Talk:44-gallon drum

message: Why is the british unit of measure preferred? i suggest renaming this 55 gallon drum
:Are there other nations that use the term '44 gallon' over '55 gallon'? Not to be blunt, but there are more internet users from the United States than Britain; I'd assume the more widely used term would be prefered. PolarisSLBM 03:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British vs. US units 

message: I added some redirect pages for 200 litre drum and 200-litre drum. Alx xlA 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: This article contradicts Drum (container) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.162.29.10 (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Drum (container) article is incorrect. All three commonly used names should be stated in the introduction. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is NOT a US centric website. Roger 18:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Nor is it the “most obscure unit of measure-centric” website. Unlike a spelling difference, or similar issue of style, the term and unit of measure should be the most common one used in the English language. See my above post.  Greg L (my talk) 22:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the article should be renamed, post a move request here and at WP:RM to solicit more input. —  AjaxSmack  06:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In at least the UK and South Africa they are also sometimes called 210 litre drums - I supose it simply reflects how much content is usually put in them in each country as the actual dimensions of the drums are fixed by single global standard. The point is now moot anyway as the debate has moved on to merging it into Drum (container) - see discussion and poll below. Roger (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: As there are so many different names and sizes, and the title is disputed, one solution would be a merge to drum (container), with all other names as redirects.  The articles (44-gallon drum and drum (container) are not particularly long, and although some restructuring of drum (container) is needed, I think the content of 44-gallon drum could be merged into it; the articles already overlap in content and subject. --Snigbrook (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now THIS is a proposal I can support without any reservations! After all does the volume really have to be specified in the page name? Roger (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also support that merge, for the reasons stated by other editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The article would still be about this specific type of drum. The only real difference is that no unit of volume would be "advantaged" by appearing in the title. Roger (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Just a little note to point out that 44 and 55 gallons are not "sizes" (plural) of drum - they are merely different names for one type of drum. Roger (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point remains...  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The reliable references found so far indicate that the official specification for the drum is written primarily in U.S. customary units (not Imperial units). If the article remains separate, it might be reasonable to continue that practice. If the articles are merged, the new article is likely to include drums that were primarily designed in SI, so for the sake of consistency, the entire article should list SI first. The one exception would be screw threads, since "2-inch NPT" really is a name, and implies an entire set of dimensions, not just 2 inches. Earlier I suggested that "55-gallon drum" might just be a description, not a name, but since then I have discovered the two military specs referenced in the article. Since I now know that "55-gallon drum" is short-hand for a whole set of standardized dimensions, I view it as a name and believe it should be listed first even in an SI-first article. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: There are at least two sizes in play here - why is it "44-gallon" instead of 46-gallon? 44 Imperial gallons on the other hand is within .02% of 200 litres. --Random832 (contribs) 00:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all great things - to add to the drum (container) article.  —Wknight94 (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: So.... since you figured it out, can you explain it to us? :) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, it wouldn't be a move, it would be a merge.  Admin assistance is not needed for that.  Just merge in the content and then redirect this article.  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you copy/paste content like that? I thought licensing required that the original contributors had to be kept in the history page somehow, same as moving. Phasmatisnox (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's currently no other way.  When you do it, just make clear in the edit summary that you "merged from 44-gallon drum" so it would be clear where the content came from.  You can leave a talk page notification message too.  It's about the best option given the software as it currently stands.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, somebody who knows how, move/merge/whatever this article ASAP! Before yet another round of the 55 <-> 44 edit war breaks out! Roger (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Not sure if I did it right, and it needs editing, but it's done. Phasmatisnox (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[drum (container)]]? 

message: Okay, can we get an admin to assist in this move? I'm not sure how to do this without copy/pasting. Phasmatisnox (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it wouldn't be a move, it would be a merge.  Admin assistance is not needed for that.  Just merge in the content and then redirect this article.  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you copy/paste content like that? I thought licensing required that the original contributors had to be kept in the history page somehow, same as moving. Phasmatisnox (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's currently no other way.  When you do it, just make clear in the edit summary that you "merged from 44-gallon drum" so it would be clear where the content came from.  You can leave a talk page notification message too.  It's about the best option given the software as it currently stands.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, somebody who knows how, move/merge/whatever this article ASAP! Before yet another round of the 55 <-> 44 edit war breaks out! Roger (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Not sure if I did it right, and it needs editing, but it's done. Phasmatisnox (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus reached, let's move it to [[Drum (container)]]