This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mad Slasher still running loose and needs to be put away
Is there any hope that the ugly and, if I am not mistaken, contrary-to-Wikipedia-policy repeated use of the slash-conjoined construction "asphalt/bitumen" throughout this article will be cured sometime before this decade has passed into history? The existence of alternative terms should be explained in the lede, or very early on in the main body of the text, and then the term which has been settled on for the name of the article—I care little whether it is "asphalt" or "bitumen"—should be used throughout. The current absurdly equivocal approach to what seems to be one of those pesky AE/BE conflicts, presumably someone's well-intended attempt to make everyone happy, has produced a result no less bizarre and inappropriate than the endlessly repeated use of "colour/color", "lift/elevator", or "gramophone/phonograph" throughout an article would be. I am amazed that this has been allowed to stand for so long. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Totally agree: it is ugly! But as others have mentioned here, I also believe Asphalt and Bitumen are not the same thing. According to what I read, they can be used as synonyms in literature, but not by road professionals. I believe that the two articles were merged prematurely. -- － Cy21 ➜ discuss 11:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)