Talk:Aluminium/Spelling/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

It's Aluminium

I, on behalf of the billion-strong population of India, hereby vote Aluminium. Yay democracy wins! It annoys me no end to hear someone say "aluminum". It's like calluing a bacterium a "bactirum". 125.21.243.66 (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Aluminum was first. Klichka (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC).

Me too. It really annoys me when I hear someone say Aurum, Plumbum, Cuprum, Ferrum, Argentum, or for that matter Alum. I'm like, "don't you know it's bacterium, you colonial douche bag?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.127.17 (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

FAQ template

I remembered seeing the FAQ template on another page, as well as the "keep cool" one. I added both to this page. Polymonia (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

Why does the article use the British spelling throughout when the etymology section says the discoverer preferred aluminum, the North American spelling? Doesn't the person who discovered an element have a say in how an element is spelled?

It is spelled Aluminium because that is the IUPAC spelling. That has nothing to do with American vs. British. The Seeker 4 Talk 00:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
For a whole load of entertainment see the quite obvious note at the top of this page. Freestyle-69 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What's even more entertaining is that there was no such note (once it was moved to the spelling subpage anyway. I made one. Polymonia (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Needham deal

Looking at Jooler's current edit I'm okay with it. Now then did anyone ever read Needham to know what the alleged discovery that points to ancient Chinese Äŀ, three dots for the three electrons in the outer shell, was?--T. Anthony 09:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Chinese? Isn't that a Lewis dot diagram? I don't think the ancient Chinese knew about atoms, much less electrons. --116.14.27.127 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Page move

I have just moved the article back to the title of "aluminium" after it had been moved to "alumin(i)um" without any discussion here. Moves of high visibility pages need to be discussed. Nev1 (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the page from moves to stop the edit warring. This is the proper place for discussion to see if there is a consensus for any move. PerWP:ENGVAR, for articles not clearly associated with either the U.S. or Britain, the spelling should stay that in the first disambiguating edit, which in this case is "Aluminium" from the article creation in October 2001. A redirect will send here any reader who types "aluminum" in the search box, and the two spellings are explained in the lede. Edison (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As well as move protection, I have added semi-protection to the article after this edit where 204.184.214.2 (talk · contribs) claims that aluminum should be used throughout as "WP:ENGVAR says that articles may be edited to have internally consistent spelling; since both "aluminum" and "aluminium" were used in parts of the article, I'm changing them to all be the same". This is intentionally deceptive as an inspection of the article reveals that the spelling aluminum is only used when explaining the different spellings. Also, from the IPs recent contributions, they seem to be edit warring. The semi-protection expires after a month. Nev1 (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection should not be in place except when a page is under widespread vandal attack. When one editor is ignoring WP:ENGVAR and repeatedly reverting, WP:3RR based blocking can protect the article against repeated reversions, but still let other new editors make good-faith edits. Edison (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I consider editing against consensus when one has been made aware of what it is to be vandalism. That said, the semi-protection seems to have been pretty ineffective and although it will stop that one IP, the edit warring continued. One of the protagonists has been blocked and if you want the protection lifted, I'll happily remove it. Nev1 (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The page name follows the convention of IUPAC, the recognized world authority in developing standards for the naming of the chemical elements and their compounds. Some elements have British English spelling, some have US English spelling. There is a quite long standing consensus that this article is at Aluminium. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is (or at least used to be) primarily written in American English, with the exception of the name Aluminium due to the IUPAC standards. ENGVAR really doesn't apply to the name aluminium here, either to change aluminium to aluminum, or to change other words within the article to British spelling. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The IUPAC convention is a very good reason for using aluminium. There's a hidden note at the top of the article, perhaps that should be added to it (and maybe the note should be made to stand out more). Also, it might be worth having that, and a link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Element names, at the top of this page for anyone is who interested in the reasons rather than edit warring. Nev1 (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Theseeker4 says the article is primarily U.S. spelling. Let's look at the balance of U.S. versus British spelling. Besides the primary use of aluminium, I see Brit "grey" rather than "gray." I see Brit "tonnes" rather than "tons." Are there other divergent terms? Edison (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I went bold and changed the spelling into British all through. I do realize that was against WP rules, as the article was started in US spelling, and that some confusion remains, as sulfur, sulfide, etc. have to stay with "f" per IUPAC. But. I do believe having the article spelling "consistent" (in the eyes of people who never heard about IUPAC) with aluminium (and tonnes) is more important. Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I only noticed "vapor/vapour" as a distinctive change to Brit spelling. Note that the first version of record [1] used Brit spelling of oxidise/oxidiser rather than U.S. oxidize/oxidizer, besides "aluminium." I did not see "sulphur/sulfur" in the initial version. The edit by User:Materialscientist seems consistent with WP:ENGVAR. Edison (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see "gray" in the original version (first recorded version anyway) as well as oxidise, so I guess it is up in the air as far as what version the original author wrote in. I seem to remember in a previous discussion of the name that this article used aluminium but was otherwise in American English, but that may have been another article that discussed aluminium. I have no problem with the article remaining in British English, I only thought the previous stable version was in American English, which is what prompted my comment above. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The question would be over what time span was this article in a stable North American English version, including its title, out of the 8 or so years of its history. Edison (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The title is independent from american or britisch spelling! The rest of the article can be either this or that, but the aluminum/aluminium purely based on the IPAC decision to propose one correct spelling in the context of chemistry. A article on aluminium casting might go under a different perspective, but the Wikiproject chemistry decided to follow IUPAC and to use Caesium, Sulfur and Aluminium as the only correct spellings for the chemistry articles.--Stone (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The spelling Aluminium is NOT related to the US/UK ENGVAR issue; IUPAC has designated aluminium to be the official spelling of the element, so the use of aluminium is completely unrelated to the spelling of the rest of the article. You cannot look at the article title and say "well it's been in UK English so that is what the rest of the article should be" when the ONLY reason aluminium is overwhelmingly supported as the correct spelling is because it is the official IUPAC spelling. The remainder of the article should follow ENGVAR without looking at the title of the article. The Seeker 4 Talk 11:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I argue that the title of an article is strongly related to WP:ENGVAR. The endless lame discussion over the title related the title choice to national spelling preference. The first editor, User:Sodium was said in that discussion to be a British medical student, and he used Brit spellings: Aluminium, oxidise, and oxidiser. He apparently slipped and used "gray" rather than "grey." "ium" may indeed follow some international technical guide, but that does not remove the fact that it is almost never used in print in the U.S. or Canada. See Maize#Maize vs. Corn controversy, Talk:Rooster#Rooster vs cock, Talk:Color/Archive 2#Page move (not done). There is no policy or guideline which supersedes WP:ENGVAR to say that some international technical body determines article titles, but Wikipedia editors determine the national preference within the article independently of the title. WP:ENGVAR calls for consistent spelling. Edison (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Otheres tried it and IUPAC always won!--Stone (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in general the title is important, but would argue that this is clearly an exception. If it was simply ENGVAR determining the spelling, why do science articles use aluminium even when the rest of the article is in American English? (see Aluminium monostearate, Aluminium phosphide, Aluminium chloride for example)I am not arguing for changing the article, I am happy with it in UK English since most of the evidence available shows that to be the first version, but the premise that using aluminium means the rest of the article should be in UK English is flawed, as the main reason aluminium is used is the same as the reason sulfur is used; because that is what IUPAC does. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you decide, do not change the spelling in the references, please130.225.100.79 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Simplicity

