Talk:Aluminium/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

One day a goldsmith in Rome was allowed to show the Emperor

At first glance this appears to be mythological. I'm not sure if we should use such a story to imply that solid aluminium tools may have been used then. —PaleoNeonate – 19:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I share your concern. --John (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You see, we don't state that the goldsmith was allowed to show the Emperor the new metal; we state there's a tale saying that the goldsmith was allowed to show the Emperor the new metal. There's a difference between the two.--R8R (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It's an interesting story. It seems a bit implausible to me that aluminium was discovered so early as it is surely not possible to prepare it without the use of electricity? --John (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a very well known story and is in Pliny. Are you now claiming that Pliny is another on your personal "banned" list? Now Pliny is known to be somewhat at variance to modern explanations for nearly everything, so careful copywriting is needed to present this two thousand year old and quite possibly apocryphal tale, but that's a lot different to questioning a modern website that has done no more than paste it in from Gutenberg or somewhere similar.

As your own WP:OR has decreed that aluminium cannot be extracted without electricity, I take it that you'll now be removing Humphry Davy too? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Not OR but basic subject knowledge. Humphry Davy used electricity too. I don't know any way of reducing Al compounds without electricity. John (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Davy did not separate aluminium by use of electricity. He tried and failed. He did reduce other metals (sodium and potassium) that way, but failed with aluminium. If Davy separated aluminium (and it's still unclear whether he succeeded) he did it with a form of the Kroll process, using potassium he'd previously reduced electrically. This was how Oersted did it too, but the primacy as to who did it first is questioned (it's in Davy's notebooks, but he never waved an aluminium plate at the emperor, or the Royal Society). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

So as I say, Davy's method depends utterly on electricity having been mastered. Not something we know to have been the case 2000 years ago. John (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm also unsure that world-aluminium.org is a reliable source for such claims (maybe better for stats, and if they defer to scholars on the linked page, I can't see it, I mostly get a blank page). If this interpretation is notable enough to be in the article, we probably can find a more reliable source like a book... —PaleoNeonate – 20:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This might be of of interest. I still think this is in the "Cool story, bro" category though. --John (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. In a long-prose book this isn't a bad anecdote afterall. If this remains in a sentence in the article (with any extra material in footnotes) it may perhaps be acceptable. I still think that the sentence is misleading though, the claim should probably be attributed instead of saying "However, there is indication that...". Afterall, even Eskin presents it more like a tale. If attributed, I'm then wondering if he recounts this from another source or was the one who invented the relationship (Google books of course didn't allow me to reach the end of the chapter or book to see if a references list existed)... If he made the original claim, there would remain to see if his opinions on history are considered reliable or notable (they may be if other sites borrow the idea). —PaleoNeonate – 21:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I reworked it, feel free to improve. —PaleoNeonate – 21:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite see the point. Why cannot we directly attribute the statement to Pliny? It is normal for us to say "Scheele discovered oxygen" and then quote, let's say, some handbook rather than Lavoisier's 18th century work. I think the same should be right for Pliny ("Pliny wrote this tale" and then we quote a modern author). If you doubt Eskin, I've got an entire encyclopedia devoted to aluminum on my hands and it also mentions this story. Would it be good enough to talk about Pliny directly now?--R8R (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a great story. It's just the scientific implausibility I am slightly gagging on here. --John (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean that Pliny was the one who linked the mysterious object to aluminium (did he know the metal form of aluminium existed)? If so, we can attribute it to him (and can probably add what is necessary to show that Pliny inferred that link). If not, we should attribute it to the person making that link. Assuming that Pliny did the link, we don't consider the claims of ancient historians as authorities, although they are often worthy of mention for historical and notability reasons. When they are, we also try not to present those as unambiguous facts (attribution then becomes important). Other than sourcing to reliable sources, we have policies about pseudohistory and the presentation of fringe ideas, their weight, etc. But we also work by consensus, so I would like to also let other editors comment. By the Eskin source, it wasn't clear if he made the link, if someone else did, or if Pliny did, so we can attribute the claim properly. If your encylopedia has more information, that is of course welcome too. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

But we never presented that for a fact that the Roman had aluminium. We only said that Pliny had a story about a Roman who had this metal, and this (Pliny having the story) most probably did happen, and we have reliable sources saying Pliny had this story. Having the claim in the article would best comply with WP:V. As for the "this metal could be aluminum" part, we could indeed suggest that Eskin makes the assumption this metal could be aluminium. So does Rusal, world's second largest aluminum producer, though: see page 5 of the pdf/8 of the book (that's the encyclopedia I was talking about. I only found its English edition a few minutes before). Note they don't say it for sure and we don't have to, either. Actually, we don't know if this metal was aluminum at all. We don't even know these events actually took place. We only say this story was once told and that this could be aluminum, though we don't know for sure. We know that and nothing more; but we only said that and nothing more. This perfectly complies with any Wiki rule I know and the common sense if you ask me.

I liked to have Eskin because then we can quote the entire story in a note. Of course, we can have both sources or more if needed.--R8R (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

What I and I suspect John are wondering is how on earth the smith in question could possibly have isolated the Al with Roman-era technology: it would probably reassure us greatly if Eskin were to give a plausible hypothesis for how he could have done this. At the moment all I can think of as an explanation is a small native aluminium deposit. I'd say we should reference the story to Pliny and then mention Eskin's interpretation of the metal as Al as a modern thing, since AFAIK the Romans had no inkling of Al the metal. Double sharp (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for introducing me to the idea of native aluminium. I had no idea. John (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Native aluminium exists, but you need a microscope and a very big hammer to find some. Although it probably forms as commonly as native copper, it's too reactive to survive. So it's only findable as inclusions. Nor is it found in anoxic bogs where it might survive, like native bog iron. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

John, I just did some initial googling and it appears there are other explanations to this story: it could be glass or the story could be fiction altogether. Would it be okay to restore the story as I added it and then mention these possibilities?--R8R (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I confess to not following the discussion above but I just read the goldsmith story in the aluminium article. The report comes across as loony conspiracy style report that non-technical folks pray for to show that modern wonders were anticipated by the ancients... Just horse shit, IMHO.

The history section also begins with the statement "The history of aluminium has been shaped by usage of alum". For my money, history of an element should begin with the isolation of the elemental form, period. If we are not going to do that, then we introduce a degree of arbitrariness. If we just pick any composition containing aluminium, why not feldspar? It is naturally occurring and pervasive. Presumably it was used early on because people threw feldspar rocks at each other and built structures from it. Lots of Al minerals that could be selected. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do read the discussion though. We've got the same story mentioned by the world's second largest aluminum producer company.

The history of aluminum began long before pure aluminum was synthesized. This is the article about the chemical element, not just the simple substance. If there's anything interesting about feldspar, please let me know. I've only known about kept records (=history) on alum so far. Also, for a good comparison, note that the article History of the United States does not begin with 1776 and the Declaration of Independence.--R8R (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I will let you and others battle out the ancient history. The discussion becomes like arguing about the veracity of Bible stories, i.e. unending "he said, they said". Hopefully that material remains in a footnote. About alumn, why alum? My point is that if editors decide that the history of an element begins with a compound (i.e. composition of two or more elements), then a degree of caprice is introduced. There are lots of rocks that contain Al, why not claim that "The history of aluminium originates with the numerous common Al-containing minerals that were and are underfoot"? Also I do not understand why alum holds the pre-eminent position in Al history. And as it contains sulfate and potassium, does alum hold a preeminent position in the history of K, SO₄^2-, S, and O? Yes, I am pushing the argument to silly limits, but only to highlight the arbitrariness of selecting any one of several compounds, especially when that compound is not widely abundant in nature. For that reason, it seems that the history of an element begins with isolation of said element, period. Thanks for listening. And thank you for being so engaged. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

We go with alum because that's the mineral that found itself in history. It was useful for many centuries. People used it (they dyed stuff with it) and they kept records of doing so (events become history when they are recorded, at least in the context of human history), that is why. Those underfoot minerals just laid around (that is, unless you know another compound that was used. As of now, I don't; if you do, please let me know). This is the mineral that aluminum was synthesized from, for that matter; the resemblance between "alum" and "alumin(i)um" is not a coincidence, either.

Why is it so important for aluminum and not potassium, sulfates, or oxygen? Because potassium is known for a plenty of other things; so are sulfates; so is oxygen. It is a story from the histories of all of these, but it's only as bright compared to the other facts in aluminum's history.

Also, if you ask me, it is very arbitrary not to include the whole history and only go with the simple substance. Again, simple substance is far from the whole story of the chemical element and I genuinely don't see why stop there. That would be very incomplete if you ask me.

Thanks for the compliment. Much appreciated.--R8R (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it is very reasonable to start with the history of alum, because before you can get to the isolation of Al, you need to explain how people came to suspect that there was a new element in there. And obviously the failed attempts must fall under that too: I think I was correct to mention the old misconception that all acids contained oxygen and thus Cl must be an oxide of something in the history section of the Cl article, for example. But I think mentioning the commercial use in the past of Al at length as we do now is a touch overdone. I'd suggest just giving one or two sentences along the lines of alum being known to and widely used by the ancients, and then continuing with the Renaissance-and-later probings of its chemical compositions. Otherwise, I think we'd have to start the Na and Cl articles with a lot of material about the ancient roles salt had in human history, no? ^_^

Shortening this would also, I think, remove some doubts about the ancient history. I find Eskin's conjecture highly interesting, and I guess not completely impossible given the existence of native Al, but it is still really improbable and it is just one person talking. I would be much more at ease with its inclusion if we could demonstrate that this interpretation of Pliny's narrative is more than a fringe view. Double sharp (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The commercial use of alum was a reason why alum became a vital part of the Mediterranean trade. Perhaps this is not well explained right now, and one day I'll get to it, but alum (or dyes in general, don't quite remember, but alum was an important product for dyeing anyway) actually was a very important trading product back then. The "today I bring you victory over the Turk" quote continues to say basically, "now that we have our own alum, we can go war on the Turk." You'd guess it was important from that alone, though there's a plenty of stuff to talk about here, which we don't do because of the limits on space, but this is important. And I should perhaps remind y'all we're only talking about two medium-sized paragraphs (4 and 5 lines near the picture, correspondingly).

