" is pointless. I never disputed that both petrol and gasoline are both used by very large populations in their day-to-day lives. The question is what name, or combination of names, is the most appropriate. I still think it is petrol, or maybe petrol (gasoline) (as it is currently). 202.139.41.194 06:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"I was simply trying to point out that talking about 'spheres of influence' is pointless."
I agree, but Jooler raised the issue (by attributing the widespread use of the term "gasoline" to "the United States sphere of influence"). Bastique merely pointed out that the same principle applies to "petrol" (among other terms/spellings) and the "UK Sphere of Influence," yet you reacted as though Bastique had introduced the concept to the discussion.
"I never disputed that both petrol and gasoline are both used by very large populations in their day-to-day lives. The question is what name, or combination of names, is the most appropriate. I still think it is petrol, or maybe petrol (gasoline) (as it is currently)."
Why? Other than your personal preference, what justification exists? —Lifeisunfair 07:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oops! I didn't notice that Jooler raised it first. Sorry for that. There is ample justification for having petrol over gasoline, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate at all. Read the comments on this page for the whole story. The main argument is that users of the word petrol cover more people, countries and major international organisations than gasoline, which is mostly restricted to North America. 202.139.41.194 07:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • More people? Neither term is used by an overwhelming majority (which would be necessary to override the original author's selection).
  • More countries? Undoubtedly so, but this is irrelevant.
  • Mostly restricted to North America? This has been proven false (again, irrelevant).
The bottom line is that both terms are suitable, but Gasoline is the article's original title. —Lifeisunfair 09:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"More people? Neither term is used by an overwhelming majority (which would be necessary to override the original author's selection)."
I'd call a few hundred million people an overwhelming majority.
"More countries? Undoubtedly so, but this is irrelevant."
Of course it is relevant. It is not the most dominating reason to choose a title, but it must certainly be considered.
"More major international organisations/organizations? If anything, the opposite has been demonstrated. This, however, also is irrelevant; unlike the aluminium/aluminum issue, no internationally recognized authority has officially declared a preference."
See further up the page. More major international organisations show a preference for petrol.
1) And how many of the "major international organisations" have some connection to petroleum? What special authority does the Red Cross, Interpol, or NATO have regarding petroleum products? This is just irrelevant padding.
2) The list refers to use of "British English" versus "US English", not "gasoline" versus "petrol". For example, some site-restricted searchs:
  • opec.org - 52 hits for "gasoline" and 18 for "petrol"
  • wto.org - 328 hits for "gasoline" and 74 for "petrol"
  • wwf.com - 200 hits for "gasoline" and 34 for "petrol"
  • greenpeace.org - 171 hits for "gasoline" and 264 for "petrol"
  • iso.org - 64 hits for "gasoline" and 71 for "petrol"
Not a huge mandate for any of them individually, but still leaning towards "gasoline" based on the sample. Meaning that not only is your evidence essentially irrelevant, it doesn't even mean what you say it means.
P.S.: If the ISO uses "British English", then why is their name "International Organization for Standardization"? --Calton | Talk 05:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you really meant wwf.org, the site of the nature/wildlife group, not wwf.com, formerly the site of the wrestling federation (now at wwe.com) and later unregistered by that company as a result of a lawsuit from the other WWF, but soon snapped up by a "domain hoarder / cybersquatter" who now has a fairly generic search / affiliate-link page there. *Dan* 15:47, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Read the title again. It says "British English (and minor variants)". There are variants of British English that borrow a little from AE but are still mostly BE. You may see spellings like centre, programme, labour, defence, cooperation, organize, recognize, and analyse together. — Yama 14:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Mostly restricted to North America? This has been proven false (again, irrelevant)."
How many people outside of North America use gasoline? Not very many. How many use petrol? Hundreds of millions. Gasoline is mostly (although certainly not entirely) restricted to North America.
"The bottom line is that both terms are suitable, but Gasoline is the article's original title."
original != most appropriate. As James F. wrote above, "MoS [Manual of Style] 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." — Yama 11:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the MoS says when all else fails, which it has, use the Original author's language. Petrol doesn't win any awards. Have you defined, yet, most common? How many speakers know the word? How often the word is actually spoken? How many digital impressions of the word exist on the internet, in newspapers, in novels? Which word came first, and which word is used most over the course of history? Which word has foreign language adapted for their own use? Which word do scientists use? Which word do poets use? Which word is used most in song? What is the preferred word by the industry? You have a lot to prove, and you'll find that gasoline fits most common by a number of criteria. Google doesn't count you may say, but it does tell us what word is used most often on the internet, as Google (at least the .com version) has no preference over the variety of language used. Therefore the digital impression of the word gasoline greatly oughtweighs the digital impression of the word petrol, making it the most common term. Your own words say greatest number of readers. How many readers of Wikipedia do you think come from the US? You would be very much surprised. But you don't know, and neither do I. I only have guesses. Reasons like this are why this litmus test fails. We cannot even agree on what we mean by most common term. What is clear and undisputable is that the MoS style says use the original author's title. ℬastique▼talk 12:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"I'd call a few hundred million people an overwhelming majority."
I believe that you mean "disparity," and you appear to be including individuals (particularly Indians) for whom English is not a primary language. And yet, you choose to ignore the apparent fact that the number of British English speakers for whom American English is familiar on a secondary level far exceeds the number of American English speakers for whom British English is familiar on a secondary level.
I, conversely, choose to ignore all of the above, because the fact that both "petrol" and "gasoline" are extremely common terms renders the original author's selection the correct article title.
"Of course [the number of countries] is relevant. It is not the most dominating reason to choose a title, but it must certainly be considered."
The number of people can be a valid factor, but not the number of countries. On an individual basis, the residents of Tuvalu matter every bit as much as the residents of China. There are far fewer Tuvaluans than Chinese, however, so the two nations certainly don't carry equal demographic weight.
"See further up the page. More major international organisations show a preference for petrol."
The section in question contains no such information, nor has a source been cited for the arbitrarily selected, indirectly pertinent information that is listed.
"How many people outside of North America use gasoline? Not very many. How many use petrol? Hundreds of millions. Gasoline is mostly (although certainly not entirely) restricted to North America."
How many "gasoline" users are familiar with the term "petrol"? Not very many. How many "petrol" users (most of whom reside outside of North America) are familiar with the term "gasoline"? Quite a few, evidently.
"original != most appropriate."
No, but this can serve as the deciding factor.
"As James F. wrote above, "MoS [Manual of Style] 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."
I've seen no compelling evidence to support such a contention. If anything, it appears to me that "gasoline" is more widely known (albeit less widely used), so I'm willing to call it a tie. The original author's selection serves as the tiebreaker. —Lifeisunfair 15:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Random Nonsense

I think everyone here should take a look at your link, Jooler, and see it. It looks like a joke, but I now realize that people are pulling up random articles and changing American spellings to UK. For instance, Anonymous User User:59.167.21.48, who posted on this page yesterday, did that very thing earlier that day. ℬastique▼talk 20:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I initiated that article, and I prefer it to be BE. According to arguments you yourself have made previously on this page, my preferences override all else. Do I detect some double standards? — Yama 00:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've already eaten my words... Don't make me say I'm sorry twice. It's dreadfully hard for me. ℬastique▼talk 00:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes it's a joke, as is the US version. 202.139.41.194 06:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Italic text

Protected

Protected from moves. This is not an endorsement of the current name. When my watchlist is literally 50% full of people moving this page back and forth, something has to give. Now is the time to discuss. --Golbez 07:32, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

That's easy. It should be moved to Fossil fuel for reciprocating piston engines equipped with spark plugs over the existing redirect. Nobody can complain about that, as nobody calls it that. --Carnildo 03:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A mutually-agreeable title, please.

