Talk:Autogas

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Autogas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Potential for {worldview} issues

As the creator and (so far) primary contributor to this page, I am working from my own knowledge of autogas systems, which is primarily Australian based. I have only a little bit of knowledge of how things vary elsewhere. It is possible that some of the things I take for granted as being how things are done worldwide today may not be. If you spot something that is not consistent with how things are done in your country or area, please discuss it here or mention the regional variation when adding to the article. --Athol Mullen 02:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LPG in Australia

"While Mitsubishi and Toyota only offer sedans, Ford and Holden also offer wagons and utilities. All are dual fuel vehicles, with the exception of Ford, whose E-Gas Falcon LPG model runs on autogas only."

I removed the above because Toyota Landcruiser Prado (not a sedan) can be converted to run on LPG. Mitsubishi Pajero can too. Furthermore, not all of these offered are dual fuel. E.g. a Camry can be converted to LPG only. --Knowledge-is-power 04:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I partially reverted your removal because I can see no reason to remove mention of the fact that all except the E-gas falcon are dual-fuel. I would, however, like to clarify whether you are saying that the Prado and Pajero are offered from the factory with LPG, as that is what the sentence that you removed was about. Likewise, any vehicle can be converted to LPG-only (I have done numerous such aftermarket conversions), so are you saying that Toyota are offering the Camry in LPG-only from the factory? If so, adding reference to that fact would be more relevant than removing valid information.

I also rearranged this talk page to correct the fact that you added your comments at the top and your signature at the bottom when they all belong together at the bottom of the page. --Athol Mullen 22:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Whilst autogas is currently excise-free, excise is to be imposed on all vehicle fuels that are not currently subject to excise, being added incrementally from 2011 to 2015. The excise on autogas will start at 2.5 cents per litre in 2011 and reach 12.5 cents per litre by 2015." I altered this to address a change of tense.

I also believe the following sentence in the same paragraph is now outdated: "The additional excise on autogas is being offset somewhat by a subsidy that was implemented in 2006 for private motorists, paying either A$2,000 to convert their existing vehicle to autogas, or A$1,000 for purchasing a new vehicle that was manufactured to operate on autogas.[10]" The grant/rebate amounts available changed over time and the entire LPG Vehicle Scheme closed on 30 June 2014. Applications can be made if the conversion/new vehicle fitted with LPG was purchased before 30 June 2014 and the application is received within 12 months from the conversion or new vehicle purchase and on or before 30 September 2014. Eligible private vehicle owners can claim a grant of A$2,000 after buying a new vehicle fitted with LPG before its first registration, or A$1,000 after converting an existing registered vehicle to operate on LPG only, LPG and petrol, or LPG and diesel. ^[1] Perhaps someone with more experience in Wikipedia editing could make these changes. --104398 11:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/lpg-vehicle-scheme

Interfacing to MPi

This article would be much better if anyone could add some information about how the LPG control system interfaces to a modern multipoint injection system. This seems to be just about carburettor based systems. I don't think I've even seen a carb in ten years so some sections are not really relevant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.79.28 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, more information on electronic controls, including LPG-injection systems, is needed. I don't know where you are but around here, mixer based systems are still common, both as conversions on older vehicles such as illustrated in the article and as factory installations or conversions on late model vehicles, as also illustrated in the article. I know because I drove two vehicles with mixer based systems yesterday (one an old LPG-only conversion, the other a modern factory LPG-only vehicle), but no injected gas vehicles. While there may be more information in the sections on mixer systems, there are sections on both vapour phase and liquid phase injection, which you're welcome to expand if you have the relevant information. Also, this is an encyclopeia - historical information is important and ideally should not be lost to future generations. If there is historical information in the article, the text should identify this fact but not omit the information for being historical. --Athol Mullen 22:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LPG Autogas

LPG Autogas is available on the forecourt stations of Shell in the UK and Autogas Limited manufactures it. - - Autogas Ltd is a joint venture between Calor Gas, a leading LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) company and Shell. By Shell selling Autogas it has made LPG an alternative to petrol and diesel. --Chris Marchant 16:33, 10 June 2007 (BST)

Belgium

Just like to add that lpg is quite popular and widely availabe in Belgium. It should be added to the country list.