Actually, if the table salt is (sorry, won't check right now) as important for the history of recognition and isolation of sodium and chlorine, yes, I'd want that added, too. (On a quick note, however, I'll note that neither element is called "saltium" or the like.)

The whole point is that it's not just one person talking. Would you look at the Rusal reference I attached earlier in this thread, the one that even has its own article in en.wiki? It, too, mentions as a possibility (and I wouldn't want to claim more) that this was aluminum. Why would that not be enough to say there is such a claim and leave it there?--R8R (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I am so sceptical about the whole thing is that Pliny recounts pretty much the exact same story about Tiberius and flexible glass, with the same fate of the inventor, and did not actually believe it (he says "the story is more frequently told than it is reliable"). I suppose I can accept putting the claim in, as long as we make it clear where it comes from, as we do.

BTW, you might like to add the reports of Chinese Jin Dynasty aluminium (paper: 10.1179/isr.1986.11.1.88), to include something of Eastern history as well. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Great. @PaleoNeonate, John, and Smokefoot:, can we agree on that?

Yes. Yes, I would, actually, thank you very much. At the moment, however, I am busy with the history of the official discovery, but I'd definitely want to check for that later separately as well as the trading history I've mentioned earlier.--R8R (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone happen to know the exact location of the "aluminium passage" in Pliny's Natural History? That is, book and chapter number. As Paleoneonate said above, the passage seems reasonably well known and is mentioned, even quoted, in trustworthy sources. Some sources say that it's found in book number XXXV (i.e., 35). However, I was unable to find anything at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D35 after searching with keywords goldsmith, Tiberius and clay. I even expanded my search to books 33 and 34, since they are about metals; I supposed that the number "35" could be a typo. Yet, no match. Likewise, I pasted excerpts of the quote to Google. Quote found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aluminium#cite_note-3 . Now, some matches of course, but NONE of them to e-texts of classic works. This is very confusing, since finding references to classic texts is usually easy. I would be very interested if someone could find the exact location of the passage in Pliny's work. However, based on the information I have at my use this far, I have to say it is a very real possibility that the passage does not actually exist. 88.112.244.203 (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you're looking for Hist naturalis, I, XXXVI, c.26.--R8R (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It could be the origin of the story; there are notable similarities. However, the book 36 passage is about "flexible glass" and says nothing about a metal made from clay. (Remember: actual glass in a flexible form does exist - the glass fibers.) Moreover, Pliny himself expressed some doubt on the authenticity of the story he recorded. And whatever the origins of the story are, the quote cited in Wikipedia does not match with Pliny. The quote comes from here: https://books.google.fi/books?redir_esc=y&hl=fi&id=lJTZo6sj-BkC&dq=9781420062823&q=tiberius#v=snippet&q=tiberius . While CRC Press is a respectable publisher, the quote in question seems more likely to be false. 88.112.244.203 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at this 1902 French article (run Google Translate if you don't speak French). If you confirm that this article is correct, then I will eventually correct our article per it, or feel free to go for it yourself as I'm going to be away for a while.--R8R (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, it just occurred to me that even though Pliny was not the author, he might have indeed been the reason why this story is so well known now; so the phrase "Some sources, based on an account by Pliny the Elder, suggest a possibility that a Roman in the time of the emperor Tiberius had isolated aluminium" might not actually be wrong. The subarticle needs a tweak, though.--R8R (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sumanuil, Is that journal a predatory publisher?

User:Sumanuil:

Christopher Exley is one of the researchers who authored "Aluminium in brain tissue in autism". In a video posted on Youtube he suggested that parents give their children Volvic (mineral water) because the silicic acid in that water can bond with aluminum and help remove aluminum from brain tissue. Parents reported back to Exley that since they started giving their children Volvic mineral water the children's autism symptoms became less severe.

Exley et al analyzed tissue samples from brains that had been removed from dead people. This is just straight-forward tissue analysis, not brain surgery on living people.

Exley reported that he received a direct death threat after the Aluminum...autism article was published. So I am wondering, What is going on here? Why are people getting so flipped out about autopsy reports?

People should be ecstatic that there is a simple and effective treatment for autism: (1) get the aluminum out of children's brains and (2) stop putting aluminum in there in the first place. They could be putting calcium phosphate adjuvant into vaccines instead of aluminum salts.

The Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology has been publishing since 1987. It does not look to me like a predatory publisher. It is being published by a federation of five European societies on trace elements and minerals.

You should not refer to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as a "quack". He does not practice medicine. He is genuinely concerned about the welfare of America's children. You should not use Wikipedia to demonize him.

Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

"He is genuinely concerned about the welfare of America's children"? Then why does he want them to die of preventable diseases? And there is no gorram 'cure'. I should know. Excuse me for my phrasing, but any journal that publishes such patent nonsense deserves to be derided. https://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/13/utterly-awful-david-gorski-weighs-yet-another-paper-linking-vaccines-autism/ Sumanuil (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Restoration demand

Sumanuil:

You wrote, "So what? Autism is genetic".

The paragraph that I added to the article is about the toxicity of aluminum and how aluminum gets into brain tissue. The word "autism" is not used in that paragraph.

I demand that you put that paragraph back into the article.

Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No. I am not putting back any reference to retracted and/or debunked papers. Everything you added in that was already covered in the previous paragraph. But if you want an edit war, bring it on. Just remember I didn't start it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumanuil (talk • contribs) 02:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Please ensure any WP:Biomedical information is sourced to WP:MEDRS. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It seems to me that many claims about health effects of Al don't meet WP:MEDRS. There has been discussion about it for a long time (outside WP), but not much of a consensus that I have seen. Gah4 (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gah4: would you please identify the claims in the article that don't meet WP:MEDRS so I could either try to find better sources, or remove them, and possibly change the information in the article.--R8R (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The use of aluminium cookware is the main factor of presence of aluminium in food.

I removed The use of aluminium cookware is the main factor of presence of aluminium in food. . As far as I know, compounds like sodium aluminum sulfate, common in baking powder if not other cooking ingredients, are the usual way to get chemically active aluminum into the body. Because of the protective oxide, the metal isn't so reactive. Gah4 (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

References

I have added this sentence, with modifications, back following this sentence I found in the section on oral exposure in this large aluminum toxicology review paper by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: "Major sources of human oral exposure to aluminum include food (due to its use in food additives, food and beverage packaging, and cooking utensils), drinking water (due to its use in municipal water treatment), and aluminum-containing medications (particularly antacid/antiulcer and buffered aspirin formulations) (Lione 1985b)." Given this is the sentence they start the discussion of effects of oral ingestion of aluminum with, they seem to be fine with discussion of ingestion of aluminum metal, so I don't see why we shouldn't, either. I understand what you're saying and I wish I could find a quote for this as you put it.--R8R (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Consistency

I noticed that there are 4 instances of the spelling "aluminum" under the section Biology which is not consistent with the rest of the article. I would correct it myself but I am a new user, so I would like to kindly request that a correction be made by someone else. It's a small thing, but it makes a difference. Also, I didn't put this under Talk:Aluminium/Spelling because I wasn't trying to start a discussion or argument about the spelling. Just trying to help. If I am wrong about the consistency, please explain why. Thank you. --AndyMissed (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing and reporting it! Fixed. DMacks (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Purported PDF link to aluminum encyclopedia in bibliography

I've removed the following purported PDF link (in the bibliography) to the actual English text of Aluminium: The Thirteenth Element, and replaced it instead with a link to the encyclopedia's Wikipedia page. This link does not presently lead to any PDF; instead, it leads to a general page for RUSAL, which unfortunately even contains some promotional material. The link may have worked properly when it was added by R8R at 23:16 on 22 October 2017, but it doesn't work now.

• https://rusal.ru/en/press-center/RUSAL%20Encyclopedia_full_engl_FINAL.pdf

Removal of this malfunctioning link is without prejudice to restoration of a properly functioning link to the encyclopedia's full English text if one can be found.

—Syrenka V (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Coins

@Cyrus noto3at bulaga and Andy Dingley: I suggest we remove the mention of coins among uses. There are multiple uses this article once had but no longer uses because there is not enough room for them all. That is why only the most important ones are kept. Remember that this is an overview encyclopedia article rather than an extensive handbook.--R8R (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Exactly why it should be in there. Aluminium coinage is familiar enough, yet rare enough, to be a significant contrast to the regular coinage alloys. It's also one where people may handle it, as bare metal. It's all very well saying "aircraft are made of aluminium", but when did you last stroke a Jumbo? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• • You are rather making my point. It is rare, as you said yourself. We shouldn't include just some rare stuff; we should either have it all (and go back to the long list of uses we used to have there) or stick to the main ones, which I suggest we do. Also, I have never seen an aluminum coin but I have flied with airplanes; what does that account for?--R8R (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @R8R: This is also used for coins, but it is now several used. For example, 10, 5, and 1 centavos in the Philippines was used with aluminium in 1983-1994. --Cyrus noto3at bulaga ^{Talk to me} 12:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @R8R: Hmm. I wonder if the aluminium 1 yen coin (which weighs exactly 1 gram) is familiar enough to make this worth mentioning? Double sharp (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for a delay in response, I was away from my computer. I've given this a this a thought and concluded that the present situation is unacceptable because it looks as if the coinage use were supported by a source after "The major uses for aluminium metal are in:" which is put to support all other mentioned uses. So to avoid this confusion, I've removed the coinage part once more. There are many uses of particular significance, this article used to list many of them, but we should apply same criteria for inclusion of all, and the criterion used now is being mentioned in that source as a common use. If there is, however, a source that does explicitly say that a significant percentage of aluminum is used in coinage, we can and probably should have it but only if that is the case.--R8R (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

So you disappear until interest drops, re-appear and blank the content again over the opposition of multiple editors, and only then post this justification because you think it's "unacceptable". No, not acceptable at all. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Going off with accusations? That's certainly one way to continue a discussion, but not the most productive one. I thought there was something about assuming good faith in this encyclopedia? And yes, I actually was away; you can check my user contributions.

