Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aluminium Sulfur Caesium


Is it the general consensus that wikipedia uses the IUPAC names? Seems to me that would often enough not be the WP:COMMONNAME. (I have gotten into WP:COMMONNAME discussions often enough, where I knew the technically correct name, but another name was more popular, often because it is shorter.) I am asking in general, and not intending to suggest a rename for this page. Gah4 (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for elements the current consensus is to use IUPAC nomenclature, see WP:ALUM (also sulfur and caesium). If you want to talk about that general point probably best to use that talk page. |→ Spaully ~talk~  18:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the FAQ doesn't it say that both spellings are acceptable but that Aluminium was preferred? Or was the FAQ referring to Alumium as the second option? But I'm not confident they actually researched anything. I'm guessing that they correctly chose Latinized Aluminium as the elemental name but never considered that the alloy is definitely something altogether different. The Strid (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Language is what most people use[edit]

Language is decided by the people who use the language. If most people use one word over another, then the most common word is correct. In this case, Aluminium is more used than Aluminum. 80 percent of the english speaking population says "Aluminium". [Tony's edit of a previous mistake] (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is only the case in America. It is not the case around the world. And this is not American Wikipedia. If you think that what a majority of English-speakers use should be what's used in Wikipedia, then the whole of Wikipedia should probably be written in Indian English! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accourding to my source, "Aluminum" is used far more worldwide. GreenLight-Wiki (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This logic is provably false. First, it is an Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Second, 320 million Americans call Worcestershire sauce Wurst-er-shy-er Sauce and I don't think you've got the numbers to flip that. And third, your argument is how new languages are born. Latin slowly turned into French, Italian and Spanish, yet they can't understand each other anymore. Your own U.K. is deviating so badly you are on the cusp of not being able to understand each other. The entire UK fits into my state of Montana, but I have to drive a thousand miles before certain areas get a slight accent. The Strid (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thought this was a Brit's comment. But it is still a bad argument. I like accents that follow alternative pronunciations. I hate lazy slaughtered speech. I've been trying to find a duvet for my down comforter, but I can't for the life of me figure out if the websites are trying to sell me another comforter or an actual duvet. But I'm highly suspicious that it's another comforter. They're even throwing "cover" into the mix, which is worthless. Cover for what? The comforter or the bed? Use the correct words people!!! The Strid (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
not at all. this is exactly how new languages are made. American English is just a splinter dialect of British English, that, due to America's wealth, became used worldwide. Aluminum has only been more common in books that are published/written in countries that use Aluminum rather than Aluminium.
'If most people use one word over another, then the most common word is correct'
not at all. By your logic, the entire world should speak a unified language.
You cannot claim that your spelling is inherently correct simply because there are more Americans than Britons. Sebimus (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you are addressing me, but if you are, you just made my argument a second time. As in, you just rephrased exactly what I claimed. The Strid (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't know this was a chat. I edited it like an article (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitive explanation on Aluminium vs Aluminum.[edit]

I am not debating the SPELLING preference between Aluminum vs aluminium. I am stating that they are two entirely separate words with two entirely separate meanings. FYI: I have written a LOT here because I literally have nothing better to do, so hopefully that helps people understand. I'm just chatting away, trying my best to get my point across. Anyway...

If we write these articles correctly, this debate will end and we will actually be educating people... which is kind of the point. Right? Like, no one is arguing that Steel is actually called Iron, while the other half insists that Iron is correctly called Steel; because we are all correctly educated. But Aluminium vs Aluminum is the exact same situation with the exception that no one seems to understand the difference this time.

Sometimes origins get lost, like the technology for America to get back to the moon got "lost" (that's NASA's statement, not mine), and this is one of these moments. I have done a very deep dive based on my curiosity as to how we Americans ended up calling Aluminium Aluminum, and how it is that the British are calling Aluminum Aluminium. It all stems from a simple misunderstanding on everyone's part. Aluminium is the element, Aluminum is the alloy. Everyone has held Aluminum in their hand. Pretty much no one has even seen Aluminium. And here is why:

First, Humphrey Davy did not discover Aluminium (sorry Cornwall); nor did the Dane, Hans Christian Ørsted. Davy mathematically theorized its existence as the 13th element and named it ALUMINUM in 1812ish. It was theorized because it is unstable and almost never exists in nature, so no one had found any. However, the Aluminum kerfuffle set all the scientist nerds complaining that he broke the Latin naming convention. So he spelled it correctly, in Latinized nerd speak, as ALUMINIUM; which is how I, as an American, learned it in high school chemistry - as do many other Americans and Canadian teenagers; and how ALL North American collegiate chemistry students learn it - as ALUMINIUM.

