Talk:Bitumen

Requested move 3 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. The consensus seems to be to move this page to Bitumen and to move the DAB to Asphalt. >>> Extorc.talk 07:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Asphalt → Bitumen – Admittedly first time doing this, so sought advice on Discord. Let me know if i should be doing something else.

However i'd like to propose a move request for this article. The article is of good quality, however the content it is discussing is not what the title actually is. This seems to be due to a merge about a decade ago, where "Asphalt" and "Bitumen" were combined. Thus the article here near exclusively refers to "Asphalt", but the content it is discussing under this name is "Bitumen".

Asphalt and Bitumen are not the same. It is even possible to get Asphalts which contain no Bitumen, but generally Bitumen is a component of Asphalt.

Asphalt exclusively applies to "a mixture of aggregates, binder and filler" [[1]] - it already has its own article under Asphalt Concrete [[2]] (which itself could likely be simplified to be just Asphalt once this article is moved, or at least have "Asphalt" redirect to "Asphalt concrete")

Bitumen is a binder. This article exclusively refers to a binder, which it names "Asphalt" - but Asphalt is not a binder, it is a mix as above. We can see this in numerous references on the article itself. Its also worth noting other binders exist - thus it is possible for an Asphalt to contain no Bitumen, and thus for an Asphalt to contain no "Asphalt" as referred to in this article which is naturally illogical.

Making this change would also allow the quality of the article to be improved. For example "Although asphalt typically makes up only 4 to 5 percent (by weight) of the pavement mixture, as the pavement's binder, it is also the most expensive part of the cost of the road-paving material." could be updated to a more accurate "Although Bitumen typically makes up only 4 to 5 percent (by weight) of the pavement mixture in Asphalt, as the pavement's binder, it is also the most expensive part of the cost of the road-paving material."

It seems some of the references have confused the two, or potentially is an American simplification. However in industry, especially internationally, these are distinct and should not be confused. One source here [[3]] for example suggests it is simply an Americanism which doesnt apply to the rest of the world. Thus this article should really use "Bitumen" as the description as that is internationally recognised (even by Americans) with maybe a note in the article lead that in the US it may sometimes be called "Asphalt". That said, sources in US industry can still be found where they refer to this articles topic as Bitumen simply to avoid confusion with Asphalt Concrete as thats commonly shortened to just "Asphalt" as well. For example, here [[4]] Shell discusses "The Right Bitumen Solution for Top-Performance Asphalt" which is naturally confusing if we adjust it as per the Wiki's description to state "The Right Asphalt Solution for Top-Performance Asphalt"

As far as i can tell, in US industry "Bitumen" is referred to as "Liquid Asphalt cement" [[5]] and this can also be simplified to "Asphalt". However the key thing here is that this description places it as a Cement for Asphalt - which is correct, as Cement is the Binder in Concrete, much as Bitumen is the Binder in Asphalt. So it seems even in US industry, the term "Asphalt" to refer to "Bitumen" is simply a simplification, which given many sources are non technical - would make sense.

