Talk:44-gallon drum

British vs. US units

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)

Hi Folks, The only nation that refers to these drums as 55 gallon is the U S of A, all other countries that I know of (UK, Australia, NZ, Canada, etc,) refer to them as 44 Gallon Drums. I would suggest a change back to the original.

44 vs. 55 gallon

The first major contributor to this article used the British 44 gallon measurement, so I switched the wording around in the article to favor "44 gallon" over "55 gallon", as per Wikipedia policy.--Tabun1015 04:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And ironically, it appears that that is the wording that the article had before, and that it was only switched around by the penultimate editor to this page (before me).--Tabun1015 04:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've switched it back to 55 gallons based not on the random event associated with the article's creation but rather on commonality in usage. In many cases British/American spelling differences are similarily popular world-wide. In this case, however, the weighting is 20:1 in favor of 55 gallon drum[1] A case for "44 gallon drum" should be based on something other than a random event (to wit, whoever happened to create the article first). Rklawton 01:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually according to established Wikipedia policy that is EXACTLY the reason why this article should use 44 Gallon in the title. Another policy that gives precedence to SI units would prefer the title to be "200 Litre Drum" BTW, in spite of metricating decades ago the colloquial name in South Africa is 44 Gallon in common with other British influenced countries. Roger 20:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Roger. Furthermore, click on the link that Rklawtons provided, and you'll find 0 hits for both terms. What, did you think we weren't actually going to click on it and check? When you remove the dashes, so you're comparing "44 Gallon drum" to "55 Gallon drum", you get 55 gallon drum coming out on top with a margin of about 20%. Its a pointless comparison anyway - most countries other than the US use the original name. I am now going to move it back to the original title, as per policy. THE KING 08:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, things seem to be stable now, so I am a little reluctant to kick a sleeping dragon, but "55 gallon drum” (the search in quotes too) is over ten times more common in Google searches than is "44 gallon drum" (also in quotes). You have to understand how Google does searches. If you search without quotes, Google will find all Web pages that contain any of the words in the search field. Thus, you will end up with a huge number of hits, many of which (towards the end) contain only the number “55” and have nothing to do with drums or gallons.

  If we're going to be making editorial decisions, they must be based on valid facts. I would argue that when it is truly an issue of "style" (realise vs. realize, etc.), the style used by the first major contributor should be retained. But when the "style" means the adoption of a minority unit of measure (as well as the very title of what the user looks up,) then the "term" (not "style") that is vastly more common in English should be used.