Hans Christian Ørsted is credited as creating the first Aluminium, but he created an alloy, not Aluminium, and he also dismissed his discovery as irrelevant.

A German named Friedrich Woehler actually created the first pure elemental Aluminium in 1845. He discovered it. Yet he isn't credited as the first creator/discoverer. Just as, in the U.S.A., Alberto Santos-Dumont is not credited as the inventor of the airplane, but absurdly, the Wright Brothers are - who definitely didn't. This political B.S. happens.

This is a good point for a cut and paste simplified break down of how Aluminium is made then turned into Aluminum. Notice how many times alum and Aluminium appear as a compound word, yet isn't Aluminium, but something else needing further refinement.

Okay: Bauxite is mined and mixed with sodium hydroxide then heated under pressure. At this stage, the sodium hydroxide selectively dissolves impure ""aluminium oxide"" molecule chains from the bauxite, producing a complex hydrated Aluminium based slurry with other minerals as impurities. (No aluminium yet and definitely no Aluminum yet.) The impurities are separated and filtered from the solution, forming a residue known as red mud. Soda is added to to get a ""Sodium aluminate"" solution and is cooled and precipitated into a solid, crystallized form of ""aluminium hydroxide"". (Nope. Not yet.) The aluminium hydroxide crystals are washed and heated in calciners to form pure ""aluminium oxide"" — a sandy white material known as ""alumina"". (Aluminium Oxide, aka Alumina! Getting close!) In aluminium smelter facilities, hundreds of electrolytic reduction cells are filled up with molten cryolite. Alumina is then dumped into these cells, and a strong electric current breaks the chemical bond between aluminium and oxygen atoms. The electrolysis results in liquid aluminium settling at the bottom of the cell, which is then highly purified and cast into ingots. (Yay! Pure elemental Aluminium is finally here!!)

So, where is the Aluminum? The Aluminium is smelted with copper, magnesium, manganese, silicon, tin, nickel or zinc in differing quantities for the qualities needed to get different Aluminum. The alloy Aluminum is also needed because if Aluminium is not stabilized, it will corrode and degrade right back into Aluminium Oxide as it interacts with moisture in the air. Aluminium Oxide is neither Aluminium nor Aluminum, but a white worthless dust you could call a rust. Similar to iron rust.

Well, here comes our problem, Aluminium was incredibly difficult to make and therefore was extremely expensive all the way up to 1958 when things were finally economically viable. So until 1958, the average person had not heard of Aluminium, but chemists, INCLUDING AMERICAN chemists, did know about it. In 1958, Coors brewery in Colorado USA released the first ALUMINUM cans in the world. And as I stated earlier, as steel is not iron, Aluminum cans are not Aluminium, they are an Aluminium alloy the US manufacturers called by Davy's name of Aluminum. In the U.K., Aluminium was used for both. This means that technically, the Americans are more correct. If you don't think this is true, ask yourself these questions: if both are the same thing and therefor can be called by the same name, why do they exhibit starkly different characteristics? One is atomic, as in elemental. The other is molecular. Why does one deteriorate into dust and can't exist in nature, while the other is man made and resistant to corrosion? Why is one soft and malleable, while the other is rigid and strong? Why did they come into existence about 100 years apart? Clearly the two are not one in the same. Aluminium is an element. Aluminum is an alloy product. One is atomically pure. The other is a hybrid. One makes a ton of things. The other makes nearly nothing.