So to summarise, this article should be moved to "Bitumen". All references to "Asphalt" should be changed to "Bitumen" as per international standards, with an addition in the lead along the lines of "Sometimes referred to as Liquid Asphalt Cement in the US, though often shortened to Asphalt". New references can be added to support and explain this change, with potential discussion as to whether "Asphalt" should redirect here, to "Asphalt Concrete", or to a disambiguation page listing the US and international potential uses. Garfie489 (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Broadly agree although ideally it would be a wider effort to sort out the mess of terminology of Asphalt, pitch ,tar etc.©Geni (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Asphalt" and "Bitumen" are the same thing. Usually, when people refer to "asphalt" they are just using it as a shorthand for "asphalt concrete". Just like when people say "cement" what they usually mean is "Portland cement" and when they say "concrete" what they usually mean is "portland cement concrete". Asphalt (aka bitumen) is a type of cement and when you mix aggregate with asphalt (aka bitumen) you get asphalt concrete. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  They are not the same thing. Itd be like arguing Coca Cola is water because it contains water.
  Asphalt specifically requires Aggregates and Filler. It doesnt even require Bitumen to be part of the Binder.
  Thus, under your description - its possible to have an Asphalt which includes no Asphalt... which is illogical.
  You are arguing "Often, when people refer to "asphalt" they are using it as a shorthand for "asphalt concrete"" - but the same is true in your statement, where you are using Asphalt as a shorthand for "Liquid Asphalt Cement". Both are simply shorthands.
  Simple fact is, if you asked experts from every country in the world to bring you a sample of Bitumen - each one would be able to bring you a sample of whats described in this article. If you dont the same with "Asphalt", near every country would bring you something not described in this article, whereas the remaining countries would ask you to clarify which Asphalt you mean. Once you reach this point, the argument for calling this substance "Asphalt" is not entirely well thought out.
  Given you argue Bitumen is the same thing, is universally understood, clearer, less ambiguous, and not a shorthand but rather a proper technical term - i do not see the reason to oppose. An example where American companies use Asphalt to refer to two completely different products can be seen here [[6]] in Kentucky, and here [[7]] in Michigan, as some brief examples - which is an issue caused by both Asphalt Concrete and Liquid Asphalt Cement being shorthanded to just Asphalt. This problem does not exist outside America, with everything from British [[8]] to Australian sources [[9]] calling this substance in question Bitumen whilst calling Asphalt to be something else entirely Garfie489 (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  This also points out a WP:RETAIN issue. We don't change an article's title from one variety of English to another. The American term for this substance is generally "asphalt" not "bitumen". This is no different than the gasoline vs petrol debate. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Again, disagree - Bitumen is an acceptable term for the article in all varieties of English. Changing to Bitumen is not changing from one variety of English to another.
  This is not a UK vs US issue, as may be the case in other WP:RETAIN issues. The change here is from a non technical shorthand, into a universally recognised technical term - as opposed to a change of regional dialect.
  Even if it were a regional term, it still falls under the "change reduces ambiguity" exception. Remember if you asked every country to bring an example of "Asphalt" to a conference, the vast majority would not bring what this article describes. The ones which do, would do so by chance given the same word can mean multiple different substances in their region. By changing it to "Bitumen" suddenly every single country brings exactly what this article describes to the table without issue - which certainly reduces ambiguity. Garfie489 (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  'Tarmac' is often used in the UK, which seems to be historical. Sometimes 'asphalt' is used. Never heard bitumen used here to be honest. From a quick Google it looks like bitumen and asphalt are indeed different things. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Tarmac refers exclusively to "Asphalt Concrete". Its a brand name, much like Hoover - if you work in the industry, you shouldnt refer to it as Tarmac unless working for Tarmac. Thats the problem however, this article is not about "Asphalt Concrete" - its about "Liquid Asphalt Cement", which is a common component of "Asphalt Concrete". Calling both simply "Asphalt" creates a layer of ambiguity.

  Bitumen is simply the liquid product referred to in this article. Its not a common word in the UK, as most people would never use Bitumen. However, multiple sources can be found if needed to prove it is what is used in industry. For example, using Google street view i can find one of the tankers that transported the liquid product mentioned in this article where i used to work [[10]] - you can read on the side what the tanker says through the green fence "Shell Bitumen". Reading what the local business is called where this truck is parked, it is the "FM Conway - Imperial Wharf, Bitumen Terminal & Technology Centre". This center's only product is the sale of whats described in this article, and the word they use is Bitumen. Similarly here [[11]] Shell has a handbook on the product, where again it is exclusively referred to as "Bitumen" - on a similar note, the British standards exclusively refer to what we see in this article as "Bitumen" and what in the "Asphalt Concrete" article as "Asphalt". BS3690-3 for example refers to whats in this article as Bitumen, whereas a mixture of Bitumen and Aggregate to be Asphalt.