Anyway, that's not what actually matters; what matters is encyclopedia content. You seem to have missed this so let's try one more time. Right now, the coinage use appears as if it were covered by source 112, which it is not. The list of uses (apart from coinage) is covered by a book listing most common uses of aluminium, so it would appear reasonable to have this very list of uses. We could, of course, also have coinage, provided there is a source that does mention it along the most common few uses of aluminum, but you said it yourself: it is "rare enough." So it's not that I think it is unacceptable; I have arguments behind that thinking. If you disagree, you are welcome to provide counterarguments. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy.--R8R (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"Let's stop at the status quo" does not mean, "delete it again, how I want to anyway" Andy Dingley (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Restored the content as there is no consensus for removal. Vsmith (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I wish best for this article and I presume anyone participating in or watching this discussion does so, too. Right now, the article makes it look like coinage is a major use (compared to the other ones), which, judging from this discussion alone, is doubtful. I will tag the fact needing support as lacking a citation and will try to find any good source for the statement and I'd be grateful if anyone reading this (especially Andy Dingley who is so insistent on keeping coinage in) tried that as well. If no good reference pops up in two weeks, I will (again) remove it, this time the reasoning being more clear to outsiders.--R8R (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

When you say something is common, it could be in weight, but more usual in number. I suspect that there are a lot more aluminium coins than there are jumbo jets. Yes the jets weigh more, but common more often means number. Gah4 (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably so. The article doesn't say "common," though; it says "major uses," which is tonnage-related if you ask me. Also, this is the wording used in the source.--R8R (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Resistivity

The resistivity noted in the quick facts section (28.2 nΩ·m (at 20 °C)) is not consistent with the value found on the Electrical resistivity and conductivity page (26.5 nΩ·m at 20 °C), or other places on the internet like this one. This should probably be fixed, or maybe I'm missing something? --MasterPrutser (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Aluminium resistivity varies a lot, depending on alloy (aluminium alloys contain significant quantities of non-aluminium) and also on the temper of the metal. Dislocations in a metal increase its resistivity, so work-hardened metals tend to higher resistivity than annealed, and this is particularly so for aluminium. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

If that is the case, shouldn't the alloy be mentioned along with the resistivity? Here, however, it is about aluminium in its most basic form afaik, and without further mentioning of alloys of other factors that can influence resistivity, I think the value should be the same in the quick facts table as it is on the page about electrical resistivity. Maybe it's possible to mention the range instead of a single value? The current situation is pretty confusing. MasterPrutser (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting this. Yes, element infoboxes are meant to use data from Electrical resistivities of the elements (data page). I'll correct this infobox now.--R8R (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Aluminum and effects on plants

Why was the information on corrected lime potential taken out? Ddurant (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ddurant: Hello, sorry for making you wait. I've been changing the article lately so there's a good chance I was the person who removed it and if it that's the case, then it probably appeared not too important for me for inclusion. (There's a lot of important about aluminum, so much so that we have to be extra picky to keep the article at a moderate length.) Do note, however, that I am no biologist, environmentalist, or anything of that sort, and if you can make a good case for bringing that back, maybe we will bring it back. Do you actually think that that's important and if so, how should we represent that in the article?--R8R (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Aluminum affects on Plants

Thanks for getting back to me. Sorry it took so long for me to reply! The reason I asked why the information was taken out concerning the corrected lime potential is what was replaced is incorrect as I read it. The current information states, "Aluminium is primary among the factors that reduce plant growth on acidic soils. Although it is generally harmless to plant growth in pH-neutral soils, in acid soils the concentration of toxic Al3+ cations increases and disturbs root growth and function.[158][159][160][161]". Aluminium toxicity decreases root growth, not increases it. You can google many research papers that does explain this (https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=aluminum+toxicity+and+plant+growth&btnG=). As was formerly referenced before the change was made, in the book, One Hundred Harvests Research Branch Agriculture Canada 1886-1986, "For some time, soil scientists have recognized that most acid soils are saturated with aluminum rather than hydrogen ions. The acidity of the soil is therefore a result of hydrolysis of aluminum. Canadian soil scientists, particularly at the Land Resource Research Institute, have studied this phenomenon in relation to the liming of soils. Turner and Clark (98) gained international reputations in 1966 for introducing the concept of "corrected lime potential" to define the degree of base saturation in soils. This became the basis for procedures now used in soil-testing laboratories to determine the "lime requirement" of soils." (http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/205/301/ic/cdc/agrican/pubweb/hs270060.asp). I feel this is very important information to include on the Aluminium page as Aluminium has a huge effect on our agriculture. Right now on the page, there is reference that a wheat has become more tolerant, but not enough information on the problem with the soil itself - the acidity of the soil caused by aluminum. Please get back to me with any further questions. Ddurant (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding for quite a while. I saw your post back during the first days of January. I left it unanswered because I couldn't (and still can't) get to it but I thought I would've done that by now. For now, I'd like to reassure you that I will eventually get to it, I've added this to my to do list.--R8R (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ddurant: I have read your argument, and it appears that you insist that we should say that aluminum is the reason why soils are acidic in the first place. I see that it was indeed previously mentioned. I will check on whether that's true and if it does prove to be the case (I expect that it will, since you're saying that so confidently and provide sources, but it won't hurt to check), I will reflect that. Note to self: need to figure out whether soils are acidic due to aluminum only in Canada or in other parts of the world as well. Regardless of whether I will find that or not, I'd like to thank you for pointing to whatever you think that needs improvement and encourage you to do so in the future.

I do not, however, understand what is exactly wrong with the quote from the article that you provided. Back before I first edited the article, this very quote, almost in these very words, was in the article. Compare:

Aluminium is primary among the factors that reduce plant growth on acid soils. Although it is generally harmless to plant growth in pH-neutral soils, the concentration in acid soils of toxic Al3+ cations increases and disturbs root growth and function. (as of September 25, 2015)

Aluminium is primary among the factors that reduce plant growth on acidic soils. Although it is generally harmless to plant growth in pH-neutral soils, in acid soils the concentration of toxic Al3+ cations increases and disturbs root growth and function. (today)

Is there any kind of mistake in this phrase, old or new? It appears to me so (since it is not acidic soils that attract poisonous aluminum, but rather it is poisonous aluminum that makes soils acidic), but you have specifically mentioned the mistake was introduced recently.

I still don't understand why the term "corrected lime potential" should be mentioned at all. I see why it is mentioned in liming (soil), makes perfect sense to me. However, we are writing an article on aluminum, and there is no direct link between it and the specific way to measure acidity in soils. We need to know that it makes soils aсidic, which is detrimental to yields of soils, which is therefore combated. How exactly the need for combating is measured is seemingly outside of the scope of this article, since the focus is on combating, not on aluminum. Again, we don't need to overstretch the article.--R8R (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Alzheimer's

Haven't really closely read it yet, but from what I just encountered in the news, it appears there is a breakthrough in understanding of Alzheimer's. I need to establish whether aluminum actually is a part of this or not and how recognized the news is in the research community. I can't do it now and probably won't be able to for a while, but this is certainly to be done in the future. (If anyone familiar with the topic could contribute a few words, that would be awesome.)R8R (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(Adding another signed comment to prevent this from getting archived just yet)--R8R (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

aluminiosilicates

Since this article uses aluminium for the name of the element, shouldn't it also use the appropriate names for compounds, such as aluminiosilicate? (Even though my spell check wants to correct both of those.) Gah4 (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it is still aluminosilicate even if the name of the element is aluminium, just like how Cr
₂O²⁻
₇ is dichromate and not *dichromiate. Double sharp (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Not the same. Yes the anion is aluminate, not aluminiate. But if you Google for aluminiosilicates, there are enough hits. See for a Canadian article. Gah4 (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it is aluminiosilicates in aluminium countries. Others, like aluminate, don't change. Gah4 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

LOL, how long is it until we can finally just stop propagating the mistaken extra vowel, as somebody did to protect their ridiculous ego a long time back, and throw away the resulting confusion with it? Doesn't the Latin origin bear this out? 69.63.1.48 (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gah4: Sorry for missing this, but this is interesting! Searching Google Scholar gives me about 286 hits for "aluminiosilicate" but about 206000 for "aluminosilicate" (it also thinks the former is a typo). This 2013 paper (published in an RSC journal) has "aluminium" but "aluminosilicate" in the abstract – although some of the table and figure captions have "aluminiosilicate", so maybe they weren't sure how to spell it either. I guess we should really just check what IUPAC recommends. As for etymology (responding to the IP): sure, I agree "aluminum" makes more sense, as long as we also agree to keep "caesium". ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks. Yes, I a little tried to figure out what IUPAC says, but didn't figure out how to do that. I suspect that most paper authors don't bother to check, either. It might even be that no-one asked IUPAC before! As above, I believe that aluminate doesn't change. Gah4 (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

North American English

Shouldn't the lead say North American English, since it's aluminum in Canada also? 216.8.144.133 (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's such a thing as North American English. However, we could say, "in American and Canadian English." From what I've seen, though, it appears to me that both spellings are in place and Canada and some sources even say -ium is actually more common. The thing is, though, I'm not from Canada and I can't judge. So tell me, how do things stand over there? Depending on what the situation is, we might need to reflect on this. Of course, we will need to back that with sources or at least know there are such sources. They say different dictionaries takes different stances on this ones.--R8R (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It is said to be the official IUPAC spelling. They are the official group for chemical naming, and that seems reasonable to me. Though on some other articles, I have tried to use IEEE names, and been told that WP:COMMONNAME applies instead. Naming in chemistry is pretty important, as there are a lot of chemicals, and even more, a lot of similar chemicals. Consistent naming is pretty important. IEEE does also do naming, but not quite as much. I suspect that one could also argue for the OED spelling. Gah4 (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing for changing any spellings. The issue that was raised is that aluminum, mentioned in the first sentence as an alternative spelling, is said to be present in American English in that very sentence, and the IP is suggesting the fact that this spelling is also in use in Canada be represented somehow. That's all there is to it.--R8R (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