All debate regarding moving the page to simply Petrol or Gasoline needs to stop. There are too many valid arguments on either side to assume that the other side will suddenly be "convinced" to use one of the two terms.

A mutually-agreeable title is the only acceptable solution, in my opinion. With such a highly-disputed issue, priority should be placed on finding a compromise that will be reasonable for all parties. I believe that eliminating this conflict is more important than enforcing the original author's usage precedent, because doing so would only cause further dischord.

Several compromise titles have been suggested on this talk page:

  • Gasoline and Petrol
  • Gasoline/Petrol
  • Petrol (gasoline)
  • Gasoline (petrol)
  • Petroleum gasoline

We need to seriously discuss the pros and cons of each of these titles, or brainstorm further options. Surely the participants on this talk page can divert their mental abilities away from pointless arguing, and towards more constructive goals? --Poiuyt Man talk 05:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your goal of diverting energy away from this kind of question. This isn't the only article affected, though. If we hoke up some kind of title that no one uses (always either requiring a piped link or leading to a redirect), then we'll face the same bout of pointless arguing the next time some AE or BE enthusiast decides to change the style of an article. I don't want to have to watchlist Globalization and every other article where a page move to a different spelling might be proposed on the talk page, and implemented after only a handful of people know about it, and then be anointed as the status quo that can't be changed without a supermajority. This is what happened to the Yogurt article. JamesMLane 06:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Of the five prospective titles listed above, only Petrol (gasoline) and Gasoline (petrol) are theoretically suitable. If such a compromise is to be implemented, "gasoline" should precede "petrol" (as opposed to the article's current title).
While coming closer to honoring the standing policy (which is supposed to prevent this type of dispute), even this would set a worrisome precedent. All of a sudden, overzealous individuals on both sides of the pond might decide to apply similar naming schemes to other existing articles; instead of Cheque, Apartment, Aluminium and Elevator, we'll have such titles as Cheque (check), Apartment (flat), Aluminium (aluminum) and Elevator (lift). As a result, new arguments will spring up. ("The title should stay the same!" "My country's version should come first!" "People from your country are arrogant!")
The "original author" policy exists for a reason. In the absence of a clear consensus, it's all that we have. Nothing can please everyone, but a uniformly enforced rule can end the debate and allow the involved parties to move on with their lives.
This is not analogous to the Football (soccer) example, in which the latter term serves as disambiguation (because there are several varieties of football). "Gasoline" means only one thing, so it requires no titular disambiguation. Before we deviate from the standard protocol to appease individuals who dislike "foreign" words, let's consider the potential consequences for both camps. —Lifeisunfair 06:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it would be a problem if future conflicts arose due to the naming scheme. However, the "original author" precedent seems arbitrary and counter-intuitive to me, so I've been inspired to propose an alternative policy on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#American vs. British English titles. The idea was created on the spur of the moment, so I'm looking for feedback. --Poiuyt Man talk 11:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To summarize my reply, I oppose Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#American vs. British English titles| this proposal]. —Lifeisunfair 13:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Lifeisunfair; it's inane to think that we should accept a solution that will lead to title edit wars on pretty much every article that has a different AE and BE title. If we don't like the policy of original author preference, then open a formal RfC on that. In the mean time, let the original author's preference dictate this article, and return it to "gasoline". — Jason 14:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I also disagree. See the pump page for my response. The current system is not arbitrary. The words used in the article represent the conventions of the person who took the time to start an article about it. If you want more articles with BE titles, write some new articles and the rule will favor your titles. Stop bickering about pointless crap. This article should be returned to "gasoline" and the rule should be solidified so people stop pretending it doesn't apply when they disagree with the results. - Omegatron 15:01, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
I firmly agree with Lifeisunfair. While going by the "original author rule" is arbitrary and in some ways random, it is by far the "least worst" option. The other options, such as adding awkward qualifiers to every article title that is different in AE and BE, or coming up with long awkward neutral descriptors are worse. Pointing out relative statistics on AE and BE speakers is irrelevant, unless one wants to impose a Wikipedia wide standard, such as how Wikitravel enforces use of AE. In that case, this talk page is not the appropriate venue. --Bletch 17:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's an easy solution to the whole American English vs British English mess: move the article to Fossil fuel for reciprocating piston engines equipped with spark plugs. Since nobody in their right mind calls the stuff that, there can be no debate about if it's the "right" name or the "wrong" name. --Carnildo 18:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are joking, right? - Omegatron 18:47, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
It's so hard with this crowd to assume anything is a joke anymore :-) ℬastique▼talk 21:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mostly joking, yes, but it would solve the problem :-) --Carnildo 20:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are we done?

Everyone who has responded to the RFC has noted that the article should be at gasoline. Is there anything or anyone still standing in the way of unprotecting the page and moving it? --Yath 00:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. There will be opposition. Wait for it... waaiiiit for it....
  2. After the decision is made, shouldn't the page be moved and then protected from being moved? - Omegatron 00:47, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
You leave it for only a few days and then assume that everyone agrees with you? Did it ever occur to you that some of us have lives and can't be on Wikipedia 24/7? There are millions of people who don't even have Internet access for that matter. They can still talk and write in English. — Yama 14:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ahem. "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" - Omegatron 18:39, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
2 weeks is quite a bit more than 5 days. - OptimusPrime 03:04, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

Can someone move this already so I can archive this bloody talk page? ℬastique▼talk 21:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pleeeeease?
Make sure to include a summary and a clear indication that moving it again will not be tolerated. - Omegatron 21:25, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Erm. You do realise that you're only meant to archive parts of talk pages, blood-spattered or otherwise, when they are no longer under active discussion? The moving or otherwise of the article does not mean that people will stop discussing it (though I wish they would ;-)), and so is mildly irrelevent to the archival of this page.
James F. (talk) 23:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why not just make a sub-talkpage, instead of archiving? Talk:Petrol (gasoline)/Title. --Poiuyt Man talk 22:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why not just have 2 articles with the same content. One with the title Gasoline and one with the title, Petrol? Celestianpower 18:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No más MoS