  BS13108-3:2016 3.1.7 defines Asphalt as a "homogeneous mixture of coarse and fine aggregates, filler aggregates, and bituminous binder which is used in the construction of a pavement". Thus according to British standards "Asphalt Concrete" is simply "Asphalt", whereas what the substance in this article is called is "Bituminous binder" in the context of Asphalt. When used outside the context of Asphalt, its simply just "Bitumen" - worth noting BS standards at this time are in line with European standards, and thus European standards agree with the same definitions. BS13108-3:2016 3.1.14 later goes on to define the Binder referred to in 3.1.7 as Bitumen. Garfie489 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Garfie489 that may be but in the UK it's the most common name. People talk about the 'road being tarmaced' or 'tarmacing the drive'. I wouldn't suggest renaming this article to 'tarmac'. This UK dictionary entry also recognises the trademark. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Im not sure what you are suggesting to be honest. The process of having the 'road being tarmaced' or 'tarmacing the drive' are processes relating to "Asphalt Concrete" [12] - it is completely unrelated to the article we are discussing. This article is about one of the constituent parts of "Asphalt Concrete" known internationally as "Bitumen" and how it has been ambiguously been named "Asphalt". Garfie489 (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Having actually read the article I see what you mean :), I'll get my coat. It shows the problems with common names nicely actually. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ill take that then as a support for this motion :P Garfie489 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support the move, and then splitting off a separate page for asphalt. Reading through the comments and article, I think User: Garfie489 is correct that asphalt and bitumen are two separate things that should perhaps not have been merged to one page. Ortizesp (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

They were two pages till 2017. Now we also have "asphalt concrete" (US). In ictu oculi (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Reading through that change, it seemed controversial at the time and not well supported.

Really there should be a disambiguation page for "Asphalt" linking to whats actually often referred to as Asphalt (Asphalt Concrete) and Bitumen (known as Liquid Asphalt Cement, or sometimes just Asphalt in the US). Garfie489 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support no refinery outside the US produces "asphalt", in the rest of the world and in industry standard materials the refinery product is bitumen https://www.shell.com/business-customers/bitumen.html. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Here's Canada to beg to differ. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hate to break it to you, but that source supports this motion and the statement you are replying to - not you.

  The picture in the article is of "Asphalt Concrete", not of this articles subject matter. We can see this from the aggregates in the header picture, along with how it describes the manufacturing process. "The basic purpose of a hot mix asphalt (HMA) plant is to properly proportion, blend, and heat aggregate and liquid asphalt cement to produce an HMA" - the liquid asphalt cement is what this article is about, it is not about the Asphalt in the title.

  The article exclusively refers to what is in this article as "liquid asphalt cement" - not Asphalt. The Asphalt it refers to is "Asphalt Concrete" Garfie489 (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The term "asphalt" meets the WP:CRITERIA better than "bitumen". It is recognizable—the vast majority of speakers of North American English do not know what bitumen is. It is a natural name for the page, it is a precise name for the page, it is a concise name for the page, and I don't see any sort of consistency-based argument being relevant here. MOS:RETAIN is quite clear that we don't need to pivot between different forms of English without good reason, and no good reason for moving the page is presented here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Heavily disagree that it is precise. As i said in a previous post, if you asked someone from every country to bring "Asphalt" to a conference - then 0 countries would unambiguously bring what this article describes. Yet do the same for Bitumen, and suddenly every country brings what this article describes. This is the opposite of precise, as even the countries which do call this article "Asphalt" call other similar products not described in this article as "Asphalt" as well.

  The fact we even have people above thinking this page refers to a completely different product shows Asphalt is not a natural name for this page. Similarly the need for distinction harms the recognisable aspect - people recognise Asphalt as being something this page is a part of, not for what this page is itself.

  To me, this is not about moving between different forms of English. This is between moving between whats effectively a nickname, and technical language. In the US, to say "Asphalt" alone is not enough context - its not a word which singularly defines a single item (the single item being discussed here). An American would recognise Bitumen, theres already sources above of American companies on American contracts referring to it as such - for anyone that doesnt, there is a disambiguation page. However anyone non American would never, ever refer to it as Asphalt - because Asphalt has a definition that completely contradicts whats in this article. Garfie489 (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The following definitions are from Oxford Reference:

