Talk:Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing/Archives/2016

Removing Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing

Alright, since I keep getting reverted even though my attempted deletions of this section are stated and make sense I need some consensus. Now because nobody checks this page I'm not going to get any consensus. I believe this section should be deleted because many countries listed the prices are outdated and it would be impossible to keep up with the hundred or so countries listed. Plus gas prices are volatile and change so frequently it would need constant updates. Overall this section has no real encyclopedic value. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and given that nobody bothered to reply to you - I have also removed the price list. I think that consensus can be considered gained. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your removal and have reverted your change. Since then I have added more updates to the list. It takes persistence to update this which you are sadly lacking. Consensus is not gained since you did not seek further participants in this discussion.Pricklycactus (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering that you have only just joined a conversation that was started 2 weeks ago, you can hardly blame anybody for considering consensus to have been gained. We are not obliged to "seek further participants" in a discussion, or rather one could argue that we did so by starting a discussion on the talk page here. If you wish to be critical, you could start with those editors who oppose the removal, yet fail to explain why, and fail to engage on the talk page when it is plainly available.

As per WP:ONUS, ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content") please explain why such an outdated list should be kept, especially when as pointed out, prices change daily? If you cannot persuade editors to keep the content, then it should be removed - not the other way around. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I challenge that notion that this list can't be continually updated from time to time. Prices don't change daily as per your assertion. Furthermore I don't need to convince you since you have already given up on the list and are using WP:ONUS argument to justify deleting the list. If I can take my time to find new prices and update them, then there shouldn't be any issue. Any new editor is welcome to edit the list and your welcome to if you haven't given up.Pricklycactus (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You are the only one who cares about this list which I do not quite understand. Pretty much all your edits on Wikipedia are on this article and have done so sparsely while mainly just reverting edits that have removed the list all together. Looking at the list I find it very confusing and messy, much of the countries prices are from as far back as 2009. Now yes we can update that but as I said before gas prices are volatile and change weekly sometimes even daily. If someone wants to find out information on gas prices then they can look it up online on another site. This list is not only outdated but it is also inaccurate and I believe Wikipedia should be a reliable source that provides current and accurate information. This list does not live up to those standards. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Well it takes a bit of effort now and then. You don't simple say because some prices are from 2009 that the list is outdated. We don't simply remove the list just because you say that the prices can be found on other websites. If I can update all the 2009 prices to the latest ones that will negate your argument about the accuracy of the information. And for your information, I am not the only one updating the list, there have been others which you forget to mention and it takes time and effort. It can be a monthly thing, doesn't need to be a weekly or daily update like you say.Pricklycactus (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? "You don't simple (sic) say because some prices are from 2009 that the list is outdated." - keeping information that is 6 years old is the very definition of being outdated. This list requires daily updates to keep it accurate, and that's not happening. Your latest edit here (which you did approx 18 hours ago to update Mozambiques average price) is already out of date and inaccurate: As of 18th April, Mozambiques average petrol price per dollar per litre is 0.95, not 0.96. (In fact, all your edits that use http://www.mytravelcost.com/ are now outdated.) Pre-empting your argument that it's only a cent difference is irrelevant - it's still not accurate. It's wrong. You are promoting, nay insisting on the inclusion of incorrect information in the article, information that you know to be wrong - and that is borderline disruption.

You've had nearly three weeks since you first joined this topic, and ten weeks since you first reverted JayJay's removal of the list back at the end of January. The list is no better - it's all out of date, and still contains 8 references from 2009, 11 from 2010, and an incredible 39 are using references dated 2011. As I pointed out above - even the ones you have updated are now wrong.

The list needs to go. It's an embarrassment to the encyclopedia, and the fact we're having to argue the point is no less of an embarrassment. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the list again. PricklyCactus has made no effort to update the prices in the last two weeks, no effort to update the prices that use references from 2009 - indeed no effort to update any prices. All the updates that have been done are already obsolete - as I pointed out over a week ago, and as the remaining section informs a reader - up to date prices can be seen on an external website.