The MoS has no authority on matters of article title so don't try to contrive new meaning from it or manipulate it into something outside of it's intended spirit. The spirit of the "original author" rule was to prevent a wikipedia-wide spelling war in every article, not to be a lazy cop-out from having to choose a few dozen titles. Arguments based on "I was here first" have no place in a collaboration that will be around long after we are all gone. This debate needs to occur on a fair and level playing field or else we run the risk of alienating a number of beloved editors. The relevant policy is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), specifically the line: "What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?". I have heard somewhere and would also guess that the average en.wp user is in North America, but since I can't yet back that up with a source I won't state it as fact. Another thing to keep in mind is America's collective ignorance of everything un-American, so while most people who say "petrol" also understand "gasoline", the reverse is definitely not true.   —TeknicT-M-C 09:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The MoS has no authority on matters of article title..."
How is the first post-introduction section labeled?
"so don't try to contrive new meaning from it or manipulate it into something outside of it's [sic] intended spirit."
It's evident he typed it's, there's no call to throw the '[sic]' to call attention to it. ℬ
Thanks Bastique, lets draw a little more attention to my grammatical deficiencies.  :)  Damn, now I'm doing it!  :)   —TeknicT-M-C 23:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You just utilized a comma where a semicolon belonged, Bastique. ;) Seriously, though, my notation can be attributed to force of habit — not malice. (I'm accustomed to writing for my college's newspaper.) With your criticism in mind, I've removed such a notation from one of my new replies. —Lifeisunfair 01:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The pertinent section applies to the entire article — not merely the body. In fact, the "article name" is explicitly referenced.
"The spirit of the 'original author' rule was to prevent a wikipedia-wide spelling war in every article, not to be a lazy cop-out from having to choose a few dozen titles."
No one is claiming that the other considerations should be bypassed. On the contrary, this rule is to be applied "if all else fails." In case you haven't noticed, every other attempt to reach a consensus has failed miserably. As a result, we must fall back on our last resort. Thus far, every legitimate respondent to the request for comment (preferring both AE and BE) has agreed. (And I respectfully request that you strike your satirical entry.)
"Arguments based on 'I was here first' have no place in a collaboration that will be around long after we are all gone."
The purpose is to end the argument. And as I mentioned elsewhere, perhaps this motivates people to write new articles.
"This debate needs to occur on a fair and level playing field or else we run the risk of alienating a number of beloved editors."
How has the playing field been anything other than level? Each side has had ample opportunity to make its case, and no definitive justification (aside from the rule in question) has emerged.
"Another thing to keep in mind is America's collective ignorance of everything un-American, so while most people who say 'petrol' also understand 'gasoline', the reverse is definitely not true."
You're rehashing a point that more than one individual (including yours truly) has made.
We've been through all of this, and we're at an impasse. The only viable solution is to defer to the judgement (a British spelling that I prefer) of the original author. —Lifeisunfair 10:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Somehow it does not surprise me that someone going by the name of "Lifeisunfair" would maintain a position such as this. There is no urgency to end the debate (argument by your definition) because nobody (including yourself) is required to get involved. I don't know if you are aware of this but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and a community second. If we decided content based on the goal of not "disrupting the community" then the product would be a very mediocre encyclopedia. What you are advocating is "coin toss" decision making for the sake of avoiding deliberation (indeed, tossing a coin would be more civilized than simply ranting about "I was here first!"). Regarding your attempt to apply the MoS to the present situation, I'm sorry, but Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles only affects references to the title in the article body. I'm guessing you knew that because I am assuming that you read it before referencing it as an argument. Rebuttals like this do not reflect well on your percieved intentions and implies a determination to maintain your namesake.   —TeknicT-M-C 22:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Somehow it does not surprise me that someone going by the name of 'Lifeisunfair' would maintain a position such as this."
That isn't my personal philosophy; it's a quote from the Malcolm in the Middle theme song by They Might Be Giants. (I'm a fan of both the sitcom and the musical group.)
"There is no urgency to end the debate (argument by your definition)"
No, that isn't my main argument. While I believe that our time would be better spent contributing to articles and/or writing new ones, my point is that the debate has played out.
Nearly every conceivable justification has been brought forth (including some that were fairly absurd), and neither side has been able to generate a consensus. We could spend years debating this subject, and that wouldn't change.
"because nobody (including yourself) is required to get involved."
I'm involved because I want to aid in the resolution of the dispute. You, conversely, appear to have become frustrated to the extent that you're more interested in mocking the discussion and its participants.
"I don't know if you are aware of this but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and a community second. If we decided content based on the goal of not 'disrupting the community' then the product would be a very mediocre encyclopedia."
If we constantly allowed disruption to run rampant, we'd have a much smaller encyclopedia (because fewer people would have time to write and expand the articles).
"What you are advocating is 'coin toss' decision making for the sake of avoiding deliberation"
The deliberation has taken place. There is nothing left to avoid.
Furthermore, a "coin toss" is not analogous. The policy in question relies upon a predetermined factor (not random chance). It's based upon the belief that in situations such as this (in which both/all terms/spellings are comparable in their global validity), there's no legitimate justification for changing the original author's selection. To do so is to imply that he/she was "wrong." All else being equal, the reasonable course of action is to respect the decision of the person who first took the time to write the article.
"(indeed, tossing a coin would be more civilized than simply ranting about 'I was here first!')."
As opposed to "You were here first, but I prefer my title!"?
"Regarding your attempt to apply the MoS to the present situation, I'm sorry, but Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles only affects references to the title in the article body. I'm guessing you knew that because I am assuming that you read it before referencing it as an argument."'
That section isn't pertinent to the matter at hand. I referenced it purely in response to your claim that "the MoS has no authority on matters of article title."
You're conveniently ignoring the fact (cited in my previous reply) that the pertinent section explicitly references the "article name."
You're entitled to disagree with the policy's fairness and efficacy, but don't pretend that it doesn't exist.
"Rebuttals like this do not reflect well on your percieved intentions..."
...said the person who replied to the request for comment with a phony vote, due to frustration generated by a discussion that he/she hopes to prolong.
"and implies a determination to maintain your namesake."
You're attacking me on a personal level (simply because I disagree with you), and yet you accuse me of having questionable intentions. —Lifeisunfair 01:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"That isn't my personal philosophy; it's a quote from the Malcolm in the Middle theme song by They Might Be Giants. (I'm a fan of both the sitcom and the musical group.)"
I'm a fan of the show too, and I apologize for the comment. You did kinda set yourself up for it though :)
"You're conveniently ignoring the fact (cited in my previous reply) that the pertinent section explicitly references the 'article name.'"
I haven't been ignoring it. It just says to choose a neutral name and to make redirects from the other names. I don't see how that applies here.
"You're entitled to disagree with the policy's fairness and efficacy, but don't pretend that it doesn't exist."
I realize that certain existing "suggestions" could apply depending on how you interpret the MoS, but it's still only when "all else fails". I don't believe all else has failed, but obviously you do, so for the sake of ending this I think we must agree to disagree.
"...said the person who replied to the request for comment with a phony vote, due to frustration generated by a discussion that he/she hopes to prolong."
The vote was quite obviously a joke, like many other comments by other editors on this page. There were no ill motives behind it and I think you know that. I have struck it out at your request so you don't have to worry about it overruling the dozen or so votes it was opposing.
"You're attacking me on a personal level (simply because I disagree with you), and yet you accuse me of having questionable intentions."
I would never attack anyone for disagreeing with me, but it was a snide comment based on the fact that your username is "Lifeisunfair" and your intentions could be percieved by some as "unfair". I apologize.   —TeknicT-M-C 10:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"I haven't been ignoring it. It just says to choose a neutral name and to make redirects from the other names. I don't see how that applies here."
You claimed that "the MoS has no authority on matters of article title." Clearly, it does.
"I realize that certain existing 'suggestions' could apply depending on how you interpret the MoS, but it's still only when 'all else fails'. I don't believe all else has failed, but obviously you do, so for the sake of ending this I think we must agree to disagree."
Agreed.
"The vote was quite obviously a joke, like many other comments by other editors on this page. There were no ill motives behind it and I think you know that. I have struck it out at your request so you don't have to worry about it overruling the dozen or so votes it was opposing."
All of this is true. My point is that your behavior easily could be interpreted as deliberately counterproductive, but I never accused you of acting in bad faith. You, conversely, misunderstood one of my remarks, and replied by questioning my "intentions."
"I would never attack anyone for disagreeing with me, but it was a snide comment based on the fact that your username is 'Lifeisunfair' and your intentions could be percieved by some as 'unfair'. I apologize."
I accept your apology, but it really isn't necessary. As long as you and I understand one another, all is well. —Lifeisunfair 23:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see that Lifeisunfair has debunked most of your ill-considered claims, but I think it's necessary to point out that your final sentence clearly reveals your belligerence in this matter. "America's collective ignorance" is nothing more than a sarcastic, frustrated epithet born of jaded cynicism, intended to short-circuit discussion, to cause insult, and to divide participants into opposing groups. I do not appreciate your tone, and find that your contributions in this matter are counterproductive. We're trying to work together here. --Yath 21:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you see any of my claims as "debunked" then you might want to take another look. I do not appreciate your quoting my statements out of context. You (hopefully) know very well that "America's collective ignorance" and "America's collective ignorance of everything un-American" mean two very different things. Your statement (the former) is derogatory, however, my statement (the latter), while being semi-sarcastic, is common knowledge. You should try to make some attempt to WP:FAITH.   —TeknicT-M-C 22:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is also "common knowledge" that "all Englishmen have bad teeth" and that Frenchmen tend to apply extra scent while they go days at a time without bathing. In other words, it's a common derogatory statement that has no place in serious discussions. It's ridiculous to assume good faith when you bust out trolling like that. --Yath 02:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In all fairness, while the comment's wording is harsh, its crux is valid. Many American media (books, feature films, television shows, etc.) are popular throughout the world, while very few imported media ever attain mainstream popularity here in the United States. As a result (and combined with our inadequate public education system), most Americans are far less knowledgeable of other counties, their histories, their customs and their vernaculars than most non-Americans are of us and ours.