Now I have read the comments in this talk, and holy crap, nearly all of you are coming off as raging idiots with ego complexes. I don't think any of you want to be correct, you want to be right. Not adhering to proper naming and pronunciation conventions is why no one can read Chaucer anymore. The Scottish can't say, "The Irish wristwatch has a purple burglar alarm". And no one at all has a clue what the Welsh are carrying on about. With the way the English pronounce their R's and A's, they'll soon be spelling car as cra. And no America, an appearance in a movie is not called a cameo unless the actor appears as himself. And duvets are not comforters. They are the thing that comforters go inside of to keep them clean. And stop calling caulk cock. Pronounce your L's for crying out loud. You're as bad as the British with the R's. You go for a waLk to taLk. Got it?

I also don't think anything gets accomplished on Wikipedia. People get locked into pissing contests and refuse to be reasonable. I'm not even going to try to edit a single article about "Aluminium" to correctly call the element Aluminium and the alloy Aluminum. You will both get offended and put it right back into the pissing match. But I highly advise that the crux of what I gave you be boiled down to a simple paragraph as an explanation, then continue to use the IUPAC's precious politically motivated compromised definition and Spain will continue to be internationally considered "neutral during WWII... even though they colluded with and assisted the Nazis. Yeah Spain, you know what you did. Sinners. The Strid (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For alloy, it should be aluminite in order to reduce contests in spelling. Cyrus noto3at bulaga Talk to me 05:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution and the effort you've put into this subject. While the historical context and processes behind Aluminium and Aluminum are indeed fascinating, there are a few points that require clarification and correction.
The assertion that "Aluminium is the element, Aluminum is the alloy" contradicts established scientific consensus. According to the IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry), the correct term for the element with atomic number 13 is "Aluminium". In American English, the term "Aluminum" refers to the same element, not an alloy. This is not an opinion; it's standardized terminology.
The credits for discovery can be debated, but it's not directly relevant to the issue at hand. Additionally, the claim that Friedrich Woehler is the rightful discoverer is contestable and detracts from your argument.
The detailed explanation of how Aluminium is derived does not substantiate the point that Aluminum should be considered an alloy. Both terms refer to the elemental form unless alloyed with other elements. Thus, the "Aluminum kerfuffle" doesn't change the scientific facts or terminology.
The use of Aluminum in Coors brewery cans doesn't redefine scientific terminology; it reflects American usage. This is an example of colloquial language, not a factual basis for renaming an element.
Your assertion that Aluminium and Aluminum have different properties is accurate but misleading in this context. All elements can exhibit different properties when alloyed, but this doesn't necessitate a name change.
While you emphasize the importance of proper naming conventions, the point does not directly relate to the primary subject. It's an interesting tangent but doesn't substantiate your main argument.
We strive for neutrality and factual accuracy on Wikipedia. While your points are passionate, they conflict with established scientific standards.
The asides regarding Spain, Chaucer, and other topics, while interesting, dilute the focus of the discussion and do not contribute to the central argument.
In summary, while your post is engaging and brings up several interesting points, it does not align with the scientific consensus or standard nomenclature.
Nohat (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why prefer one over the other?
Discovery and credit is tricky - but I think Davy has at least as much of a right to decide the official name as the IUPAC.
Why would Wikipedia favor (British: favour) one over the other?
The treatment of "favor/favour" here seems more reasonable. Why not copy this style?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favor Skepticaljones82 (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The side tangents don't make sense to you because this thread had been full of those exact arguments, which were then deleted by a moderator. The bickering was essentially: so and so invented it, they get the naming rights. This moderator deletion has left you without proper context. I will edit them to streamline my comment.
