Talk:Gallon

message: I edited the list of countries section to include the following comment:
El Salvador announced in December 2020 that it will switch all units not presently metric to metric to be completed by June 2021.  https://www.elsalvador.com/noticias/negocios/gasolina-se-vendera-en-litros-2021/786601/2020/
User DeFacto reverted the edit claiming; not relevant here yet - wait until we having RSes saying it has happened
Actually it is relevant seeing that the change is not an overnight change but is being done over a period of time to be completed by June 2021.  The article states that workshops have been in place since October to educate the companies that are effected about the change.  
Because the change has been announced, the article on gallons needs to be amended to show the change is presently in progress.  I understand that those who are opposed to metrication may be upset that this is happening.  The remnant uses of pre-metric or American units in many metric countries are continuing to be removed whether these opposers like it or not.  Is hiding the fact and hoping countries like El Salvador change their mind is their goal?
I think it is the right time to add some form of statement that El Salvador is in the process of completing the change that has been done started over a century ago.  
Ametrica (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: El Salvador

message: "do i have to do verything by myself?'   — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorvetteZ51 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  the US gallon is defined in EXACT metric terms 

message: "This definition is occasionally used in United Kingdom,"  So far as I'm concerned most people in the Uk above a certain age - let's say 45 - and many people younger still think in pints and gallons.  There is a strong emotional attachment to Imperial measures.  It's a lot more than occasional use - it's still engrained in the culture! Milk is still sold in pints 1 pint = 568ml) in all major supermarkets. I shall delete the "occasionally" unless I see convincing arguments no to. Sasha 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Exchequer (Henry VII, 1091, with rim)" sounds to me like it is claiming that size to have been used in 1091 under Henry VII of England.
There's a problem with this, as the King of England in 1091 was William II. Henry VII was crowned in 1485.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.17.255 (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Exchequer gallon (1091)

message: The millilitre and the cubic centimetre were not the same in 1963.  Were the densities in the 1963 redefinition specified in g/mL or in g/cm³?  Gene Nygaard 11:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the gallon by this definition to yield both quoted values (4.54609 and 4.546092), the cm³ = 0.999 971 5 mL.  This is a version of the Litre from 1900 to 1964.  --Wendy.krieger (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: U.K. 1963 redefinition

message: Right now the content related to the various articles relating to measurement seems to be rather indifferently handled. This is not good, because at least 45 or so are of a great deal of importance to Wikipedia, and are even regarded as Vital articles. On that basis, I am proposing a new project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Measurement to work with these articles, and the others that relate to the concepts of measurement. Any and all input in the proposed project, including indications of willingness to contribute to its work, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed WikiProject

message: I'm trying to clean up this article.  I don't like having bullet points in the lead section but it's difficult to avoid here.  Can anyone suggest a better layout? Biscuittin (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done it. Biscuittin (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: What may have been the case in 2012 and earlier changed shortly after that since references to fuel prices 2014 and later show litres only.  
http://www.oilseedcrops.org/2014/04/05/petrol-prices-march-2014-in-yangon-myanmar/
https://www.mmtimes.com/news/fuel-prices-rise.html
Myanmar/Burma needs to be removed from the list of those countries using gallons.  Myanmar is also making a slow switch to metric in other areas too.  
Speed limits on roads are now 50 km/h urban and 80 km/h rural.
Ametrica (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unlikely, though that US writers would write of "imperial gallons", a unit not used in the US, unless the units used for the ration were in fact imperial gallons. Note that the second article says imperial gallons for the gasoline/diesel rations even as it converts the 65-liter figure to US gallons (65 liters is 14.3 imperial gallons, 17.2 US gallons) - and the prices (in local currency) as shown are very round numbers, unexpected if it were a conversion to a different unit size. --Random832 (contribs) 14:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Every schoolchild in the USA knows that the USA, Burma and Liberia are the only three countries listed in the CIA World Factbook as not having gone metric, and that the other two are on the imperial system. Of course both Liberia and Burma are in process of metrication, with Liberia pretty far along. However metrication is an expensive time-consuming process that can cost billions and take decades. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