There is an article at North American English. I'm from Canada and in my experience it would sound ridiculous to pronounce it "aluminium", either in a laboratory or a factory (unless, of course, you had an authentic British accent). 216.8.144.133 (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I have checked the view statistics and the article Canadian English is viewed several times more actively than North American English. So I will presume the former is more common. Added a mention of it in the lead sentence following how this is also claimed in the article itself. I will check this prior to the future FAC or sooner.--R8R (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Use American English. The American English spelling forms are less idiomatic, less ethnic English, and more consistent. There is an objective way to make comparisons between spellings, and if the voting were done in a organized way, British spellings would be out entirely, simply for being unnecessarily quirky and passé. -ApexUnderground (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This section is not about changing the spelling: suggestions for that go at Talk:Aluminium/Spelling. (Also, I do not think idiomatic means what you think it means.) Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2019

In the section Bulk, in the third paragraph, the first sentence reads "Pure aluminum is quite soft and lacking in strength." Per the spelling convention used in this article, please change this to read "Pure aluminium is quite soft and lacking in strength." All other uses of the spelling "aluminum" in the article are in accordance with the general spelling convention. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

"Alliminuim" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alliminuim. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Alliminuim" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alliminuim. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ComplexRational (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Aluminium is spelled aluminium and only aluminium.

It cannot be called aluminum or any other atrocity. Please change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwineveryargument (talk • contribs) 12:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

See WP:ALUM. Otherwise, not relevant in this section. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Magnetic properties of aluminum

Aluminum is paramagnetic, not nonmagnetic. I think this should be fixed. 23:30, 21 March 2016 (EET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexterelu (talk • contribs)

References

I agree. Aluminum is paramagnetic. Therefore, the first sentence contains an error about a basic scientific fact, which does not inspire confidence for the reader in the rest of the article. Someone with access please fix this! 192.195.76.57 (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Aluminum is paramagnetic, but does writing so in the first sentence of the article help or confuse more poeple? Most readers do not know what paramagnetism is, so will instead be tricked into believing it is ferromagnetic since that is the only magnetic classification they know of. Those who know what paramagnetism is probably also know that the only useful meaning of non-magnetic is not ferromagnetic. From our magnetism article:

The force of a magnet on paramagnetic, diamagnetic, and antiferromagnetic materials is usually too weak to be felt, and can be detected only by laboratory instruments, so in everyday life these substances are often described as non-magnetic.

To avoid confusing anyone I think we should avoid the word paramagnetic in the first sentence even if it is linked. I would prefer to write nonmagnetic, but think that not mentioning magnetism in the lead is also an ok solution. Ulflund (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me that the not confusing, and true, thing to say is that it is not ferromagnetic. As well as I know, paramagnetism can be detected without fancy instruments, though not quite so easy as ferromagnetism. I do remember a physics demonstration of paramagnetic oxygen, pouring liquid oxygen between the poles of a strong electromagnet. Also, as well as I know, paramagnetic is less common than diamagnetic, so probably should be indicated somewhere in the article. Gah4 (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The infobox has an entry for magnetic ordering saying it is paramagnetic. I think that essentially everyone who knows what ferromagnetic means also know that aluminium isn't. Those who are interested specifically in the magnetic ordering or aluminium will probably go directly to the infobox. Ulflund (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. So, should the text say not ferromagnetic, leaving paramagnetic in the infobox? Gah4 (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, thinking about it again, yes it is paramagnetic, but it is much less paramagnetic than neodymium and oxygen, so probably nonmagnetic is fine. (Those are the two I looked at.) For those, one should try harder to make the distinction, as it is likely noticeable without special instruments. (And I didn't check.)Gah4 (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This seems to have come back again. Since diamagnetism is also a form of magnetism, then that doesn't leave anything else. Most importantly, though, the amount of paramagnetism is small. There are materials with large amounts, though. Gah4 (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that the infobox and the main part of the article say paramagnetic. Otherwise, the WP:COMMONNAME, that is, will my refrigerator magnet stick to my new aluminium refrigerator, the answer is no. Gah4 (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Punctuation correction

The 3rd sentence in the article contains a punctuation error: a comma that should be a semicolon. Uncorrected, it stands as a run-on sentence, which does not inspire the reader's confidence in the article. Could someone with access please fix this? 2600:1702:2FF0:1D00:B8E9:298:AA21:221 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the report! DMacks (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Toxicity of aluminium

The article says: "... because it is non-toxic", without citations. However, research does not indicate aluminium is non toxic.

One such example, an article which says aluminium can be possibly rigid, and that high levels of dietary aluminum could is linked to Alzheimer's disease is found at:

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/aluminum-foil-cooking#section1 Polytope4D (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Baking powder commonly contains sodium aluminum sulfate (spelling in the baking powder article), a soluble form of it. Metal aluminum is protected by a very stable oxide, so difficult to get out. If there really was a question about soluble aluminum, it would be out of baking powder. Gah4 (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Even more, the above article says that it is safe in the normal concentrations, and is normally excreted. Gah4 (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Aluminium is quite safe for usage in everyday items, but aluminium items for food preparation are hazardous, because aluminium is reacting in acidic environment, by creating aluminium salts, which in turn modifies enzymes by removing iron, making enzyme non-operational, thus aluminium is toxic for usage in food preparation.

Aluminium foil has protective oxidized layer which makes it safe to use in food preparation, but layer can be destroyed(and allows for aluminium to leak and react with food) if it is used to prepare food with high acidity, like vinegar, wine, lemon and high alkalinity, like baking soda.

Aluminium sulphate is not aluminium and has complettelly different chemical properties.92.8.137.36 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Properties of Aluminum

Would it be better to list ranges for the mechanical properties of aluminium (and other elements for that matter) in the infobox as a range rather than specific values? Exact values imply that those values are agreed upon in the scientific community when in reality ranges are often reported, even from a single source. Additionally, what are people's thoughts on adding a separate mechanical properties table with additional properties listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Clemintime (talk • contribs) 21:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

New information

I notice that these pieces of information is not in the article. So I have written them down so you can add it to the article Although its electrical conductivity is only about 60% that of copper, it is used in electrical transmission lines because of its light weight. It can be deposited on the surface of glass to make mirrors, where a thin layer of aluminium oxide quickly forms and acts as a protective coating. Aluminium oxide is also used to make synthetic rubies and sapphires for lasers. Aluminium can now be produced from clay, but the process is not economically feasible at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wild kratts ch (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Spelling detail

Might look minor, but Ipreferto Talk this over;

Today, Aluminium#Spelling says :

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) adopted aluminium as the standard international name for the element in 1990. In 1993, they recognized aluminum as an acceptable variant; the most recent 2005 edition of the IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry acknowledges this spelling as well. IUPAC official publications use the -ium spelling as primary but list both where appropriate.

These improvements I sugggest:

1. Change "they" into "IUPAC"

2. Remove repetition "the most recent 2005 edition of the IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry acknowledges this spelling as well." Just keep that 2nd ref, all fine. (IMO, it reads like an argumentation not a fact, now).

3. Let's be more specific re this, especially wrt the status of aluminum spelling in IUPAC. I think IUPAC is more clear than our article is. For example, IUPAC writes the alt 'aluminum' in footnotes only.

-DePiep (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Here's what I think:

1. Doesn't make a big difference to me; maybe indeed your suggestion is better.

2. I'd rather not. The reason why I introduced both was that the 1993 addition was added in an additional document (apparently; I have not been able to find it online. If you can find where this change was first published, that will be greatly appreciated), whereas the 2005 change was that this came from an additional document to the Red Book directly. That's the difference and I'd like to keep it, but I am open to changes of wordings.

3. I genuinely do think that both being added only in a footnote is not that big of a deal. It shows that this spelling is not the primary one or on the same foot as the primary one but I think I reflected that with my choice of words ("acceptable", "acknowledged"---nothing more than that). The word "acknowledged" also marks a contrast with the spelling "sulphur," which IUPAC does not acknowledge, and they have a specific reason for it: ph is only used in words of Greek origin, but "sulfur" is not of Greek origin, and that's why they protest "sulphur." I will eventually write a note about this.

Does this answer your concerns?--R8R (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@R8R: FWIW, if this was the reason, then I really wonder why aluminium got selected. I mean, I usually have loyalty to British spelling, but it is just plain etymologically wrong: the oxide is alumina (cf. lanthana), so the element should be aluminum (cf. lanthanum). Contrast magnesia or ceria. Going by etymological principles, aluminum/sulfur/caesium would have made more sense. So, maybe there is a story here that would be interesting if it could be uncovered. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

References

My understanding has been that sulfur was the most important element from the perspective of chemistry, and it was getting the spelling used in the United States, so the lesser two elements (from the chemical point of view) were getting spellings used in the United Kingdom. You may recall that this balance was also the base for the earlier niobium-tungsten compromise. There really was some talk of how specifically sulphur is wrong; in the cases of aluminium/aluminum and cesium/caesium, nobody AFAIK protested anything, people just agreed that different spellings were used in different countries.

Interestingly, the Royal Society of Chemistry uses spellings aluminium, caesium, and sulfur (i.e., the same ones as the IUPAC), whereas the American Chemical Society uses aluminum, cesium, and sulfur.—R8R (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: I wonder if the same thing was behind the lutetium-hafnium compromise, too?