In the 3 months Prickly Cactus has had to improve the list, nothing has changed, nothing has been improved, and nothing is likely to happen. There can be no rational argument to keep the material, so its time has come. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see you at least making an effort to update the list too. Do you know that some prices have stayed the same the last couple of years? Do you know that some countries keep the same prices by subsidies and that's why the prices have not changed for the last couple of years. It's with this reason your removal of the list is irrational and those not give you an right to remove the list. Just say you are have given up or lazy and take the easy way out by removing the list. I will reinstate the list and continue to make the updates which you are sadly wait for updates to happen every week now and then.Pricklycactus (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not updating the list because I've made my stance clear - I don't think it has a place in the encyclopaedia. Let's look at a few examples:

Albania - unsourced

Algeria - not in source

Anguilla - not in source

Antigua and Barbuda - 404 not in source

Andorra - 404 not in source

Angola - dated 2014

Argentina - 404 not in source

Aruba - price in source differs to that in article

Australia - price in source differs to that in article

Austria (Vienna) - 404 not in source

Azerbaijan - not in source provided

Bahamas - source is from 2011, and differs from that in article

Bahrain - price in source differs to that in article

Barbados - 404 not in source

Belarus - not in source

And at that point I gave up. Not a single one validated. If, as you say, the prices are the same as they were in 2009 then you need to find a source from 2016 that says that the prices are still the same. You cannot keep an outdated source, because a reader has no way of knowing whether the source is dated 2009 because the price has remained stable, or because it's out of date. The latter would be the more logical thought process.

I'm considering taking this to DRN, please comment - or commit to and update every single source. I'll give you two weeks - how does that sound? Bear in mind that despite your claims so far - you haven't actually made the list up to date. Those changes you have made are no longer accurate, and need looking at again. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I will be updating the list as and when possible. I won't be updating all the sources by 2 weeks time in the deadline which you set. Unlike you, I take my time and are not constraint by unnecessary deadlines. How does that sound? And thank you for at least taking the effort to point to me some of the issues in the price list. If you had used a bif of effort to update the list we wouldn't be having this conversation.Pricklycactus (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

