Talk:Caltex

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Marcnut1996 in topic Splitting proposal

WW2 info conflicts with info on Caltex webpage

edit

Article says, "in 1942 ... Because Mobil was the only American petroleum company operating in Australasia at that time, there was a dilemma that was only resolved when the United States Department of War convinced Standard Oil of California and Texaco to set up a joint venture in Australia and New Zealand." But Caltex page http://www.caltex.com/corp/en/History_Origins.asp says that Caltex was operating in Aust & NZ from 1936. Nurg (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Correct, and Texaco operated in Australia from the early 1900s. The Texaco assets become part of the Caltex joint venture company formed between US companies Texaco and Standard Oil of California (now Chevron) in 1936. http://www.caltex.com.au/AboutUs/Pages/OurHistory.aspx This part of the article has no basis in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.196.21 (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sweden

edit

The article says nothing about Europe, but I saw a Caltex gas station in a Swedish movie from the 1950s.--Revery (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Caltex was formed as a joint venture between Texaco and Standard Oil of California (now Chevron) in 1936, and operated in Europe until the parent companies split the European assets of Caltex between them in 1968 and commenced operating in Europe under their own names. This article is only about Caltex Australia, and should be titled as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.196.21 (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caltex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caltex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Splitting proposal

edit

The following discussion 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.


It was proposed by ScottDavis on 26 December 2019 that Caltex#Australia be split into a separate page called Caltex Australia.

Discussion

edit
  • Support, with the final name of the separate article to be decided in May 2020
I support the split for these reasons:
1. The content about Australian operations is detailed enough to be its own article.
2. Caltex Australia is no longer owned by Chevron, and it will certainly no longer be known as Caltex anymore.
What's left in the Australian section in this article should be limited to Caltex's history in Australia prior to its merge with Ampol in 1995.
Until May 2020, the new separate article should be known as Caltex Australia. If the name Ampol is approved as the new name, then two possible outcomes are:
  • 1. Caltex Australia page is renamed Ampol, while the older Ampol page is renamed Ampol (historic) or similar. The Ampol Singapore section will be moved into the new Ampol article as it is a recent entity.
  • 2. Caltex Australia content merged into Ampol, with the whole article outlining the entire Ampol/Caltex Australia history since 1936. I do not recommend this as the old and new Ampol are separate entities.
However, if Caltex Australia rebrands into a different name, then without question, Ampol will stay the way it is, and Caltex Australia page is renamed to its new name.
All of these can be discussed in a separate move/merge discussion in May 2020. Marcnut1996 (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
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.