Talk:Aluminium

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)

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)

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)

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.