At least I have made 30+ changes and updates to the list since 3 months back. So stop grumbling and complaining. At least if you had taken some effort instead of grumbling you could have updated some of the list yourself.Pricklycactus (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Then in two weeks time I will be removing the list, and when you reinstate the outdated material I shall warn you for disruptive editing, and take the issue to DRN to see what they make of it. I have made my stance perfectly clear - that you are promoting out of date material which has no place in the encyclopedia. Yes - you have made 30+ edits, all of which are now out of date and hold no value - your last edits on Mauritania and Kenya are out of date, the petrol prices have already changed. This is my point - the list is impractical, and it doesn't matter how many updates have been made in the past, it's what the list looks like right now that matters - and right now it's of no value.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the point of an encyclopedia is to hold accurate information? This list isn't. It never will be. As long as you promote inaccurate information, I'll "grumble and complain" as you put it, because you're not improving the encyclopedia - and you don't care, which makes you a bad editor. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It is you who have no right to remove the list, because you did not seek consensus and are not improving the encyclopedia. Just take for example this list, just needs an update now and then and you grumble and complain that its not accurate. You take the easy way out and remove the whole list because it fits in your perfect world that everything needs to be updated. Well people are updating it, but not at the speed which you want. You grumble that its not being done fast enough and you threaten people that reinstate the list for disruptive editing. How is that fair and going with consensus? You are the bad editor and are selfish in that you don't care for others and just want the easy way out. Wow, just because my last edits did not conform to your exacting standards, you say its inaccurate. Give me a break and get off your high horse. I challenge your lazy attitude and your indifference for keep this list. By the way I will keep updating the list in spite of your negative and surrendering attitude. Pricklycactus (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"just because my last edits did not conform to your exacting standards, you say its inaccurate" - well, yes. Your edits are completely in good faith, but you're trying to paint the Forth Bridge. It will never be up to date or accurate. As I pointed out - all your edits made so far are obsolete. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect you do not OWN this article Pricklycactus and therefore the responsibility of maintaining should not be put on your shoulders regardless of if you want to. Seeing you are the only one trying to keep this list after both of us have explained to you and agreed why the list should be removed your edits are becoming disruptive. Despite your best attempts to update the list there are still multiple countries with data that is years old and you have done editing sparingly and randomly usually when we try to remove this list. Furthermore the list is very confusing due to countries different currencies, different measuring units and fuel standards. You have not given us a valid reason to why this list should be kept other than "I will fix this". How many more people do you need to gain a consensus on this pointless list for an article that itself is in bad shape and rarely viewed?JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add, that since you used that OWN argument, JayJay it also applies to you that you shouldn't delete the list without any concensus. I say that the figures do take time to update and its not a speed of light and bingo and its done. As I pointed out before you don't just come and blurt out that this list is outdated and then delete it. You didn't even make an effort to update the list. This is the problem with many of you editors in that you think its in the best interest of the encyclopedia to delete all the sundry if it's not updated. Many of you guys just pass through without a glance and make a on the spot decision to cut, snip and delete, with any consultation. Furthermore not all countries have a dynamic or weekly changing gasoline prices and some countries stick to the same price for many years with no movement. How is it confusing with different currencies? You can now just go online and make a currency calculation on Google. How different is it with different measuring units and standards? All you can do with measurements is change gallon to litres and vice versa. Same with the standards, all countries used diesel and unleaded. RON95 is also the benchmark here and there is the main website for Global Petrol Prices and they calculate using litres and USD pricing. And how in your opinion is this article rarely viewed? Does it mean if no one updates the list that this article is rarely viewed? That doesn't make any sense does it?Pricklycactus (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, I appreciate this is hard for you to understand, but get it through your head that we are not obliged to update the list if we do not want to. If we wish to remove it, we can do so, and our arguments - that it is outdated, and inaccurate and always will be - are perfectly good reasons to do so. Consensus is a fickle thing, and let's turn things on their head by reminding you that you do not have consensus to keep the list either - hence it is a disputed area. This is why I stated that I will be asking for outside input and bringing DRN in on the act.

Let's also remind you that JayJay did not "blurt out and delete" (to paraphrase), but he asked for an opinion on 14th March, to which you failed to respond, and only responded two weeks later when I concurred with his opinion and also removed the list. Using an edit summary of "get consensus" does not count as discussion - especially when the opposing editors have started on the talk page.

And once again, I've also pointed out the fallacy in your argument of "not all countries have a dynamic or weekly changing gasoline prices and some countries stick to the same price for many years with no movement" - while this may be true that does not mean that you can keep sources and references that are also many years old. The sources and references need to be up to date and current to show the reader that they are indeed reading an accurate price, not one that may be several years out of date. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me reiterate there is no fallacy in that argument, if the central government in that country does not make an announcement in the news on any changes then we leave the prices and the date as it is. That's accuracy where that stands. If you go by that argument that sources and references need to up to date and current, then a majority of lists in Wikipedia will be out of date going by your argument. Your arguments about this list being out of date is then void. And reader that comes across this article will look at the dates and prices, and if it needs to be updated they will make the necessary edits and changes. That's why everyone should collaborate in this en-devour. Deleting this list is just your get of jail card or an easy way out for you, that you don't have to update the list. And then I point out the amount of time wasted explaining to you that the list will eventually be updated in spite of you indifference.Pricklycactus (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You know what I don't really care anymore keep your damn list. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You say "And reader that comes across this article will look at the dates and prices, and if it needs to be updated they will make the necessary edits and changes" - you are aware that not everybody who looks at Wikipedia does so with the intention of being an editors aren't you? A good many, the vast majority in fact, come here looking to use the Wiki as a resource (an encyclopaedia, if you will!) and as such are not going to feel the need to update inaccurate data, rather they will go away disappointed with the lack of accuracy. This is why I'm against the list. Not only is it inaccurate, but it shows the encyclopaedia in a bad light.