  I'm going to wait a bit before moving this article to “55 gallon drum”, but it will be moved unless someone advances a logical argument based on sensible facts as to why the most obscure term in the English language is used for an article’s title. This is not an issue of a “spelling” style and a case has to be made that doesn’t rely on hiding behind the apron strings of Manual of Style. Greg L (my talk) 23:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't stop you from doing that, but I will immediately revert it to 44 gallon. Wikipedia policy is absolutely clear and unambigious on this issue, "Google score" means nothing but if you really want to play the numbers game: there are over one billion more people on earth who know it as a "44 gallon drum" than those who call it a "55 gallon drum". Roger (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So… I give you a fact (roughly 12 times as many Google hits on "55 gallon drum" vs. "44 gallon drum" (in quotes), and the best you can do is make a false claim of how your position is backed by a Wikipedia “policy” that has nothing to do with issues like this. Secondly, you pull an equally B.S. stunt by claiming that there are “over one billion more people on earth” who use the term “44 gallon drum” without backing up such a claim with one single fact. Are we to believe that your billions of English-speaking people don’t know how to write and/or have no access to the Internet? If your alleged English-speaking people use the phrase “44 gallon drum,” why aren’t they using the term on the Internet, where Google can find it? Is this how you’d try to explain why a proper Google search doesn’t produce data to your liking? If so, such arguments aren’t falsifiable and fall in the realm of religion and mythology rather than logic. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Wikipedia policies are implimented based on facts, not wishful thinking. Greg L (my talk) 01:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What would you say is the population of the Commonwealth? Just India alone already wipes out your alleged American "majority" three times over! That a unit of measurement is "obscure" to you says more about you than it does about the objective numbers. The Imperial gallon is a well understood unit in the entire English speaking world with the exception of the US and Canada. That Americans are grossly overrepresented in the population of web page creators and editors compared to the world's total population, is an accident of history and economics. Is it your contention that something only exists if it is published on the web? You have completey failed to convince me in the slightest that the "first major contributor" rule should not apply. If an American had created this page using "55 Gallon" I would have left it at that, whereas you seem to have difficulty with the idea that people and places do actually exist to the east of the Grand Manan Channel and west of Cape Blanco. Roger (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; you've made my point for me better than I could have on my own. In order for you to come to your conclusion as to which is the most common term, you include peoples (India) who have their own-language version of Wikipedia! Would you like to include some indigenous peoples from Papua New Guinea while you’re at it? Yes, they could technically get access to the Internet and do an English-language search, but they rarely do. No wonder the Google search “55 gallon drum” is twelve times more common than “44 gallon drum” when both phrases are in quotes. You still haven't coughed up a sensible reason (the operative word here is “sensible”) as to why the English-language version (which—Duhh—serves English-speaking people), should use the most obscure term as measured by the most comprehensive index of English-language Web pages (Google). Are you seriously suggesting we should ignore Google because it’s an unreliable indicator of the use of the English language and everyone should instead believe “Roger” because he’s counting what term Indian’s use? You better run along Roger and enlist the help of someone who can come up with a better argument than you did, which is nothing more than a metric tonne of weapons-grade bullonium. Greg L (my talk) 05:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to get outside help in terms of the Dispute Resolution WP:DR policy. Comments from other users please. Roger (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think DR is necessary- in my opinion, Greg L's points are valid. I do not think that the MOS rule applies to this argument because this is not a question of style, it's a question of substance. My view on imperial units is this- the whole world (with the exception of the US, Liberia, and Myanmar) uses SI units and their proper name for this should be 200-liter drum. For some countries that previously used Imperial units, the drum may colloquially be known as a 44-gallon, but that country's adopted unit of measure would call it a 200-liter drum, and is more correct. The US on the other hand uses US gallons as its primary measure of liquid volume. So what we have here a conflict between adopting the primary units used in the US vs. the phased-out units of some other English-speaking countries. If you consider the largest centers of English-speaking population- North America, Europe, and Australia- Europe and Australia both use the term 200-liter drum, leaving only the UK as a major contender for the imperial unit. I don't dispute that English is widely spoken in other parts of the world, I'm using continents for the sake of simplicity. I believe my argument to be accurate in that sense- people who speak English in other parts of the world than those already mentioned are likely to use the metric unit anyway, which does not figure into the 55 vs. 44 argument. Therefore, I conclude that the population of the US using 55 as their primary term is more substantial than the minority of other English-speaking countries which may use 44-gallon, but in reality ought to be using 200-liter instead. I know, however, that everyone hates the US, and will do anything to make sure that the US doesn't get preference in anything, even when it is due. To those people, I say: enjoy your spite. To those who are willing to listen to reason, I think you will agree with my conclusion.Phasmatisnox (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Phasmatisnox is correct regarding the misapplication of MOS and MOSNUM rules. The policy of using the spelling of the English dialect used by the first major contributor does not apply to the name of an article that entirely changes the value due to different units of measure. This is not at all like spelling differences like a “color/colour” or “meter/metre” issue. Readers from different dialects automatically adapt to the unfamiliar (to them) spelling and keep on reading. In my opinion, the objective here should be to use the unit of measure in the article title that is most common in the English language and use parenthetical conversions and whatnot to accommodate the different measurements systems. Although many people poo-poo the notion of using Google searches to prove their point one way or another, (the “loosing” side on these sort of things usually claims that Google proves nothing), a properly conducted Google search is a good place to start, and often settles the argument if the results are lopsided enough.