Done.--Pineapple Fez 06:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tank pressure

What's a typical full tank pressure? There are no operating pressures mentioned too. Arny (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know from experience that the tank pressure is in the order of 100PSI. You're right, it would be useful to add. I'll have to find a reference that states tank pressures and add it unless someone beats me to it. --Athol Mullen (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated information as of Dec 2007

I just installed my autogas system on a Hyndai Tucson 2006, and the results have been incredble!. I'd like to add information to the article. Feel free to give me some feedbacks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelrod (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 December 2007

Reasons

Why is autogas chosen or not over diesel oil or gasoline? The article only mentions price but that is very dependent of the respective taxes. So why do whole countries not switch to mostly one fuel? Are there differences in cost of maintenance or power or autonomy or risk? --84.20.17.84 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the number of cars run on LPG in thailand

why would other people don't use LPG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.225.254 (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tng?

well this is kinda embarassing but I was redirected to this page from tng, and i was expecting a star trek article. I really have no problem with tng redirecting here except there's no explaination on the page for what "tng" means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.220.53 (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect made no sense to me, and appears to have been vandalism. It now points to Star Trek: The Next Generation as it originally did. --Athol Mullen (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connecter incompatibility

Does the use of incompatable connectors (Acme thread, Dutch Bayonet and Italian) create difficulties for motorists in border areas or visiting neighbouring countries (e.g. Netherlands/Belgium, Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland, Austria/Germany, Italy/Switzerland etc ) ? 86.112.238.238 (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being in Australia, where we use only the ACME thread, I can't really answer the question as well as someone from Europe should be able to. However, I have read in a UK usenet group that adapters are commonly available and that people traveling from the UK to Europe will usually buy the adapter(s) that they will need before they leave. It would be nice to add such information the article if someone can properly reference it. --Athol Mullen (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch here. I travel with two (Acme/German and Italian) adapters that can be screwed onto my Dutch Bayonet connector. There's a screw-thread fitted on my connector just for these adaptors. See the first seconds of this http://wn.com/bayonet_to_euro_lpg_filler_adapter Sedulus (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propane Carburetors

I have been looking at the BRC Blos propane carburetor which appears to work on a different principle to a normal propane mixer. I don't know whether other companies make similar products. I think it would be worth mentioning. Dieselnutjob (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in United States section

The United States section was recently added by the brand new user User:Allianceautogas (contribs) using references from http://autogasforamerica.org . This looks suspiciously like Autogas For America adding info about themselves - which is frowned upon by Wikipedia. The information added so far seems reasonable but it will bear watching. Stepho (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LPG injection for diesel vehicles

i have to blank out this section. the science and figures used are not correct. typical diesels have an efficiency of 45%, and a theoretical of 65% maximum. if someone wishes to reinsert this section they may, if they use a reliable source. thank youScoobertwho (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Optional valve protection

This section on valve protection fluid needs some references and information about why and when the product is necessary or desirable. I didn't find anything other than advertizing in a quick look around the net. Engines with hardened (Stellite) valve seats wouldn't benefit much if at all from the product, but engines designed to run on leaded fuel typically need something to replace the protective effect that lead had on the valve seats and so would benefit. 98.248.42.250 (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CO2 emissions reduction

The original value given (35% after a blog) compares emissions by liter (not equivalent amount, as stated in the article). However, the density of autogas is significantly lower than gasoline. In calculating the 'equivalent amount' one should probably also take into account the energy density. Perhaps a secion discussing those numbers would be in order? Providing only liter-by-liter comparison is at least misleading MarekZielinski (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard LPG described as a by product of oil production that in a lot of cases is simply burnt or flared off, on oil rigs at sea for example. If this is the case, then surely the CO2 emissions reduction as a substitute for petrol or diesel would be very different, from just taking into account the reduced amount of carbon in the fuel compared to petrol. The CO2 from burning the LPG was going to be produced by flaring off any way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.79.11 (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand

Anon IP added the following comments to the Thailand section:

Too much errors.

1. LPG in Thailand started since 1970 era, when OPEC increased its petroleum price. Colonel Karun Kengradomying successfully modified many Bangkok's taxi to be able to run on LPG. Once the news rippled out, all Bangkok taxi changed their engine from expensive gasoline to very low price LPG. By 1980, practically all taxi run on LPG, none on gasoline.

However, the household car owners didn't buy this idea. The conversion is done very inefficient. The smell of LPG may leak into the car. The chance of engine catches fire from pavement conversion shop is too high.

2. Around the year 2000, the gasoline price jumped from 12 baht/litre to 40 bahts/litre. But the LPG price was clamped at 9 baht/litre, as it is the main cooking fuel of the Kingdom. This fuel price distortion caused household car owners to start modify their car to LPG, hundred cars a day, nation wide. Despite dangerous work done by street-side engineer. Despite very dangerous fuel filling procedure - invert the cooking tank so the LPG can flow from the cooking tank to the car's tank.

3. Around 2005, PTT and the government started the campaign for taxi to change the fuel from LPG to CNG by largely subsidize the conversion cost, also promised to clamp the CNG price at 8.50 baht/kilogram for years. As 1 kG of CNG is equivalent to about 2 litres of LPG, most taxi buy the idea immediately.