text: "Every schoolchild in the USA" is being misled then! Though indeed the three named countries are listed as such in the CIA factbook, it doesn't follow that Burma and Liberia are therefore "on the imperial system". Burma's non-metric system is largely indigenous (though imported units like imperial gallons may well be in there too). As for Liberia, considering the influence of settlers from the southern USA for the last 200 or so years, I'd have expected its measurement system to have become USC over the years, but "imperial" is often claimed despite (AFAIK) no significant influence by Britain or its erstwhile empire. Steve Hosgood (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about Liberia, even though every schoolchild in the USA is supposed to know about that as well, I guess my brain just didn't make the connection. (Too busy thinking about Burma and George Orwell.) On the other point, I agree that a journalist's choice of words is not a good indicator of anything unless a news article is specifically about the unit itself. What we really need is definitive information about Burma and Liberia. So far all I've been able to find out is that Burma is using acres in its published national statistics on agriculture. Zyxwv99 (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen a few pictures on Flikr etc.  The pumps that they show are calibrated in gallons and look like 1950's vintage (or earlier). Martinvl (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Do they really teach schoolchildren in the USA about the units of measurement used in a small African country on the opposite side of the Atlantic? Not so long ago National Geographic were complaining that the state of Geography education in U.S. schools was so bad that embarrassing numbers of U.S. schoolchildren didn't know the name of the capital city of the USA (and if they knew what it was called, most couldn't point to it on a map). I'd certainly not expect British schoolchildren to know what system of units Liberia used. Steve Hosgood (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What schoolchildren in the USA know about geography is a mixed bag. They are probably more likely to know where Liberia is than that Paris is the capital of France. That's because Liberia has a special connection with the USA, and because Black History Month comes around once a year. (There's also a hint of implied racism in that question, since many European countries are small and on the other side of the Atlantic.) The CIA World Factbook is used along with the World Almanac and Book of Facts as a standard reference work for schoolchildren. They are often surprised when they stumble onto Appendix G, which says: "At this time, only three countries - Burma, Liberia, and the US - have not adopted the International System of Units (SI, or metric system)." Teachers also emphasize the fact, as many are rabid metric advocates and use Liberia and Burma to illustrate how dire the situation is. Zyxwv99 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

text: "Martinvl's edit to the article starting "A German Government report on fuel prices..." seems to claim that "The German Government" believes Liberia to use U.S. gallons, which would fit with my conjecture (above) that if anything Liberia would use USC in general, not British Imperial. Steve Hosgood (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallons Used as measurement for fuel in Burma 

message: As far as I know, the only two countries that still use this form of measurement are the United States of America, and the United Kingdom, and they don't agree on what a gallon is.  Is there any evidence supporting any other countries where this measurement is still officially used? (older generations in Canada talk of gallons, but in general no one really understands it when their elders talk crazy like that)   --63.243.173.126 (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to any car dealer in Canada, and he'll quote you fuel consumption in miles per gallon, and those gallons will be imperial gallons. The glossy brochures will have both litres per hundred kilometres and miles per imperial gallon, but even the youngest car buyers will be comparing the MPG numbers. But you're right, nothing is actually sold by the gallon in Canada anymore. Indefatigable (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The on-board computer in my car calculates the number of miles I have travelled based on wheel rotations, and calculates the number of gallons left in my tank from the average level.  It then calculates both the instantaneous and the average fuel consumption in miles per gallon.  If I chose, I could ask it to display the results in litres per 100 km, but it would still calculate the result by conversion, it would not measure either litres or kilometres.  Dbfirs 21:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, I do know that neither miles nor kilometres are directly measured.  Both are calculated.  Similarly, neither gallons not litres are marked on the fuel tank.  The software converts the level reading to whatever units are required by the display.  I agree that manufacturers nearly always use metric units in the manufacturing process.
The devices that do the measuring either produce a designed number of pulses per metre (or other SI unit) or a voltage where the sensor is calibrated to produce a particular voltage per metre (or other SI unit).  If the default units are chosen to be those of the design units in SI, the number is directly displayed.  If non-SI units are chosen, the "number" is passed through a conversion routine before being displayed. Special:Contributions/ Ametrica (talk • contribs) ( Ametrica (talk • contribs)]) 01:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