If part of the argument was that sulphur is wrong etymologically, then the mystery deepens. Because aluminium is just as wrong. ^_^ But I suppose Al and S are just in the third row and taught everywhere, and adhering strictly to the etymological principle means that there's only Cs left for British spelling, and that is one element with an extremely boring chemistry (Cs⁺, pitiful polarising power, need I say more?). So compromise seems the most sensible reason, even if the ACS is doing its own thing (it did the same thing with the superheavies, too). Double sharp (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the thing with aluminium and sulphur is the same. Surely you know that "ph" comes from the Greek letter phi and from it only. This is why using it in a non-Greek word is telling information about the word that is not correct. On the contrary, aluminium does not tell you anything wrong. That "i" is rather unconventional, but that's about it; one could even argue that it was, in fact, more conventional given how most elements ended on -ium (which was why it emerged in the first place). I recall reading an article in a IUPAC journal about how sulphur was wrong, like actually wrong, and that it should be abandoned. Nothing of the sort has ever been written about aluminium or cesium. One could make a case that sulfur was a sort of international chemical convention; I don't think the same could be said of the other two IUPAC choices, aluminium and caesium. Spellings are apparently less likely to be agreed on, so it makes some sense that the ACS eventually agreed on "dubnium" but not aluminium or caesium; it seems that people don't accept external arbitrary rulings on such delicate matters (or maybe the problem is in the arbitrariness: nobody really asked for a solution anyway). That is why aluminium and caesium is not a universal compromise everyone accepts (which is why I find WP:ALUM silly).--R8R (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I am unaware if there was a specific lutetium-hafnium compromise. I recall reading that the identification of celtium was erroneous. Anyway, the 1949 arbitration was predominantly focused on choosing the more widely used name, and apparently only elements 41 and 74 were problematic enough to require some more scheming to get to a settlement.--R8R (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: There are a few exceptions to the rule that "ph" only comes from phi (gopher, nephew spring to mind), but I concede the point in general. ^_^ Etymologically "cesium" is sort of wrong, but then again the pronunciations of ae and e merged in Latin when it was still being spoken, and simplifying "ae" and "oe" in such words is a general feature of American English spelling that would probably look really weird if it was changed just for one word. As for Lu and Hf; I had some sources on this, which I will look for when I have time. ;) Double sharp (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: here's an article from Nature Chemistry that argues against sulphur while advocating the possibility of aluminum and cesium (Nature, as you will recall, is a British journal).--R8R (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Why not rename sulphur into thiogen so it resembles the names oxygen and nitrogen? Simon de Danser (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Words may come and go, sure. If dictionaries and/or chemists begin to use it, we may consider this name. But "sulfur" is simply an old word predating both "oxygen" and "nitrogen." Also, theion means sulfur so we get "sulfurgen" instead of sulfur... I think the current choice is fine :)--R8R (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox has incorrect IPA

The infobox has an incorrect IPA transcription of the alternative pronunciation 'aluminum' that is inconsistent with the recording (and, in the same way, with its pronunciation). I could not figure out how to correct it. 01:09, 19 September 2020 User:Alexandre-Jérôme

What, exactly, are you saying is wrong with it? Nohat (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Aluminum exothermic with group 10 metals

NASA used Pd-Al metal sandwich ring between stages. The thermal reaction of Aluminum and Palladium separated the stages. Example, Youtube video of Ni plated Al foil started at one corner and reaction spread to length of foil. Aluminum also reacts exothermicly with other metals, possibly a safety heads up. And some issues with powdered metal manufacturing. TaylorLeem (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Double sharp's pre-GAN comments

One section at a time. ^_^

Since Double sharp is gone, I'll be the one to strike these comments.--R8R (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Physical characteristics

• Re note [c]: I guess density is what mostly is cared about rather than atomic weight. Iron has pretty low atomic weight for a metal, most metals are heavier, but it's not thought of as light, is it?

  True, but the whole point of mentioning it is to reference this fact later when it comes to discussion of bulk properties, including density.--R8R (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Any idea why Al has a different structure from the rest of its group? (It does not match scandium and yttrium either.)

  It looks unlikely there is a good result. Either there is nothing, or it's too complicated for this article. G&E also says nothing about this.--R8R (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• The idea that few electrons are available for metallic bonding explains the low melting point does not really convince me that much. Scandium also has three electrons available for metallic bonding, yet it melts at 1814 K, aluminium only at 934 K.

  According to G&E (p. 947), "it appears" that this is because a d electron is different from a p electron. I guess this article is not the place for this.--R8R (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think some citation are needed for the "bulk" section
• Do we need the detailed info given under "crystal structure"?

  Nope; removed it.--R8R (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Double sharp (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Some asteroids: come on, give us an example. Like 4 Vesta. ^_^

  I am tempted to think that just because we can give an example, doesn't mean we should. Maybe there is an argument for that, but so far it appears to me there is little utility in that.--R8R (talk)

Chemistry

Since I wrote this section I feel free to criticise myself. XD

• Something useful from Droog Andrey from the 2018 megathread: aluminium is not really that electropositive, just take a look at its electronegativity value. In NiAl compounds it actually takes the negative charge. The hardness and oxygen affinity is simply a result of the small core increasing class-A-ness (same as for beryllium). A cite is needed, but actually it would be good to explain oxygen affinity as it is referred to later under "Natural occurrence".

  I have my doubts about it. What about nickel and its passivation by oxygen and fluorine? Titanium? Why is aluminum not as good for handling fluorine then as nickel is? I feel there are more factors in play and I feel there is no simple explanation either: I would’ve found it otherwise, in G&E or elsewhere. We don’t claim Al is very electopositive.—R8R (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Going on from there: the situation of having high oxygen affinity, electropositivity, and highly negative standard electrode potential is not just about having the noble gas core. Y, Zr, and Nb have that kind of behaviour, and they have the noble gas core. But: Lu, Hf, and Ta have the same behaviour even though they don't have the noble gas core. Probably so do Lr, Rf, and Db. However: having the noble gas core is not enough for Si and P to be electropositive. I suspect this is more the class-A class-B distinction as mentioned above, and we need a better cite to explain where this comes from properly.

  I have thought about this. I carefully re-read G&E and noticed what they did say and what they did not. They don't even treat the d-block contraction as a scientific fact, merely as a model. That combined with my inability to find another explanation leads me to thinking that there is no established explanation and that this overview article should not therefore delve into these matters too deeply.--R8R (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Intermetallics – if we go into this detail about compounds with nonmetals, I want to know more. Metals from what groups? There are some interesting ones like purple gold after all, they deserve a little mention.

  I have them a brief mention and I am hesitant to do more. I don’t think that for our purposes of writing an overview article on aluminum, purple gold is important.—R8R (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• We show the graph of hydrolysis, which is good, but shouldn't we talk about it a bit more in the text? (This actually ties in to the harmful environmental effects of acid rain – when water is acidified, cationic Al³⁺ becomes bioavailable, and the fish suffer because the hydrolysis products precipitate inside them, IIRC.) Also, is there some kind of picture around of the visible results of the hydrolysis stages?

  We have a couple of sentences now, and I've mentioned precipitation on gills. I highly doubt there is such a picture; there is none that I was able to find.--R8R (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Saying amphoterism is characteristic of weakly basic cations is kind of begging the question! XD Amphoterism is not a new thing in itself, it is just the combination of basic and acidic properties of an oxide or hydroxide. This can be skewed to one side (e.g. lutetium) or the other side (e.g. arsenic). Rather the better generalisation (which you can find in Wulfsberg or just by applying Fajans' rules) is that it's characteristic of smaller and more highly charged cations of intrinsically not that electropositive elements. For aluminium, coordination number is low, basic character is weakened as more electrostatic force pulls on each water molecule. Scandium is higher coordination number and you can see it is a bit less acidic, yttrium and lutetium are even higher, lanthanum is surely basic. Same idea.

  I think we already have as much as we need in this article, provided one takes into account the very first paragraph of the Chemistry section, so I'll strike this one for now.--R8R (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Relationship to scandium should be mentioned a bit more I think. It can be useful sometimes.

  Having given it some thought, I decided to stick to the idea of this being an overview article on a specific element, and reserve this discussion for another article. It matters more to the story of Sc that that of Al anyway.--R8R (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Descriptive chemistry is OK. But do we really need a whole section about unusual oxidation states? I think we just need a note about the volatility thing for trihalides.

  That's a good call; we don't.--R8R (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Should we maybe say what LiAlH₄ is used for? Unfortunately that may duplicate "Applications, Compounds".

  I'd say it's good now.--R8R (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Natural occurrence

• And where did ²⁶Al come from?