For the record, some of my favorite television sitcoms are British, including Fawlty Towers, The Vicar of Dibley, Keeping Up Appearances, As Time Goes By, Mr. Bean, The Office (original BBC version) and My Hero (pre-baby). Unfortunately, each of those has been seen by only a tiny segment of the American population. (Conversely, Friends was among the top-rated television shows in numerous countries/languages.) —Lifeisunfair 02:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Lifeisunfair, good to know that you've got my back sometimes :) I appreciate it.   —TeknicT-M-C 10:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In this case, I agree with you; any disagreement between you and me is irrelevant. —Lifeisunfair 23:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As the MoS clearly reads, this Manual of Style has the simple purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format — it is a style guide. The following rules don't claim to be the last word. However, if we are to consult it about article content, article titling must be involved in the consultation. Else it would be acceptable to change an article's title (Gasoline to Petrol) but not its content, because the content was done in the original author's choice of English. I reiterate, while NC expands upon MoS, it does not repudiate it. ℬastique▼talk 23:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Concerning the naming of articles, WP:NC, is it. I also implore Lifeisunfair to explain why he or she thinks the "original author" rule applies to Gasoline/Petrol yet doesn't apply to Cheque/Check? The original author of that article used the term "check" (seen here), however Lifeisunfair voted to support naming the article "cheque" (seen here).   —TeknicT-M-C 23:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I implore you to actually read what I've written. I never claimed that the "original author" rule should be applied to every situation. As I plainly stated, it serves as a "last resort" "if all else fails." If one term/spelling is more suitable than the other[s], that's the term/spelling that should be used. This describes Cheque, which is far less ambiguous than the word "check" (because the latter has unrelated definitions) and a considerably more logical title than Check (finance). It doesn't describe Gasoline or Petrol, because both terms are widely used, and neither has more than one common connotation in the English language. Another example is Apartment, which is a better title than Flat (domicile) would have been. —Lifeisunfair 01:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have seen other people on this page say "Moving a page from one english variant to another is prohibited"   —TeknicT-M-C 10:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It should be more flexible. IMHO the most appropriate language should be used. Picking the names of terms is different from choosing spelling within an article. I have seen plenty of articles with mixed or inappropriate (i.e. not matching the subject matter) spelling styles. In those cases I see no problem in changing them. — Yama 14:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Regarding check/cheque, it would not have been hard for someone to round up enough die-hard pure AE supporters to repeat "original author!, original author!" like a broken record and prevent the page from being moved. What then? Do we just accept the bad name?   —TeknicT-M-C 10:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Isn't that happening here to a degree? A truckload of AE speakers have come over and are using the "original author!, original author!" argument. I could probably see the opposite happening on other pages... — Yama 14:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, nobody gathered here from some mass mailing. A notice was put up at WP:RfC, a general Wikipedian board and people showed up on their own, including BE too, who voted for gasoline. No notice was put up at Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board unlike what happened at Yoghurt. There has been a much more broad discussion on this topic than occurred between two UK speakers a year ago. ℬastique▼talk 14:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My post was tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps that was not clear. Open discussion is a good thing. I do believe, however, that Wikipedia has a far greater AE slant than what you would find in the real world. — Yama 15:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. To me, Wikipedia has a far greater BE slant than what you find in the real world. I guess it all depends on perspective. It's why when discussions fail because of one's English choice, reverting to the original author's style is always the best remedy. ℬastique▼talk 16:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree with Lifeisunfair's explanation of name choices. I put up with Cheque and the BE speakers put up with Apartment because those titles are clearly better than the alternatives -- not because AE is better or BE is better, and not because either is more widely used, and not because of how many people do Google searches in AE or live in India, but because of the objective factor of disambiguation. Another example of such a factor would be an article that relates to a specific country or person. Those are proper occasions for overriding the original author's choice. In the specific case of gasoline/petrol, none of those rules apply, so we use our default rule that the original author's choice governs. JamesMLane 17:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
WP:NC is silent on this BE/AE matter, therefore we must defer to WP:MoS, which is not. Because WP:NC is a sub-article of WP:MoS (else why would the information box on the right read, "Main Article: Manual of Style), WP:MoS covers this topic as well. Why am I arguing with you, anyway? Explain why you consider WP:NC the only authority. ℬastique▼talk 23:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). I know that WP:NC is part of WP:MoS, I shouldn't have said MoS doesn't apply, sorry for the misunderstanding. I was using the term "MoS" to refer to the "original author" rule because that is that is what has been traditionally implied by "MoS" in this discussion. My underlying point should be obvious so picking apart referential technicalities is unnecessary. While many things can be contrived from the "letter" of the MoS, we should stick to adhering to the "spirit" of it.   —TeknicT-M-C 00:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)."
No one is disputing that policy's validity. The issue is that there is no consensus regarding which term is more "common."
"I know that WP:NC is part of WP:MoS, I shouldn't have said MoS doesn't apply, sorry for the misunderstanding. I was using the term 'MoS' to refer to the 'original author' rule because that is that is what has been traditionally implied by 'MoS' in this discussion. My underlying point should be obvious so picking apart referential technicalities is unnecessary."
1. You linked to the MoS proper, so your point wasn't obvious.
2. This makes absolutely no difference, because the National varieties of English section explicitly references the "article name." I explained this fact to you, but you ignored that portion of my reply.
"While many things can be contrived from the 'letter' of the MoS, we should stick to adhering to the 'spirit' of it."
The MoS clearly applies to article titles, both in letter and in spirit. —Lifeisunfair 01:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that people see the line: "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." and tend to ignore the "if all else fails" part. Everyone is going to have a different definition of "failure", but too often editors just pick a definition that will help their cause. I, for one don't see failure here yet and the MoS does not specify any "time limit" on deliberation. Content disputes happen all the time on Wikipedia and there is no policy to just end them, they eventually get resolved, sometimes by an extremely long debate. We are lucky to have Wikipedia:Naming conventions in this case to have something to consult, but normal everyday content disputes don't even have that.   —TeknicT-M-C 00:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm just going to stay here and watch you argue with yourself, Teknic... it's so much more interesting. ;-) ℬastique▼talk 01:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Something tells me you are having a hard time grasping the subject of this discussion. It is possible I have over-explained my position thus causing you to be confused. If your head is spinning, I apologize. I'll attempt to simplify things for you in the future.  :)   —TeknicT-M-C 01:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I can't imagine how further debate is going to change anyone's mind. What hasn't already been argued? —Lifeisunfair 01:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
True, I haven't seen any new developments since before the RfC occured, and the "Petrol" supporters seem to have conceded.   —TeknicT-M-C 01:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hardly. Not everybody lives on Wikipedia, you know. — Yama 14:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Correction. As with many debates, there are always a few with an abject refusal to concede. ℬastique▼talk 15:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Stop treating this like a competition. There are no prizes here. — Yama 15:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The point is you will argue no matter what. And your facts are created to suit you at the moment. Now you're Indian. I won't argue with you about that fact, but it's the first time we've heard that, despite all the talk about Indian english. I could just as easily say I live in Kent and I prefer gasoline and American English in all my endeavors. It doens't matter, however, what your personal preferences are, and saying that petrol is the preferred international term doesn't make that a fact no matter how many times you repeat it. You should in fact concede that the level in which this argument has gone is that there is no agreement for the facts so this article should have returned to the original title in the beginning. But you will not because you cannot. It's impossible after all this time to admit that you may be wrong. It's called self-righteousness. So rather than allow us to opt for a mutually reached compromise, you are being the lone holdout for petrol. You can keep saying that I am abusive and continue to point at me for making facts up, but in the end, the facts that you present keep changing or suddenly emerging to suit your argument. Where do you live, Yama? How do you happen to hear millions of voices, all calling to you to let their choice of Petrol over gasoline be heard? Your quiet, polite and continued denial has caused this debate to remain burning far longer than any overt expression that I might have made. ℬastique▼talk 15:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What a nice little reality you have made up for yourself! You can keep saying the same rubbbish over and over until your voice fails, but that doesn't make them true. I was (and am still) willing to accept a compromise (Petroleum gasoline looked best to me), and I made that clear elsewhere on the page, but you only seem willing to prolong this debate. My arguments have been consistent, and I have only used harsh words against you in response to your slander (which seems to be used liberally against anyone who opposes your POV). I have not ignored opposing views. The fact is that there are very valid arguments on both sides (something which you can't seem to comprehend), but I believe that there are some arguments that are stronger.
You seem to think that you can use intimidation, lies and slander to chase away people with whom you don't agree. It won't work — Yama 00:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yama, go to your talk page. But first, look up the definitions of lies, slander and intimidation. In a dictionary, if you don't trust these definitions. Because I neither lied, nor slandered, nor intimidated you.
To everyone else, I should have kept my opinion of Yama to his/her talk page and not here in public. I am ashamed that I felt it was my duty to splash water on the face of someone I felt (I'm not saying who was, read my words carefully before accusing me of anything else that doesn't exist) was babbling nonsensically. I'm a Capricorn and dreadfully AD/HD. I speak what I believe is the truth. It can be harsh. I sometimes regret my words. Sometimes they have the desired effect. But I'm not as young as I once was, and I have stopped caring so much what people think about me. My gravest apologies. ℬastique▼talk 02:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"You can keep saying the same rubbbish over and over until your voice fails"
Yama, dear... this is text. We type it. Y'know? The correct phrase is: You can keep typing the same rubbish over and over again until your fingers fall off. Please get it right. ℬastique▼talk 02:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'll be brief. The rest should go to your talk page.
The words lie, slander and intimidation do indeed fit here. Maybe they are overly harsh, but IMHO they are not entirely inappropriate. I don't think anybody should care about your age, mental state, or indeed your zodiac sign. If you can't make a proper contribuition to the discussion, don't post at all. Yama 00:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I've lost track of the deceptions you have made, but I can recall a couple off the top of my head. The first was your assertion that I was English. A clever tactic with the intention of discrediting my arguments (since I was talking about Indians). The second was your continued insistence that I never supported a compromise, that I was "the lone holdout for petrol". I responded to your own post in favour of compromise elsewhere on the page. For a brief moment we were in agreement, but then you decided to reignite the debate. Why? Yama 00:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Yama, dear... this is text. We type it. Y'know?"
For somebody who likes to split hairs over definitions, I'm surprised you don't know what a metaphor is. — Yama 00:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not surprised you don't know what humour is. Your continued bashing of me is completely and entirely inappropriate here (see the comments we're getting?). Leave it on either my or your own bloody Yama page, like I tried to do before. ℬastique▼talk 02:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please someone! Please!!! Next time Yama baits me, throw a comment in right after it, asking me not to respond. I'm weak! I can't control myself!  :-) ℬastique▼talk 02:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My stance in the general debate is clear, but please note that I'm not taking anyone's side in the above personal conflict (which I believe is inappropriate). Can we please act as Earth citizens for a moment?
While I applaud your willingness to compromise, Yama, I believe that a title such as Petroleum gasoline (which is nonsensically redundant) would compromise the quality of the article. As much as I support Gasoline, it's my opinion that Petrol is a far more suitable title than Petroleum gasoline would be.
In the Wikipedia community, the reasonable type of regional linguistic compromise spans an entire language version, not a single article. In the case of the English language version, this means that we have articles in U.S. English, U.K. English, Australia English, etc. The ratio might not be balanced, but as you pointed out, this is not a "competition." I don't know about you, but I embrace other cultures. At the same time, however, I don't allow my own culture to be shunned.
I honestly believe that there are more independent factors in favor of Gasoline (scientific accuracy, etymology, chronological history, widespread knowledge, industrial use), but let's (for the purpose of discussion) deem all of these arguments a "draw" against the arguments in favour of Petrol. Therefore, I contend, we should simply default to the first major contributor's selection (Gasoline), and move on with our lives. Heretofore, the voting bolsters this notion. —Lifeisunfair 01:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"I believe that a title such as Petroleum gasoline (which is nonsensically redundant) would compromise the quality of the article."
Also people would come along and think "that's a poor title" and try to "correct" it constantly. - Omegatron 01:36, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I can't believe that I'm still byting this. What if we agree to a boycott of sorts, no matter what the bait. All work and no play makes Yama a dull boy, ya know. ;-) hydnjo talk 02:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And, this section is way way too long. So, how 'bout another boycott (of sorts of course) of this section ertirely. Even though you think that a disconnect might happen, lets all agree to stop editing this section because it has become too long and unwieldy. If you feel a need to continue this discussion then start another section (even if you call it MoS II).  ;-) hydnjo talk 03:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Def-name