  An alternative, that I very much prefer, would be to simply create another duplicate article titled “55-gallon drum”. I really think that might be the better solution here. I can think of no reason to not do so. Already, there are abundant examples of multiple versions of the same article. Take the Tables of nuclides. There are four different articles that present this data, with the only differences being in the way the data is laid out for convenience and monitor-resolution differences (Table of nuclides (complete), and Table of nuclides (segmented, wide), and Table of nuclides (segmented, narrow), and Table of nuclides (combined)). Again, these all show the same data. But in this case, the content would be different to accommodate the different content. Greg L (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Well, now I’m confused. I don’t understand why anyone here is still arguing about this. I see that 55-gallon drum has already been in existence for quite some time. I just updated it to better harmonize it with this article. I may not have done a perfect job, so hope someone goes and checks and fixes any transcription errors. Greg L (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like I missed something when I posted the above. Was there some discussion on another page that I haven't found? I was aware that there are separate pages- I was under the impression that this practice wasn't ideal. I don't think that there should be two pages that both contain the same material- is this issue addressed somewhere in Wiki policy? I think the ideal solution would be to have a consensus on whether a single article should be titled either 55 or 44 gallon drum. Phasmatisnox (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Australians and the British think “55-gallon drum” is as about useful as you and I think “44-gallon drum” (which isn’t at all useful for me). I don’t see getting readers of one dialect (and unit of measure) to warm up to using the unit of measure used in the other dialect; that isn’t realistically in the cards here. If there could only be one article (and we don’t have to limit ourselves to that single option here), then logic would say that the most commonly used term meets the needs of the greatest number of readers and Wikipedia should go with that. Because of the sheer number of Americans and the fact that American popular culture tends to encroach into other cultures (even French, although they really fight back), then American usage would ride herd over the Brits every time. If we had our policy that way, Wikipedia wouldn’t benefit as much from the contributions of British-based editors because they would spend a lot of time doing a good job creating or greatly expanding an article only to find that someone later goes in and changes the spelling to something that looks foreign to him. That’s not much fun. So we’ve wisely got a policy that says the spelling used by the first major contributor prevails.

  Now I agree with you, this is a different animal because it’s not a “dialect-based spelling” issue, it’s a units-of-measure issue. How to fix? Simple: two articles, just like there are two articles for Long ton and Short ton. There is little downside to this; it doesn’t even matter if the two articles’ content diverge over time (although they are currently identical). So let’s turn that disadvantage around to an advantage. If it helps you to make it any more ‘sporting’ and palatable for you, why not go improve 55-gallon drum by adding references so the {cite} tag can be removed? Greg L (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think I see what you're getting at, but I think that the issue here is different even between the Long and short tons- I imagine that having two pages is better in that instance than one "Ton" page. However, here, we have two pages that both describe one identical item. Long and short ton are in fact different units of measure, whereas 55US and 44Imp gallon drums are both the exact same item. I don't think that the two-page model works in this instance, because both pages have to be identical because they both describe the same item. I asked our question in the talk page for the MOS, and it was suggested that the articles were merged. Phasmatisnox (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Phasmatisnox, if your premiss were true, that “both pagers have to be identical”, then your conclusion would be valid. Whereas it might be *nice* if both 44-gallon drum and 55-gallon drum were identical, it is certainly not a prerequisite—particularly when the solution (two articles) allows readers native to a particular dialect and country that use certain units of measure to search on, and read, an article geared just for them. In fact, by having two articles, editors of the respective articles are now free to make them diverge a little and customize each for their culture’s exact needs and idiosyncrasies rather than try to fit things into a more cumbersome, generic, fits-all solution. And it certainly beats all the bickering that would necessarily arise by trying to get editors in Australia to agree that “55-gallon drum” is the “proper” name for the object in question (and visa versa). I see that you aren’t deterred in the least by all the conflict that would arise from any serious attempt to accomplish your objective here; I for one, don’t have the stomach for all of it, nor do I see any need for it. Greg L (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Some clever person should figure out who invented this drum and what he/she called it. The articles should be merged and renamed to whatever the inventor called it. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn’t matter if the inventor called it; it matters what people know it as today. And for different people, that is by a different name and unit of measure. If the inventor called it “44-gallon drum”, that would piss off Phasmatisnox and inconvenience American editors. Alternatively finding out it was originally called “55-gallon drum” would piss off many of the editors who helped write this article and would inconvenience British-colony readers. There’s no downside to having two articles, each customized for both readerships. I really get the impression that one side or the other has to “win” here and the other has to “loose” and that underlies these claims that there can be only one article. To listen to some of you, one would think the first law of thermodynamics is violated by having two articles.

