Talk:Gasoline pump

Contention over the Automatic cut-off

This appears to have been patented in 1968 https://patents.google.com/patent/US3542092A/en The Patent cited in the article uses a float, similar to a toilet and not the modern Auto cut-off that is used in Gasoline pumps today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.102.81.92 (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Added a Hot Subject

The actual measurement of gasoline quantities is poorly understood and is currently the subject of a lot of loose talk in the Southwest US. I was looking for a PD picture of a dispenser with a glass vessel on top, the type that prevailed <1930 where the fuel was first pumped into the glass bowl for consumer inspection. I saw I could move this subject along also. After four shots, I was able to work an overview into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George5530 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Deitch Contributions

Sorry but parts of this article are demonstrably wrong. I would like to collaborate with someone to correct them. Paul Deitch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdeitch (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Great! What parts bother you? Do you have some references we could point to? I know about aspects of pumps from my work, but I don't know of many published/reliable references.Aaron Lawrence (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been working in the US and European pump industry for 20+ years and would like to contribute, but don't find it easy to navigate through wiki, and I wouldn't want to a public fight over the rights and wrongs if some one disagrees with me. So if some one wants to help me contribute I would be very happy to do so. I can be contacted at webmaster (@) tlp4u (.) info —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdeitch (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Just type what you want to say in here, if you like. We can integrate it into Wiki format for you. To be honest, I also have a lot more I could say, but I have no sources to cite...Aaron Lawrence (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK this is my re-write/comments on the article: sorry if this is not the right way to do it, but it was easier for me to do it in-line. Happy to discuss any points though if some one is interested.

Thanks for your contribution! OK, first some tips for WP discussion editing: use colons to indent your replies like I have done here. Use four tildes ~ ~ ~ ~ (all together) to sign your "posts". (By the way, I think WP discussions suck but ...)Aaron Lawrence (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, hm. You've got quite a bit of useful information to add here, but if you want to edit the whole article I think it would be better if you learned to edit the article yourself. I was expecting you to indicate some areas to add or change ... Editing is not that hard - just click edit this page and change the text you see, keeping the special characters. Anyway, will try to integrate your changes later ...Aaron Lawrence (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will go through this bit by bit and move sections to the article. OK? Aaron Lawrence (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

--- Design

[...]and secondly, the mechanical section which in a ‘self contained’ unit has an electric motor, pumping unit, meters, pulsers and valves to physically pump and control the fuel flow.

Done.

[...]In general submersible solutions in Europe are installed in hotter countries, where suction pumps may have problems overcoming cavitation with warm fuels or when the distance from tank to pump is longer than a suction pump can manage.

Done

Modern designs

[...] In addition in some markets petroleum is sold with a percentage of oil mixed in. Technically this is dosing because of the relatively small percentage of oil, but is known as a ‘mix’ pump.

How does this differ from the from the sentence already stating "Typical usages are to add oil to petrol for two-stroke motorcycles"? I added a note about "mix pumps".Aaron Lawrence (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Flow measurement

One of the most important functions for the pump is to accurately measure the amount of fuel pumped. Flow measurement is typically done by a multiple cylinder and piston positive displacement meter working on a similar principle to the piston in a combustion engine. The lastest metering technology in use for petroleum is screw metering which provides relatively low wear and tear so that the meter stays calibrated for a longer period. In addition for CNG and Hydrogen coriolis metering is used, but this technology is too expensive for conventional fuels. Not for publication comment- the turbine meter is currently dead for retail applications turbine in the fuel flow. In older gas pumps, the turbine is physically coupled to reeled meters (moving wheels with numbers on the side), while newer pumps turn the turbine's movement into electrical pulses using a rotary encoder. In very old pumps the meter is physically coupled to geared wheels with the price and value numbers on them. As the meter turns, the value wheels rotate to indicate the value of the transaction very much like a large gearbox.

The metrology of gasoline

Gasoline is difficult to sell in a fair and consistent manner by volumetric units. It expands and contracts significantly as its temperature changes. A comparison of the Coefficient of thermal expansion for gasoline and water indicates that gasoline changes at about 4.5 times the rate of water.

In the United States, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) specifies the accuracy of the measurements in Handbook 44. Table 3.30 specifies the accuracy at 0.3% meaning that a ten gallon purchase could vary between 9.97 and 10.03 actual gallons at the delivery temperature of the gasoline.

The reference temperature for gasoline volume measurement is 60 degrees Fahrenheit or the slightly different 15 degrees Celsius where the metric system prevails. Ten gallons of gasoline at 60F expands to about 10.15 gallons at 85F and contracts to about 9.83 gallons at 30F. Each of the three volumes represents the same theoretical amount of energy. In one sense, ten gallons of gasoline purchased at 30F is about 3.2% more potential energy than ten gallons purchased at 85F. Most gasoline is stored in tanks underneath the filling station. Modern tanks are non-metallic and sealed to stop leaks. Some have double walls or other structures that provide inadvertent thermal insulation while pursuing the main goal of keeping gasoline out of the soil around the tank. The net result is that while the air temperature can easily vary between 30F and 85F, the gasoline in the insulated tank changes temperature much more slowly.

Temperature compensation is common at the wholesale transaction level in the United States and most other countries. At the retail consumer level, Canada has converted to automatic temperature compensation and the United States has not. Where automatic temperature compensation is used, it can add up to 0.2% of uncertainty for mechanical-based compensation and 0.1% for electronic compensation, per Handbook 44.

There are many fewer retail outlets for gasoline in the United States today then there were in 1980. Larger outlets sell gasoline rapidly, as much as 30,000 gallons in a single day, even in remote places. Most finished product gasoline is delivered in 8 to 16 thousand gallon tank trucks so two deliveries in a 24 hour period is common. The belief is that the gasoline is spends so little time in the retail sales system that its temperature at the point of sale does not vary significantly from winter to summer or by region. Canada has lower overall population densities and geographically larger gasoline distribution systems, compared to the United States. Temperature compensation at the retail level improves the fairness under those conditions.

Higher energy prices have raised awareness of this issue for consumers. At the same time, alternative fuel applications are now reaching the retail market and accurate comparisons between them in normal usage are needed. Eventually the basis for retail sales will change from volume units in liters or gallons to energy units such as the BTU, joule, therm or kWh so that electricity, liquids, liquefied gases and compressed gases can all be sold and taxed uniformly.

As far as I know there is no proposed legislation anywhere in the world to move to petroleum fuel sale by energy units therefore I consider this sentence above totally wrong. In addition as far as I know currently all bio fuels, and cng, and lpg do not have consistent calorific values from load to load so unless the dispenser can sense this (not cost effective today), the consumer is not better off. .

Communications components

The technology for communicating with gas pumps from a point of sale or other controller varies widely, involving a variety of hardware (RS-485, RS-422, current loop, and others) and proprietary software protocols. Traditionally these variations gave pump manufacturers a natural tie-in for their own point-of-sale systems, since only they understood the protocols. [3]

An effort to standardize this in the 1990s resulted in the International Forecourt Standards Forum, which has had considerable success in Europe, but has less presence elsewhere. ("Forecourt" refers to the land area on which the fuel dispensers are located.)

Autocut in fuel dispenser

Most modern pumps have an auto cut-off feature that stops the flow of fuel once the tank is full. This is done by having a second tube, the sensing tube, that runs from just inside the mouth of the nozzle up to a Venturi pump in the pump handle. While the tank is being filled, air displaced from the tank is drawn up this tube. Once the fuel level reaches the mouth of the sensing tube, air is no longer drawn up the sensing line. A mechanical valve in the pump handle detects this change of pressure and closes, preventing the flow of fuel. [4]

Other components

Where legally required a modern fuel pump will contain Stage 2 control equipment for the vapor recovery system, which prevents gasoline vapor from escaping to the air. The vapour recovered from the vehicle tank is stored in the free space of the underground fuel tank and then purged back to the delivery tanker when the fuel is dropped (Stage 1 vapour recovery).

Several countries in Europe now require the performance of the vapour recovery system to be separately monitored and the pump shut down if the recovery system fails.

Other options seen on fuel dispensers are payment card readers, and cash acceptors.

Regulations This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (July 2008)

Since fuel dispensers are the focal point of distributing fuel to the general public, and fuel is a hazardous substance, they are subject to stringent requirements regarding safety, accuracy and security. The exact details differ between countries and can depend to some extent on politics.

For example in countries fighting corruption, such as Mexico,[10] gas pumps may be more stringently monitored by government officials, in order to detect attempts to defraud customers. In Poland pumps are required to have transaction audit printers inside which becomes the basis of the calculation of the taxes due.

Typically, individual pumps must be certified for operation after installation by a government weights and measures inspector, who tests that the pump displays the same amount that it dispenses. In Europe the MID factory certification option applies to all EU countries and the dispenser can be delivered, installed and selling fuel without local weights and measures intervention, unless the unit is modified or has its calibration changed. It will then be subject to the period inspections which differ in frequency from country to country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdeitch (talk • contribs) 15:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC) sadly it looks like my strikethroughs were ignored by the editor and some of it doesn't read like i wrote it! sorry again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdeitch (talk • contribs) 15:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Eventual change" of units for retail sales

This article currently says:

Higher energy prices have raised awareness of this issue for consumers. At the same time, alternative fuel applications are now reaching the retail market and accurate comparisons between them in normal usage are needed. Eventually the basis for retail sales will change from volume units in liters or gallons to energy units such as the BTU, joule, therm, or kWh so that electricity, liquids, liquefied gases and compressed gases can all be sold and taxed uniformly.

While I don't disagree with the logic that metering fuels in energy units would be saner for the consumer, this is the first I have seen anyone seriously suggest that the industry would make such a change or government will mandate a tax as such, but "eventually" is a pretty good weasel word too. Furthermore, I routinely tell people to buy their gas in the morning and very few people actually understand that there is more value-for-money by buying it in the morning, so I find the statement that higher energy prices have raised awareness to be suspect as well. From my perspective, this whole paragraph is in need of revision or removal to meet WP standards. Scott Dial (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Jeep in Northern Pakistan.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Jeep in Northern Pakistan.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fuel dispenser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050824121152/http://www.ifsf.org:80/Software/IFSF%20Management%20Intro%20-%20V3.01.pdf to http://www.ifsf.org/Software/IFSF%20Management%20Intro%20-%20V3.01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Title

Um...if it's known as a bowser in Australia, a petrol pump in (other) Commonwealth countries, and a gas pump in North America, where exactly in the English-speaking world is it known as a fuel dispenser? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.44.220 (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ha - the wacky world of Wikipedia.

I suppose the point is that (as you say) it's known by various different names throughout the world, but in all cases what it is is consistent - it's a fuel dispenser. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no basis in policy for this argument. When there are multiple regional-dependent common names for a topic we go with the region used in the first non-stub version of the article. In this case that’s North America. Gas pump still is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to here and should be the title, again. —В²C ☎ 14:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought policy in that respect was that we took the name of the article used in the first non-stub version, not necessarily the name of the item itself? What policy is there to change from an acceptable name describing the subject to one that is country specific? This seems to be an acceptable version of WP:GLOBAL in that a neutral term is used to describe the subject.

I said in the original request I was up for discussion, so here we are? Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Gasoline pump. Opinions are split between those who are happy with both "gas" and "gasoline", versus those who have an active preference for "gasoline". Some oppose "gas" because it means something else in other locales, while a few oppose "gasoline" and prefer "gas" on common name grounds. Overall though, there is a rough consensus in favour of using "gasoline" rather than "gas" as a precise title worldwide, which also satisfies the WP:RETAIN angle that US English should be maintained.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Fuel dispenser → Gas pump – See Discussion just above at #Title. There is no policy basis for the current name. Yes, there are regional differences for the most common name. The way we resolve such situations is not by choosing a name that is not common to any region, but by choosing the most common name in the variant originally established in the article. See WP:TITLEVAR and MOS:RETAIN. In this case the article was created using North American English (Gas pump [1]) and the first non-stub version was still using Gas pump. The change to Fuel dispenser was only made years later by an IP without explanation. The ngram counter results are telling. Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RECOGNIZE ("Use commonly recognizable names": gas pump is commonly recognizable; fuel dispenser is not), WP:TITLEVAR and MOS:RETAIN the Gas pump title of this article should be restored instead of staying at the obscure "Fuel dispenser" term which is arguably unrecognizable. В²C ☎ 18:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that retain can be used as a valid argument for a change that was made 12 years ago? Surely in that case retain would support the current title? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It was certainly a valid argument 12 years ago. There is no better title per any other argument, including for the current title, so I think that argument still holds. --В²C ☎ 20:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• I guess weakly support. I don't love when all options of titles are ultimately ones used in some countries and not others, but in this case it seems the current title we've ended up at is used by no one outside of some industry-specific language, which seems to be worse than those other outcomes. Among the versions used, gas pump and petrol pump would be intelligible (but not preferred) by those in countries using alternatives (ie Canadians would ultimately understand petrol pump and Irish people would understand gas pump, even if they'd never use the term). So with that, a decision of going with the variety of English the article is written in is a fair outcome. For others who, like me, checked to see if fuel pump was an option, that seems to be commonly used as a separate car part.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Although thinking a bit more about it, the current title does have the benefit of not excluding how the pumps are also used for other sources of fuel, like diesel (although perhaps it can be equally argued that people refer to those as gas pumps or petrol pumps anyway, not fuel dispensers).--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:RETAIN and WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody actually calls it a "fuel dispenser" so that's a pretty terrible article title. If the article was originally created using American English then it should have never been moved from that. There is certainly precedent for enforcing WP:RETAIN after many years have passed. The Yogurt article immediately comes to my mind. I would also be fine with "Gasoline pump", since the main article is at Gasoline. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:RETAIN, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:RECOGNIZE. Rreagan007 says it well. BilCat (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Also Support "Gasoline pump". BilCat (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed. Astonishing outside North America. Gasoline pump would be acceptable, but "gas pump" is not, as in much of the word gasoline and petrol are not known as "gas", and "gas pumps" are something entirely different. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Astonishing outside of NA is a huge improvement over the current title, which is astonishing everywhere. As to gasoline vs gas pump, Ngrams show a strong shift to the latter in recent decades[2]. -В²C ☎ 00:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I know well the US and several other places. I don't know that "fuel dispenser" is "astonishing" but agree that it is weird. Technically, these things do dispense fuel, but dispense is not the right word. Probably, it does widely confuse, especially if not presented with the image. "Gas" for "gasoline", and generically for "fuel" is an abbreviation is is jargon for a title. Ngram data can't account for that. I support Gasoline pump, but probably Fuel pump is much better, because diesel is neither gas nor gasoline. I definitely support changing "dispenser" to "pump", "dispenser" is just wrong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC) _ OK, like Yaksar, on checking I see that Fuel pump has another meaning, and indeed I recall suffering fuel pump problems, it's an important part of the car. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I definitely wouldn't oppose "gasoline pump," but it does ring a bit weird -- it's odd, because gas and gasoline are pretty much interchangeable in countries that use the term, and yet talking about a "gasoline station" rather than a "gas station" would get you puzzled looks. But ultimately it would be understood, and if it makes the topic more intelligible to all countries I wouldn't be against it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Support Gasoline pump; oppose gas pump. Gas for gasoline is an Americanism, and "gas pump" is is never used outside North America. While "gasoline pump" is not used outside North America, at least "gasoline" is a proper, non-abbreviated non-jargon unambiguous word, unlike gas. The "fuel pump" inside the engine is never called a "gasoline pump, so that is good, and the diesel pumps being non-gasoline can be explained. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Gasoline pump or gas pump, that order, I just find "gas pump" a bit informal and the longer term will make the topic clear for WP:COMMONALITY. -- Netoholic @ 01:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Check out the ngram results. Gas pump usage has overtaken gasoline pump significantly over the last few decades. —В²C ☎ 13:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Google Ngram suffers from USA bias. The USA produces more documents that are indexed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
      • For the record Ngrams can be limited to specific variants. Limiting to British English shows gas pump is more frequently used in British books than is gasoline pump. —-В²C ☎ 23:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to Gasoline pump, fuel dispenser is unknown in English. 180.245.110.227 (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to either gas pump or gasoline pump. The current title is not a term currently used. (As for fuel pump, that has a different meaning). -- Calidum 15:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose "gas" to most of the world means gas, not fuel. This is not us.wikipedia, when US terms are ambiguous we prefer international English. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  There is no good “international English” solution and thanks to American movies and TV widespread throughout the English-speaking world US terms like “gas pump” are internationally recognizable, even if they’re not widely used in a given region. Regardless, in situations like this we do use terminology of the original variant used in the article. —В²C ☎ 23:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  There is a clear good “international English” solution in Gasoline pump. You are wrong about the international recognizability of the Americanization "gas" for gasoline/petrol, and "gas pump". Internationally, "gas pump" is too prone is mis-recognition. Gasoline is not a gas. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Then please explain the first example under the entry for pump in the Cambridge British English dictionary. —В²C ☎ 00:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Doesn't your link speak to my point? Pump, distinguishes between gas and water. Gas, -> a gas cooker, i.e. methane, propane or LPG. 2nd is poisonous gas. Only 3rd comes the US special term, which it gives, perversely as gas = liquid fuel. Confusing. NB. for reliable dictionaries, I rank 1=oed.com; 2=m-w.com. After that, wiktionary does itself proud. "Gas pump"? most will get it, some will be astonished. "Gasoline pump", all will get it, none astonished. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Your point would have been well-taken, in 1940. No longer. Not for decades. —В²C ☎ 06:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Here is another interesting Ngrams result. Even in British English gas pump is now far more popular than gasoline pump. And while petrol pump dominated in the past, as expected, that too is no longer the case. Gas pump is now almost as popular as petrol pump even in British English. I hope you understand that we must weight objective ngram results much more than individual subjective opinions in evaluating claims such as “some will be astonished”. —В²C ☎ 06:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Ngrams are interesting, and a good and easy to look at first, but they are raw data and not for basing the final decision. Oppose "Gas pump" because it is ambiguous and rare in non-American usage. "Gas" is abbreviated jargon for the word "gasoline pump", which is entirely suitable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  The ngram data clearly show “gas pump” is not rare in non-American usage. I appreciate that’s contrary to your impressions, but the data trump your impressions. —В²C ☎ 06:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  You don't seem to have responded to SmokeyJoe's point that that data is biased toward American usage. ← PointyOintment ❬t & c❭ 14:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  I did. First, the original article was written in American English, so bias in that direction is fine. Second, the link at the start of my 06:10, 21 August comment above shows that gas pump is used more than gasoline pump in British English. But you have to click on it to see that. —В²C ☎ 23:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not good enough. There is much more to the world than American and British. Eg the majority of English speakers are in India. The data is raw primary data and liable to misuse. Example: "gas pump" is such a banal term it could be used repeated in unimportant banal publications. "Gas" is a jargon abbreviation and as such is more likely to be used in repeated uses. Compare "Gasoline pump" which has a formality to it that I don't expect to find it repeatedly used in the same document. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  “Not good enough” per SJ standards. It’s more than good enough per WP standards, which are the relevant ones here. There is no WP policy basis for disallowing “gas pump” even it was shown to be used primarily informally, much less on mere speculation that it might be. There is no formality caveat in COMMONNAME. There is also no requirement to prefer a term that is perceived to be better recognized in all English variants over the COMMONNAME which is perceived to be less recognized in at least some variants, especially when no evidence is presented supporting such perceptions. And evidence to the contrary is presented... —В²C ☎ 06:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with a slight preference for Gasoline pump, as per all the other arguments above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Gasoline pump, per strong arguments above. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support moving to some other title; Oppose "Gas pump" and "Fuel pump"; Weak oppose "Gasoline pump". Reasons:
  • My reason to support moving to some other title: I agree that "Fuel dispenser" is not the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject. However, when I came here (from Wikidata), I was unsurprised by the current title, so I'm not really eager to see it moved.
  • My reason to oppose "Gas pump" and "Fuel pump": They're ambiguous. WP:COMMONNAME says (emphasis mine) Wikipedia […] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used […] as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. This would seem to be an exception to those emphasized words "generally" and "usually" on the basis that, if the most commonly used term is "gas pump" (which is not established conclusively here, AFAICT), it's ambiguous (because it sounds like a pump for gases), while, if the most commonly used term is "fuel pump", that's also ambiguous (because that name is usually used for the car part). (Also, "gas pump", "gasoline pump", "diesel pump", etc. could also be interpreted as referring to the car part, conceivably.) One of the listed five criteria is Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects and that same policy also says Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. (I expect reliable sources could be found to demonstrate the ambiguity of those titles.) However, disambiguation is possible, so this is not an absolute prohibition.
  • My reason to oppose any "[fuel name] pump": These names are inaccurate for those machines that are the same except that they provide non-[fuel name] fuels, such as those listed in the very first sentence of the article (though it lists "gasoline" and "petrol" separately and fails to list hydrogen even though the article has a section on that one). Again, Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. However, I suppose a "Pumps for other fuels" section in the article could make it OK, as long as discussion of pumps for non-[fuel name] fuels was restricted to that section.