  I have gotten a book that might answer this question. I will read it later.--R8R (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Added.--R8R (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Double sharp (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Other comments

What also needs attention is comments in three sections below:

• Say more about corrosion of aluminum
• Re recent edits
• New information

--R8R (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

And, of course, the lead section is yet to be written.--R8R (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Say more about corrosion of aluminum

Aluminum metal is frequently subject to corrosion. The reason for this is typically use of the incorrect alloy, or other errors in design. The article has a brief mention in its Chemistry section; but the topic is important enough to receive a subsection heading, or link to an article that presently doesn't exist. Oaklandguy (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This is something that I have actually been curious about: the passivation. In a certain sense: the activity of some metals, especially near the left end of the table, looks less than it really is due to formation of oxide layer. We only really notice the ones that burn or tarnish immediately (groups 1 and 2): actually metals in groups 3, 4, and 5 are also very reactive with oxygen, but they form the oxide layer and you don't notice. The difference seems to be about whether it actually protects the metal or not (compare, say, lanthanum with lutetium). So indeed something ought to be said, but I don't know enough to say what it is yet. XD Double sharp (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Re Aluminum corrosion, a few points. My company tested Hawaiian Air aftermath. (I wish we could add a thread about the "to paint or not to paint" aircraft controversy.) Cracks/porosity in paint at Aluminum surface lead to a hydrochloric acid concentration cell at the point of attack. A few years prior, FAA removed the requirement for surface testing the Aluminum surface metallurgically. That required stripping and repainting the airplane. TaylorLeem (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Referring to Wiki Corrosion page. The oxide or passivated side is simply the "Oxygen electrode" of the galvanic corrosion of both Iron and Aluminum. The un-Oxygenated crack or under dirt is where the metal erodes. Corrosion that accelerates crack formation at stress point causes premature metal failure. TaylorLeem (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I am still wondering what should be added, if anything at all. The thing on my mind is that the sort of edits we're discussing now would be more suitable for a more specialized article such as aluminium alloy, whereas this is an overview article on the subject of aluminium, and as such it needs some overview information. We have some information already, and I'm inclined to say it's enough for the purpose of this overview article.--R8R (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

New information

I notice that these pieces of information is not in the article. So I have written them down so you can add it to the article Although its electrical conductivity is only about 60% that of copper, it is used in electrical transmission lines because of its light weight. It can be deposited on the surface of glass to make mirrors, where a thin layer of aluminium oxide quickly forms and acts as a protective coating. Aluminium oxide is also used to make synthetic rubies and sapphires for lasers. Aluminium can now be produced from clay, but the process is not economically feasible at present. Wild kratts ch (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)<ref>"aluminium". pubchem.<ref>

Thank you. I will add it; probably not immediately, but eventually.--R8R (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm rethinking whether anything should be added. The copper stats are mentioned; the electrical transmission lines are mentioned; rubies and sapphires are not mentioned because they don't represent one of the largest uses of aluminum (there are many uses that are not mentioned for the same reason, otherwise the section would be way too long); the point about production from clay does not seem to hold much encyclopedic value. Perhaps I should mention about mirrors, but that's about it.--R8R (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I have added a couple of sentences on aluminum mirrors. I think that's it; nothing more is needed.--R8R (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Re recent edits

This is the original edit.

@Nohat: I was going to say that it is best to use the WP:BRD cycle---that is, when undone, discuss that rather not undo back immediately---but I have checked your userpage and it says you're an admin, so I find myself struggling to understand what's happening here. You say my edits were an "unexplained reversion", whereas the opposite is true: I did provide summaries in both of my edits. Presumably neither was clear enough, however, so I'll be happy to clarify both of my edits.

please mind the sequence of derivations and keep it uniform: The word "aluminium" comes from "alumina." The word "alumina" comes from alum. The word "alum" comes from alumen. The word alumen comes from *alu-. These are four sentences, each saying something in the form of "A comes from B." Similar facts, similar structure of sentences. Clear enough. It is hardly beneficial to break that similarity between facts by different structure. If anything, I'd love to hear from you on this.

what about stibium?: precisely what the summary says. The point raised in the added sentence is that ancient names like ferrum and aurum end on -um. Okay. What about stibium, the Latin name for antimony? That runs contrary to the illusion a reader gets from the text that all ancient names ended on -um but not -ium. Also, oxide names don't end on -ite; that suffix is reserved for minerals.--R8R (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

For the etymological chain, I'm not sure I understand your point. I didn't change the structure of the derivations. I removed the irrelevant bit explicitly stating "aluminium oxide in modern nomenclature". If that bit is to be restored, it should at least punctuate "aluminium oxide" in quotes or italics. I left this fact implicit with the wiki link to aluminium oxide. I added links for both alumina and alum. I'm not really sure what the objection is here—is it that the first two derivations are conjoined into a single sentence and the other two are in separate sentences? It is my opinion that the most important things to know about the etymology of aluminum is it is named for the oxide, and the oxide is named for the mineral, which connects the history of the coinage of the name of the metal with the history of the discovery of the metal. The details about the meaning of the Latin root of the mineral's name and the PIE root just seem a lot more arcane to me, so it seemed sensible to structure how they are presented differently. If you're just skimming, you can get all the most important parts of the etymology in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences cover more of the linguistic esoterica.

Yes, my concern is that two sentences were merged into one. That's the thing that worries me, not specific wordings. The way the text was written originally was a bit easier to read, and that's what concerns me the most. I agree that the part on PIE is rather exotic to many readers but that merge does not improve the ease of reading. If you don't know in advance that you only need to read one sentence, then it's hard to follow that long sentence was a way of stressing the importance of those two steps in the sequence.

But while we're at it, I also do think that calling alumina an oxide is rather misleading. Technically speaking, yes, there are other oxides of aluminium, and to specify that we're talking about specifically alumina, you could name it "aluminium(III) oxide", but this one is the best-known one by far, so it is perfectly fine to refer to it as to "aluminium oxide" without any further qualifications. Also, aluminium was not named after alumina because it occurs in nature; it is because it was the earth that was obtained from alum, and alum is the thing that occurs naturally.

With my arguments in mind, could we settle on this:

Aluminium is named after alumina, or "aluminium oxide" in modern nomenclature. The word "alumina" comes from "alum", the mineral from which it was collected.

I didn't link alumina and alum originally because both are linked earlier in the article, but some link duplication is allowed, so I won't insist on removing the newly added links.--R8R (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don't really have that strong of feeling about retaining my adjusted wording. I changed it in a way that seemed easier to read to me, but based on your comment "The way the text was written originally was a bit easier to read", I guess my instinct for readability is not as well-tuned as I thought. I personally find highly repetitive syntactic structures harder to read because if you need to re-read to understand, so many duplicate words and phrases give your eye less to grab onto as you scan. Regardless of which wording we end up with, I would prefer to retain the intention of implying that the first two parts of the etymology are both more important and of greater general interest than the other two, so I would be reluctant to return to the wording that presents all four parts of the etymology as though they are equivalent in significance. If you really think that separating them into separate sentences improves the readability, I won't object.

As for "an oxide" vs. "aluminium oxide" vs. "aluminium(III) oxide", I'm not sure what is misleading about calling alumina an oxide. A misleading wording would tend to make readers come to a false conclusion, but I'm not sure I see what false belief that a reader who sees an oxide might come to. You grant that there are multiple oxides of aluminum and that alumina is only one of them, so wouldn't the actually misleading wording be to just call it "aluminium oxide" without further clarification? I chose that wording specifically because a reader who is unfamiliar with the name alumina but already knows aluminum has multiple oxides might incorrectly conclude that "alumina" refers to all of them.

I'm not enamored with the wording "aluminium oxide" in modern nomenclature because it seems misplaced. The etymology is a sequence of facts that move backward in time, starting with the coining of aluminium. It's structurally anachronistic to present a parenthetical fact ("the name alumina has been replaced with aluminium oxide) which occurred chronologically after aluminium was coined into the middle of that sequence. Nohat (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Re "an oxide" vs. "aluminium oxide" vs. "aluminium(III) oxide": you're technically correct, what I mean is that I don't want to give an impression that there are other oxides which are comparable in terms of abundance or anything, really. There is no need to use the phrase aluminium oxide as the name. I could also see a phrase like "the most common oxide of aluminium": I think this phrase is fine with you?--R8R (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

As for "stibium", the Antimony page I think is pretty clear that the Latin name stibium comes from adding the -um suffix to the Greek stibi. The i comes from the root, not part of the suffix. That's actually the whole general point of the first half of the paragraph—the -ium suffix for metals with Latinate names can be analyzed as a folk etymology rebracketing of what was historically a -um suffix appended to roots ending in -i becoming understood as a novel -ium suffix. Similar folk etymologies have occurred in e.g. the spelling "virii" as a plural of virus, based presumably on mistaking forms like radii and brachii as having a -ii plural-marking suffix.

Point taken. That paragraph right now looks rather clumsy, particularly because of the seemingly unnecessarily long list of names of elements. I'll see if it can be helped with your observation in mind.--R8R (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree that the paragraph is clumsy. It was clumsy before, and while my change introduced the OED citation for the -um suffix being used for metals in Latin, it's still a clunker. It presents a grab-bag of facts about the spellings of other elements in both English and Latin in an attempt to lay out the arguments for both the -um and -ium spellings using historical precedent. I think there are relevant facts on both sides of that argument—both the -um and -ium spellings have compelling historical precedents, and an improved version of that paragraph would signpost those arguments more explicitly.

I think the January 1811 citation from the Critical Review (which I recently discovered in the updated OED entry for aluminium) changes a lot about the story here. It means that the -ium spelling is in fact older than the -um spelling as far we know, as we don't have a citation for aluminum earlier than Davy's 1812 Elements of Chemical Philosophy. It's too bad we don't have an author for that Critical Review piece, as it was quite satisfying when I was able to unearth Thomas Young as the author of the Quarterly Review piece that argued for aluminium based on its "more classical sound" (whatever that means). The OED actually has an extended discussion about the 1811 citation which might be relevant to restructuring the section:

Quot. 1811 at sense A. 1 is a review of a lecture by H. Davy delivered in 1809 and published in 1810 ( Philos. Trans. (Royal Soc.)  100 16–74). The published paper, on which the review appears to be based, does not name the new substance created by the experiments described; the ingredient alumina is referred to in the form alumine (see alumine n.).

I do wonder if Davy used a name during the lecture itself even if the published paper did not. We shall probably never know! In any case, I also think it would be worthwhile to at least consider how to give priority in telling the story of the origin of the name. The evidence we have now does show aluminium as older than aluminum but we don't quite know who proposed that name nor we know why Davy chose aluminum over aluminium in Elements of Chemical Philosophy the following year. I'm also not sure I quite understand what Young meant by aluminum having a "less classical sound" than aluminium. It sounds to me like a post-hoc rationalization of a purely personal preference, and frankly at odds with the actual historicity of -ium as a Classical Latin suffix for metal names. I do think it's fun when the OED's earliest citations are metalinguistic discussions of the words themselves, but I do think the elegant way which he phrased it ("for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound") makes it seem like a more compelling argument than it is, so I excised the full quotation from the text and kept only the phrase "less classical sound" with a little more circumspection that it was just one guy's opinion.