Volatile flammable mixture of hydrocarbons (hexane and heptane and octane etc.) derived from petroleum; used mainly as a fuel in internal-combustion engines.  ;-) hydnjo talk 18:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ooh ooh!! I've got a better name! Gasoline, as it is known in North America, or Petrol, in many British Commonwealth countries (sometimes also called motor spirit) is a petroleum-derived liquid mixture consisting primarily of hydrocarbons, used as fuel in internal combustion engines. The term gasoline is the common usage within the oil industry, even within companies that are not American. The term mogas, short for motor gasoline, for use in cars is used to distinguish it from avgas, aviation gasoline used in light aircraft. The United States uses 360 million... - Omegatron 19:16, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Nope. That title includes the words Gasoline and Petrol. The whole thing would then be about which should come first in the title. ;-) hydnjo talk 19:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oipegaltrosolline. --Golbez 22:40, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse Us

Is there some kind of conclusion here or do we need to continue the dance. Who in fact is in charge of saying: we have arrived at a conclusion and our decision is ... (and gosh darn let it please happen soon) hydnjo talk 03:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin? If this has been listed on RfC, doesn't someone important need to end it? - Omegatron 04:04, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Was it ever listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves? If not, that would be a mechanism for getting an uninvolved admin to look at it and perhaps even do something. JamesMLane 10:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The voting began five days ago, so such a listing would be appropriate. I'll proceed with that. —Lifeisunfair 11:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It seems that Yama is challenging the claim of a consensus at Wikipedia:Requested moves (Section 12 June 2005). hydnjo talk 18:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yama is using the Nukular option attempting to the matter open ad infinitum until Yama gets Yama's way. ℬastique▼talk 21:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If by "nuclear" you mean "destruction", then you would be the one engaging in such activities. Yama made some valid arguments. Your response has been to belittle him and other users here. What part of the word "respect" don't you understand? - OptimusPrime 02:59, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
The only response your comment deserves, is that any conversation or complaint regarding my behaviour belongs on my Talk Page, or to be addressed to an admin. Putting a comment such yours here, New User: OptimusPrime, serves only to extend an already strained and overly prolonged debate. ℬastique▼talk 21:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikiwax and Gasoline