What is the accepted spelling of words like colo(u)r, dis(c/k)s, or any of the s/z words in WP? Maintain consistency within the wiki on usage of American English or British English, no flip-flopping on individual words. I am an American, but if all other wods on the wiki are spelled using the British spellings, then I sadly say use Aluminium. If the majority of articles use American spellings, then AlumiNUM is just fine with me. All posters above me are fools, happy editing!. Lewis06593 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR, WP:SPELLING and (for chemistry) Wikipedia:CHEMMOS#Nomenclature and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Nomenclature#Element names for our rules on this. And no, the majority of articles is not written in American English. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Move to AL?

perhaps as a way to end all title wars we should consider moving it to its Atomic Symbol? then just have redirects from both Aluminum and Aluminium. Alkivar 02:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No. Chameleon 08:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Definitely not; that's an everyone-loses solution, n'est-ce pas? — OwenBlacker 18:21, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, try not to speak French if you can help it. Reelcheeper 19:59, Oct 7, 2010 (UTC-5)

Check out Al, and then think again. And then, what would be do about Hahnium? --Elektron 22:40, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

you could move the content at Al to Al (disambiguation) and since Hahnium is not an "official" element name and does not have an article except a redirect to Element naming controversy that subject is moot. Alkivar 00:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I still think it would be odd to have only this element at its symbol name (especially given there are so many transuranics with disputed names held under their IUPAC names!). And, as Alkivar pointed out, Hahnium isn't a name used very widely any more, as IUPAC finally got (near-)agreement to rename it Dubnium in 1997. — OwenBlacker 03:31, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

No way, the title is fine as it is. 202.32.53.44 16:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say the redirect for hahnium a good idea as hahnium could refer to either dubnium or hassium. But why not resolve this dispute by calling ~~aluminium~~ ~~aluminum~~ ~~aluminium~~ ~~aluminum~~ the thirteenth element on the periodic table "niluntrium" (derived from the IUPAC systematic element names. And it would have the symbol "Nut", which is pretty much how I'd sum up this dumb debate. --116.14.27.127 (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the funniest idea I've ever heard. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 12:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say this is really a good idea! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.177.222.124 (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a terrible idea, more people know the elements' names than their atomic symbols. --Reelcheeper 20:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC-5)

Misspelling

This article's title is misspelled. It should be aluminum. --70.245.189.11 (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, refer to Aluminium#Nomenclature_history. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You just kind of have to let the Brits have this one, they want it more, is what I got from the arguments I had over it. Although I do think there should maybe be an Aluminum (disambiguation) as the current Aluminium (disambiguation) is mostly not about that spelling.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS that "aluminum" is more commonly used than "aluminium"

By 1900, aluminum was twice as common as aluminium. In the following decade, the aluminium spelling crashed to a few hundred instances compared to nearly half a million examples of aluminum.

(from http://www.spectraaluminum.com/aluminum-vs-aluminium)

--J4\/4 <talk> 17:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source and the you've taken the excerpt out of context - it's referring specifically to usage in the USA. And this section belongs on the other talk page. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How isn't it a reliable source? --J4\/4 <talk> 12:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source might be something like IUPAC's red book [2], (webpage). See WP:RS for more info. User A1 (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If it refers solely to the use of the word "aluminum" in just the USA, then it's a void source. The origin of the word is "aluminium", and without the 'ium' on the end, it ceases to be a metal... which 'aluminium' is. The fact that the USA prefers to use 'aluminum' over 'aluminium' is a moot point, since the rest of the world knows it as the latter, (being 'aluminium'). 125.237.177.63 (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "aluminum" was used first. And if anything without -ium isn't a metal, what about lanthanum, tantalum, molybdenum, and platinum? Should they be renamed to lanthanium, tantalium, molybdenium, and platinium? --J4\/4 <talk> 12:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. Speak to IUPAC, maybe they can help you. --John (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

All I was doing was refuting the IP's arguments that "aluminium" was used first (it wasn't) and that all other metals end with -ium (they don't). --J4\/4 <talk> 17:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood. All I was doing was reminding you that we use IUPAC spellings on Wikipedia, so there isn't much point in this discussion, as far as I can see. --John (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Three-quarters of all native English speakers use aluminum, and most of these do not even know of the aluminium form. IUPAC accepts both spellings. While IUPAC prefers aluminium, they also use aluminum in their own publications...see, for example, this IUPAC document. —Stephen (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Seen it already. This has been thoroughly discussed already. On WP we use "aluminium" and "sulfur", IUPAC's preferred spellings. Unless there is a new argument or new data there is little point in discussing this at present. --John (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Manual of Style (specifically, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Nomenclature#Exceptions) states that if a name for a chemical is more common, it may be used regardless of what IUPAC or the other rules suggest. --J4\/4 <talk> 15:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Right below the bit where it says: Element names

"Traditionally, the names of three elements have been spelled differently in US and British English. For articles about chemistry-related topics, Wikipedia follows the recommendations of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) as follows:^[1]^[2]

Aluminium	not	Aluminum
Sulfur	not	Sulphur
Caesium	not	Cesium

"