With regard to other lists on Wikipedia, I point you towards WP:OTHERSTUFF, and still remind you that even if a price has stayed the same for five years then the source that claims this must be more recent - because the present source is claiming that fuel prices are at xx.xx in 2011, not 2016 - even if they are the same. The reader will not know this, and it's the point of a source to clarify such details. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You know why Wikipedia has overtaken Encyclopedia Britannica in terms of number of articles, its because of the collaboration of its editors and number of contributions. People who come across the articles reads the articles and makes a contribution or edit, though I understand there are some who don't make a contribution and just read on. If they go away disappointed with that is their prerogative, but otherwise its always we make the effort to update and fix and improve the article. You don't just delete the list wholesale, giving a flimsy reason that its out of date. That just paints the Wikipedia encyclopedia in a bad light, in that it shows the editors are lazy and take the easy way out. People come across the article in January and come back in February and are horrified to see the article is partially deleted because of flimsy reasons. That's why I take offense to editors who always just post templates for citations or updates, etc without even trying to update the articles or providing the references themselves and making the improvements. We have so many ridiculous deletion template discussions, some given on trivial excuses that many articles have sections unjustly removed just because an editor took an easy way out. I rather editors sit down and make an effort to fix the article, improve the refs, etc. But I supposed you don't want to because of your so called high standards. Now regarding the prices, some of them do stay the same in many countries because of subsidies and government controls. If you like you should include a note section stating the prices have stayed the same you are welcome to do it. I don't see any confusion or any issue for that matter here. Plus there are USD price comparisons for litres and gallons. Pricklycactus (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Now you're just not listening. I can't decide if you're displaying either WP:IDHT, or WP:COMPETENCE. You still (apparently genuinely) believe that it's acceptable to have out of date information in an encyclopaedia that you yourself admit "has overtaken Encyclopedia Britannica in terms of number of articles". What kind of stance is that to take? In the above you haven't addressed my concerns, so I have no other alternative to simply assume you're being disruptive, albeit without doing so intentionally.

PS: "People come across the article in January and come back in February and are horrified to see the article is partially deleted because of flimsy reasons." Where is your evidence to support such an unlikely claim? Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Now we can banter back and forth on this issue until the end of days. I personally see that you are not going to be happy until all the price list is updated to your so-called specifications. After someone updates the list closer to 2016, you will either move the goalposts further and say the list is still not up to date. If I can update most of the list to 2015 and closer to 2016, then that would suffice for now. Otherwise you are barking up some hot air over nothing. That's what your doing right now without lifting a finger to contribute or improve the article. Your stance right now is just complaining and waiting for people to update the list and then you say you want to delete the list if that doesn't happen. That's after a couple of wholesale deletions which I caught you at and after I convinced you that I would update the list. If you really want some expert analysis on up to date prices, you won't get it in Encyclopedia Britannica, you will only find it here in Wikipedia. And how can it be out of date, if people keep updating the list. What kind of logic is that? Seriously I can't believe you claim ignorance of the matter of articles being cut merciless and people come across articles which are deleted for trivial reasons after visiting a page a couple of months.Pricklycactus (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right, but it's not me moving the goalposts, rather Old Father Time himself. Time, by its very nature is constantly moving, hence the goalposts are moving. Once the list is updated to 2016 it will then be out of date, because sooner or later (most likely sooner) it will no longer be 2016. And updating the list to only be a year out of date (as of 2016) will not suffice. You are apparently under the impression that to be out of date by a year is acceptable - it isn't. It's not my "so-called specifications" that are being discussed here, it's the accuracy of the encyclopaedia - I want it to be accurate and you don't, or rather your definition of accuracy falls way short of both mine and Wikipedia's. The point is that even though people are updating the list, the data only stays up to date for a week or so. I keep telling you this, but you don't understand.