text: No, the devices just produce a number of pulses.  They are calibrated to either kilometres or miles.  The number of pulses or the voltage needs to be converted to whichever unit is chosen for the display.  Dbfirs 08:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Are you claiming that rotations of a tyre (which is sold in inch radius measurements) are counted, then converted into a metric equivalent, then converted back into miles for the odometer?  This sounds like an irrational fear of imperial units.  Are modern engineers really so out of touch with traditional units?  I agree that software can perform any conversion you wish, into any units you choose.  I suspect that real (rational) engineers just calibrate the measuring device in whatever units it is designed to display.  Dbfirs 17:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

text: The article to which you link confirms my claim that tyres are sold based on an imperial measurement (inches) in their most basic dimension.  I don't doubt that engineers now actually manufacture tyres to some metric equivalent.  I hope that you are not claiming that "real engineers" use the car's gearing to measure distance travelled, because this is clearly false.  Odometer readings are based on wheel revolutions, and modern odometers use a pulse counting system.  This is digital, so is neither metric nor imperial, but is logically closer to imperial because each pulse corresponds to a distance measured in inches based on the radius of the wheel.  Your dislike of imperial seems to go beyond the rational, but I do agree with you that modern engineers would be happier if they could abolish all imperial units.  Dbfirs 08:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

text: They nearly all use miles per gallon, and it is the imperial gallon, of course, in the UK, even if the on-board computer is fitted in a car from an American manufacturer.  Dbfirs 18:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I can speak only from my own experience.  I convert the annoying litre readout at the pump to a more meaningful (to me) gallon figure, and then I divide the mileage reading by the number of gallons.  All British cars have a "mileometer" not a "kilometre-ometer" as a fitted odometer, and the official annual "MOT test" records the distance travelled by the vehicle in miles.  The calculation to convert litres to gallons is no more cumbersome that having to convert miles to kilometers.  Many years ago I used a pocket calculator for the conversion, but I now use a spreadsheet, and yes, I do bother to do the simple calculation.  I've noticed a significant drop in my car's miles per gallon rate during the recent sub-zero temperatures (or should I say "sub-32-degrees Fahrenheit?) Dbfirs 08:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry you are annoyed by the use of yards and miles, but they cannot become obsolete whilst they are still in use.  I agree with your point about the signs being inaccurate, but this is often because a suitable location may not be available at the exact distance.  Dbfirs 08:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the road manuals specify the signs showing "100 yards" shall be placed "100 metres" from the subject - see here, page 128.  Martinvl (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The regulations require such signs to be placed within a 10% accuracy, so as a metre is about 1.094 yards that is perfectly within tolerance. Would you expect them to be placed at exactly 91.44 metres?  
A convenient loophole that allows them to place the signs by design at exactly 100 m and still claim what is on the sign is true.  Even though it may say 100 YARDS, we know it is really 100 m. Special:Contributions/ Ametrica (talk • contribs) (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

text: 68.105.199.216, I think British engineers have been working in metric for decades - not necessarily because they choose to, but because their employers stipulate that they have to. Luckily for the population though, they generally have no such pressures or diktats to comply with, and what we know is that where people have a free choice in the matter, they overwhelmingly choose imperial units over metric. -- de Facto (talk). 19:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Most of the signs where I live were placed long before engineers worked in metric units, and milestones are placed at almost exactly 1760 yard intervals.  Telephones on motorways are at mile intervals with intermediate markers at intervals measured in yards.  I expect that engineers who have only metric instruments have to do awkward conversions.  There is nothing "imperfect" about yards and miles.  They are an alternative system, not an inferior system.  I'm happy with both imperial and metric systems, so I don't see why either has to exclude the other.  Dbfirs 17:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

text: When I said "almost exactly", I meant "at a carefully measured distance of 1760 yards", definitely not 1600 metres (with actual placement not being possible to the nearest thou!)  I'm puzzled by your concept of "perfection".  As I said, I'm happy with both sets of units, and don't regard either system as "perfect", though I can understand engineers not wanting to convert between units, and thus placing modern markers at metric intervals, even though one interval has to be different to fit into the exact mile.  What they are not capable of doing is changing the past, when markers were placed at mile intervals.  Dbfirs 08:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Much as I would like everybody to read Driver location signs (I am the main contributor), I feel that this thread is digressing.  Please see p108 of this document for a list of countries that sell fuel by the gallon (UK/US specified in the document). Martinvl (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the signs link, Martin, I'd found it from 68.105's link just before you posted it here.  I must do some measuring on the local motorway (built in the '60s before the metric takeover amongst engineers) to see what units are now used.  I agree we are way off topic with the miles discussion.  I think 68.105 and I will just have to agree to differ.  Dbfirs 09:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries where this system is till in use 

