Talk:Aluminium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleAluminium was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 29, 2005Good article nomineeListed
August 10, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Magnetic properties of aluminum[edit]

Aluminum is paramagnetic[1], not nonmagnetic. I think this should be fixed. 23:30, 21 March 2016 (EET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexterelu (talkcontribs)

References

Restoration demand[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 02:38, 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.[1] [edit]

I removed The use of aluminium cookware is the main factor of presence of aluminium in food.[1] . 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

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Piero was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
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)

aluminiosilicates[edit]

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
2
O2−
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[1] 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)

References

  1. ^ "STRUCTURE OF MAGNESIUM ALUMINIOSILICATE LIQUIDS AT 1 700 °C". www.nrcresearchpress.com. Canadian Journal of Chemistry. Retrieved 31 July 2018.

Coins[edit]

@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)

Consistency[edit]

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)

AluminUm is local only - so say so[edit]

re reversals [1] and [2] about spelling aluminUm: both reversals (and basic understanding) say that aluminUm is local, not an universal synonym. So that should be added to the lede. It just clarifies the words for regions where it is not in use. (i.e., all outside of US, CA and other islands you might come up with). -DePiep (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean, it is fairly universal; I don't think there's anywhere where aluminum wouldn't be recognized or understood but aluminium would. It's like sulfur, which uses the same formulation for the non-US spelling. Aluminum is just a common alternate spelling, albeit one not recommended by IUPAC. I don't really see any need to clarify in the lede, though honestly I don't feel particularly strongly about it. Writ Keeper  15:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, "Aluminum" would be recognized since it's so similar, but I highly doubt most people (outside of places where it is primarily used) would believe it to be correct. I myself didn't know this was a spelling variant for a very long time. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
This must be true and this also works both ways around. I remember a scientist once said of the IUPAC spelling of aluminium something like, "Since it's their official spelling, they can make me write it but they can't make me say it."--R8R (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, the latest IUPAC nomenclature considers aluminum an acceptable spelling; this is in contrast with sulphur, which IUPAC does not consider acceptable.--R8R (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Purported PDF link to aluminum encyclopedia in bibliography[edit]

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.

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)

Resistivity[edit]

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[edit]

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)