Talk:Aluminium

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

Magnetic properties of aluminum[edit]

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

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

Aluminum is paramagnetic, but does writing so in the first sentence of the article help or confuse more poeple? Most readers do not know what paramagnetism is, so will instead be tricked into believing it is ferromagnetic since that is the only magnetic classification they know of. Those who know what paramagnetism is probably also know that the only useful meaning of non-magnetic is not ferromagnetic. From our magnetism article:
The force of a magnet on paramagnetic, diamagnetic, and antiferromagnetic materials is usually too weak to be felt, and can be detected only by laboratory instruments, so in everyday life these substances are often described as non-magnetic.
To avoid confusing anyone I think we should avoid the word paramagnetic in the first sentence even if it is linked. I would prefer to write nonmagnetic, but think that not mentioning magnetism in the lead is also an ok solution. Ulflund (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me that the not confusing, and true, thing to say is that it is not ferromagnetic. As well as I know, paramagnetism can be detected without fancy instruments, though not quite so easy as ferromagnetism. I do remember a physics demonstration of paramagnetic oxygen, pouring liquid oxygen between the poles of a strong electromagnet. Also, as well as I know, paramagnetic is less common than diamagnetic, so probably should be indicated somewhere in the article. Gah4 (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The infobox has an entry for magnetic ordering saying it is paramagnetic. I think that essentially everyone who knows what ferromagnetic means also know that aluminium isn't. Those who are interested specifically in the magnetic ordering or aluminium will probably go directly to the infobox. Ulflund (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes. So, should the text say not ferromagnetic, leaving paramagnetic in the infobox? Gah4 (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, thinking about it again, yes it is paramagnetic, but it is much less paramagnetic than neodymium and oxygen, so probably nonmagnetic is fine. (Those are the two I looked at.) For those, one should try harder to make the distinction, as it is likely noticeable without special instruments. (And I didn't check.)Gah4 (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
This seems to have come back again. Since diamagnetism is also a form of magnetism, then that doesn't leave anything else. Most importantly, though, the amount of paramagnetism is small. There are materials with large amounts, though. Gah4 (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that the infobox and the main part of the article say paramagnetic. Otherwise, the WP:COMMONNAME, that is, will my refrigerator magnet stick to my new aluminium refrigerator, the answer is no. Gah4 (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2019[edit]

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

 Done. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

"Alliminuim" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

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

"Alliminuim" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

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

It cannot be called aluminum or any other atrocity. Please change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwineveryargument (talk • contribs) 12:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
See WP:ALUM. Otherwise, not relevant in this section. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Spelling detail[edit]

Might look minor, but Ipreferto Talk this over;

Today, Aluminium#Spelling says :

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) adopted aluminium as the standard international name for the element in 1990.[1] In 1993, they recognized aluminum as an acceptable variant;[1] the most recent 2005 edition of the IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry acknowledges this spelling as well.[2] IUPAC official publications use the -ium spelling as primary but list both where appropriate.[a]

These improvements I sugggest:

1. Change "they" into "IUPAC"
2. Remove repetition "the most recent 2005 edition of the IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry acknowledges this spelling as well." Just keep that 2nd ref, all fine. (IMO, it reads like an argumentation not a fact, now).
3. Let's be more specific re this, especially wrt the status of aluminum spelling in IUPAC. I think IUPAC is more clear than our article is. For example, IUPAC writes the alt 'aluminum' in footnotes only.

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

Hi. Here's what I think:
1. Doesn't make a big difference to me; maybe indeed your suggestion is better.
2. I'd rather not. The reason why I introduced both was that the 1993 addition was added in an additional document (apparently; I have not been able to find it online. If you can find where this change was first published, that will be greatly appreciated), whereas the 2005 change was that this came from an additional document to the Red Book directly. That's the difference and I'd like to keep it, but I am open to changes of wordings.
3. I genuinely do think that both being added only in a footnote is not that big of a deal. It shows that this spelling is not the primary one or on the same foot as the primary one but I think I reflected that with my choice of words ("acceptable", "acknowledged"---nothing more than that). The word "acknowledged" also marks a contrast with the spelling "sulphur," which IUPAC does not acknowledge, and they have a specific reason for it: ph is only used in words of Greek origin, but "sulfur" is not of Greek origin, and that's why they protest "sulphur." I will eventually write a note about this.
Does this answer your concerns?--R8R (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Emsley, John (2011). Nature's Building Blocks: An A–Z Guide to the Elements. OUP Oxford. pp. 24–30. ISBN 978-0-19-960563-7.
  2. ^ Connelly, Neil G.; Damhus, Ture, eds. (2005). Nomenclature of inorganic chemistry. IUPAC Recommendations 2005 (PDF). RSC Publishing. p. 249. ISBN 978-0-85404-438-2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-12-22.
  3. ^ "Standard Atomic Weights Revised" (PDF). Chemistry International. 35 (6): 17–18. ISSN 0193-6484. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-02-11.

Toxicity of aluminium[edit]

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

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

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

Baking powder commonly contains sodium aluminum sulfate (spelling in the baking powder article), a soluble form of it. Metal aluminum is protected by a very stable oxide, so difficult to get out. If there really was a question about soluble aluminum, it would be out of baking powder. Gah4 (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Even more, the above article says that it is safe in the normal concentrations, and is normally excreted. Gah4 (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


Punctuation correction[edit]

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

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


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aluminium&oldid=934890146"