Just in case you don't think it makes any difference, Gasoline doesn't exist as far as Wikiwax is concerned, Petrol is just fine of course. hydnjo talk 00:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you aware that Wikiwax is an index to Wikipedia article titles? --Yath 06:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, thats what I'm talking about, the WikiWax Wikipedia index. hydnjo talk 18:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Templates to the rescue!

There are now two articles, both relying heavily on Template:Car fuel. Now can you guys stop bickering, so we can all get back to work?

Your American friend, -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:13, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why does the Template:Car fuel refer to Petrol throughout and not Gasoline? hydnjo talk 18:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm working on that. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
See gasoline (petrol). If this catches on, I'm going to try it at Danzig and Gdansk, too! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Forking the article is not a solution. - Omegatron 18:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I know, I agree, that's the whole point: the article isn't forked, only the TITLE is! I used Template:carfuel with a parameter of Gasoline or Petrol. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:02, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Fixed the Gasoline redirect to go to the Gasoline version. But how will the two versions be kept in sync? hydnjo talk 19:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind, now I get it! hydnjo talk 19:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your "solution" is patently ridiculous. The "universal" template is misnamed, and the entire idea (which ignores the overwhelming consensus) is absurd. —Lifeisunfair 18:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It allows both article titles equal access to the same info. And where's this consensus of which you speak? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
This is not the correct procedure. We can't go around creating separate, template-based, English language articles for every subject that has American and British terms, nor do we want to divide the community in this manner. Furthermore, it's never appropriate to disregard an ongoing debate, let alone a formal vote. —Lifeisunfair 19:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do tell. I'd love to know what the established, correct procedure is for solving the problem I'm addressing, because the last thing I want to do is divide the community. If there is a debate going on somewhere, please point me to it, especially if I have to vote. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:00, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
The established procedure, as pointed out a million times, is to leave articles at the original title when consensus for a move cannot be reached. The debate is all around you. You've read this talk page, correct? - Omegatron 20:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
The debate (which you referred to as "bickering") is occurring on this very page! There was a formal request for comment, followed by more than six days of voting. You circumvented all of this (another policy violation) when you decided to come to our "rescue." —Lifeisunfair 20:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I confused bickering with debate. I guess I'll just leave the pages alone for a while. You can help, in the mean time, by contributing to the rfa somebody made against me at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Ed_Poor. Thanks! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Do you honestly believe that what you're doing (wasting everyone's time by filing a tongue-in-cheek request for arbitration against yourself) is remotely amusing? Up to this point, I had assumed good faith on your part. Now that you're openly mocking the Wikipedia system, I'm not so sure.
Incidentally, people can help by voting to delete your ludicrous template. —Lifeisunfair 20:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's create a

gasoline template. On odd days we can call this fuel gasoline and on even days petrol, okay? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Note, I subst'd fuel name above. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Must be a serious debate

This page is 185 kilobytes long.

If there's an overwhelming conensus, then the "debate" should now end and the "consensus" should be followed - assuming the purpose of debate is to reach consensus on action. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I formally requested a page move. Had you bothered to read the discussion, you'd have known that. —Lifeisunfair 20:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay now?

Just tell me which way the consensus is now, and I'll gladly move the page there. What is it today, petrol or gasoline?