• World Encyclopedia: "Naturally occurring black or brown semi-solid bitumen".
• Dictionary of Chemistry: "Bitumen".
• Dictionary of Construction, Surveying and Civil Engineering: "A material comprised mainly of bitumen, sand, clay, and limestone".
• Dictionary of Public Health: "A tarry solid form of coal that occurs naturally and also is manufactured".
• Dictionary of Geology and Earth Sciences: "Brown or black, solid or semi-solid, bituminous substance made almost entirely of carbon and hydrogen".
• Dictionary of Architecture: (1) "Black or chocolate-brown limestone impregnated with bitumen or natural pitch"; (2) "Inferior *artificial asphalt is a mixture of tar with aggregates (such as sand and gravel) and pitch, unsuitable for waterproofing, but employed to finish road surfaces and walkways".
• New Oxford American Dictionary: (1) "a mixture of dark bituminous pitch with sand or gravel, used for surfacing roads"; (2) "the bituminous pitch used in making asphalt".
• Canadian/New Zealand/Australian Oxford Dictionary: (1) "a dark bituminous pitch occurring naturally or made from petroleum"; (2) "a mixture of this with sand, gravel, etc., for surfacing roads etc."

In general, they seem to support the current setup. Srnec (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Disagree.

Only 3 of those sources support the current setup, 2 oppose, and 1 is wrong given its easily sourced modern asphalt comes from oil rather than coal,

Im not going to weight individual sources, but its notable that the construction focussed sources all favour the oppose - Construction mentions Aggregate, Architecture the same.

The interesting sources are the last two in that they both support AND oppose the current set up - showing there is potential for confusion there. However most of the sources with support to the current setup, are happy to refer to Asphalt as Bitumen. Someone looking for Bitumen would easily find what they are looking for, yet it is clear someone looking for "Asphalt" has half a chance of not finding the right article.

So this would support a disambiguation page for "Asphalt" linking to both "Bitumen" and "Asphalt Concrete" with simple descriptions of both - we already have that set up. That way anyone looking for "Asphalt" is directed to the correct page. It seems all the sources you quote are happy to call "Asphalt" as Bitumen, or describe it as Bitumen - so again, no issues there. Meanwhile for the other sources which disagree that this article is about "Asphalt" are also happy as the disambiguation page directs them to "Asphalt concrete". So in summary, if this motion was to go through - asphalt would no longer go directly to Bitumen, whilst Bitumen is correctly identified as the substance in question - which seems to me to be in line with the majority of the sources presented here (bar the coal one, im not sure what thats about). Garfie489 (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRECISION. The current title is highly ambiguous ill-suited for this article. In both the UK and the US, "asphalt" in common parlance refers to asphalt concrete, the road pavement/tarmac composite material and not this, the raw material used as a binder. —  AjaxSmack  05:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support only if Asphalt (disambiguation) is moved to Asphalt as well per the above statements that "asphalt" could refer to the topic of this article or Asphalt concrete. If Asphalt (disambiguation) is not moved to Asphalt, I oppose the move as proposed since "asphalt" seems to be the common name for something, and it might as well be the status quo. Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this, though does that need a separate request? - could be done once this page is itself moved Garfie489 (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-close discussion

• Asphalt (disambiguation) (currently a redirect to Asphalt) → Asphalt – Asphalt page was moved to Bitumen after [disc at this tp]. This disc requires the DAB to be moved to the basename. >>> Extorc.talk 07:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Extorc: I moved Asphalt to Bitumen, but there is an issue that Asphalt is currently linked from whopping 6,999 pages that shouldall be disambiguated. I've read the RM and generally agree with the sentiment that "asphalt" is ambiguous between Bitumen and Asphalt concrete, but I'm reluctant to break 7,000 links (and I foresee that many are intended for Asphalt concrete). Plus, the redirect has a history that would be buried under Asphalt (disambiguation) after a page swap. Perhaps this should be raised at WT:DISAMBIG or discussed at WP:RFD, I'm unsure how to proceed. No such user (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    • @No such user: ...And there are plenty of editors who are willing to disambiguate ambiguous links, especially in cases such as this. In other words, unless you contest the close, please complete the moves as the close states. (I'd do it myself, but I'm involved.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

      To be honest, its surprising to me that the title of this page lasted for so long without challenge.

      That said i am willing to help out, however this is my first page move and am aware as the person that initiated it its best im not seen to be doing mass edits - so just want to ensure any actions i take are considered the right thing to do, and appreciate any guidance on how to help this situation. Garfie489 (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

      @Garfie489: At this point, there's really nothing else that you can do. Fixing this issue requires someone with the page mover permission, which editors like No such user and I have. However, if this issue isn't dealt with within the next few hours, I'll probably end up doing what is called "WP:IAR" to make the pages match the close. (I really shouldn't move the page since I voted in the discussion, but simply put, the current situation doesn't match the close.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

      @Garfie489: It has now been resolved. (@No such user: Obviously, my previous comment was an edit conflict. 😅) Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

      Just a question as im now going through the article to tidy it up.