As for your other arguments, your logic eludes me. This is a North America versus British usage argument. BOTH sides are half wrong, half right. Although as a whole, academically, North American colleges are fully correct. In North American collegiate chemistry, Aluminium is indeed used, this is a fact. In layman America, aluminum is used in reference to cans, cookware etc. These are made of molecular alloys, NOT from the atomic element. Any lay American who calls the atomic element "aluminum" is misspeaking (which is a heavy majority), and they are wrong. This is somewhat similar to how tomatoes or avocados are fruits in botany, but are vegetables in kitchens and stores because they are used as, and with, vegetables. We put fruit on desserts, but not avocados and tomatoes. We put avocados and tomatoes in guacamole or on hamburgers, but not fruits such as cherries/strawberries,bananas etc.
As I stated in another comment, duvets are cases for comforters (not the comforters themselves); electrocuted means someone was killed by electricity, not "shocked" by it; a cameo is a brief appearance in a movie by a person AS THEIR SELF, not merely a short appearance as a character; and aluminium IS the element NOT the alloy - the alloy is aluminum - and the British and others are misspeaking just as they would be if they called steal "iron" or called iron "steal". Both alloy products are immensely dissimilar to their respective elements. Therefore, Americans/Canadians are also misspeaking when they call the element aluminum.
More similar examples: a Brooch is the ornament, a broach is what pins the Brooch on. A tomb is a dirt mound that grows into a hill as more people are buried in/on it, while a Mausoleum is a vault or chamber built to keep the dead. Lara Croft can run around in a Mausoleum, but would have to dig into a tomb with a shovel at all times if she wants to raid it. (She should be Lara Croft Mausoleum Raider)
Farther is used for measurable distances, ie he ran farther today. Further is for abstract concepts, ie. I have taken this conversation further than most would. And one last, of possibly hundreds of examples, you lay something where you want it to lie.
Misusing Aluminum/aluminium is not unique, as you can see. The sooner people are correctly informed, the sooner they will stop bickering over stupidity. The Strid (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nohat, as I stated, I did a very deep dive. It is nearly impossible for me to retrace my research and I wrote nothing down as the HOURS of research was for my own education.
It is irrelevant what the IUPAC declared. We know nothing about who those people are, or what their motivations were. But worse, they are the referees for the definition within their industry, and their decree has not resolved the issue within their industry, nor at large. Obviously. My point here, is that the International Astronomical Union (IAU) said Pluto was a planet until one day they changed their mind. Physics said there were immutable "Laws", until one day they said there weren't, that Theories are the best we can do. Hopefully you get my point.
As to your belief that aluminium is not used in North America, read this for some clarification: https://www.spectraaluminum.com/aluminum-vs-aluminium.html
This is why I referred to Chaucer and my other tangent points, WE LOSE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY on a regular basis. I have come across no linguists who know why English vowels shifted, nor any who can explain why British Millennials started using "whilst" out of nowhere. Sometimes we simply lose track of how or why something happened. I don't know why so many English speakers are failing to understand that these two words have different meanings. But they are.
Your claim that an element being turned into an alloy doesn't necessitate a name change is also incorrect; it does. Glass is not silica. 14k gold is not 24k gold. Sterling silver is not silver. Sand is not concrete and on and on. The wiki page for alloys lists common aluminums: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_named_alloys but calls them aluminium alloys. Yet it is patently obvious that aluminium is in fact an element and that cans, for example, are made from an aluminium alloy generically called Aluminum. The Strid (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"By the time of the 1909 Webster's New International Dictionary, both aluminum and aluminium were noted at the word's entry, and the following note was included:

The form aluminum is in common use in mining, manufacturing, and the trade in the United States; the form aluminium is used with practical uniformity in Great Britain and generally by chemists in the United States."

In 1909, Webster's is emphatically stating that Aluminum is a manufacturing and trade term, while aluminium is the chemistry term. As I have previously stated, aluminium is not being handled by people, an alloy is. The fact that the US is differentiating makes it clear that the US views the two as different. There is no other explanation as to why BOTH words would be in use but divided specifically to the element being called aluminium and the alloy being called Aluminum.
"The “clash” between the two versions began when the metal aluminium began being used in household items. This is when it was used in everyday language instead of just being limited to scientists. The “ium” usage was the commonly preferred version in Britain and elsewhere in the world. ... " However, for the Americans, the everyday use of the metal is still referred to in writing as “aluminum”. Today, we can use both versions interchangeably and mean the same thing!"
This British person, again, acknowledges that the US was using the term aluminium but began using the word Aluminum once it was marketed to households - because, once more, NONE of us have ever held an aluminium can in our hands. Americans have held Aluminum cans and Brits have held aluminium alloy "6061" cans. This person seems to think the words Aluminum and aluminium are the same words, simply spelled differently; which is an odd thing to believe considering they are pronounced differently as well. They then falsely claim that the words are interchangeable. So let's try it:
In British, "I have some aluminium for sale."
Am I selling the element? Or the alloy?
Now 1909 US naming convention: "I have some Aluminum for sale."
Am I selling the alloy Aluminum? Or the element aluminium?
Here is a very interesting Reddit thread from 9 years ago:
Original post:
Anyone know what type of aluminum soda cans are made out of?
I've been Googling it but all I find is "Aluminum" no other specifications. If I had to guess, I'd say 606i.(sic)
(asking what kind of Aluminum is being used would be an odd thing to ask if he was using this word for the element. notice he doesn't use the phrase Aluminum alloy, but instead "type of aluminum" as in "type of alloy"? there is only ONE aluminium, but quite a few Aluminums. then he names the alloy 6061. Aluminum and the alloy 6061 are synonymous, although 6061 is the specificity he is looking for)''
response #1:
"Melted down cans will net you a really crap-tastic grade of aluminum. They start as 6061 but have coatings and ink on/in them. During your melt there will be a lot of reactions between those impurities and the air (unless you purge the pot) that will affect your end alloy."
(again, Aluminum, 6061 and alloy are all used separately as synonyms)
response #3:
"you're going to get mostly Dross with very, very little Al, which will essentially make your life miserable. It's not machinable (it's mostly impurities/oxides), it has different melting points than Aluminium (so it will probably still be solid or semi-solid, not moldable, very tough) and needs to be scraped off the top" ...
"If you were to melt 4 dozen soda cans, my guess is you'd end up about the same amount of Aluminium as dross in that video, and about as much dross as he had alloy in his melting pot."
(notice that person 3, who is Canadian btw, is the first to use the elemental abbreviation Al, and we know he is referring to aluminium because he is literally referring to Al as "aluminium" and not Aluminum. He then juxtaposes aluminium to alloy by saying that the aluminium has a lower melting point which will leave the other metals in the alloy as solid dross."as much aluminium as dross, and as much dross as alloy" thus implying that aluminium is not an alloy, but will come from it when it separates from the alloy and leaves dross behind.) The Strid (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you get the help you need. With love, Nohat (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you have nothing constructive or factual to say?? Take your own advice please. The Strid (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, out of honest curiosity, and as a rhetorical device, are you going around on Wikipedia and editing articles without this level of research? Like, your just posting your personal opinions as facts? The Strid (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you did not even bother to write a well thought-out response to The Strid's argument, since your entire reply was written by ChatGPT. (Citation: [1])
It seems The Strid has a strong argument. Nohat, you should put more thought into your responses, especially since you are an administrator. 17:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Dgrilawidbanana (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strid - You said earlier that you have nothing better to do. Really? While you’re on here, writing such lengthy posts about a single letter, the world outside, isn’t on hold, waiting for you to figure out that, actually, you really do... Just beyond your screen, there’s a whole spectrum of life happening; it isn't paused, it isn't waiting for you, your time here is, in a frighteningly urgent sense, very limited. Is that single letter REALLY better than everything else in your world? The ocean, for example, is more than just a picture or a nice screen-saver; it’s a feeling, an experience... the brine in the air, the sound of waves meeting the shore... You don't just see it, you experience it. Likewise with forests, they aren’t just green backdrops; they’re alive with the whispers of ancient nature, of growth, of the passage of time, life itself. Real life! You could be part of this, experiencing the pulse of the planet, connecting with friends or lovers, old and new, people who bring laughter and depth to your days. Is arguing with strangers on here really better? Is there really nothing better? Nothing? I hope that's not true. M R G WIKI999 (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get that you are coming from a place of caring and concern. Unfortunately, I have a debilitating heart arrhythmia. I am on three different heart rate meds: digoxin, metoporol and diltiazem. Even still, just walking to the bathroom sends my heart rate into the 140s and on occasions my heart monitor will hit 180 bpm. we're talking 30 feet round trip being the equivalent of doing wind sprints for me.
So I really have nothing better to do then learn things by doing a deep dive on things that interest me. It's fun enough. The Strid (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]