What would be the benefit of changing it? Because I can think of many, many downsides and once again this has been debated to death already. --John (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The policy I linked to above says that an article can be at a more common name regardless of IUPAC or the other policies. --J4\/4 <talk> 18:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus (all except you) is that "aluminium" is the way it should be in this case. There is no compelling Wikipedia policy that says otherwise, so consensus rules. DMacks (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at Talk:Aluminium/Spelling, I'm not the only one supporting a rename. --J4\/4 <talk> 19:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And the consensus from all those discussions has been Aluminium. Why are we rehashing the same arguments all over again?—Tetracube (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't exactly a consensus. Many of us who disagreed just got tired of it and moved on. (Granted "consensus" can mean "consensus of the most stubborn people." I'm very stubborn, but was not sufficiently stubborn) The Q&A on this page is vaguely patronizing and IUPAC does deem "Aluminum" acceptable. For that matter IUPAC, as I recall, has preferred Aluminum in times past.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Reading back I suppose there was a consensus, but some of the insistence I don't know had consensus. Like when I capitalized "Aluminum" Jooler got all wiggy.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

True. There is 278 kilobytes and three years' worth of discussion there. Consensus does not have to be unanimous. --John (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

References

^ Cite error: The named reference bluebook was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (2005). Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 2005). Cambridge (UK): RSC–IUPAC. ISBN 0-85404-438-8. pp. 47, 248. Electronic version.

Very Well

"You're all doing very well", as Young Mr. Grace would say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.84.207 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Biblical solution

I propose that we split aluminum/ium in half, giving half of it to those who use "ium", and half to those who use "um". Since the element has an atomic number of 13, it would be split into 2 utterly impossible creatures with atomic numbers of 6.5 (it wouldnt be fair to create halves of carbon and nitrogen). Then, whichever group of people truly loves the element the most, will obviously give up their claim on the elements name before its sundered in two, and let their brothers in chemistry use the other name for it. We can then award naming rights back to the first group. hopefully, they will then choose the name used by their opponents, in the spirit of brotherly love, so that aluminum/ium can know it is equally loved by all.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I still think my original suggestion of spelling it Aluminiumnumnum was better - that should please everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.67.152 (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, thats even better, and comes close to Aluminomnomnom, which most kitty cats would prefer.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I Love This Talk Page

I nominate this for the most entertaining talk page --Dr DBW (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I come back to this talk page every few months just for a good laugh.

I must admit it's a bit strange to have people arguing over a variant of spelling that was introduced originally because so many of that country's inhabitants couldn't spell the proper words. I wouldn't mind, but some still can't even spell the simplified spellings. Still most countries after independence like to distance themselves from their originating country. They also like to re-write history too.

Other good talk pages are:

Luckily I'm a Briton myself so Jesus Christ couldn't make ME feel inferior - LOL!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.73 (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

5 points of 7, pretty good for being a "dispute", but some of the bickering is just quite repetitive. I love the google experiments though. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 19:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a blast. GeeZee (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Conundrum

So i'm flying my Aluminum/Aluminium alloy aeroplane/airplane/fixed wing aircraft in for a landing on (the) British Isles/Britain and Ireland/Atlantic Archipelago/Anglo-Celtic Isles/British-Irish Isles/these islands, I'm American, the manufacturer of the plane is British, the airline is Nigerian, and the plane had departed from Puerto Rico with the entire Puerto Rican Soccer/Football/Association football team. which spellings should i use?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Martian. At least everyone will agree on that. :-D Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts, make the pilot somehow lose consciousness, let the plane crash, and at least everyone will be using the same spelling of "AAAAAAAAA!" ;-D Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I hope you realise/realize that within this encyclopedia/encyclopaedia, it is difficult to summarise/summarize various linguistic ideas due to nationalistic sentiments; for some people it would be a sharp blow to their honor/honour, which is why this issue is at the centre/center of such controversy. Since the flavor/flavour of the month would be to argue over and over between people on the internet, sometimes showing their true colors/colours as trolls from their mum's/mom's basement, I'd like to theorise/theorize that it would unfortunately be difficult to come up with a logical solution to the problem. :( -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 07:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, is the livery of the plane Orange (color) or Orange (colour)? Manning (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

To continue with the airplane conundrum, there are actually many spellings of a scream. "AAAAAAH," and "AAAAAAGH," for instance. Anyway, as far as conversation relevant to this page is concerned - come on, it's an "i", the smallest letter typable. We Americans can ignore it, and the Brits can gaze in ecstasy over it all they want. I'm just grateful that we got our way with "sulfur". Simple_butpowerful 15:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you people SERIOUS?

I guess I'm just as bad for being bored enough to wander these articles but seriously, just give it up. WHO CARES how it's spelled, and WHO CARES for what reason. It's OBVIOUS what the word is, so just 'cause it's not "correct" in everyday speech over here, DEAL WITH IT. There's bound to be a whole lot of articles on Wikipedia with American instead of British spelling, and as far as science goes why is it such a big deal to use the spelling preferred by the island from which our language originated? Really, is it that hard? Just drop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.72.93 (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your on the internet. Someone, some where, will always want to fight someone over something. It never fails. Joesolo13 (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Dead?

There hasn't been any discussion here since August. Double sharp (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank god for that. Another PhD dissertation's worth of text arguing over the addition or omission of one letter "i" in an article's nationality of spelling would have made my faith in humanity dwindle even more. And given that I look at the YouTube comments so much...that's SAYING something. 67.43.243.129 (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving to "aluminum"

The "use common names" policy applies to all articles. The most common name for this element is "aluminum": [3]. Blindly obeying IUPAC conventions is a violation of NPOV. Nohat 23:59, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Leave it, less for the anti-Americans to compalin about. Rick K 00:16, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that appeasing anti-Americans is a good reason to something, either. Nohat 00:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Many other metals use -ium suffix titanium, rhodium, not ~~titanum~~ or ~~rhodum~~. -- IEEE 13:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Many metals use the -um- suffix too. e.g. lanthanum, platinum.--HawkFromHell (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the pronunciation different for the two words. (a-lum-in-ium vrs a-LOO-mi-NUM)--82.152.248.87 (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Those darned Yankies just stole the contraction, nothing more. --195.92.67.68 18:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with contractions. There's just a correct spelling and an American variant. Chameleon 20:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Both spellings are correct, just in different forms of English. Since we have the American spelling "sulfur", just let it be. This spelling debate about aluminium is just a waste of time. (And don't accuse me of being anti-American--I faithfully recite the Pledge of Allegiance every Monday morning). ChromaNebula (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Never said it was anything to do with 'official' contractions. I meant a sort of invisible contraction, only present in the pronounciation, which- ach, what's the use explaining, it's not going to gain me anything. --AdamM 21:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not present in the pronunciation. Americans generally pronounce it alumi-num, not "alumin-yum". There is no trace of an i/y sound in the pronunciation of the ending. For the record, I think the title should remain aluminIum. --SodiumBenzoate 21:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This proposal, I think, is without merit. The Google Test is simply not relevant in this case: all it establishes is that "aluminum" is more common on the Internet. It ignores the official usage endorsed by the IUPAC, as well as the International usage. Note that I do not have any objection to sulfur (though the International spelling is sulphur); to keep this at aluminium seems, at the very least, to be a reasonable compromise. -- Emsworth 13:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed; it would be somewhat odd to label the IUPAC's decision as NPOV, certainly (I think that "sulfur" is a terribly shoddy compromise), but "aluminium" or a similar inflexion is used on every country on Earth (if only rarely in the US and Canada); "aluminum" is, well, not.