      There are sections where it refers to "Asphalt" but is clearly talking about "Asphalt concrete" rather than "Bitumen" - such as the section on terminology about Tarmac.

      Whats the best course of action? - simply delete the erroneous sections, try to paste into other articles, etc? Garfie489 (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

    The edit history currently at Asphalt could be moved to a location like Bitumen (building material) so the title matches the history. Steel1943 (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

    Alright, I moved the history to Asphalt (material) redirect and pointed the talk page templates, and moved Asphalt (disambiguation) there. There is WP:DisamAssist script that lets you gracefully resolve the incoming links, but that still implies looking at 7,000 entries and deciding which target was intended, so it takes multiple pairs of eyes to resolve. I'll tag the dab page appropriately so that it gets the attention of kind helpers from WT:DISAMBIG. No such user (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

    I resolved two dozen incoming links myself and, as I expected, about half were actually intended for asphalt concrete rather than bitumen, demonstrating ambiguity of the term. Thanks to Garfie489 for working to resolve this issue, and everyone else involved for improving the encyclopedia! No such user (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

    @No such user my experience in closing the discussion for Australian, which resulted in 4,000 links to process, was that the helpers at WT:DISAMBIG cleared up the links within a day. I did clear a fair bit as well using AWB on my alt. and apologies for the earlier conflicting page move, wanted to do a three way pageswap. we were working on the same requests at the same time. – robertsky (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

    ...I have since moved the edit history to Bitumen (material) since the edit history of that page never identifies the subject by the name "asphalt". Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks, I belatedly came to the same conclusion -- should anyone ever investigate the complex history of merges and moves, that would be of help. No such user (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks to everybody here who quickly fixed all of those incoming mainspace links and dealt with the edit history issues. —  AjaxSmack  16:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Category

We still have Category:Asphalt which needs revisiting. It seems to be a sort of Frankestein, since it hosts both the petroleum-related and road-related stuff. No such user (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Id suggest its fine, given the disambiguation for Asphalt currently includes both potential use cases for Asphalt. Garfie489 (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, you're probably right. I'm just used to categories (and articles) which are sharply defined according to a topic, rather than a word. But I suppose it's not worth the effort to try to refine it further. No such user (talk) No such user (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed sections

The following items are a list of content i am removing from this page, either because it does not relate to Bitumen - or relates more specifically to Asphalt concrete. Leaving them below in case it is of use to other pages. I have today worked through all sections and believe them to now be accurate - some of the changes were quite funny, as some images already had correct file names but the text describing the image needed updating.

The two replies below are sections removed from the page, leaving them unsigned so they can be copied directly into wherever relevant Garfie489 (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

In British English, tarmac is used predominantly, which is a generic name, short for tar macadam. "Bitumen" is used instead of "asphalt". The word "asphalt" is instead used to refer to asphalt concrete, a mixture of construction aggregate and asphalt itself (also called "tarmac" in common parlance).

In Australian English, the word "asphalt" is used to describe a mix of construction aggregate. "Bitumen" refers to the liquid derived from the heavy-residues from crude oil distillation.

what is the world's largest deposit of bitumen?

The article contains two contradictory statements. The beginning of the article says the largest deposits of bitumen are in Trinidad. At the end of the summary, however, and furthermore under the header History, Canada, the article states the largest deposits are in Alberta, Canada. None of the references to Alberta are referenced, so I think this may be false information. Damien.Otis.x (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I noticed this under "Occurrence" too.

I think that the Athabasca oil sands contain a much larger deposit of bitumen than Pitch Lake in Trinidad. Under the Pitch lake article, it says it contains around 10 million tons, while the Athabasca sands article states it has around 18 billion tonnes, far far more than Pitch Lake. Maybe it's more accurate to say that Pitch Lake contains the largest single deposit of Bitumen, because it's concentrated in one place. Whereas Athabasca is the largest deposit of Bitumen overall, because we're talking about an entire field of oil sands spread out over tens of thousands of square miles. Raddyroro (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)