Talk:Petrol engine

Proposed edits to "Speed and Efficiency" and addition of links to relevant pages
This sentence is overly complicated and redundant. "Petrol engines run at higher rotation speeds than diesels, partially due to their lighter pistons, connecting rods and crankshaft (a design efficiency made possible by lower compression ratios) and due to petrol burning more quickly than diesel."
 * Propose to change to "Petrol engines run at higher rotations (or RPM) than Diesel Engines. This partially due to the use of lighter pistons, connecting rods, and crankshaft (a design efficiency made possible by lower compression ratios) and because petrol burns more quickly than diesel does." Akardoust (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

"British Politicians Call For an End to Diesel, Gasoline Cars by 2040"
"British Politicians Call For an End to Diesel, Gasoline Cars by 2040" --Emesee 06:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

and is gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.49.12 (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

H***, shouldn't be a problem with gasoline, they're running petrol now instead...Jmdeur (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Gasoline Direct Injection
I'm going to cut out the reference in the introduction to Gasoline direct injection; there are many variants on fuel injection systems, and it isn't clear that this one is notable enough to be called out specifically. Lauciusa (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thermal efficiency???
The articles for Steam and Diesel engines have thermal efficiency listings; therefore, it would be best for Gasoline also to have such a listing, for comparative purposes. 63.3.9.1 (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A proposal to generally prefer "gasoline" over "petrol"
I have made the proposal to generally prefer "gasoline" over "petrol" at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles. If agreed to, this would see this page renamed to Gasoline engine. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Petrol engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160215204601/http://www.bexley.gov.uk/article/10664/Hiram-Maxim-and-Edward-Butler to http://www.bexley.gov.uk/article/10664/Hiram-Maxim-and-Edward-Butler

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

How is that "Design" section does not have an "Oiling system" paragraph?
What people should learn from reading this section? With all these talks about politics, ecology, efficiency something, petrol over gasoline, missing hyperlink here or colon there and other crap like this... How everyone continue to miss the point? I think adding "Oiling system" is basic. Like How it works, and how the pistons are getting oiled inside the cylinders etc. At least some basics. IMHO, Wikipedia is getting further and further away.from being source of knowledge. 77.139.16.114 (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

August 2022
Between 31 July and 5 August made 7 edits to our article. The net result was a large-scale deletion of text - removal of 1,685 characters. Five of the edits contained no edit summary to help explain why this large amount of text was being removed. MrsSnoozyTurtle did not make any comment on this Talk page to explain what the problem might have been, or why the deletions might have been made. On 5 August I reverted all 7 edits by restoring the version of the article existing prior to 31 July. See my diff. I also started a discussion thread on MrsSnoozyTurtle’s Talk page to alert them to the problem and ask them to be more considerate of other Users who work in this area and take an interest in this article. See my diff. MrsSnoozyTurtle has since reverted my edit, thereby repeating the large removal of text. See the diff. Many of us have this article on our Watchlist so we can monitor changes made to it. This enables us to assist with adding new information and citations to emerging areas of content, and to monitor changes to ensure the quality of the article remains adequate. We are usually assisted in our work by edit summaries and new discussion threads on this Talk page. We should not have to sift through edits with a fine-toothed comb to try to comprehend what they are trying to achieve, and why. MrsSnoozyTurtle is not a familiar editor at this article. Prior to the 7 edits from 31 July onwards, this User had never made an edit here. I think MrsSnoozyTurtle should tell us about their objectives, and what problems they are trying to fix, rather than imagining no-one is interested in what is being done to the article. Users who have an interest in this article are entitled to challenge changes that have been made, and to revert changes that cannot be seen to improve the quality of the article. Dolphin ( t ) 06:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I broadly agree with the above - may have valid reasoning for their edits (AGF and all that), but the level of data removed makes it hard to judge.  For a start, I don't consider changing "Working cycles" to "Thermodynamics" is an improvement per se, even though it also added in useful sourced text.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:ROWN. For example, this edit identified an unsourced claim regarding Julius Hock and added a reference to the previously unsourced claim about Lenoir. Both of these changes were wiped out with sweeping reverts.

Also, the claim about "large scale deletions" is misleading, since not a single reference was removed. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * When you became aware of the erroneous or improper claim about Julius Hock, and you knew you were able to improve the article by dealing with the error, the responsibility was on you to repair the problem by dealing with it properly, in accordance with Wikipedia’s customs, guidelines and practices. You didn’t do that - you made 7 edits deleting 1,684 characters; only 2 of your deletions were accompanied by an attempt to leave an edit summary. It was inevitable that all your deletions would be reverted without other Users sifting through your efforts to see whether there was anything of merit worth saving. Wikipedia doesn’t work that way.


 * The fact that the error regarding Julius Hock might remain in the article is your responsibility, not the responsibility of others. Don’t imagine that on Wikipedia you can make a mess and others will come along behind you and clean up! Others will come along and revert your mess.


 * You can rehabilitate yourself here at Petrol engine by making the changes you see fit, always leaving a meaningful edit summary, and preferably using the Talk page to let others what you are doing, and why. And stop quoting WP:ROWN, it is not relevant to the present discussion. Dolphin ( t ) 03:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Dolphin51. Please refer to WP:V regarding the Julius Hock situation.


 * My understanding is that WP:ROWN is quite relevant here, especially the "Bad reasons to revert" section, so I will not follow your demand to "stop quoting WP:ROWN". This is all feeling a bit like WP:STONEWALLING.


 * Also I disagree about the my "responsibility" regarding existing errors in the article, since we are all volunteers here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I see that your two most-recent edits to this article have been supported by edit summaries. That is a good development! You have been volunteering at Wikipedia for over a decade, and you have made over 20,000 edits, so there is a widespread expectation that your editing will be fully mature where edit summaries are concerned. Help:Edit summary says it all.


 * Any User who is unwilling to spend a few seconds leaving an Edit summary cannot expect other Users to spend a few minutes carefully examining an edit(s) to determine what it achieved, what the objective might have been, and whether it was legitimate. So much easier to leave an edit summary and I’m delighted that you are now doing so at Petrol engine. Dolphin ( t ) 00:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)