4. Some of the household car owner buys the CNG conversion idea, too. To find out later that the weight of CNG tank (100+ kilograms) causes very fast deterioration of the car suspension. Worse, there was practically no CNG station. Worst, the fully filled CNG car can go for less than 200 kilometer before run out of gas. Thus, this CNG segment's conversion becomes less and less.

5. CNG is monopoly. Thus, the filling station number grows slowly. However, around 2008, the CNG is well known. The truck owners also started to learn that CNG can be used mixedly with the diesel fuel without any problem. The CNG-converted truck uses a lot less diesel that the lower cost of CNG pays back the high conversion cost in less than 3 months. So by 2015, most of the heavy truck has 6-8 large CNG tanks at their back. Filling of these heavy truck needs the very long time.

That's the last straw for the household car owners and taxi. They have to wait in the queue, may be up to 30 minutes before being filled. So in 2015, almost no one is willing to convert their car to CNG.

6. The LPG technology becomes more advance. The direct injected LPG is safer, more efficient, more power, as compare to carburetor-suction LPG engine. Almost on par with high-octane engine. The price of LPG (2015) is around 13 baht/litre, compared to 35 baht/litre of 95-octane gasoline, while give the same mileage, litre-to-litre.

Thus, more and more household small and middle car is converted to LPG. That's how the 1,000,000 number becomes.

I have shifted the comments to here. Stepho talk 05:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Autogas. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Autogas. 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/20100810020001/http://www.shell.com.au:80/home/content/aus/products_services/on_the_road/fuels/lpg/ to http://www.shell.com.au/home/content/aus/products_services/on_the_road/fuels/lpg/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Autogas. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lpgautogas.com.au/index.cfm?Action=PurchaseNew
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shell.com.au/home/content/aus/products_services/on_the_road/fuels/lpg/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.azgsmap.ru/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldlpgas.com/page_attachments/0000/3529/Annual_Report_2010.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061110134237/http://www.worldlpgas.com/ to http://www.worldlpgas.com/

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

User:Stepho-wrs did you actually read any examples as suggested? It seems clear to me you are correctly using the term "sentence case" , as per WP:HATNOTE Links to articles should follow the naming conventions for capitalization – typically sentence case, not all lower case. (bold emphasis own)... but did you consider reading that literally as "the links to articles should start with a capital letter (as per sentence case)"? as I've explained, the examples are more clear and are the consensus we follow... starting with WP:HNS This page is about the insect-produced fluid. For other uses, see Honey (disambiguation). (where the capital for the article name is automatically generated) , For other uses, see Honey (disambiguation). (ditto) ... WP:HATCONFUSE Not to be confused with Pearl. . I'll leave for you to revert yourself due to 3RR, not BRD. Editing against consensus when it has been fully spelled out is the issue. Please familiarise yourself with HATNOTE before reverting again, as there's a clear consensus, and I quote WP:BRD-NOT BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD. . Widefox; talk 23:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit summary and just above you linked to WP:HATNOTE, WP:HNS and WP:HATCONFUSE. I followed each of them and did not find your quoted phrase "the links to articles should start with a capital letter". I would appreciate it if you could point out exactly where this phrase is.

For me, I pointed to the "format" section in WP:HATNOTE which explicitly says "typically sentence case, not all lower case". For me, the sentence in the article is "Not to be confused with gasoline." In this sentence, "Not" has a leading capital because it is the start of the sentence (ie, not all lowercase) and gasoline should not have a capital because it is not the beginning of the sentence. However, on re-reading WP:HATNOTE, I can see that it could possibly be interpreted differently if it was a list - in which case each item in the list would have a leading capital. Perhaps that was your interpretation.

WP:BRD tells us that if you do something and it gets reverted, then your next step should be to discuss on the talk page. Re-applying the same change is what BRD tells us to not do. Even after your re-application, the correct steps for me are to return the article to the initial state and then start the talk myself - so there's some blame on both sides. But we're talking now, so we're back on track. Stepho talk 11:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, you won't find that, and I didn't say you would - that's a straw man - see above, verbatim, I repeat as per WP:HATNOTE Links to articles should follow the naming conventions for capitalization – typically sentence case, not all lower case.. It seems you're interpreting "Links to articles" as referring to formatting of the "sentence" (In this sentence, "Not") correct? Have you considered that you're conflating sentence case and sentence and conflating hatnote and sentence? Nowhere in HATNOTE refers to a "sentence". Hatnotes aren't sentences (is it correct to start a sentence with "Not"?) I'm interpreting "Links to articles" as referring to, well, formatting of links to articles. I concede the wording needs fixing, which I may take up independently.