message: It is peripheral to this page, but it may be worth noting that despite the provisions of the UK's Units of Measurement Regulations 1995, the International definition of a Nautical Mile is 1852m, and most UK legislation in which it is relevant includes this definition (such as in "The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996, where it says  "(3)  In these Regulations... ... "mile" means a nautical mile of 1,852 metres")
82.152.253.130 (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nautical mile 

message: In the UK, it is no longer true to say that "Milk is sold in pints in all major supermarkets": it depends on  the supermarket and on the dairy: Sainsbury's, for instance, sell their own label fresh milk in multiples of 568ml, but their own label UHT milk and most branded milk in litres. (see www.sainsburys.com)
: Same situation in Tesco, Asda and Co-operative. Some supermarkets sell all milk in metric only quantities: Best One, Nisa, Aldi, Spar (to name just some). Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that "gallon" isn't in common usage amongst anyone in the UK except for fuel economy figures in MPG. Occasionally the tabloid press will have a headline saying "Petrol Now £X per Gallon, Shock Horror" (where X is usually an integer unless it's a *really* slow news day) but since no-one buys petrol in gallons and haven't since the 1980's, it's a meaningless rant. Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I use "gallon" commonly, Steve, but then perhaps I'm not "anyone"?  Dbfirs 21:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

text: As I mentioned above, large tanks for fish, water and fuel are still advertised by their gallon sizes, but I agree that the gallon sizes have been translated into metric equivalents for most products to comply with labelling requirements.  Dbfirs 08:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I think the former gallon sizes have probably been converted to metric measurements for modern manufacturing processes (we agree there), but the traditional gallon sizes are retained as accurately as possible in some cases.  I also agree that these containers are probably in a shrinking minority.  Dbfirs 16:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common usage of gallon/litre etc 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: "the volume of 10 pounds of distilled water weighed in air with brass weights with the barometer standing at 30 inches of mercury and at a temperature of 62 °F." How substantial is the difference between this weight and that of the same mass of water weighed in a vacuum (or between this amount and exactly 10 lb of water as weighed in a vacuum)? I assume it is a greater mass (and hence greater volume) than it would be in a vacuum, since water is less dense than brass. --Random832 (contribs) 00:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's to do with bouyancy. Because the volumes of the water and brass aren't the same, the two items displace different weights of air and thus receive different uplift. The effect would be more marked if weighed in water, less if weighed in helium, non-existent if weighed in a vacuum. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Very approximately 5 grams uplift on the gallon weighed in air, compared to weighed in a vacuum, when worked out on the back of an envelope here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Using the data for the 4.54609 mL figure (ie the 1963 act), 10 lb of water in vacuum would be 4540.991 cc, rather than 4546.09 cc.  This is because a gallon of water actually contains more than 10 lbs of water.  It contains eg 70,075.134 grains of water.  This will exactly match a weight of 70,000 grains of brass, when the 70,000 grains was set in vacuum.  --Wendy.krieger (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  weighing in air 

message: According to the US NIST Special Publication 811 a US gallon equals 3,785412 liter (L). To my knowledge no change was made to this definition. 
--84.57.16.255 (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of US gallon 

message: I couldn't find any symbol for gallon (like m for meter, s for second, in the SI system, or the common use L for liter), nor in the lead section of the article, nor in the Definitions section. In the tables of the United States customary units article it seems to be gal, but I don't know if this is official nor if it applies the same to the dry and imperial gallons too.
Could any of the main editors consider including the symbol/s (if some exist) in the lead section of the article (I believe it belongs there, see Wikipedia:Lead section) and/or in the Definitions section?
Many thanks.
--Pmronchi (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I found "gal" in the 2012 edition of NIST Handbook 44, Appendix C (General Tables of Units of Measurement), page C-5 (Units of Liquid Volume). It's available as a PDF file from http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/h44-12.cfm. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the symbol for gallon is "gal" (lower gase "g") and the symbol for the gal (a cgs unit of acceleration equal to ) , short for Gallileo, is "Gal" (Upper case "g"). Martinvl (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Gal" is an abbreviation for gallon, not a symol as in the SI sense; as such, and applying the normal rules of English grammar, it can be capitalised. -- de Facto (talk). 07:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