One other thing about this section that I wanted to bring up is the bit about alumium being "criticized by contemporary chemists from France, Germany, and Sweden, who insisted the metal should be named for the oxide". The relevant section from Richards 1896 reads as follows:

Davy next mixed alumina with potassium and iron filings, hoping that the iron would collect any metal reduced from the alumina. On melting this mixture a button resulted which was white and harder than iron, and was undoubtedly an alloy of iron and aluminium, but Davy could not separate the two metals. In concluding the recital of his experiments he said, "Had I been fortunate enough to isolate the metal after which I sought, I would have given it the name alumium.

In making this suggestion it is perfectly plain that Davy intended this word to represent the metal from alum, simply starting with alum, and adding ium as the proper termination. Objections were very soon thereafter made to this proposed name, not to the termination ium, which was considered absolutely proper, but to the root or stem of the word. It was maintained by French, German and Swedish writers that the name of the new metal should be derived from its oxide, and that the stem of the word should therefore be alumin, and thence the name aluminium. Davy was influenced by these criticisms to the extent of changing in 1812 to alumin-um, but no writers, except a very few English and, in recent years, some Americans, have used this spelling.

The book overall seems pretty credible, and there are plenty of citations in it. There aren't any for this passage, though, and so we don't know exactly who these French, German, and Swedish writers who objected are, or what their objections were, other than what Richards asserts. The way the article now reads implies these criticisms are well-established facts, but I would not be so certain if that passage is the only evidence we have of them, especially since the book was written nearly 100 years after the events it reports on (and over 120 years before now). Richards' knowledge of this would have to be based either on written records, which he doesn't cite, or oral history, which is not exactly known for being reliable.

I think it is probable that the claims are factual, but I don't think the evidence we have is sufficient for the boldness of the assertion in our text.

Finally, I also want to mention an issue with the claim that the -ium spelling is "the standard in most other languages". The citation is for Powell 2015; however I don't have a copy to reference, so I don't know exactly what he says. But, our article here has 176 interlanguage links to the other language Wikipedias, and only 24 of them use the spelling aluminium (including "Simple English" and two different varieties of Norwegian). I think you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that 13.6% counts as "most". Maybe it is meant to weight by number of speakers, but of the top 30 languages, only English, French, and German use the spelling aluminium. Maybe what is meant is that most other languages use a name for the element that includes a high front vowel or palatalization at the end of the root, but that claim seems to me so nuanced and marginal as to be essentially pointless to include. I would advocate either eliminating the claim, or tempering it somehow.

Nohat (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think the 1811 citation changes much. I mean, it's relevant, and it should definitely be mentioned, it's just that it doesn't look like Davy thought much of those spellings one way or another. He didn't even insist the name should be that, merely that it "might be called" that. You see, Oersted didn't even bother to claim the discovery because he didn't think of it much, so I can easily see Davy not worry too much about spellings.

I'll see what I could find to help your concern re Richards. Not right now maybe, but eventually, when I am preparing for GAN.

I agree with your call for tempering the claim. I have changed the phrase a bit, and I will revisit this question further during my preparation for GAN.--R8R (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I take the point about minerals with -ite but the general point is that these element names are derived by morphological process applied to the names of the materials from which the elements were first isolated. I would definitely agree there is opportunity for improvements to the wording there.

Nohat (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

So far, I've been able to find a reference to what is likely meant to be the Swedish criticism: Berzelius published a list of elements in 1811, and he argued elements should have Latin names (including even natrium and kalium). See here; an excerpt from Berzelius's book featuring aluminium, natrium, and kalium can be found here. This publishing was consequential at the day and it looks like it's the most important development when it comes to this spelling problem, and I'll leave out the unidentified French and German criticisms. I have yet to find the confirmation to the idea that the name alum was English and alumina was Latin, and that was why the name for the metal should be derived from the latter.--R8R (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It appears the major part of the thinking was that the name of the metal should have a Latin progenitor.--R8R (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I am satisfied with what the article says right now, though I'm open for comments.--R8R (talk)

@R8R:Thank you for finding the Berzelius citation. I think that clarifies quite a bit about the Richards claim about "contemporary chemists from France, Germany, and Sweden", which I see you have now excised entirely. I do have a few quibbles with the current state of linguistics citations in the article:

• I don't think the Kvande 2008 article (which I found that you can download in full) is a particularly compelling source for claims about the etymology of aluminum. Kvande is an engineer and the article was published in JOM: the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, not a linguistics or lexicography journal. While it has some interesting biographical information about Davy, it cites no sources, and even describes itself as an article to "celebrate that aluminum now is 200 years old", not as a serious work of scholarship, and certainly not a work of linguistic or etymological scholarship. Honestly, it does not have much information about the etymological history of aluminum beyond what was in the Wikipedia article circa 2007 and even errs in some of the details: it says "First he spelled it alumium, and then he changed it to aluminum, while finally settling on aluminium in 1812" when I don't believe we have evidence Davy himself ever used the spelling "aluminium". I'm not convinced it is worthy of being used as a citation source for any etymological claims.
• I don't believe that the statement that "alumina is the plural of the word alumen" is a correct claim about Latin grammar. The -‍men suffix with which which Latin alūmen was derived from alum is a nominalization suffix (forming nouns from verbs or adjectives) akin to English -‍ment—not a plural marker. Not to mention that Latin alum and alūmen and English alumina, alumine, and aluminium are all non-count (mass) nouns for which the concept of pluralization is nonsensical.
• The Oxford English Dictionary entry for aluminium, says that it is derived from the English word alumine, and the OED entry for alumine, which has English-language citations dating back to 1682, says it was borrowed from French. It was the French who borrowed/inherited the word from classical Latin alūmen. If we're going to have an extended section in the article about the etymology, I think we should include all the steps and cite reputable sources for etymologies. These OED citations are a better starting point for that than what we currently have.
• The phrasing "languages based on the Latin alphabet" is not really any better than "Latin-based languages": other than Romance languages, no language is "based on Latin" nor can any language be legitimately described as "based on the Latin alphabet". A linguistically sensible claim might be something like "languages written using the Latin alphabet". However, if we return to the interwiki list, and only include languages which are written using the Latin alphabet, we're looking at 94 languages, and of those, only 28 spell it "aluminium", which is less than 30%. While "many" is a weasel word which is not well-defined, given these actual statistics, I just don't see how a minority of a bizarrely constrained list of languages spell their name for aluminum makes an interesting, useful, or compelling point. Since we have already excised the information about the spelling and etymology of analogous elements (with both -‍um and -‍ium spellings) then we should leave out the information about how foreign languages spell their name for aluminum as well.
• We still are citing Powell 2015 (AMGLISH: Two nations divided by a common language) for the claims that aluminium "remains the standard in many other languages based on the Latin alphabet" and that Hall's use of aluminum may have been a typo. This source was not published by a reputable publisher of scholarly works, or even of general interest nonfiction, but by BookBaby, a vanity press which does no fact checking or peer review of any kind (and they list it in the "humor" genre). I have not read the cited section of the source that discusses aluminum, but I am reluctant to give the book much credence of any kind based on a cursory read of the introduction, which appears to be chock full of exaggerated and unsourced nonsense. I think the article would be better if we removed the Powell citation altogether and just omitted mentioning those two claims at all.

Nohat (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I made a couple edits along these lines to correct these deficiencies. I am open to hear arguments in favor of restoring the Kvande, Powell, and Spectra Aluminum Products citations.

I would be in favor of restoring the "this is the earliest known published writing to use either of the modern spellings" for the 1811 Davy lecture summary. Perhaps if we clarify "earliest known" as "earliest citation in OED" or similar. (They are one and the same to me—if OED could antedate it, they certainly would). Nohat (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you waiting; I'll have responded by the end of next week at the very latest.--R8R (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nohat: I have spent some more time clarifying the matters. Here's what I think so far.

Not all sources may be perfect, that's true. It sometimes happens that even the most authoritative sources err (for example, different respectable handbooks disagree on which element is the densest). As such, I strive to explain what's correct (based on understanding of the matter) rather than what the most admired sources say, although I still try to have some standard for source quality. I may end up with sources that are not in the first league, and sometimes even below what I'd want to see in an article, in which case I should try to find a better source.

As for criticism of alumium: I haven't been able to identify the French and German critics, but I saw a source claim this spelling was objected to by the French. As such, it seems in order to restore the Richards claim, which I will do later.

As for Davy and aluminium: indeed, he may not have used this spelling at all, which is why I don't want to add any more relevance to a reviewer mentioning it. "This is the earliest known published writing to use either of the modern spellings" sounds like a big deal, which, however, it is not. Also, did OED really claim that? Could you give me a quote?

I don't know almost anything about Latin grammar. Does alumina even sound like the plural for alumen? A source says it does, but I'm ready to tone it down to "based on," rather than "plural." To be clear, however, Latin alumen is pluralizable (see Wiktionary]), and English alum certainly is: there are different kinds of alum, such as "potash alum" or "neutral alum." Some English words ending with -ment can also be pluralized ("developments").

No language is based on its alphabet, you're correct about that. In fact, in countries neighboring mine, alphabets have been changed a lot over the last century or so, and two are making a change right now. I realized that wording was bad when I was writing it, it's just that nothing better popped up in my mind. I do think, however, that spellings in other languages are notable in this particular case, because a name of a chemical element wasn't necessarily thought to be limited to one language. Think about tungsten/wolfram for how other languages can in principle be notable in element names.

It looks to me that Hall's use of "aluminum" may have been a typo indeed, and I'll restore that claim, even if I'll have to find a better source for it (this shouldn't be difficult, I've seen this claim several times).

I'll act upon my thoughts later; for now, comments are welcome.--R8R (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I made a few changes. I'm satisfied with the results; comments are welcome.--R8R (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

New information

I noticed that this piece of information wasn't there so is it feasible to add this: Aluminium is used to make reflective surfaces and paint. Some string instruments, especially guitars, have aluminum bodies. This piece of information was gotten from Thoughtco link is https://www.thoughtco.com/atomic-number-13-interesting-aluminum-facts-606479 Space chinedu (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry found out that the sight is copyrighted Space chinedu (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aluminium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kepler-1229b (talk · contribs) 18:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A rather technical topic.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No issues noted.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Sourced.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No apparent plagiarism or copyright violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues noted.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass?