James F. (talk) 14:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Currently the Wikipedia:Manual of Style says:

In articles about chemicals and chemistry, use IUPAC names for chemicals wherever possible, except in article titles, where the common name should be used if different, followed by mention of the IUPAC name.

Unfortunately, what is meant by 'the common name' is undefined. Clearly both 'aluminum' and 'aluminium' are common names for the metal. If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article who used a word with variant spellings in the article or the title. The Manual of Style does, however, offer the advice:

If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article who used a word with variant spellings in the article or the title.

This way forward has proved to be the best approach for all areas where there are differences in spelling between U.S. and non-U.S. forms. There is no reason not to apply it here. It also allows the article to be consistent, as under the terms of existing policy, the IUPAC term 'aluminium' should be used in the body of the article itself. Leave the article where it is.

Also I deeply resent the suggestion that preferring non-U.S. terms over U.S. terms is anti-American. It's as ridiculous as suggesting that those preferring U.S. terms are trying to impose some linguistic hegemony over the rest of the English world. We all prefer reading English in a style we are used to, Americans and non-Americans are no different in this respect. We reach a reasonable compromise between the competing styles and move on. jguk 15:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I present a (biased) google test to counteract the one above: Aluminium (>2 million) vs. Aluminum (<300 thousand). Not that that influences anything, especially as the above arguments for keeping it where it is works for me. violet/riga (t) 13:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I present ten, unbiased google tests to satisfy both parties:

Aluminum Search (google.com): 108,000,000

Aluminium Search (google.com): 74,000,000

Aluminum Search (google.co.uk): 98,400,000

Aluminium Search (google.co.uk): 72,900,000

Aluminum Search (google.fr): 99,000,000

Aluminium Search (google.fr): 74,400,000

Aluminum Search (google.de): 97,000,000

Aluminium Search (google.de): 72,900,000

Aluminum Search (google.com.au): 96,900,000

Aluminium Search (google.com.au): 72,900,000

I think my point has been illustrated, cacophony 16:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see how a British English/North American English difference is a POV issue! By my understanding, aluminium is used in North America as well as the (more-common-there) aluminum, where as aluminium is used almost without exception elsewhere, and used to be used in the US:

"You probably noted that the title uses "aluminium" instead of the American "aluminum," which I did purely in futile protest. Until 1925, the word was "aluminium" even in the U.S., but in that year the American Chemical Society decided to change it. We also got "sulfur" in that same year, which still looks silly, and was not universally adopted by the engineering world. It's the Latin spelling, as is "sulpur." [sic] Fortunately, the urge for simplified spelling did not result in Fosforus or Thorum, or even Jermanum, combining both types of change. The -ia ending of a refractory oxide, such as alumina or thoria, usually named the metal with an -ium ending. Why aluminum had to be different, I do not know. A divergence in pronunciation also results, "alyouminium" versus "aloominum." The latter may have been a vulgar pronunciation. It is usually the English who have trouble pronouncing more than three syllables in a word, not the colonials."'

(James B. Calvert, an American chemist, from Elementymology)

I'm with just about everything jguk wrote. — OwenBlacker 18:33, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

On American English vs. Common English I say that if the article is America related the spellings should be in the American style and if related to a country which uses common English in that style. With neutral articles such as this I too would say it should be in common English due to this being en.wikipedia.org and not us.wikipedia.org. --Josquius 18:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting, though, that the areas where the so-called "common" English usage "Aluminium" is preferred comprise less than 30% of native English speakers (less than 25% if you count Canada, which also has a preference for "Aluminum" [4]). Nohat 18:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That pie chart has missed out India where English is spoken by about 200,000 million people (very conservative guess) and then the countless others who speak English as a second language --Josquius 19:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Josquius, that it should be "aluminium". Not only is it the IUPAC endorsed convention, but also very common in other major languages like German, French and even in Japanese it's written "aluminium" in Katakana. --Iwaki 16:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Aluminium" in China and Australia. Also regarding the comment by Iwaki above, taking into account that Japanese katakana borrowed words tend to use American pronunciations (such as "privacy"), I think it is quite significant that even Japanese uses "aluminium" in its katakana. KittySaturn 09:25, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Yes, but the Japanese also drive on the left side of the road, the opposite of Americans.

Why not just change the title to Aluminium/Aluminum, with both Aluminium and Aluminum redirecting, to reflect both common names?

"US English is well known for spelling things how they are pronounced, because the stupid idiots can't understand anything el- I'm sorry. What I mean to say is, here in Britain I have said 'alumin-yum' many times, but that is merely a contraction. The proper way to pronounce it is 'alumin-ee-yum', and the spelling should reflect this.

Those darned Yankies just stole the contraction, nothing more. --195.92.67.68 18:48"

We don't pronounce it "alumin-yum", we pronounce it "a-lu-min-um". But anyway, we didn't steal a contraction, it was originally aluminum, as you would know if you read the article..

If you spell aluminum backwards, it's Munimula, the name of the planet in the bad science fiction movie, whose name I thankfully forgot. You can't do that with aluminium. Gzuckier 02:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever#Spelling.

Actually it was originally Alumium... Ask Sir Humphrey Davy (a Brit). If Wiki is primarily an American based site, then I say stick with the US spelling.

And lets now talk abotu Platinium and Molybdenium...