  Phasmatisnox first came here (and to my talk page) advocating how this article had to be renamed “55-gallon drum”. Then I found that a separate article already existed by that name (for years) and pointed that out to him. He *claimed* he already knew that, and is now agitating to merge them and (again) get his way with changing the combined article to “55-gallon drum”. Then I see that Phasmatisnox just deleted the contents of “55 gallon drum” and redirected it to this article. It’s like some people thrive on conflict. Greg L (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

  • An article first existed at 55-gallon drum on June 26 of this year, about 2 weeks ago. Prior to that the title was, for years, a redirect here. The downside to having two articles on precisely the same topic, and in particular the guideline against it, is at Wikipedia:Content forking. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• An article 50 gallon drum (without the hyphen) had existed for three years. If you can’t discuss things (which you proposed with your {merge] tags, the get out of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment. If you can’t play by the rules, then don’ edit. Don’ editwar over this. Greg L (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I never added a merge tag, so I have no idea what you are talking about. The article 50 gallon drum never existed; the article 55 gallon drum did, but was moved here last November. Moving existing articles is fine and I do not oppose a move to 55-gallon drum. Multiple articles on identical topics is not fine and results in unnecessary confusion and duplication of effort. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Greg L, I'll thank you not to slander my name. I did not delete and redirect as you say I did. Both of the articles now (44 and 55 gallon drums) have redirects under the same name, only with a hypen- "55-gallon drum" to "55 gallon drum" and "44-gallon drum" to "44 gallon drum". I noticed that earlier, "55-gallon drum" redirected to "44 gallon drum", so I changed it so that it redirected to "55 gallon drum". Surely you don't have a problem with that, as you're an advocate of two articles. I guess you didn't actually look at the edits that I made and jumped right into presuming that I was a person who "thrive[s] on conflict". Furthermore, you went ahead and slandered me on my talk page, though I presume that you discovered your error because you later edited that out. You did not, however, remove or edit your slander against me on this talk page. Good sir, I think you need to be more cautious and deliberate in your edits. You have jumped to conclusions and moved down to the second level of the pyramid.

Getting back to the content of this issue: I do not think that having two articles is solution, nor do I think that using imperial gallons is most correct unit to use. I'd be happy with using 55 gallon drum, but using 200 (or 205) liter drum would satisfy me also- my concern is that there should be one article with one definitive article, and I think that 55 gallon drum is the most correct name for that article because the most number of English speakers know it as that than any other name. I believe that the guideline that Christopher Parham points out above agrees with me on this. So either way- 55 gallon drum or 200 liter drum is the way to go, but I think that 55 gallon drum is most correct. Phasmatisnox (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• In addition, I am the one who added the merge tags. You'll not that I didn't use the tags to merge 44 into 55, because I knew that would get a certain person angry- I used the generic tag. (He got angry anyway). I did this after I was advised to do so on the MOS talk page. I'll quote the naming convention page: "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the commonest English-language name." In light of that, I think the only matter to prove is that one is more common than the other. As Enric Naval stated below, "55 gallon" is significantly more popular than "44 gallon". I think that ought to settle everything except for Gary L's insistence that two articles should exist. That's a direct violation of Wikipedia:Content forking- there are not two separate topics to describe, so there can be only one article. Are there any other reasonable objections?