Anyhow, it's all moot - I note that you didn't reply about the clearcut, directly applicable HATCONFUSE example Not to be confused with Pearl. (both that example and this are common nouns, but we capitalise them in confuse hatnotes). We work by consensus, so if you don't agree - I suggest you take that up there, not here. (AFAIR we capitalise links to articles in navigation is because we're referring to the article not the topic, somewhat similar to use–mention distinction using italics, but that's just my understanding) Widefox; talk 20:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you put something in quotes, then most readers will expect to find that exact phrase and I obediently went looking for it. After all, the MOS page is large and it takes quite some effort to wade through it. If I was knocking down a strawman then it was because you put the strawman there. But as you say, that's a side issue.

Did I consider conflating sentence case and sentence? Well, in my previous post, the last sentence of the second paragraph explicitly mentions that our interpretations may differ on whether the sentence case applies to the entire sentence (my interpretation) or whether it applies only to the link item at the end (your interpretation). The MOS isn't very clear on that. I see the text saying one thing and the examples saying another. I'm quite happy for one of us to raise this point at the MOS talk page and to then follow that outcome of that discussion.

Please read WP:BRD carefully. While something is under discussion then we do not continuously re-apply our own view back into the article. We leave the article in its original state until the end of the discussion. The discussion hasn't ended yet and the original state was a lowercase "gasoline" (if the original state was "Gasoline" then it would be left as that during the discussion). Your opinion seems to be that anybody that doesn't agree with your interpretation must be bucking consensus because your interpretation is the only correct one and that all others must be wrong. That's not consensus.

But like I said, we leave it in the original state (as per WP:BRD) and we raise the point at the WP:HATNOTE page. Stepho talk 23:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC) (markup fixed)[reply]

Much discussion on BRD, little on topic at hand - Pearl example. Be careful that you are not perceived as WP:OWN. This article was a mess, are other editors allowed to edit and bring in line with our standards? Editing against a guideline is exactly that, editing against a consensus. We go by consensus, per BRD BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. My opinion is that if you disagree with the guideline, you take that up there. Per WP:CONSENSUS involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ignoring the Pearl example, and refusing to accept that links are capitalised just because you don't like that change is explicitly not acceptable per BRD. BRD is actually a way forward from deadlock, and BRD is me editing the article to break that deadlock, given the lack of weight of counter argument above. You should be aware that any discussion here about capitalising hatnotes is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which does not override the consensus of the guideline. Widefox; talk 23:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... This is not me trying to WP:OWN it. A quick read of your WP user page and contribution history shows that you are an intelligent guy (PhD in Physics) with a long history at WP (since 2006). Similar for my own details (Maths/Computing degree, experience in designing ECU's for CNG use, WP since 2006). So neither of us is dumb or inexperienced. This is 2 smart, experienced editors with different interpretations of the same MOS. So, like 2 smart people, we discuss our differences instead of throwing ad-hominin attacks around.

I opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#sentence_case to see what people more experienced in hat notes would say. So far, it is indeterminant even amongst them and it has been advised that we go to yet another place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters. But it has only been an hour or so, so I'll wait until tomorrow for more comments. If nothing more concrete comes up then I will raise the topic at the suggested place. Stepho talk 00:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was inconclusive - only 2 non-comital answers after 4 days. They recommended me to move the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capitals_in_hatnotes. Stepho talk 22:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autogas is a brand name, and certainly not the common name in the UK

Autogas is actually a brand of Shell (and LPG supplier Calor in the UK,[1] seems "AutoGas" is the brand in Australia)[2], LPG is the common name in the UK.[3] Autogas is actually defunct in the UK,[4] and has never been a genericized brand name in the UK, although had some usage as a common name. [5] Widefox; talk 23:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have 2 articles that cover much of the same topic: autogas and liquefied petroleum gas. For the reasons that you mentioned, I agree that "Autogas" is not a good name for this article. There are 2 solutions that look good to me:

Merge this article into liquefied petroleum gas and then change this article to be a redirect to a section within liquefied petroleum gas.
Rename this article to something like "LPG in vehicle use" (an awkward phrase but we can think of something better). Stepho talk 11:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was surprised this subtopic of LPG was at autogas. Seems that this article was started correctly as a redirect to LPG [6] but then expanded [7] in User:AtholM's own words (above) As the creator and (so far) primary contributor to this page, I am working from my own knowledge of autogas systems, which is primarily Australian based. as an Australian POV fork of LPG which has been subsequently geographically broadened but the lede not updated, and the glaring connection with a brand name never covered. wikt:autogas#Etymology_2 does actually say it was originally a trade name originally a trade name "Autogas", but now a common noun, so the omission here of the connection with Shell is quite bad. Britannica doesn't even mention "autogas".

Considering the size, WP:SPINOUT seems to apply, so my instinct is away from merging, better to fix the title and the lede needs a rewrite - for WP:REFERS problem, the missing synonym of LPG, brand / etymology. Widefox; talk 21:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/lpg-vehicle-scheme

[1]