I second all that jguk wrote above (at 15:00 GMT on the 23th Oct 2004). Keep it here. Commonwealth spelling may be different to US spelling but it's certainly not anti-American spelling: what nonsense. I'm not about to go to Talk:Sulfur and complain that it's anti-Australian-New-Zealander-British-etc. Both names are common; just one is more common in the US and the other is more common outside. "Aluminium" is the original spelling, the IUPAC spelling & the first (nonstub) spelling used at Wikipedia. Jimp 21Nov05

Incorrect. The original spelling was "alumium", followed by "aluminum". The spelling "aluminium" was given later by an anonymous contributor to a British literary magazine, not by the discoverer. All of this is, of course, explained in the article. Nohat 05:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Canadians

At the bottom of the article it mentions that Canadians call it aluminum (as opposed to aluminium). While this may be practically true due to the influence of our southern neighbors, the official spelling in Canada IS aluminium. Should the article reflect this? lommer 19:32, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

An official spelling? Under which minister is this Dep't of How to Spell Things? =) (Dang, can't find my The Canadian Style right now...) 142.177.124.178 19:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the reasoning is probably quite simple - we use mainly US scientific texts at Canadian universities. In my 3 yrs of chemistry at the University of Victoria, it was only referred to as aluminum in spelling (although one British prof I had referred to it as aluminium in speech). None of the supplementary texts published by the university (lab texts, etc) used the spelling aluminum. So in my personal experience, I think it is safe to say Canadians spell it (and generally say it) as "aluminum."DonaNobisPacem 05:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, Canada has two official language, and in all french textbooks and class material, we use aluminium as well. So at best, Canada uses both spellings.

Also mentioned below (By me!), Canadians would find british spellings much more frequently on things influenced by the government (due to strong british ties). Education would be one good example. They would find american spellings on things more influenced by america. This is due to close proximity as well as much trade between the two countrys. Crayola colors are one example, because changing the spelling is expensive and unnessecary. Websters English Dictionary abridged edition (1999) lists both spellings (british first). Aluminum is more widespread, but defenders of Aluminium are much louder, so no one argues if they have something to lose.

From my Ontario experience (I live in rural Ontario mind you) we spell it with two 'i's as in the British but pronounce it with only one 'i' as the Americans do (the tourists notice we spell it this way and correct us constantly to 'proper' American English!). Never hurts to have another viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjdoyle (talk • contribs) 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

this is a load of bull it dont even tell u about Aluminium i need to know for homework !!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.238.46 (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I can get my receipts together from Canadian Tire, and verify it IS spelled "Aluminium" and not "Aluminum", But as mentioned earlier, it is usually pronouced the American way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.162.79 (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Aluminum vs. Aluminium

I know this issue has been talked about and decided on many times before; however, I believe I have a new perspective to bring up. First, there is an argument about whether to use Aluminium because it is British or Aluminum because it is American. According to the Wikimedia Traffic Analysis, more Americans view wikipedia than people from any other country. http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageViewsPerCountryOverview.htm I would also like to say that the first spelling is irrelevant because Wikipedia should use the most common current spelling. Should Wikipedia use the term "poetick?" This being said, I believe Aluminum should be the correct title of the page. I know everybody will not agree so I propose using the title "Alumin(i)um." Any thoughts? --Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think anybody wants to fight it out again. We presently go by the IUPAC standards. S B H arris 04:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Good enough for IUPAC, good enough for me. --John (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Traffic stats are not a reliable method for determining prevalence in this context. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Traffic stats are a reliable method for determining relevance though. I believe the title should be relevant to the greatest number of users. I was unaware of the IUPAC, so thank you for telling me that; however, when I checked the IUPAC website, I learned that "Aluminum" is as common in their articles as "Aluminium." This strengthens my view that the title should be "Alumin(i)um." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Vesey (talk • contribs) 12:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Using how common a term is in articles is a poor method of determining what should be used. More important is the agreed standard - and in this case it is "aluminium". As such, there are no grounds for a change. Cpl Syx ^[talk] 02:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see why people cannot compromise on "Alumin(i)um." Aluminium is the most recognized word due to the users of Wikipedia and Aluminum is used in about half of all IUPAC articles; however, Aluminium is specifically endorsed by the IUPAC. If compromises have been made in the scientific world I believe it should be made here. --Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I will give up the fight. You brits seem unable to even consider the idea of compromise. Thank you George Washington --Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ryan, what is your problem, man? The community has agreed upon a standard: IUPAC. Doesn't matter what country anyone lives in; IUPAC spells it "aluminium" (which looks silly to me, too, since I am American), and that's the standard. There's really no compromise to be made here; take it up with IUPAC if it's that important. GeeZee (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the article says its inventor called it alumium and then aluminum, that must trump the IUPAC. We're going to go with aluminium because of some pretentious clown reviewer? 174.91.3.139 (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The compromise is other elements, Ryan Vesey. See e.g. Sulfur (not Sulphur - will you support Sul(f/ph)ur?).

Regarding 'According to the Wikimedia Traffic Analysis, more Americans view wikipedia than people from any other country.' - Yes, but if you sum the readers from countries where UK English is common, vs. the sum of readers from countries where US English is common (and ignore for ease how many US English speakers use UK English for some words, and vice versa) then that sum does not go that far off anymore. That shows how easy it is to make wrong statistics on these things. And if your stats are right, you might want to bring this first at WP:ENGVAR, then the whole of Wikipedia should change to one variation of English. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change the article name to the American spelling. Changing it to 'Alumin(i)um' also doesn't make sense, because absolutely nobody calls it 'alumin(i)um'. The official IUPAC name of the element is 'aluminium', and as Wikipedia currently uses IUPAC standards to decide article names, 'aluminium' it should be. In the sulfer article, the American spelling is used instead of the British spelling because IUPAC adopted the American spelling.

Even looking past the IUPAC standards and the Wikipedia article naming conventions, this argument is moot in my opinion. 'Aluminum' redirects to 'Aluminium', so any user can enter the common spelling in their region and will be brought to the correct article. It's not like 'Aluminum' doesn't exist. And honestly, most people that use the American spelling won't even notice that extra 'i' in the article title. They entered in 'Aluminum', so that's what they expect to see. If they read the article and do notice the spelling, there is a section right in the article that adequately explains the situation.

In other words...don't fix what ain't broke. Jersey emt (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be more venom in the aluminium/aluminum caesium/cesium discussion pages than those of the the holocaust denial page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.85.248 (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Koala v Koala bear still generates a surprising amount of heat as well. Manning (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Parenthetical

Someone forgot to charge the (or aluminium) to (or aluminum). Some admin should probably fix that 128.138.169.233 (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Spelling conventions in different countries...