I would prefer a title that a) is a commonly used term for the subject, or is similar enough to a commonly used term for the subject that people won't be surprised to see it, b) is unambiguous (preferably), and c) is not an inaccurate name for the subject(s) discussed. But I don't know if there is such a name. Maybe "Petrol pump" is better than "Gas pump" or "Gasoline pump", even though it goes against the dialect of English the article uses, just because it's unambiguous, but it's still inaccurate for pumps that provide other fuels. "Fuel vending machine" is unambiguous and accurate, but I'd expect it's even less commonly used than "Fuel dispenser", which also has those properties. Maybe "Fuel station pump" would be closer to a common name while still being general enough and specific enough? ← PointyOintment ❬t & c❭ 15:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Your preferences are interesting but the ngram data - which you didn’t address - shows that “gas pump” is widely used and recognized to refer to this subject, even in the UK, and meets the WP:CRITERIA better than any alternative. —В²C ☎ 18:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Your set of criteria for this article's title are impossible to satisfy. There is no term for this topic that meets all of them. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Automatic cut-off

The explanation is very terse and doesn#t realy make the reader understand.

This video, however, does a fantastic job of explaining in a non expert way.

www to avoid captcha youtube dot com/watch?v=fT2KhJ8W-Kg

84.217.39.2 (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)