And after I move it, please remember to change the templates:

  • template:fuel name - lowercase petrol to gasoline
  • template:fuel Name - uppercase Petrol to Gasoline

This bickering really is a waste of time. Procedure is clear enough, and I'm following it. Case closed. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Page is now at Gasoline, not that I particularly would mind seeing it at Petrol. If consensus ever shifts, just change the templates listed above, okay? Cheers. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

How the heck did you ever manage to become an admin? Or did you hijack the account from someone else?
We're trying to find a permanent solution, and you happen along, choose to involve yourself in what you deem "bickering," complain about said bickering, circumvent a formal vote via inappropriate templates, file a false request for arbitration against yourself, post various sarcastic, incendiary remarks, abruptly delete an on-going discussion (which I've restored), and move the article back to Gasoline, but once again with an inappropriate template inserted!
Why are you behaving in this ridiculous manner? —Lifeisunfair 01:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Lifeisunfair. This is a silly move. There was no real concensus and there wasn't enough time given to vote. Not to mention that many Commonwealth countries have had a holiday long weekend, so those people would not likely be at their computers to vote/contribute. OptimusPrime 03:49, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
Indeed, the Queen's Birthday and lack of discussion on the mailing list have caused this to occur without many people knowing about it. I vote that we archive the discussion so far and start again without one user flooding the damn page. Alphax τεχ 09:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Indeed, the Queen's Birthday and lack of discussion on the mailing list have caused this to occur without many people knowing about it."
I wasn't aware of this celebration, and I agree that it might have skewed the vote.
I'm not sure of what mailing list you're referring to, but I hope that no one is trying to rally citizens of the Commonwealth countries against Americans (or vice versa, for that matter). I can't speak for anyone else, but the last thing that I want is an international showdown. I honestly support Gasoline because I believe that it's the better, fairer title — not because I'm an American and prefer it personally. As was mentioned earlier in the discussion, I voted to support a page move from Check (finance) to Cheque, despite the fact that the latter spelling is relatively foreign to me. I also restored this talk page (despite the fact that the article was moved to Gasoline), simply because it was obvious to me that the discussion had been cut short.
It pains me to see people attacking one another because of their nationalities. This is supposed to be a global community, and something as trivial as the name of an engine fuel has people at each other's throats. A small percentage of Wikipedia contributors (on both sides of the pond) base their editorial opinions entirely upon their own selfish preferences and prejudices, and this leads to the unfortunate perception (again, on both sides) that everyone in the opposing camp fits this description. In no situation does the principle "assume good faith" apply more.
"I vote that we archive the discussion so far and start again"
Why would we wipe the slate clean? I can understand your desire for balance, but why should the existing remarks be disregarded?
"without one user flooding the damn page."
To whom are you referring? —Lifeisunfair 11:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, Yama, Lifeisunfair, Teknic, myself and a number of others have joined in a combined effort to flood this talk page. OptimusPrime just appeared recently, but seems to have already mastered Wikipedia and I have a feeling he'll/she'll be on par with the rest of us. ℬastique▼talk 21:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Alphax, is your position that, even if at a particular point in time there was a clear consensus for a move, that consensus shouldn't be regarded as definitive, because other people had yet to weigh in? Well, I agree with you. We should focus on the realities of the situation, not on technicalities. Please bear in mind, though, that that's exactly how many of us feel about the original move from Gasoline to Petrol. It wasn't well publicized. The consensus was based on only a small number of people. That doesn't mean that anyone was engaging in any subterfuge; it just means that the nominal "consensus" should be evaluated in light of the circumstances.
The Yogurt article was moved in similar fashion. Thereafter, a broader discussion, involving many more editors, showed that there was substantial support for Yogurt, and therefore no consensus that "Yoghurt" was a better title. Nevertheless, the BE proponents took the position that the first move was sacrosanct, even if almost no one knew about it at the time, and that consensus was necessary for any change -- by which they meant a change from their preferred title, not from the original title. We have a similar situation here. We've discovered that the editors who sincerely thought there was a consensus for a move to "Petrol" were, in good faith, mistaken. There's no consensus for any of the moves that have occurred, so they should all be undone. JamesMLane 11:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor's templates

I'm just posting this to let everyone know that voting on two separate proposals to delete the templates created by Ed Poor (the admin/troll who sabotaged the dispute resolution process by deleting the discussion and moving the page to Gasoline) is ongoing on the appropriate page. He actually bragged that these templates enable users to switch back and forth between Petrol and Gasoline "whenever the mood strikes us", or perhaps every day, depending on whether it's odd-numbered or even-numbered, and yet, he's asserting good faith status. —Lifeisunfair 12:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was going to look for some help from the Mediation Committee, but he's on the Mediation Committee! How did that happen?! - Omegatron 13:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Unbelievable! Well, there are three other active members. You're far more experienced than I am (approximately four months as an editor), so I'll leave it to you (or someone else) to decide if it's feasible to proceed with that plan. In any event, the other three mediators should be made aware of Ed Poor's outrageous behavior. —Lifeisunfair 13:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Someone else, please. I try to not get involved with stuff like this. (Though after I become involved, I tend to get stuck for good.) I left him a note. - Omegatron 23:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
This has used up far too much of my waking life. I'm too old for these emotions. Time to go to a Wikipediholics meeting again. ℬastique▼talk 03:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protected again.

This is a temporary move protection. This is caused because someone moved Gasoline to Petrol, but failed to move Talk:Gasoline, which then sent me hunting down this page, because Talk:Petrol redirected to a couple of different pages.