In Britain it's spelled -ium.

In America it's spelled -um. Epic Genius 14:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Just like lift and elevator? Why not just call it Alu?

Stop moving the article

For the love of Mike, please stop moving the page to a non-standard spelling. The word is "aluminium". Read the article for clear and explicit evidence of this. The variant usage "aluminum" should certainly be mentioned and a redirect from that page to the main page is appropriate. Constantly moving the page to the variant spelling is not appropriate. Tannin

Isis said: "we use the more common spelling, and on google that's aluminum, 2 to 1"

The official policy on British vs American spellings here in wikiland is to go with what the article was originally created at and mention and redirect the other spelling to it. The case for the British spelling here is even more concrete because IUPAC has standardized on the ium spelling. --mav

I notices that some of this article had the North American spelling, while the vast majority was had the International spelling. I have changed the 6 or so 'num's to 'nium's. I take it Wikipedia follows IUPAC conventions? - Mark Ryan 12:18, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I do at least. But I'm also an American so I might slip-up once in a while and write -num. --mav

Since there is a standard and even historical reason, there should be no question at all about the preferred spelling in international text. --blades 01:02, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

the "historical reason" favors -num. i say the idea of ending it in -ium was always, well, worth its weight in platinium (hint: ideas lack significant mass, and "platinium" is not the name of an element) - what name was the article originally created with anyway? --Random|832 10:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's worth more than its weight in platinium -- it's worth its weight in rhodum! --Anonymous Coward — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.94.68 (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither Borg-Word nor m-w.com recognize "chlorure". Searching the Web for it doesn't generally produce English-language sites. My Longman Advanced English dict. doesn't have it either. Maybe it should be "chloride"? Er, Niteowlneils 17:00, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've never understood why the "precedent set by potassium, sodium, magnesium, calcium, and strontium" is used as opposed to the standard set by platinum, molybdenum, lanthanum, and tantalum [not to mention the original latin aurum, argentum, cuprum, plumbum, etc, none of which end in "ium"] --Random|832 10:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is a correlation with German: Kalium, Natrium, Magnesium, Kalzium, Strontium and Platin, Molybdän, Lanthan,Tantal. BTW, it's Aluminium in German. I don't understand 'precedent'.

The first paragraph of the 'notable characteristics' section states that aluminium is both soft and strong. This seems unlikely to be the case. In the case of pure aluminium the yield strength is in the region of 10 MPa which certainly isn't strong as far as construction materials are concerned (Al alloys may have yield strengths in the region of 200-500 MPa). As a result I have removed the word strong (alloying is mentioned later anyway).

Surely aluminium is not resistent to magnetism but is simply non-magnetic? I have altered the 'applications' section to reflect this (and hopefully I'm right).

The term 'weak' is ambiguous (strength, stiffness, hardness, toughness, fatigue resistance?). I replaced it with a link to tensile strength as this is probably the most familar mechanical property.

The Engineering use section needs major revisions. I removed the second paragraph about fatigue failure, as this applies to any structural material, not just Al. The section should focus on the different aluminium alloys and their mechanical properties, manufacturing techniques and more examples of use.

Pronunciation

I dropped in here to the spelling argument to see if there was anything that said how "aluminium" is pronounced, since I can't remember ever (in 50 years) hearing anyone say it who spelled it that way. I don't want to start another argument, but is it pronounced the way it looks like it should be, Al-uh-MIN-ee-um, or are the 3rd and 4th syllables smeared together to make it sound more like the American pronunciation (uh-LOOM-uh-Num), resulting in a god-awful tongue-twister like uh-LOOM-nyee-um? Or it is pronounced some other way entirely in English English? Aumakua 20:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Al-uhm-in-yum. Because the last two are so short I think its four syllables not five. American English - to my ears - sounds like Ah-LOO-mi-num. Quite distinct. (Someone with better knowledge of linguistics might want to correct this - I've written it as I hear it.) Wiki-Ed 21:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd think I pronounce it as five syllables. I'm English. Something like Al-(y)uh-MIN-i-um. Not sure whether I'd pronounce the "y" or not - probably dependent on whether I was stressing the word. My desk dictionary (The Collins English Dictionary) has it as (IPA: [ˌæljʊˈmɪnɪəm]) versus the U.S. and Canadian [əˈluːmɪnəm]. --KJBracey 08:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is generally pronounced [ˌæləˈmɪniəm] these days, which is certainly the case in Australia, and possibly in the UK. Mark 04:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I always hear people pronounce it [ˌæljʊˈmɪnɪəm]) in NZ and in Malaysia. Nil Einne 15:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so certain as Mark seems to be. I'm an Aussie & I don't recall hearing it pronounced like that. I pronounce it as /ˌæljəˈmɪniəm/. Jimp 08:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's actually pronounced; al-you-mini-yum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.84.207 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The article should at least mention the very big pronunciation difference. The first time I heard Americans say the word (it's not exactly something that's commonly talked about in every day conversation of course) I had no idea what they were refering to. The loss of a syllable and the different word stress completely changes the pronunciation. My two euro-cents (8 years later).--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 00:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

The only problem I see is that searching for aluminum won't turn up results, so the English spellers are arguing with the American spellers over who gets the convenience of using the spelling they're familiar with when searching for the article. I'm sorry if this is already allowed but why not just add a redirect and a little message saying something to the effect of "This page redirects from aluminum, to see why the spelling is different see the talk page.". I can't believe I'm the first person to suggest this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.209.240 (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

New person here, a Brit. If the English population were to change their spelling of a word to one of a SECONDARY BRANCH OF THEIR OWN LANGUAGE, it would BARSTARDISE the RICH HERATIGE of the language in the way that the American population has purposefully done to spare the less intelligent among them. The way I see it, the AMERICAN DIALECT OF THE BRITISH BORN English language originating from the EUROPEAN German and Latin languages is in no way inferior to the pure version but is however a gift from GB that should be respected. Also to a person further down who mentions NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS IN AMERICA is contradicting himself on the fact that NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS ARE FROM ENGLAND HENCE THE NAME. If Americans wished to call it their native language they would need to ackknowledge their British roots and though they they have no need to change their DIALECT OF ENGLISH they should respect when the TRUE ENGLISH SPELLING is recognized as international standard just as I as a Brit except that SULFUR IS A WORTHY STANDARD OVER SULPHUR. The Americans need to accept that "AMERICAN" IS NOT A LANGUAGE in its own right but MEARLY A FOREIGNISED DIALECT, even if it is one RECOGNISED BY ITS ROOT COUNTRY FOR RELEVANCE. P.S. the phrases in caps are there soley to aid skim-readers in their quest to find the most important opinon and is not to express shoutiness. :P American response: first of you spelled bastardized wrong (particularly weird because you brits don't pronounce the R you write), then it's heritage not heratage, merely not mearly (learn to spell wikipedia prefers British spelling to American and you still screwed it up) then American English can be referred to as a foreign dialect not a "forgeignised dialect", furthermore in linguistic studies it has been shown that American English is closer to old English because we neither removed our R nor tried to change the language, moreover over two-thirds of native English speaking people are American, and I ask you now, who doesn't know their own language?