As a final note, if people want "some expert analysis on up to date prices" they won't find it here either, but would be better off going directly to the websites mentioned instead. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if you think this is a petrol station that updates the prices each week, then your out of luck. Your better off getting your information by driving to a petrol station in your neighbourhood in a country that has free-floating pricing mechanism. In other countries its always different and don't change frequently. Some do, but does it on a monthly basis like in South-East Asia. Some only change after a couple of years and that only comes during that countries budget like in countries in South America and couple of countries in Asia. A years difference in accuracy is good enough here. Here we update the prices each and every year for those examples. So your argument and so-called specifications or accuracy of the encyclopedia doesn't hold water. People do update the list, not on your timetable. Right now I have taken out most of the older and broken link references and replaced them with better references. I have also added more references to ones that didn't have them before. Now most of the prices are around the 2016 date range and several are from 2015. Several editors do drop by now and then and update the list, maybe for their own respective countries. And furthermore I might add this list is good for comparisons for any casual reader and with the reference links they can go to the websites mentioned for further research. And if they are a good contributor they will add more reference links and update the list.Pricklycactus (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You are definitely a candidate for WP:IDHT. I have already explained to you that even if prices stay the same for weeks, months or years then you need contemporary and recent references that say this - a reference from 2014 is commenting on the price in 2014, not the price in 2016. I am not expecting the prices to be updated each week, which is why I advocate the removal of the list. Sorry, I thought you understood that.

My arguments are not intended to hold water, but petrol. Ho ho, humour.

I am withdrawing from this argument because if you proudly admit that "A years difference in accuracy is good enough" then you are quite clearly never going to understand the importance of accuracy, nor accept the necessity of up to date information for an encyclopaedia. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Seriously if you cannot understand that if there is no new information on the change of prices in the news in 2016, then there is no need to change the price and the date. If I have made updates to the prices closer to 2015 and change a majority of prices updates to 2016, then it the list is considered updated to a certain extent. That's why I keep explaining to you that certain countries that subsidised the prices do change the prices every few years. They make an announcement in their government websites or in their news portals. There won't be a link to that change in 2016, until a new announcement happens. Furthermore there some of the prices do not have any dates or references dating back to 2014 that commented on prices on 2016. Most of the prices have been updated to 2015 and to the present. Your concern all along is that you are afraid that the list is not updated enough. I just prove to you that the list can be updated. I have included links and references to prices that didn't have them before as well. During this time several other editors have updated the prices too and the dates too. You are simple are too stubborn to admit that you are wrong that the list can be updated, instead of being deleted wholesale (which is taking the easy way out). This argument - WP:IDHT cuts both ways. If you can't meet me down the middle, then there is no need to further banter back and forth. While you grumble and complain the list is being updated. I will keep on updating the prices.Pricklycactus (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"Seriously if you cannot understand that if there is no new information on the change of prices in the news in 2016, then there is no need to change the price and the date." Yes there is, and if you don't understand the importance of up to date references which are needed to confirm that a price has stayed the same over the years (or months), then the WP:IDHT does not apply, rather WP:COMPETENCE is more applicable. You've done some excellent work on the list, I really mean that, and I see that most of the references are at least in 2015 - however I predict that we will go our separate ways, and come back in 6 months to find that once again the list is 6 months out of date, and will have this entire conversation all over again. You will not constantly keep the list up to date until somebody mentions that it is obsolete - as happened this time.

Incidentally - which are these countries that have held their prices for such a long time? If you truly believe that no up to date references are necessary (which you are incorrect to do so) then at least add a comment in the "sources" column to point this out. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)