Moving is protected until ALL THE EXTRANEOUS REDIRECTS ARE DELETED. This insanity is making it difficult to track the article. Take it up with the WP:ANI. --Golbez 19:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Also, if you kids decide to move the page again, please take the archives with it, eh? --Golbez 19:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I take it back; according to the statement on WP:RM, consensus was that the page should remain at Gasoline. I see no reason to unprotect it since some people have already taken it upon themselves to void consensus. If you disagree, please leave a note on my talk page. I'm sure this situation will be temporary. ... --Golbez 19:42, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
The statement was wrong. Take a look at an older version and compare to the one now. Responses to the "consensus" statement have been deleted. — Yama 23:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, your refutation of the consensus was incorrect. (All of the criteria had been met or exceeded.) Secondly, the discussion in question was moved to this page, which evidently is a standard practice. —Lifeisunfair 02:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Where is this five days ogf voiting? I was not aware of any vote. Jooler 20:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Scroll up to find it. Began June 7, ended June 12, nearly unanimous decision to remain at Gasoline. If you didn't hear about it, perhaps it could be re-performed for your benefit, but the fact remains, consensus was reached. --Golbez 20:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Five days is not nearly enough for a real vote, particularly when most of it takes place over a public holiday (Queen's Birthday) in Commonwealth countries. — Yama 23:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yet that is the policy. VfD manages full votes within 5 days, and VfD is far more damaging than any decision that will be arrived at here. Smells like sour grapes. Is the RfC still ongoing? Perhaps you should aim your efforts that way. But the fact remains - a standard five-day vote was carried out, and gasoline won. --Golbez 01:16, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Five days is the standard duration, assuming that a rough consensus (60%) is reached. Gasoline had 100% of the votes at that point. The voting actually continued for two additional days (before the article was moved back to Gasoline), and the post-holiday figure remained above 80%.
And of course, even a stalemate would dictate that the article should remain at the original author's title (despite what some yoghurt eaters claim). —Lifeisunfair 02:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, a stalemate would have left it at Petrol (gasoline). The vote was on moving it TO gasoline. - SoM 18:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There was no consensus in support of the move to Petrol (gasoline), nor was there a clear consensus in support of the original move to Petrol. The Gasoline/Petrol format (as opposed to the support/oppose format) was implemented for a reason; anything other than a clear consensus for Petrol meant that the article never should have been moved from the original author's selection — Gasoline.
It's interesting that you're complaining about a lack of adequate notification, because "nobody objected at the time" is the technicality that has been used to justify upholding the move from Yogurt (the original author's selection) to Yoghurt — despite the fact that almost no one was aware of the move at the time, and neither spelling was able to garner a clear consensus in the vote (which was publicized on the UK Wikipedians' notice board). —Lifeisunfair 22:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And yet, it was listed at WP:RM for less than two days. Next time I want to do a RM, I'll post a message on the talk page, then mention it at WP:RM four-and-a-half days later, then moan if it's not moved within a day.
There were not five days of notification of voting. At best, this was very, very bad faith. - SoM 18:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There were five days notification of voting. There were seven days notification of voting. People had seven days to get here and vote. Why are you declaring it bad faith? You were able to vote! Just because you could not garner the support you needed? ℬastique▼talk 18:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"And yet, it was listed at WP:RM for less than two days. Next time I want to do a RM, I'll post a message on the talk page, then mention it at WP:RM four-and-a-half days later, then moan if it's not moved within a day."
The vote was carried out as part of a formal request for comment, which was posted well over a day before the first ballot was cast.
"There were not five days of notification of voting. At best, this was very, very bad faith."
No, it was not. Had someone rallied blind, patriotic support by posting the message "Gasoline is under attack for not using the British term!" to the U.S. Wikipedians' notice board, that would have been bad faith.
Oh, and please remind me — how long did the voting on the proposal to move Gasoline to Petrol last, and where was it publicized? —Lifeisunfair 22:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And yet, Jooler, without bothering to read this discussion, you unilaterally decided to move the article to Petrol...not back to Petrol (gasoline), but straight to the term that you prefer.
I'm sorry that you weren't aware of the voting, but it's impossible for everyone to be informed. I'm sure that many North Americans missed out as well, just as I (and others) did in the Yogurt/Yoghurt case. And unlike in that situation, the Gasoline/Petrol dispute wasn't publicized in a nation-specific forum (thereby rallying patriotic support). —Lifeisunfair 02:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And, Jooler, you were around Wikipedia during the vote. You even moved this page after the vote started. ℬastique▼talk 02:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was not aware there was any vote. Do you think I would have ignored if if I had known!? As for beign around while the vote was one, yes but I have a life outside of the Wiki and I only popped on for a few minutes at a time. As for moving this to my prefered term as far as I could tell Uncle Ed moved the page to HIS preferred term unilaterally and without any discussion. So tit for tat. Jooler 18:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you are moving pages, then you need to be aware of the discussion. You should never, ever move a page without reading the discussion. If you had read the discussion before you moved the page, you would have known about the vote. If you don't have time to read the discussion, then you should not be moving pages. ℬastique▼talk 18:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"I was not aware there was any vote. Do you think I would have ignored if if I had known!?"
No, but you should have examined this discussion page before jumping to any conclusions.
"As for moving this to my prefered term as far as I could tell Uncle Ed moved the page to HIS preferred term unilaterally and without any discussion."
In fact, Ed committed a great deal of outright vandalism. Moving the article to Gasoline was his sole justified act.
"So tit for tat."
"Tit for tat" is one of the most irresponsible philosophies that a Wikipedia editor can employ. You're openly acknowledging that you deliberately moved the article to an inappropriate title, simply because you (incorrectly) believed that someone else had done the same.
If you were to discover that an American had vandalized an article by inserting the sentence "The UK is full of stupid people!", would you revert the page, or would you seek petty retaliation by changing "The UK" to "The US"? —Lifeisunfair 22:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Childish behaviour

Please stop this childish behaviour moving this page in and out an over all the time !!
Suggestion:

  1. Restart the vote and use a longer voting time so all affected users have enough time to leave their vote - 14 days should be OK.
  2. Install a voting announcement on top of the main article and on top of the discussion here.
  3. Create a subpage for this voting like Talk:Gasoline/Voting.

This discussion site is filled with so many Info and heated debates - it's easy to miss a voting placed somewhere inside without a clear announcement. And a five-day "voting" somwhere in the middle of heated debates is a little bit too short for such an important move (or not move) --Denniss 00:18, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

I can agree with this. A reasonable statement and suggestion. Though I still think two weeks is too long, five-seven days is the standard. --Golbez 01:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
And in this instance, the voting was open for seven days. —Lifeisunfair 02:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1. No matter how long a vote is held, word never reaches "all affected users." The line has to be drawn somewhere, and five days is the established duration (assuming that a "rough consensus" is reached). We had a unanimous consensus at that point, but the voting was allowed to continue for an additional two days (before the article was moved back to Gasoline). A full week is more than sufficient.
2. Announcements were posted at the top of the main article and the talk page, and on the requests for comment page.
3. Wouldn't placement on a subpage render the voting less visually prominent? —Lifeisunfair 02:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But there was an announcement for less than two days on WP:RM, which is the established location for notifying people of votes on moving pages, and is thus the most important place to post the vote. - SoM 18:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page. Requested moves may be actioned if there is a rough consensus (60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator. The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged."
Please direct my attention to the stipulation (in the above excerpt or elsewhere) that the vote is to held after adding notification of the proposed move to the RM page. —Lifeisunfair 22:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note also that it says " or earlier at the discretion of an administrator". It also says further down the page "To make it easy for the administrator to see if there is a consensus for a move, if a section discussing the move does not already exist on the talk page of the article to be moved, then please add a section. ". 08:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where is the vote? ~~~~ 19:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right there: #Requested Move (also Listing on RFC). Buried under "childish behavior", I guess. - Omegatron 19:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion: while not every AE/BE dispute would deserve its own mainspace article, perhaps this one does, something like History of naming conventions for refined petroleum products? It is more likely that such an article could get to NPOV faster than the talk page here ever could, I think it would be of encyclopedic interest (and could incorporate the Hungarian issues mentioned above). We could all take a two week sabbatical from the renaming issue, by which time the other page probably would have stabilized. That other page would then be a useful input to the current process. Just a suggestion...--Arcadian 04:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just a section in this article is fine. - Omegatron 13:38, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise title?

Motor fuel is not taken. Generic as it is, it could sidestep the controversy. Part of the article could address the gasoline/petrol naming divide, or that could be left to another article as was previously suggested. --Alexwcovington (talk) 00:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See #Compromise - Omegatron 00:22, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Two points. First, the title has stabilized. Difficult as it has been to get newcomers to accept the original-dialect rule, I believe that is the best option for the long run. Second, gasoline is the name of only one of many motor fuels, so that title would be inappropriate for this article. --Yath 00:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regional units in picture

There are two pictures with prices in 'Dollars per gallon'. Firstly the term 'gallon' is ambiguous on Wikipedia. This presumably refers to the US gallon only. Secondly, could a 'litre' label be added? Bobblewik  (talk) 11:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since it's a chart of U.S. prices I'm gonna bet that they're using Queen Anne's gallons...
Yes. I suggest labelling the left hand axis 'Price ($/USgal)' and remove the dollar symbol from the numbers. Bobblewik  (talk) 20:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Where would the litre label be added? - Omegatron 16:24, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
I suggest labelling the right hand axis 'Price ($/L)'. Bobblewik  (talk) 20:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah. But it's for prices in the U.S. Shouldn't we just get a graph of prices for the world? - Omegatron 20:52, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I found data for 25 countries (including the US) between 2000 and present: http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/fuel/index.html Bobblewik  (talk) 21:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE PLEASE ADD ANY NEW COMMENTS TO Talk:Gasoline