• Christopher. Just because the barrels are the same size, doesn’t make them the same (nor the articles). They have different names because there capacities are based on different units of measurement. This isn’t a “colour v.s. color” issue. These barrels are as different as U.S. gallon and Imperial gallon. Further, there is no harm in having two articles and there is much good. Americans now get an entire article that reads in units they are familiar with and Australians get one that is written entirely in units they are familiar with. This units/naming issue has been a long-standing source of friction and dispute ever since this 44-gallon drum article was first created. Now there is no reason for friction. And there is no reason to let the two articles grow their separate ways. Greg L (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• "These barrels are as different as U.S. gallon and Imperial gallon." May I please sell you gasoline in US gallons and charge you a price based on Imperial gallons? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick poll to see where editors stand

• There should be only on one article and we should agree with one name for the article

1. [quick comment and sign with ~~~~
2. They are the same size so they can be stacked together, so one article. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
3. They are the same and one thing, so only one article is necessary, with maybe a short section explaining the reason for the different names if there is some encyclopedic value on explaining it. I checked the two names on Googlefight and I got 19,300 results for 44-gallon and 434,000 for 55-gallon, so I would say that the most common name in english is 55 and we should move the article there. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
4. They are, indeed, different names for the same thing. I would favour the merging of this article into Drum (container) but failing that and noting that the article history shows that the first significant contributor used the term 44-gallon drum, that title should be retained as the article title in accordance with WP:ENGVAR. We already have a MoS guideline that covers the naming of the article if it remains stand-alone, and that defines that 55-gallon drum is not it. --Athol Mullen (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
5. We should have one article, and it should be representative of the most common name. WP:ENGVAR is not applicable to this situation as this is not a issue of spelling or style, but of a concrete definition of a name. I would be most in favor of "55-gallon drum", as I feel that is the most correct name. All evidence points to this being the name by which the largest number of English-speakers know this item. "200 liter drum" also may be considered because it is the SI unit, but it does not appear to be the most common name. See Wikipedia:Naming_conflict, which specifically addresses the issue, overriding WP:MOS or WP:ENGVAR. It states that the commonest name should be used.Phasmatisnox (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Using the common name per Google has two effects. First, it virtually guarantees American spellings will win every argument. Second, it has the advantage of shortening pointless arguments. I'm indifferent to the first and greatly appreciative of the second. If the British are going to be this fussy (ie, this doesn't contribute to free access to the world's body of knowledge – per an encyclopedia project), then perhaps they should start their own wiki a'la some other wikis I know. Now, is this project called "Wikipedia" or Wikipaedia"? Rklawton (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
7. There is no ambiguity as these pages violate rules #1 and #2 from WP:MERGE. Therefore, they should be merged into a single article. The exact title of that article is of less consequence than the problem of having two articles on the same object. Pick one and we can reach concensus on it later. JRP (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
   1. Duplicate - There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
   2. Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
8. Merge and break the deadlock about the name by calling it "200l Drum" and redirect "55 gallon drum" and "44 gallon drum". Two articles for a single subject is flat-out not allowed. The "most common name" argument falls foul of there not being a universally accepted definition for "most common" as well as resentment from non-Americans about "Arrogant Yanks". Roger (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• We should continue to have two articles, 44-gallon drum and 55-gallon drum, and allow them to diverge as required for each set of users

1. I guess I’m just a “glass half-full” sort of guy. I see lots of benefits keeping the current two articles. As the situation currently stands (a stable one since 22 August 2005), Britain and British colony countries have enjoyed an article geared just for them, and Americans have had theirs. The content currently is very similar but there can be greater divergence as the articles are customized for their respective needs. The benefits certainly outweigh the disadvantages of forcing readers from one country to look at foreign looking terminology. And it also avoids the intractable and endless bickering that would ensure trying to do as Phasmatisnox proposes, which is have only one article and change its title to “55-gallon drum”. Greg L (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Further discussion and comments.

(post further discussion to the end of the above thread)

Okay, so one article, now- what to name it?

It looks like a consensus has been reached per the above poll that having two articles is in violation of Wiki guidelines and one page is the best way to go. It seems that now we just need to finalize the name. The rule that applied in this case is at WP:NCON - "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the commonest English-language name." So we much establish which name is the most common- 44, 55, or 200l. Google search results provide an invaluable insight into what the internet-using English-speakers of the world use in their language. The results are: "55 gallon drum" - 190,000. "44 gallon drum" - 18,100. "200 liter drum" - 4,760. (I searched also 200l and 200 liter and got lower numbers). Based on the fact that Google reports that 10 times more internet-using English-speakers use the term "55 gallon drum", I think that the most common name has been established as "55 gallon drum". I propose, then, that this article be moved to "55 gallon drum" and have "44 gallon drum" and the hyphenated variants of both names redirected to that page. comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phasmatisnox (talk • contribs) 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Another point of view is that it is not so much a name as a description. Since the item does not have strong ties to any particular nation or region, it should be described according to its metric capacity, 200 or 205 litres. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What makes this article/topic so special that it requires something different from other articles? There are many articles on Wikipedia with either a British or American English title and redirects to the article from the other. It's not the biggest deal. :However, amidst this discussion editors don't seem to realize this article is inconsistent, unless the Brits describe their drums in all non-SI units. Do they? And why are they called 44-gallon drums in the UK, anyhow? Do the Brits measure theirs in inches? All this time arguing the title, when Wikipedians have already decided this would be a waste of time and addressed the issue with a policy, could have been spent expanding this article. A little history of the size and names would be nice. --Blechnic (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Brit, so I wouldn't know exactly what Brits call them, but I do know that English is caught up a bit in the process of converting to metric- so if anything, they're heading to the "200 liter" option. Same goes for other British colonies- they're all either metric or in the process of metricization, so the 44-gallon name is on it's way out anyway. That is to say, anyone using "44 gallon" lives in a metric country and probably "ought" to be calling it a 200 liter drum. That being said, I don't think that 200-liter drum is the correct name for this article because according to Google, nobody calls it that. I would also be interested to learn what they call it in Britain. Someone stated above that South Africa knows it as the 44-gallon, but that goes by the above that it "ought" to be called 200-liter in a metric country. Anyway, I think this is a pretty clear cut issue- does nobody else care about WP:NCON? I don't see why there's still an argument- WP:NCON states explicitly what ought to be done(the most common name) and I think I did a good job of establishing that above. Phasmatisnox (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you also search for 200 litre, the non-US spelling? I just did a few google searches:

• "200 litre drum" -wikipedia returned 10,700 results.
• "205 litre drum" -wikipedia returned 2,760 results.