text: In the Apothecary system, the symbol for gallon was C., the abbreviation was Cong., both short for congius. If you go back far enough, these symbols and abbreviations would have been used for gallons in general. It's just that doctors, lawyers, and apothecaries continued to use Latin a bit longer than other people. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The IEEE symbol for the gallon is 'gal'.  I just edited the lede, including a reference to the standard that defines this symbol (IEEE Std 260.1-2004). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a symbol for gallon? 

message: I propose that Gallons per minute and Million gallons per year be merged into this article. Lightmouse (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: from the text "is equal to exactly 3.785411784 litres or about 0.133680555 cubic feet. This is the most common definition of a gallon in the United States."
I doubt it.  I would say the most common definition of the gallon in the US goes along the lines of 2 cups in a pint, 2 pints in a quart, 4 quarts in a gallon.  IMHO, no one in the US knows (or cares) how many liters are in a gallon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.195.0.181 (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The US gallon is defined as 231 cubic inches.  This converts to 3.78511784 L exactly, but that is a derived figure, not a definition. The relation in cu ft is 231/1728 = 0.133680555 5/9 cu ft, is likewise derived from the definitions. --Wendy.krieger (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Common 

message: Who was the dishonest snake-oil salesman who thought pushing this on the public was a great idea. So you want to know how far a litre of petrol takes you? Too bad, official figures make you work hard with mental division!
Kilometres per litre would have been SMART. I really am interested in finding out the history behind this epically moronic decision. The only thing I can think of is collusion between manufacturers to make it difficult for consumers to understand the fuel efficiency of their vehicles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.16.173.123 (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You might not know, but its very common in Europe, and most people find it hard to "understand" it the other way round like miles/gallon. This has nothing to do with stupidity. Anyone can get used to either way. Greetings from Germany ;) 89.0.23.81 (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

text: "Stupidity"? It all depends on what you want to know. If you want to know how many litres of fuel you need to do a given journey (where the distance is known in km), then litres per 100km is a far more useful value than its reciprocal. I use it all the time, despite being in the UK, where fuel is sold by litres but the roadsigns are still in miles (and car odometers measure miles). In the UK, whichever fuel consumption figure you use, you have to do some arithmetic to get results since *no-one* uses "miles per litre" or "litres per 100 miles" or whatever other hybrid system you can dream up. Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupidity of Litres per 100 kilometres 

message: This leads to Jon Talbain, a character in a vampire fighting game whose alternative name seems to be "Garon". A national stereotype appears to have been applied as, within Japan, this evidently could be spelled "Gallon". I suggest that, this far removed from Jon himself, very few readers requiring the character  would stumble upon this page. The hatnote in unnecessary. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no dissent. Implementing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote [[Jon Talbain]] 

message: We seem to have some discrepancies in our conversions between litres and cubic inches.  I'll read the article again before I make alterations, in case I've missed some historical variation, but the figures just don't tally as I currently read them.  
This is the paragraph that seems to have discrepancies:
"This works out at approximately 4.5460903 L (277.4416 cu in). The metric definition of exactly 4.54609 cubic decimetres (also 4.54609 L after the litre was redefined in 1964, ≈ 277.419433 cu in) was adopted shortly afterwards in Canada; for several years, the conventional value of 4.546092 L was used in the United Kingdom, until the Canadian convention was adopted in 1985." Perhaps it is the redefinition that I'm getting confused over? Dbfirs 08:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ... (later) ...  I've altered one figure because I can't see how it was calculated.  If it was based on an old metric value, please revert and add the explanation.  Dbfirs 18:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion to cubic inches 