@Kepler-1229b: Do you have any specific concerns re 1a? Double sharp (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b: Double sharp (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• An observation, the first five (5) sentences of the lead all start "Aluminium..." - that should be tweaked if possible....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Casliber: Tweaked it. Double sharp (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

So pass? Keresluna (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b:Keresluna (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Pass, it has been two months. I see no reason to oppose that change. Keresluna (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Compounds of aluminium which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021

Evidence published in 2015 seems to indicate that for Alzheimer's patients aluminium may act by electrostatically crosslinking[disambiguation needed] proteins thus down regulating genes in the superior temporal gyrus.[176]

The linked study in ref 176 was published in 1989, so the 2015 claim is false. This paragraph is out of line with the rest of the article, therefore I request either this paragraph is deleted or updated to the 1989 year, which is out of date compared to current literature. Electrostatically crosslinking proteins and down regulating genes is a contemptuous claim, not replicated in recent studies. 88.208.96.218 (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I sometimes disagree with WP:SECONDARY, but it seems to me that "seems to indicate" is not the usual standard for articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gah4 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: Did a bit of rewrite and corrected the date. I removed the disambig tag too, as neither wikilink went to a disambiguation page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

I'm currently seeing a cite error for CIAAW2013 on this article. Having looked into it this should be supplied by the Aluminium Infobox, but this doesn't appear to be working.

Is this an artifact of the article being locked to me, or does something need to be fixed?

Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Solved now. No it was not on your side, the infobox has changed. Good catch, thanks for the report. -DePiep (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Two conflicting histories of the spelling?

There seem to be two conflicting histories of how the two spellings came about.

[From this article's "Coinage" section:] One example was a writing in French by Swedish chemist Jöns Jacob Berzelius titled Essai sur la Nomenclature chimique, published in July 1811; in this essay, among other things, Berzelius used the name aluminium for the element that would be synthesized from alum. (Another article in the same journal issue also refers to the metal whose oxide forms the basis of sapphire as to aluminium.) A January 1811 summary of one of Davy's lectures at the Royal Society mentioned the name aluminium as a possibility. The following year, Davy published a chemistry textbook in which he used the spelling aluminum. ...

[From the "Spelling" section:] In 1812, British scientist Thomas Young wrote an anonymous review of Davy's book, in which he proposed the name aluminium instead of aluminum, which he felt had a "less classical sound". This name did catch on: while the -um spelling was occasionally used in Britain, the American scientific language used -ium from the start.

Was the term aluminium introduced by Berzelius in 1811, by the summary of Davy's lecture in 1811, or by Young in 1812 (as the 'spelling' section implies)? Note that this section says that Young 'proposed the name' which is easily taken to mean 'invented the name'.

A couple other questions: Did Davy introduce aluminum in 1912? Was that before Young recommended aluminium over aluminum? – Omphaloscope talk 11:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should should explain this more clearly. Here are the answers to your questions though:

• Alumium (after alum) was suggested by Davy as early in 1808. Davy couldn't claim to be the discoverer (because he wasn't one), but at the time everyone knew they were talking about the alum metal, so the general naming principle was not contested.
• It was thought by Berzelius and others, however, that since the metal was going to be synthesized from alumina, the oxide that can be obtained from alum, that the metal should be named after the oxide (earth, as they said back in the day) which was synthesized from alum, not alum directly.
• Young suggested that aluminum (which had already been proposed by Davy) sounded too crude, and aluminium had a better ring to it. This wasn't a big change as far as contemporary chemists were concerned, more like a spelling error. If they had had to learn the typo, they would've, but there was somebody to protest, and that protest was effective because it made sense.
• Davy never had the naming rights in the first place. He wasn't a discoverer, and his suggestion only came about because what he suggested seemed to be less than ambitious for contemporary chemists, which it was. If Davy tried to name the metal after his home land, or anything, really, there was a big chance he would be ignored. Opting to go for that mineral, however, was not controversial in the slightest, so people accepted the principle and even elaborated upon it.--217.107.127.163 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Aluminum as food additives?

Under section "Biology", subsection "Exposure routes", the following passages said: "Major sources of human oral exposure to aluminium include food (due to its use in food additives, food and beverage packaging, and cooking utensils), drinking water (due to its use in municipal water treatment), and aluminium-containing medications (particularly antacid/antiulcer and buffered aspirin formulations).[191]". Now, it mentioned food additives as among the uses of aluminum. HOWEVER, there is no mention of that under section "Applications", though it is mentioned in a document from that citation 191, authored by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Could there be a clarification as to what are the nature of aluminum's uses as food additives? I am kind of hard-pressed to see how this metallic element could be used as a food additive... furthermore, it has no known biological functions as mentioned elsewhere under section "Biology". --Legion (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, first, aluminium oxide is stable enough not to cause any problems. But sodium aluminum sulfate is commonly used in baking powder where it is not bound in the oxide. How much do we eat every year? Gah4 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

"Aluminium(metal)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Aluminium(metal) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 23#Aluminium(metal) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

US Pronunciation

The US IPA pronunciation is not in line with the non-IPA pronunciation guide or the audio sample. The <j> needs to be removed in order to make it match. It is correct/consistent in the english wiktionary. I have not found a way to edit this myself, or I would have.--Amorilinguae (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2022

Title and name of the eliment is Aluminum. Not aluminium that is nonsense. 71.33.135.25 (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. See WP:ALUM for the choices this Wikipedia made. -DePiep (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is scarce bauxite the preferred source for aluminium?

Aluminium is one of the most common elements in the earth's crust, but it is produced commercially from the scarce mineral bauxite. Presumably the reason is that it would be too expensive to produce from common starting materials like feldspar or clay. Why? CharlesHBennett (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Please focus discussion on the article content instead of the subject matter. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable enough topic to address, since it should be easy to answer and "why bauxite vs others" is a potential article content idea (aluminium production is a major section of this article already). In fact, our article already states "Although aluminium is a common and widespread element, not all aluminium minerals are economically viable sources of the metal. Almost all metallic aluminium is produced from the ore bauxite". DMacks (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, first, I agree that the source could be useful for the article. As well as I know, aluminum silicates are very common in rocks, and where much of the Al is. But also that it isn't easy to get out. For electrolysis, you need ions, so it has to melt in the appropriate ionic form. Gah4 (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

According to Greenwood and Earnshaw (second edition, page 218), bauxite isn't rare at all: "reserves are immense, being of the order of 22 × 10⁹ tonnes in all". They mention that bauxite is "easy to mine by open-cast methods since it occurs typically in broad layers 3–10 m thick with very little topsoil or other overburden." The bauxite is extracted, purified and dehydrated to alumina, then electrolysed to aluminium metal. On page 219, they discuss the rarity of cryolite, which is used as a solvent in the electrochemical reduction of alumina. The supply of mined cryolite is insufficient to meet global demand so it is synthesised from hydrogen fluoride and sodium aluminate from the Bayer process. Cryolite is gradually depleted in the alumina reduction cell as it reacts with sodium oxide impurities in the alumina. It is therefore regenerated by adding aluminium fluoride. Is this worth summarising and citing in the article? Ben (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2022

Aluminum is spelled wrong on this entire page. 2600:8807:2280:490:71BA:B280:6CE:F055 (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Aluminium with the second i is the official IUPAC spelling of the element name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas emissions

Question: How much greenhouse gas emissions are caused if I buy a thing that's 1 kg of aluminum? Help! I can figure it out from this site for example, https://international-aluminium.org/statistics/primary-aluminium-production/ And I just need somewhat better editing skills to add that into the article. - Also, if I find the total amounts and divide them, that would be OR, so I also need a source that divides emissions / production. Good idea? Thinkadoodle (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Help me REVEAL....

Aluminium expert? ¡Please HELP! I am trying to prepare an article based on the REVEAL model of a large tank of aluminium pellets for Seasonal thermal energy storage) combined with cogeneration and district heating I ask you please to come and play in my sandbox = edit, mess it about and comment on its talk page – thanks and salutations Timpo (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2022

change: Appearance silvery gray metallic Change to: Appearance shiny gray metallic VeryBigBean (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Here at zinc the same edit was made. But IMO a "Silver (color)" is not exactly silver itself, and a good & acceptable way to describe the color/shine. DePiep (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

As well as I know it, aluminium is rare in its ability to look silvery as a fine powder. That is, you can make a paint out of it that looks silvery. Others look dark gray or black as a fine powder. More often, we see sheets or foils, but which one should apply here? Gah4 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Procedurally marking edit request as answered as there is (albeit now stale) a discussion amonst multiple editors regarding the proposed change. —Sirdog (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2022

change pronunciation of US/CA spelling from /əˈljuːmɪnəm/ ə-LEW-min-əm to /əˈluːmɪnəm/ ə-LOO-min-əm Ocelots33 (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Ocelots33: What's your source for it being such a fronted l sound? —C.Fred (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aluminum lists it without the /j/ sound, and the wikipedia audio sample says it without the /j/ sound. The OED lists the /j/ as optional in British English (which typically uses aluminium anyway) and does not list /j/ at all in American English https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/5898 Ocelots33 (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Part of the problem is my native dialect is a yod-dropping dialect, so in trying to distinguish lj and l, I wasn't hearing the yod sound in lute and was missing the difference. Looks like it's been done at the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

British fanfic spelling

Why does the page list the British fanfic spelling as the primary spelling? The official recognized spelling is aluminum and should be recognized as such. 73.237.36.27 (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

See FAQ here --McSly (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Umm, because the internationally recognised spelling is 'aluminium' and only Canada and the US spell it 'aluminum'. TrevorLenab (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)