Given that virtually every english speaking country except the USA is now metric in liquid measure, the use of the metric term is increasing so over time it will overtake the US term in google hits anyway. I believe that the metric term as the name of the article is the most reasonable compromise. That way, we won't have to repeat this arguement in a couple of years time when it will be 200 litre vs 55 gallon. --Athol Mullen (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You've missed my point entirely. The article is done throughout with inches first, then metric units follow. If it is a British name, 44-gallon-drum, the article should be done with British units leading, not American units. The point is: no one is concentrating on the content of the article which is awful, because every is fighting about the name. --Blechnic (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What you say is true, but any work on that particular issue is up in the air until we settle what sets the standard- the name. Perhaps it would be best to try and solicit opinions from English-speakers from all over the world and gage what a particular country calls it vs. population? Both Canada and the US prefer 55-gallon drum to 44 gallon or 200/205 liter/litre, so there's 338 million English speakers for US gallons. (Yes, Canada is nominally metric, but a Google search for Canadian pages shows a marked preference for the 55 gallon term) The UK and South Africa have 60 and 48 million for 44-gallon(someone earlier argued that SA used 44 gallon, though realistically these countries are both metric and an argument could be made for adding them to the metric numbers since it appears to be between 55 and 200/205 right now), and Australia/NZ together have 25 million for 200/205 liter/litre. Can anyone else chime in with any data from other English-speaking countries? I don't object to using the metric term, but I do think that it is less correct both in fact and in application of policy. Even if use of the metric term is completely adopted, the US and Canada will still retain the majority needed to call 55 the "most common name" in accordance with WP:NCON. Phasmatisnox (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So the basic idea is all articles about things in common should have the American English name since there are more Americans? US uber alus! US uber alus! US uber alus! Drat, I don't know how to spell the German. Maybe I will just salute the flag instead. --Blechnic (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you've told me that you don't like the fact that this policy favors the majority(the US), now, can you tell me why it should be different? If the majority happened to be another country that made political decisions in line with yours, would this policy suddenly be golden? You're acting like CarolSpears. Phasmatisnox (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have found two reliable references, U.S. military specifications, which refer to these drums primarily as "55-gallon" with 208 L in parenthesis. I suggest we wait a while to see if anyone can find references of similar quality that refer to them primarily as "44-gallon" or "2??-litre" drums. If no such reliable sources are found in a reasonable time, I would move the article to "55-gallon drum". --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Gerry, though I'm sure other editors will like to see non-US sources included also. For what it's worth, I searched Google Scholar, which I thought would give a view of what the formal publication/scholastic journal world calls this item. My results: "55 gallon drum" - 2,700. "44 gallon drum" - 190. "200 litre drum" - 154, which was the highest of all the 2XX litre/liter variants. I'm not entirely sure how international Google Scholar is, but I think it's more international than plain old Google. It's a starting point. Let's keep the data coming. Phasmatisnox (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

More data- "The measurement of pressure and level of fill in sealed storage drums", by R. Daniel Costley, et. al. references these drums as "55 gal (208 l)". This paper was published by the University of Mississippi.Phasmatisnox (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

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

Contradiction

This article contradicts Drum (container) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.162.29.10 (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC). In Drum (container) it states that: "Drums such as these have a standard nominal volume of 55 US gallons (44 Imperial gallons) and are referred to properly as 55 gallon drums" which contradicts this article's title.

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)

• 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)

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)

Googling 205 litre drum reveals that Australia uses 205 instead of 200 litre drums Boxcar456 (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Merge to drum (container)?

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)

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)

I would also support that merge, for the reasons stated by other editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Per above discussion, I'd prefer this over any of the proposed titles. I doubt that an article on this one drum size will ever make it to GA or FA on its own. --Athol Mullen (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. --Random832 (contribs) 18:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am not aware of any other container that is so widely available. Since so many readers are apt to have this specific container at hand and may be interested in using it for a variety of purposes, I believe it deserves its own article. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Support. I'm surprised this wasn't brought up earlier. 44- and 55-gallon drums are just particular sizes of drums. It's not like drum (container) is a large article, it can certainly handle whatever info people want to add specific to the 44-gallon variety. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

The point remains... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Conditionally support. After arguing so much for the name change, I can't see any real reason why this content couldn't be moved into a "55 gallon drum" section on the "Drum" page. They are ubiquitous enough in that they are THE drum, and all other drums are just a bigger/smaller 55-gallon drum, but I don't think the article just HAS to be named for the one type. I am vehement, however, that the section name be 55-gallon drum and references therein use that name- it's just simple application of sense and policy. I'm astounded at how many times we're having to rehash the naming argument.Phasmatisnox (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

These are all great things - to add to the drum (container) article. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do use the term 55-gallon drum but within 2 seconds I figured out why the article is called 44-gallon drum and I'm ok with that. The article has been stable under 44 gallon drum, so leave it at "44-gallon drum". WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

• Support. This article is unstable and should be moved to drum(container) which will instantly solve all current and future disputes". SJSA 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. There is a large overlap between the articles already, and the title without volume and units is more general and can reduce disputes about the units. --Itub (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus reached, let's move it to Drum (container)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Done. Not sure if I did it right, and it needs editing, but it's done. Phasmatisnox (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)