i say and spell the word "while" and never use the fey, effected sounding word "whilst". i think that is an improvement upon the english language because it just sounds better. that is why american english is a more efficient and just all around cooler sounding version of the language. do you say twerpy sounding things like "verrily thou hast" because you want to protect the rich heritage of the english language? fine, be a silly ass, but dont expect other people to to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6017:38:7899:2896:BACA:D16B (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

AlumiNUM is more popular

Why are pedants allowed to trump common usage here? The majority use "alumiNUM". No one cares about IUPAC.

See http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=aluminum,aluminium

The "aluminium" niumbskulls are outniumbered. Doubledork (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well that would be fine if the Wikipedia rules were "thou shalt use American English, as it is the most common form on the internet". Unfortunately for you, that is not the rule here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.254.132 (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as a first language, American English is the more common form of English period. There are roughly 375 million English speakers and 225 million of those are in the United States, see English_language#English-speaking_countries_in_order_of_total_speakers. The UK-born US population is too small to keep that from being over half. Now if you count secondary you get up to 750 million speakers. American/American-leaning English is mostly the US and the Philippines. Add those up, including second-language, and you only end up with 310 million which is about 41% of 750 million.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have an issue, please bring it up with the IUPAC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.83.34 (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

By that logic, we should change "nuclear" to "nukular" or "prioritize" to "priorize" since some people can't pronounce words correctly. Webster is an American English dictionary, put together to put more distance between Britain and the US I think. Aluminum is not used much in Canada, aluminium is correct usage here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.112.245 (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your original statement cannot be considered in anyway correct, the largest population (with majority access to Google) is America so searches are obviously lopsided. Plus, IUPAC is the international committee for what chemistry is, it's basically like arguing that hydrogen has 137 electrons. Just no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.68.191 (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Just so much guesswork here - what about India where the official language of law, the constitution and of science is English and where -ium is the norm: what about all the other languages - German, French etc - where the spelling is -ium - IUPAC is for them too. In fact no US dictionary used the -um variant until 1928 and all the unofficial evidence points to its initial usage being a spelling mistake anyway! Still it's a good fun argument. If majority usage was a basis for a rule for usage then Americans would follow the rest of the world and stop calling the ground floor the first floor, abandon the non-standard MDY date notation, call soccer football, and spell meter as metre! DickyP (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Spelling

Can anyone confirm the edits by User:The Noodle Incident (12:07, 2004 Oct 29 and 12:08, 2004 Oct 29) ([5])? Surprisingly, all these were marked as minor. I'm adding the missing bit about "alumium", anyway. --Elektron 22:35, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Perhaps I should preview; diff --Elektron 22:42, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Those edits look quite similar to the content at the Elementymology link I posted earlier today. I haven't scrutinised them in depth, but they look ok to me. — OwenBlacker 23:45, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I've just cleaned up the spelling history, but removed the alternative theory

Another theory on the difference in the spelling of the word is that the first shipment of aluminium to go to the US came from the UK, but the clerk spelled it 'aluminum' on the manifest, and that spelling has stuck ever since.

until we can find a reference for it. -- Solipsist 14:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, whilst checking references, I came across a prediction on a discussion forum that America will finally conform to the IUPAC spelling sometime around 2050, at which point the argument will move on to sorting out Platinum :-) -- Solipsist 14:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can we just have a final consensus here?

In order to return everyone (including myself) to the land of sanity, I decree that this element should be called. alumin(i)um. --116.14.27.127 (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree.

BTW, there's also these ones to do:

Americium - LOL - a few for our trans-atlantic cousins

Oh, and also

.... sorry about the last one - I couldn't resist - LOL!

... Nurse!, nurse!, the screens!, THE SCREENS! ...

... oh I forgot these:

... wait a minute - Actium's a place - forget Actium then, I must have been thinking of:

Actinium

... I think Byzantium's a place too so I won't add that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.168 (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't make the argument for platinum and molybdenum can you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE21:4230:5429:AE62:47AF:4BCB (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, "Americium" from America makes the same mistake as "aluminium" from alumina... 108.48.94.155 (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

the guy who isolated it settled on ALUMINUM, therefore it is ALUMINUM, and prissy-pants editors who think they know better should keep their extra i to themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.250.112 (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is mostly chemistry-related, so we follow the recommendations of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), as detailed in Wikipedia:ALUM (part of our Manual of Style for chemistry articles). IUPAC recommends the British spelling (although recognising the American spelling as a variant that is in use), so we use the British spelling. Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record the spelling ending -ium is not "British"' it is international. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.126.64 (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The "num" spelling was more common in Korean and Tagalog looking through that one deal. I found other places in Asia that used the "num" spelling. IUPAC even used the "num" spelling at different points in history. So both have an international usage. The "ium" spelling is maybe Western European, and its colonies, more than British though. And it was decided to go with what IUPAC currently prefers and also that British or Irish, as this is English-language Wikipedia, care more about this than Americans or Filipinos. (For example I tried to capitalize doing "or Aluminum" and this British guy was irritated with me. I imagine if anyone again dared to write "Aluminium (or Aluminum)" there could be an argument even though IUPAC, I don't think, requires alternate names not be capitalized)--T. Anthony (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Until comparatively recently Windows only had 'US English' as an English language selection, in addition, this was often the default language for Word spell checkers, etc., so unless the user was computer-savvy enough to change the language region used, they were stuck with US English spellings if they wanted to use English. Later the other varieties such as 'British English' etc., were added to Windows, but IIRC, that has only been since Windows XP.

FWIW, NATO uses British English for all its international dealings in English: [6] its reference being the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. This same reference dictionary is also used by the UN.

In other words, British English usage is rather more widespread than some contributors might like to believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.129 (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Not voicing any kind of opinion here, only to say, "I never knew that" about the UN. Posting with a link for the UN use of British English for anyone who needs it - says also, their spell checker on the website only supports US english: [7] Robert Walker (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

still wrong

cripes almighty, aluminum STILL redirects to aluminium? ... SMH

Well of course, since the whole world except US says "aluminium", naming the article "aluminum" would be awkward. [ Derek Leung | LM ] 15:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Etymology Section

Do you even read what you write? According to the article: "[The discoverer of the element] settled on aluminum..." Case closed. If you want to argue for the one with the extra "i" claiming IUPAC's decision, that is also addressed: "IUPAC internal publications use either spelling." So, there you have it: it was NAMED ALUMINUM, and it is CALLED ALUMINUM. Please make the necessary changes. 134.240.241.240 (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

And he named it after alumina not "aluminia." The extra i is an incorrect hypercorrection, like an before hard h, or b in de(b)t, or s in i(s)land. 108.48.94.155 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

In Canada the usual spelling is Aluminium although both are used. See, for example, [8] and [9]. The two small references to spelling in Canada need correcting accordingly.

As a Canadian (Albeit a Torontonian), it's almost always spelled aluminum here. Redflorist (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The formal spelling by IUPAC is 'aluminium'. You ar free to use your dialect locally. -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think given that most users of this Wikipedia page will be from the United States, Aluminum should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.68.204 (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

A war between brothers

We don't argue with the French or the Germans on word spelling -- yet we argue with the English and Canadians until we are red white and blue in the face. We can have two words for the same thing, and even two spellings for the many words, even in America. Since we can't agree with ourselves, we have no justification for quarreling with the British. Use either of the spellings any time -- who cares? We could argue with the baboons about whether people should have body hair -- that would at least be interesting. (Apologies to anyone who does not appreciate a little light humor.) Grammar's Li'l Helper 05:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to respond as I guess you're trying to be funny. But pretty much all this is irrelevant if there's any non-joke to it. For one we don't have more German or French speakers than Germany or France have so of course we don't argue on how they spell. This is English-language Wikipedia, but it's not England's Wikipedia. I would not be surprised if Portuguese Wikipedia has more in Brazilian form than European as it's "Portuguese language" not "Portugal's". Further this debate, on aluminum, was also not about every word in the US form of English so that we allow two spellings for some word doesn't mean we do it for every word or even can. It is also a fact that the US and the Philippines represent the majority of the world's English speakers and they/we, almost universally, spell this word "Aluminum." From what I recall British posters disliked that fact immensely, but it didn't make it false. It is also a fact Wikipedia has ruled against "official spellings" in the case of countries, see Ivory Coast or now Czech Republic, if they are not the most common English usage.

However second-language speakers might be majority British due to India among others. Further going by Portuguese Wikipedia you tend to keep the variant "as is." As "Aluminium" looks to be first that's probably enough reason I should have gave up earlier than I did. But Americans arguing on this isn't because we're some ugly Americans. Traditionally I'm not especially patriotic. We argued because "Aluminum" has at times or places been official and is almost certainly the most common spelling for first-language speakers of English.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. If it did then Wikipedia would be written entirely in American English, at least for topics that are not specific to another English-speaking country. It isn't and it's been agreed that it shouldn't be. Given this fact, arguing against one particular spelling is pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

vote with your wallet

I won't restate any of the arguments listed above, as they clearly fall on deaf ears. Instead, I will vote in the only meaningful way I can. I refuse to donate to Wikipedia until ALUMINUM is recognized as the proper spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.178.73 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how much difference it made? Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

How can 'aluminum' be the 'proper' spelling. The language is called 'English' and the English spell it aluminium.

Because alumina is NOT an english word. It is Latin. In Latin the proper conversion of aluminA is to aluminUM. The original British inventor got it correct, but his descendants did not. - Theaveng (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

... next time foreigners decide to create their own localised English dictionary I suggest they enlist the services of a compiler who can actually spell English properly, rather than one who randomly distributes what appear to be typos everywhere. Or one who at least understands the reason for the proper spellings of things such as haemoglobin, haemophilia and haematite, rather than one who is insufficiently well-red(!) to know nor care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.26 (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This sounds logical, but languages don't really work that way. It's fairly accepted now that Brazilian Portuguese is the main form of Portuguese. Both British English and American English descend from 17th and 18th century forms with neither one being exactly like those. And even if "England" did somehow own English the Kingdom of England ceased to be in 1707, well before aluminum's discovery.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"the language is called English": Irrelevant. That's an archaic tradition that is no purely from inertia. There are more native speakers of "English" in the United States than ALL OTHER COUNTRIES COMBINED. More than England, Canada, Australia, and anywhere else, all added up at once. The US has the majority of all first language English speakers on the entire planet. — Kaz (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

" ... There are more native speakers of "English" in the United States ..." - the only native speakers of English are the English. That's why the language is called 'English', see. Just like the only 'native' Americans are the original inhabitants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not what "native speaker" means. It's a specific term of art in linguistics that refers to the first language a person learns. Nohat (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Monument used "aluminium"

I'm sorry but this is flat wrong. No such element is laying on top of our national capital's tallest building. The Americans topped the monument with aluminum (as documented in the citations linked to wikipedia) (and the writings of the engineers who built the thing). - Theaveng (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me that with a direct quote, you should spell it the way it is in the original, with a (sic) if you want. Otherwise, there is no need to match the spelling of the original source, if the meaning is the same. Though once I corrected spelling where the primary source is an audio recording, with spelling in transcription. Someone can reference the WP:MOS on spelling and quotes. Gah4 (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

AluminUm is local only - so say so

re reversals [10] and [11] 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)

Spelling...

From the article: “In 1812, Davy chose aluminum, thus producing the modern name.”

Yet the word is spelled “aluminium” throughout? Can someone explain this to me in a way that doesn’t basically suggest that the British spelling is “correct“? It seems to me that the man who discovered and named it should get to decide how to spell it and pronounce it by default, regardless of whether British people refuse to do so. SheldonHelms (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Languages evolve over time. WP:ALUM documents the consensus for what Wikipedia uses, and the reliable source basis for it as a reasonable current preference. DMacks (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

[bluebook-1] Cite error: The named reference bluebook was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[redbook-2] International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (2005). Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 2005). Cambridge (UK): RSC–IUPAC. ISBN 0-85404-438-8. pp. 47, 248. Electronic version.

[1]

[2]