message: The unit was exported from France to the U.K. so it is not British at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipito1.966 (talk • contribs) 2012-05-29 17:51:17
Where does the word gallon come from?according to this come from français but I'm not sure because of is a Roman measure or not. measure imperial (Roman empire) --EEIM (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Section expanded a bit, but the "Roman measure" needs further research from somebody. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  someone knows 

message: I just reverted linkspam by user Oleh Svintsitskyy who appears to be a professional spammer. All of his edits are linkspam linking to the same site. In just the few minutes that it has taken to write this warning, he has posted more spam. Zyxwv99 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam Alert 

message: Indeed it never has, but why is it necessary to note this in the article? The gallon originated in Normandy about a thousand years ago; there was no reason why the physicists in Paris who worked out the SI should incorporate the units of their predecessors from the  dark ages, any more than they they considered the pinte, quiade or velte.  At the risk of evoking a WP:BEANS response,  we don't put those in either. 
It's completely unnecessary and incongruous to mention SI in the context as the two classes of unit are so widely separate.
I have removed it; several other editors have removed it, yet it keeps reappearing. Please accept the consensus on this, and don't bring it back. 
--Old Moonraker (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the statement certainly doesn't belong here, however it is phrased.  There are a million things the gallon is not.  The article is about what the gallon is.  I wonder why User:Nezdek is so persistent and claims "consensus" when the majority is clearly opposed.  Dbfirs 07:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears top be a clumsy attemtp to draw a parallel with the litre which is "Non-SI units mentioned in the SI". The lede already implies that the gallon is not an SI unit when it draws to attention that the gallon has been replaced by metric units in the UK and in Canada.  An additional statement is not neccessary. Martinvl (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Old Moonraker, Dbfirs and Martinvl. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It has never been a Non-SI units mentioned in the SI" 

message: I realize we've been discussing Liberia in the Burma section since the two countries seem to go together, but maybe we should separate them out. I have found a document ("Poverty Reduction Strategy") on the Republic of Liberia's Executive Mansion website that has some relevant information here (big slow-loading PDF file) Apparently they still use gallons, but also cubic meters (spelled the American way). "Monrovia’s water supply fell from 18 million gallons daily to just 1 million gallons." section 9.6, page 106 Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberia 

message: I have reworded the usage of the gallon in the lede.  In particular I removed the word "Commonwealth" - the only Commonwealth countries where the gallon is used is the UK, Canada and some Caribbean countries and these have already been mentioned. I also replaced the words "throughout The Americas" with the words "some Latin American and Caribbean" on grounds that the Imperial gallon is used in parts of the Caribbean and in Canada, while many Latin American countries, notable the three largest - Mexico, Argentina and Brazil use the litre. Martinvl (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to usage - 16 October 2013 

message: I'd like to voice an objection to the "dry gallon" being used in this article at all.  As mentioned, I believe somewhere in this article or another perhaps the bushel, the "dry gallon" isn't even mentioned in the US statute.  Further in "peck," the picture shows a bag of apples labeled as "1/2 peck," showing that the unit is not accepted in packaging either.
It may have existed historically, but, in practice, only the dry quart, pint, peck, and bushel are encountered (even here, weight is often considered, as per the article) with the volume being more of a historical derivation.  While the historical use of the corn? gallon shouldn't be completely erased, I think it is bad wording to imply that the dry gallon is still used.  Three units derived from it are.
Surveyor792 (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. Dry / Corn Gallon

message: From the main Wikipedia article on the article of clothing:  
One theory is that the term "ten-gallon" is a corruption of the Spanish modifier tan galán, which loosely translates as "really handsome"[28] or "so fine". For example, un sombrero tan galán translates as "such a fine hat".
Another theory is that the term "ten-gallon" is a corruption of the Spanish term galón, which means "galloon", a type of narrow braided trimming around the crown, possibly a style adapted by Spanish cowboys. When Texas cowboys misunderstood the word galón for "gallon", the popular, though incorrect, legend may have been born. According to Reynolds and Rand, "The term ten-gallon did not originally refer to the holding capacity of the hat, but to the width of a Mexican sombrero hatband, and is more closely related to this unit of measurement by the Spanish than to the water-holding capacity of a Stetson.”[29]
Since the name is most likely a corruption, it is at best a notable curiosity, and not a good indication of the unit "Gallon."  Is it really worthkeeping here?Surveyor792 (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it wasn't a completely broken accounting of origin, having a 10 gallon hat appear under a section of how gallons are used is a H---U---G---E stretch.  Anyone else want it gone? Tgm1024 (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is also unsourced. Maybe put it in the "see also" section but I wouldn't mind seeing it disappear. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of "Ten Gallon" Hat in Article Considering the Name's Corrupted Origins 

message: The article says
:"the US gallon, which is equal to approximately 3.785 litres...".
This is true, but why not say
:"the US gallon, which is equal to exactly 3.785411784 litres"
:::one gallon is exactly 231 cubic inches
:::one inch is exactly 0.254 decimetres
:::one cubic inch is exactly 0.254^3 cubic decimetres
:::one litre is exactly one cubic decimeter
so one US gallon is  231 x 0.254 x 0.254 x 0.254 litres = 3.785411784 exactly
:. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs)  15:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The exact value is given in the table lower down.  Dbfirs 17:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The size of a US gallon 

message: Before 1702 there was no Queen Anne. So how could there have been a Queen Anne gallon? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Anne 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gallon. 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  tag to http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002102212/http://assets.antiguaobserver.com/2011/12/BUDGET-STATEMENT-2012.pdf to http://assets.antiguaobserver.com/2011/12/BUDGET-STATEMENT-2012.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222145630/http://www.thevoiceslu.com/local_news/2013/july/09_07_13/Rotary.htm to http://www.thevoiceslu.com/local_news/2013/july/09_07_13/Rotary.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.caribmillers.com/content/gas-prices-guyoil-stations-remain-below-1000-mark
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130525024249/http://www.newsroompanama.com:80/business/5569-liters-replace-gallons-at-pump-as-panama-goes-metric.html to http://www.newsroompanama.com/business/5569-liters-replace-gallons-at-pump-as-panama-goes-metric.html
*Added  tag to http://www.guampdn.com/article/20130808/NEWS01/130808005/UPDATE-Gas-prices-down-10-cents-4-73-gallon-unleaded
*Added  tag to http://virginislandsdailynews.com/news/7-cent-per-gallon-wapa-tax-goes-into-effect-1.1344082
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) 12:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gallon. 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/20120116182201/http://www.cbji.com/makingnews.aspx?id=692 to http://www.cbji.com/makingnews.aspx?id=692
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304201034/http://www.samoanews.com/?q=node%2F76479 to http://www.samoanews.com/?q=node%2F76479
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) 23:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've reverted the addition of "8 pints" to the lead. I think this is too confusing for the lead. If we put this in, we have to explain that an Imperial gallon is 8 Imperial pints, a US gallon is 8 US pints, and an Imperial pint is bigger than a US pint. This is just too much for the lead of an article that is not about pints. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that we address this by specifying "(8 Imperial pints)". There's no need to explain further in the lede (anyone interested can click on the link). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We absolutely need this or something like it in the lede or in the sidebar. Many people are going to come to this page in order to find out exactly this bit of information and will want to see it in a prominent place. Perhaps if you feel strongly about not including it in the lede, then the sidebar could be the right place? More people will want to know that there are 8 imperial pints in the imperial gallon than    1.200950 US gal.  Personally, though, I'd just have (8 imperial pints) and (8 US pints) after the respective units, and have done with it. We currently have litre amounts for three of them but you don't seem to think that seems "too much for the lead of an article that is not about litres"! That one is bigger than the other isn't something we need to say. Porphyro (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like confusing clutter to me, but I have added both kinds of pints to the lead. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

text: The unit is converted 3-ways which seems way ott for the lede, and the fact that it's equal to 8 pints seems a more intuitive way of introducing it to me (the reader wanting to see all these units ranked in terms of their size can easily read the article).  Hard to GAF about this though so happy to just leave it like it is. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah agreed with Dondervogel, I'm happy with the article as it currently stands anyway. Porphyro (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pints in the lead 

message: The cited Transport Canada source does seem to support what we say about the Canadian gallon: "1 Canadian gallon = 0.8327 U.S. gallons and 1 Canadian mpg = 1.2 U.S. mpg." I will fix the archive url. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada