Talk:Aluminium/Archive 2

False!: Aluminum can be toxic
In the introduction, article states that plants and animals are generally tolerant of aluminum, reference 5. This is not generally true and there should be reference made to later sections of the article on affects in plants and animals here. In soils and water, aluminum takes on different complex ionic forms depending on pH and other elements present. Al3+ and several other forms are toxic to plants and animals including humans. Al toxicity is a common problem in soil and waters that have been acidified due to pollution. See: Molecular aspects of aluminum toxicity, Alfred Haug, Charles E. Foy, Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, Vol. 1, Iss. 4, 1984
 * The introduction to the article covers the general case. I am sure that all sorts of things can go wrong with a variety of elements at very high and at very low pH's  This misunderstanding is the reason that we are trying to educate people on basic chemistry.. In any case, please provide a Digital object identifier for your citation, or a more recent citation (that one is pretty dated).  Thanks for the suggestion. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So you dont think that the role of aluminum in acid lakes is worth recognizing? Thousands of lakes in large geographic regions are affected by aluminum toxicity. Many of these have no or very reduced biota living in them. I would think that this would be worth of mention somewhere in the article. Avram Primack (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2011
First problem.... the article reads like a bad freshman college or high school level composition. There are many hanging and unnecessary clauses that detract from its readability. Someone should turn it into the queens english.

Second problem.... the description of how aluminum is extracted from ore and reduced to pure metal is convoluted, confusing, and not comprehensible. I dont think it even includes the major processes, or at least not so that I can understand what they are.

Third problem.... the health section ignores the role of aluminum in killing fish and invertebrates in lakes affected by acid precipitation. Acid precipitation mobilizes aluminium from the soils and brings it to ponds where it plates out on exposed mucus membranes, suffocating any animal unfortunate enough to be in the pond at the time.

I would suggest the edits myself, but I dont have the time right now to do the research necessary to construct the material. I am a bit perplexed by the new system too...

Dr. Avram Primack

Avram Primack (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This template is actually for requesting specific changes to the article. However you have the ability to edit it yourself, and its not going anywhere, so perhaps when you have some spare time you can be bold and have a crack at it-- Jac 16888 Talk 14:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies... my system sent me through the approval process because I was not logged in... here is an annotated and detailed example of what I am talking about...

This statement is repeated several times in the article...since it is not about production or aluminum, and it is the first sentence in the section which should refer to what the section is about, not some other topic, it should be deleted.... "Although aluminium is the most abundant metallic element in the Earth's crust, it is never found in free, metallic form (with above mentioned exceptions)."

The only ore mentioned in the article is bauxite. What are the other ones? It is not necessary to repeat this statement at every possible opportunity. Better title for the image might be :

The red=brown colour in this example of bauxite is due to iron minerals. "Bauxite, a major aluminium ore. The red-brown colour is due to the presence of iron minerals."

Paragraph should start with a topic sentence. If this is the topic then the paragraph should be about it. This one is not what the paragraph is about. Second sentence is long, convoluted, and announces information not yet introduced.... "Aluminium forms strong chemical bonds with oxygen. Compared to most other metals, it is difficult to extract from ore, such as bauxite, due to the energy required to reduce aluminium oxide (Al2O3). "

Better would be .... Compared to other metals, aluminium is difficult to extract because it forms strong bonds with oxygen.

The order of clauses in the next sentence makes it difficult to understand... "For example, direct reduction with carbon, as is used to produce iron, is not chemically possible, since aluminium is a stronger reducing agent than carbon. "

Better would be.... Aluminium is a stronger reducing agent than carbon, so direct reduction with carbon, which is used in iron production, is not possible.

The next three sentences appear to be an aside, and should be moved to a new paragraph. They interrupt the flow of the paragraph and confuse the reader....

"There is an indirect carbothermic reduction possible by using carbon and Al2O3, which forms an intermediate Al4C3 and this can further yield aluminium metal at a temperature of 1900–2000°C. This process is still under development. This process costs less energy and yields less CO2 than the Hall-Héroult process, the major industrial process for aluminium extraction.[17] "

Better as.... Indirect carbothermic reduction is possible using carbon and Al2O3 which forms an intermediate Al4C3 and aluminium metal by reduction at 1900–2000°C. This process costs less energy and yields less CO2 than the Hall-Héroult process, the major industrial process for aluminium extraction.[17] This process is still under development.

The next two sentences are really one sentence. Therefore at the start of a sentence often indicates that the previous sentence is badly formed. Also, must implies there are no other options when it really intends to suggest that it is not economically efficient for commercial extraction....

"Aluminium oxide has a melting point of about 2,000 °C (3,600 °F). Therefore, it must be extracted by electrolysis. "

Better as.... Because aluminium has a melting point of about 2,000 °C (3,600 °F)it is commercially extracted by electrolysis.

The next sentence begins with an unnecessary hanging clause. Just mention the process rather than obfuscate. The second sentence is really part of the first. Its only function is to make the paragraph longer. The word around is not specific in the way intended. Around means near. The real intention is between. 920 is around 950, not between 950 and 980. "In this process, the aluminium oxide is dissolved in molten cryolite with calcium fluoride and then reduced to the pure metal. The operational temperature of the reduction cells is around 950 to 980 °C (1,740 to 1,800 °F)."

Better as ... In electrolysis, aluminium oxide is dissolved in molten cryolite with calcium fluoride and then reduced to the pure metal at a temperature between 950 to 980 °C (1,740 to 1,800 °F).

The next two sentences are are cross constructed. "Cryolite is found as a mineral in Greenland, but in industrial use it has been replaced by a synthetic substance. Cryolite is a chemical compound of aluminium and sodium fluorides: (Na3AlF6)."

Better as... Cryolite is a chemical compound of aluminium and sodium fluorides: (Na3AlF6) found naturally in Greenland. Synthetic cryolite is used in industry.

The last sentence appears irrelevant to production of aluminum, or at least incomplete descriptions of some poorly identified need of the section. Looks like something a previous editor did not have the gumption to delete.

" The aluminium oxide (a white powder) is obtained by refining bauxite in the Bayer process of Karl Bayer. (Previously, the Deville process was the predominant refining technology.)"

The start of the next paragraph is completely confusing. The first sentence appears to be an attempt at reporting the history of aluminum extraction. If it is, then it is in the wrong place and should appear at the top of the section with a full paragraph. The second sentence transfers into non sequitors and trivialities. I cant make any suggestions for this because I don't know what it is trying to be about.....

"The electrolytic process replaced the Wöhler process, which involved the reduction of anhydrous aluminium chloride with potassium. Both of the electrodes used in the electrolysis of aluminium oxide are carbon. Once the refined alumina is dissolved in the electrolyte, its ions are free to move around. "

So, final form of the paragraph as it was written might be....

Compared to other metals, aluminium is difficult to extract because it forms strong bonds with oxygen. Because aluminium has a melting point of about 2,000 °C (3,600 °F)it is commercially extracted by electrolysis. In electrolysis, aluminium oxide is dissolved in molten cryolite with calcium fluoride and then reduced to the pure metal at a temperature between 950 to 980 °C (1,740 to 1,800 °F). Cryolite is a chemical compound of aluminium and sodium fluorides: (Na3AlF6) found naturally in Greenland. Synthetic cryolite is used in industry. Indirect carbothermic reduction is possible using carbon and Al2O3 which forms an intermediate Al4C3 and aluminium metal by reduction at 1900–2000°C. This process costs less energy and yields less CO2 than the Hall-Héroult process, the major industrial process for aluminium extraction.[17] This process is still under development.

Still not clear what the Halle Heroult process is because the section only mentions it as an aside, rather than identifying what it is. I am substituting my paragraph for the previous paragraph. I don't think the description of production is complete yet. It still needs a historical evolution of the processes used, and a better edit of what comes after this paragraph. Avram Primack (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible New Template
Hello, would the following proposed template be helpful if it were added to Chemistry-related article talk pages? —C. Raleigh (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * looks great to me. Probably only really necessary for aluminium, caesium, and sulfur, but it doesn't hurt to put it on all element and related (groups, periods, etc.) talk pages. StringTheory11 03:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)Most people don't look at the talk page before editing (including myself :-D), thus such notice should appear when clicking the edit button, with some adjustments in the text (e.g., this article is written in US spelling :). Materialscientist (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Example . Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. I will add a parameter for American English later if necessary. Don’t international organizations like the IUPAC usually prefer Oxford spelling though?  The International Labour Organization comes to mind. —C. Raleigh (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And done. Template:IUPAC spelling is ready for transclusion and has support for American English via setting the appropriate parameter. —C. Raleigh (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of British spelling
The "respell" pronunciation of Aluminium is currently shown as "". The problem with this spelling is that in many US dialects "lew" is pronounced exactly the same as "loo", just as the names "Lewis" and "Louis" are usually pronounced identically.

For this reason I would suggest showing it as "" instead, to show the "y" sound indicated by the IPA "j". Otherwise it tends to come out as Comments? Milkunderwood (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to bring it up on Wikipedia talk:RESPELL. The whole respelling key got an overhaul a while ago; I believe one of the simplifications was to drop the "y" for IPA "ju:". Your suggestion means that particular change should be reconsidered; we don't want such ambiguity to propagate to other articles. --Cyber cobra (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

✅ Changed to preferable following discussion there. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The IAI is punking us
I see that this has come up before, but I want to break it down. The quote from Pliny is referenced to the IAI website, but the original "reference" is clearly to NH 36.66, which is about making glass, not metal. The crucial passage reads:


 * In the reign of Tiberius, it is said, a combination was devised which produced a flexible glass; but the manufactory of the artist was totally destroyed, we are told, in order to prevent the value of copper, silver, and gold, from becoming depreciated. This story, however, was, for a long time, more widely spread than well authenticated.

Apparently Dion Cassius and Suetonius echo this story elsewhere, but I can't find those passages. Maybe the IAI marketing people mistook one passage for another, but I doubt it.

Point is, while the idea of "flexible glass" is intriguing, it doesn't really sound much like aluminum, and Pliny doesn't even believe the story. The quote on the IAI website is obviously a hoaxed-up version of this quote, written to wink and nudge at modern folks who are familiar with aluminum. All fun and games, I guess, but it's causing us to suggest an origin date for aluminum smelting that is off by over 1000 years.Ethan Mitchell (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The translation is 100% right and I will put the text in hiding.

Pliny the Elder, The Natural History John Bostock --Stone (talk)

unfortunate confusion in WP standard Arial font
I have long been somewhat concerned about the identical appearance in Wikipedia's standard Arial font of lower-case "L" as "l" and uppercase "i" as "I", as in the word "Ill" meaning sick or bad. And now seeing I have to wonder how many young students may misinterpret the symbol as "Ai" rather than "AL" (here using the wrong cases). Use of a different font, such as the Courier New used here for editing, for the Al symbol would clarify the distinction, but is probably disallowed by policy. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "It has the symbol Al, and its atomic number is 13",
 * This sounds like a rare good case for applying WP:IAR. --Cyber cobra (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have opened this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements. Double sharp (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment
Since I do not have the right to edit, please update the link of [59] to the correct one: http://www.iupac.org/highlights/periodic-table-of-the-elements.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adah (talk • contribs) 03:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed, because it doesn't show 404 error as the old link. However, the new link doesn't display in my versions of Firefox and Internet Explorer. Materialscientist (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Article changed over to new WikiProject Elements format by maveric149

Accidentally a word
Under the chemical section, the last line says "This conversion is of interest for the production. Challenges include circumventing the formed oxide layer which inhibits the reaction and the expenses associated with the storage of energy by regeneration of the Al metal.[10]". Based on context and the source, I assume the first sentence should end with 'of hydrogen'.Darryl from Mars (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

New paper for 'health concerns'
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22118300

I don't have editing rights. Can someone include this more recent paper in the 'Health concerns' section, stating that "increased aluminium consumption does not lead to accelerated Alzheimer pathology in mouse models of Alzheimers" or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.64.14 (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Medical studies at the level of mice don't rate mention in a general article like this one. They wouldn't even merit mention in the article on Alzheimer's disease. See WP:MEDMOS. We do mouse studies in general to plan human trials, not because (in general) they tell us anything worth knowing about how to live. Look, they're frigging MICE. We don't even know if the artificial mouse model of AD is a good one, until the day it tells us something about the disease in people we didn't already know. Which it has yet to do. S  B Harris 03:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

History
Not to diminish the 1975 tragedy of the Belknap, but the significant impetus for the discontinuation of Aluminum superstructures, onboard U.S. and Royal Navy warships was the near sinking of the USS Stark in 1987, as well as the Falklands War. The Belknap occurred more than a decade before the construction of the Arleigh Burke Class. Between 1975 and 1987, both the Oliver H. Perry class and the Ticonderoga class were introduced, both with Aluminum superstructures. User:retrograde62 21:00, 4 November 2012 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.161.147 (talk)

Element Category
Should aluminium be classified as a 'post-transition metal' rather than 'other metal'? Although the classification is still disputed, Al is indeed listed as a post-transition metal according to the color index and elsewhere on Wikipedia: Collective Names of Groups of Like Elements. Also, the 'other metal' simply links to the general page of 'metal' on the site. To avoid confusions, I suggest changing the element category. jchl97 (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It should really be "poor metal", as how can Al be a post-transition metal when there are no transition metals before it? When the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements about the new categorization we're going to use on Wikipedia for the periodic table finishes one of the changes will be the changing of "post-transition metal" to "poor metal" throughout Wikipedia. Double sharp (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No diamagnetic number is listed. Been looking all over the net for one.
That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.168.85.59 (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 April 2013
I would like to request the removal of aluminum in favor of aluminium as is standardized by iupac.

Iammikeyjay (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you explain? When I search the word 'aluminum' in the article text, all hits are related to the alternate spelling issue (so it is to the point). -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of Aluminum on Warships
I placed in a comment concerning factious information in this article, concerning the discontinued use of aluminum on US and British warships, but they were deleted, probably by someone who has never seen a naval warship, let alone ride one. Here is a timeline. •	1975 Following an underway replenishment “accident”, a fire gutted the aluminum superstructure of the USS Belknap. •	1975 to 2004 Including units intended for foreign sale, 71 Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigates were built, with aluminum superstructures. •	1982 In the Falklands War, the British lost HMS Sheffield, when she was hit by Exocet missiles, causing collateral damage to her aluminum superstructure. •	1987 The USS Stark was hit by two Exocet missiles, fired from an Iraqi Mirage fighter-bomber, causing collateral damage to her aluminum superstructure. •	1991 The USS Arleigh Burke was commissioned with a steel superstructure. •	Question: If the 1975 Belknap fire was instrumental in the decision to discontinue the use of aluminum superstructures, then why were Oliver H. Perry class Frigates (with aluminum superstructures) still produced up to 30 years subsequent to the Belknap fire? •	Answer: the Belknap fire provided proof of problems inherent in using an aluminum superstructure, but did not cause a paradigm shift towards the disuse of aluminum superstructures. That occurred with HMS Sheffield (1982) for the Royal Navy and USS Stark (1987) for the USN. Following the Stark incident, the last warship with an aluminum superstructure was USS Ingraham. Two years later, the USS Arleigh Burke was commissioned, with a steel superstructure. I looked up several articles, and not a single one connects the Stark incident with the disuse of aluminum superstructures. •	Signed Petty Officer First Class (ret) formerly of USS Carr (1970-1974), USS John S. McCain (1975-1977), and USS Shoup (2001-2005) (User:retrograde62) 17:11 PST, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove your stuff but I do think that in an article of this size the information you inserted places undue importance on the use of aluminium in naval warfare. Aluminium is used in an enormous range of products, and navy ships are just one of those. I doubt it even warrants a mention, let alone a bullet-pointed timeline stretching over several paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 05:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My purpose was to point out the chronological sequence of events error, by pointing out that the Belknap incident preceded the Stark incident, with the latter being just as or more important in the decision concerning the use of aluminum on warships. I agree that my response could have been laconic, but needed to be precise to discourage deletion, as my first posting was deleted unceremoniously and without comment. (User:retrograde62) 15:11 PST, 30 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.163.17 (talk)

IPA error
I think there's a small error in the IPA representation of the US-English pronunciation, is says: /əˈljuːmɨnəm/

with the (correct) pronunciation respelling below it: ə-lew-mi-nəm

There's a /j/ that shouldn't be there. It should be: /əˈluːmɨnəm/

Benimation (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The atomic radius data is incorrect
Kiddyse (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)I would like to suggest the atomic radius of Aluminium is not accurate. The atomic radius of Aluminium is approximately 118 pm according to. The currently used data in the Aluminium article is 143 pm, which in fact is the metallic radius of Aluminium as listed in the

Ref.1 http://periodictable.com/Elements/013/data.html Ref.2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radii_of_the_elements_(data_page)
 * We set "atomic radii" as metallic radii for most elements - metallic radii are accurate and consistent. Materialscientist (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 November 2013
Please add pronounciation for both forms of spelling. Thank you. --67.54.187.155 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the infobox? The IPA and phonetic respelling are there for both pronunciations. Double sharp (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I didn't realize that was there.--67.54.190.94 (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 December 2013
Please link properly Hoope process in the article to the Hoope Process existing wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.39.230.100 (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2013‎ (UTC)


 * ✅. Favonian (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Bad external link -
The link "Electrolytic production" does not work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.221.32.10 (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Aluminum MSDS
Special Remarks on other Toxic Effects on Humans: Acute Potential Health Effects: Skin: Exposure to aluminum may cause skin irritation. Eyes: Not expected to be a hazard unless aluminum dust particles are present. Exposure to aluminum dust may cause eye irritation by mechanical action. Aluminum particles deposited in the eye are generally innocous. Inhalation: Not expected to be an inhalation hazard unless it is heatedor if aluminum dust is present It heated or in dust form, it may cause respiratory tract irritation. Heating Aluminum can release Aluminum Oxide fumes and cause fume metal fever when inhaled. This is a flu-like illness with symptoms of metallic taste, fever, chills, aches, chest tightness, and cough. Ingestion: Acute aluminum toxicity is unlikely. Chronic Potential Health Effects: Skin: Contact dermatitis occurs rarely after aluminum exposure. Most cases of aluminum toxicity in humans are in one of two categories: patients with chronic renal failure, or people exposed to aluminum fumes or dust in the workplace. The main source of aluminum in people with chronic renal failure was in the high aluminum content of the water for the dialysate used for dialysis in the 1970's. Even though this problem was recognized and corrected, aluminum toxicity continues to occur in some individuals with renal who chronically ingest aluminum-containing phosphate binders or antacids. Inhalation: Chronic exposure to aluminum dust may cause dyspnea, cough, asthma, chronic obstructive lung disease, pulmonary fibrosis, pneumothorax, pneumoconiosis, encephalopathy, weakness, incoordination and epileptiform seizures and other neurological symptoms similar to that described for chronic ingestion. Hepatic necrosis is also a reported effect of exposure to airborne particulates carrying aluminum. Ingestion: Chronic ingestion of aluminum may cause Aluminum Related Bone Disease or aluminum-induced Osteomalacia with fracturing Osteodystrophy, microcytic anemia, weakness, fatigue, visual and auditory hallucinations, memory loss, speech and language impairment (dysarthria, stuttering, stammering, anomia, hypofluency, aphasia and eventually, mutism), epileptic seizures(focal or grand mal), motor disturbance(tremors, myoclonic jerks, ataxia, convulsions, asterixis, motor apraxia, muscle fatigue), and dementia (personality changes, altered mood, depression, diminished alertness, lethargy, 'clouding of the sensorium', intellectual deterioration, obtundation, coma), and altered EEG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.230.89 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Geotrichum candidum reference
In looking up the claim that Geotrichum candidum eats holes in CDs, I cannot find any article to back up the original claim. Every later claim only quotes or refers to the original 2001 article. There are no other verifiable claims about this fungus behaving in this manner. Should this be kept in the article, given the low reliability of the claim and no verification? Deejaye6 (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"Reduction"
I just linked "reduction" to "Reduction (chemistry)" (a redirect to Redox) in the Production and refinement section. However, this section mentions "direct" and "indirect" reductions, both terms which i failed to locate in the Redox article. Did i link to the wrong article ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, i just relinked it to Smelting, however there is no link to Redox there. --Jerome Potts (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Deodorants
Maybe there is little clinical evidence for skin irritation, but for some people, myself included, finding a commerical deodorant, though not espcecially easy, is crucial if we want to smell nice and not itch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.160 (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Good article soon?
I fixed some wording and dug up some reliable sources today. The article would be a solid B class if not for the lack of citations where indicated. With some more references and a little tidying up in agreement with the WP:MOS, it would be suitable for a new WP:GOOD article review. G. C. Hood (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2014
In the section 7.1 Alzheimer's disease

It will be correct to add the below new findings about the correlation between Alzheimer Disease and Aluminium: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fneur.2014.00167/full

thank you

Ste Df (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash;  LeoFrank   Talk 16:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Strange unit
Under "Health concerns" there is written:
 * there is evidence of some toxicity if it is consumed in amounts greater than 40 mg/kg/day.

The unit mg/kg/day does not make sense. I would expect an amount per unit of time. Can someone check this? There is a reference, but I do not have access to the paper. Hulten (talk 16:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems clear as mg/kg of body mass/day. Vsmith (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is clear now. Other people may also not understand, so I clarified it in the article. Hulten (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Re LD50 restore ug->mg
For years the article state that "aluminium sulfate having an LD50 of 6207 mg/kg (oral, mouse), which corresponds to 500 grams for an 80 kg person" citing Ullman's Encyclopedia. In October an unreg-user, without citation, changed that to 6207 micrograms per kilogram. No change in the number '500' was made. 6207 ug/kg x 80 kg => 0.49656 grams, not 500g or even 496.56g. Somehow I doubt that Ullman's math is that sloppy. Therefore today I changed the unit ug (micrograms) back to mg (milligrams) (the unit cited and in place for years) which also corrects the bad math. There needs to be other (preferably more public) reliable sources for this number. In any event, it's not made clear why the toxicity of the compound aluminum sulfate has any bearing on the toxicity of elemental aluminum, which throws into question the value of citing this number in the first place. If the question of toxicity is going to be treated, it needs to be treated more explicitly and much more carefully. Twang (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Bayer process
The first equation of the Bayer process is not balanced. It is not balanced in the Bayer process article either. Any one familiar with this process please correct. Nassimi (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * To me it looks balanced. Ulflund (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I see now that it had just been corrected. Ulflund (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2015
The spelling "aluminum" is only common in the United States, not in Canada.

132.203.26.100 (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Reference? Note that personal experience is not verifiable or acceptable. Cannolis (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Still no reference on former claim, yet article remains locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:4E4:7501:AD45:B95E:676A:B195 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolution of cite error
Prior to my edit there was a cite error in the References, highlighted in red. The cause of the error was that the inline citation called  was defined twice. In addition to the two different definitions, there were four slave applications of.

The two definitions of this refer to:
 * ”Aluminum” by W.B. Frank (2009) in Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry (currently Reference No. 8)
 * ”Aluminum Compounds, Organic” by O. Helmboldt (2007) in Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry (currently Reference No. 57)

In my edit I resolved the error by renaming the second definition . The red error message disappeared.

The four slave applications of the Ullmann reference remain directed to Frank’s article “Aluminum” rather than to Helmboldt’s article “Aluminum Compounds, Organic”. I don’t have access to Ullmann’s Encyclopedia. I would appreciate it if someone who does have access can check the four slave applications and change any of them that should be directed to Helmboldt’s article. Dolphin ( t ) 06:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This edit introduced the second Ullmann ref; this is what's changed since then. It doesn't appear that any of the later changes altered any reuse of this ref-name, therefore I think the new ref can just be renamed and leave all other refs pointing to the old. DMacks (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I agree. Dolphin  ( t ) 04:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Audio Error
The UK audio example is incorrect - it's a male version of the US pronunciation. 65.196.34.7 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Correction: History: name "alumine"
At present, the History section states: "In 1761, Guyton de Morveau suggested calling the base alum alumine." Almost every source on the history of aluminium repeats this claim. They are all wrong. Morveau coined the name alumine in 1782, not 1761.

(1) One will notice that no source that makes this claim ever cites the source of this claim. This uniformity is extremely suspicious because it indicates that no one actually knows what the original source was. This, in turn, indicates that the claim is false: no one can find an original citation for it because none exists.

(2) If anyone had bothered to read a biography of Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau, they would have learned that he was a lawyer who first became involved in a scientific and literary society in 1764, and even then, he initially submitted only literary works. (See p. 181 of: Jaimes Wisniak (July 2003) "Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau", Educacion Química, 14 :  180-189.)  He was therefore not in a position in 1761 to dictate a new nomenclature to the international community of chemists. (Why would professional chemists pay attention to a lawyer dabbling in amateur chemistry?)

(3) The first mention of the word alumine occurred in 1782; specifically, page 378 of:  de Morveau (1782) "Mémoire sur les dénominations chimiques, la nécessité d'en perfectionner le système, & les règles pour y parvenir" (Memoir on chemical names, the necessity of improving the system, and rules for attaining it), Observations sur la physique, sur l'histoire naturelle, et sur les arts, …, 19 :  370-382. From p. 378:

"La seconde terre est celle qui sert de base à l'alun: en la nommant argille, il faudroit chercher un autre nom au minéral, qui n'en recèle jamais qu'une portion; il faudroit, suivant notre second principe, substituer le mot argilleux au mot alumineux, pour tous ses composés.  Il est plus simple de conserver le dernier, & en tirer un substantif, pour indiquer l'étre primitif.  Ainsi, l'on dira que l'alun ou vitriol alumineux a pour base l'alumine, que la Nature nous offre abondamment dans les argilles."

Translation: The second earth is what serves as the base in alum:  by naming it "clay", one would have to seek another name for the mineral, which never harbors even a part of it; one would have to, following our second principle [for naming chemical compounds], substitute the word "clay-ish" for the word "aluminous" in all its compounds. It is simpler to retain the latter and to draw a noun from it, in order to indicate the primitive entity [i.e., element]. Thus, one will say that alum or aluminous sulfate has as [its] base alumine [i.e., aluminium], which Nature offers us abundantly in clays.

Earlier publications by Guyton de Morveau mention alum (French: alun), but do not mention alumine. See, for example: de Morveau (1781) "Mémoire sur les terres simple, & principalement sur celles qu'on nomme absorbantes; suivi d'un appendice sur une nouvelle preuve de l'existence du phlogistique dans la chaux, & de quelques observations sur le sel phosphorique calcaire ou substance osseuse régénérée" (Memoir on simple earths and principally on those that one names "absorbants"; followed by an appendix on a new proof of the existence of phlogiston in chalk and by some observations on the calcareous phosphoric salt or regenerated bony substance), Observations sur la physique, sur l'histoire naturelle, et sur les arts, …, 17 :  216-231. On p. 225, Guyton de Morveau states that clay consists of aluminium (which he calls argile pure (pure clay) or terre base d'alun (earth base of alum)) and silicate (silex (flint)), but doesn't use his term for aluminium (alumine): "II.  L'argile pure ou terre base d'alun, que la Nature nous présente en si grandes masses, mais presque toujours mêlée de silex, … "  (II.  Pure clay or earth base of alum, which Nature presents to us in such great masses, but nearly always mixed with flint [i.e., silica] … )  Thus in 1780, Morveau calls the "base" of alum "pure clay", whereas in 1782, he would propose the name "alumine".

(4) (Wisniak, 2003), p. 181, states that Morveau published most of his papers in two scientific journals:  Mémoires de l'Académie impériale des sciences, arts et belles-lettres de Dijon (which first appeared in 1769 (here is the title page of the first volume)) and Observations sur la physique, sur l'histoire naturelle, et sur les arts, … (which was published during 1752-1757 then resumed during 1771-1785 (see:  Gazetier-Universel)). So neither journal was published in 1761. More importantly, (Wisniak, 2003), p. 183, states that Morveau published his first scientific paper in 1769. (Here it is.) It would be difficult to reconcile the claim that he named aluminium "alumine" in 1761 with the fact that he published his first scientific work in 1769.

(5) Here are three secondary sources that state that Morveau coined the term "alumine" in 1782:
 * Centre National de Ressources Textuelles et Lexicales: Etymologie:  Alumine (in French)  (This source quotes the same passage from (Morveau, 1782) that I quoted above.)
 * A. Darmesteter, De la Création Actuelle de Mots Nouveaux dans la Langue Française et des Lois qui la Régissent [On the contemporary creation of new words in the French language and on the laws that govern it], (Paris, France: F. Vieweg, 1877), p. 236. (in French)
 * Ursula Klein and Wolfgang Lefèvre, Materials in Eighteenth-century Science: A Historical Ontology (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: M.I.T. Press, 2007), p. 176.

VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Small grammatical error
In the opening paragraph:

Aluminium is the third most abundant element (after oxygen and silicon), and the most abundant metal, in the Earth's crust.

Note the comma after "metal". I believe this is an error, and should be fixed

Plebian poblano (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Aluminium. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/recycling/awareness/facts/benefits.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.niehs.nih.gov/external/faq/aluminum.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2016
UK Pronunciation should not link to "/En-us-aluminium.ogg". It should probably link to "/En-uk-aluminium.ogg" or the equivalent.

Goron40 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Link changed to File:En-uk-aluminium.ogg. --  AxG /  ✉  / 10 years of editing  20:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2016
change aluminium to aluminum in the title of the page

Mnecraftjohn (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia already has a page for discussing this issue. See Talk:Aluminium/Spelling. Dolphin  ( t ) 02:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ as MOS:RETAIN- Arjayay (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Please note, there is not just a page on this issue, there are three archives on it (see top of page), whereas there are only two archives on the metal itself - Arjayay (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Aluminium in ship building
It looks like some of the sources deny the fires as a cause of the discontinuty in the use of aluminium in naval ships.

--Stone (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

" Health concerns" section
I was visiting East Germany close before and after the unification. What surprized me most was the complete, I mean really 100% complete disappearance of aluminium cookware from shops. This means that health concerns with aluminium was pretty high.

Therefore I noticed that the article is somewhat self-contradictory: "The use of aluminium cookware has not been shown to lead to aluminium toxicity in general..." and right next to it: "Studies have shown that consumption of acidic foods or liquids with aluminium significantly increases aluminium absorption". "significantly increases" - does this mean to dangerous levels?

Second, was there any legislation against aluminum cookware?

In general, it will be interesting to have a historical overview of attitudes towards aluminium pottery and tableware. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm no expert, but I'd imagine that the first sentence you quote answers the question about the second: while acidic foods may increase one's aluminum absorption, it has not been shown to be at dangerous levels that would lead to aluminum toxicity. The two aren't contradictory. I also wouldn't personally speculate on aluminum cookware in East Germany, but health concerns aren't the only reason one might not see aluminum in shops. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not asking you to speculate. I had a prominent observation: I was specifically asked to buy a particular kind of aluminium cezve I brought from the previous trip; I've had a business trip across a dozen of East Germany cities and was surprised to see only brass and stainless steel ones, and that's why I noticed that the rest of aluminium cookware disappeared as well. Here is my question: why? Certainly it was a prominent reason, deserved to be described in wikipedia (unless my memories fail me). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. I did google a bit and did see claims about Al pots banned in Europe, but some other sites claim it is bunk. So even this claim is a myth, it is quite common and may deserve some research as well. Some of good mythbusters are  and . Still, what I saw is my anecdote, of course, but I don't think my brain fails me (yet :-); I don't use Al cookware, neither I am wearing Al tin hat  :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Various factions in the German government, says Mittelman, have tried periodically to ban aluminum cookware by law". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have hard data either, but I notice that pressure cookers are still mostly made of aluminium, which one would expect to dissolve faster than normal cookware. Most other types of aluminium cookware available in UK are lined with non-stick coatings. If there are health concerns they are likely connected with Alzheimer's disease see (Cause#Other hypotheses) and early onset dementia. Use of al foil remains almost universal. Plant surfer  19:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * AFAIU pressure cookers (and aircraft) are made of al-based alloys, which may (or may not) bind Al much stronger against dissolving/reacting. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * From some texts and from personal experience, when aluminium pots are used to cook or store acidic foods, it oxidizes heavily (yes, I am aware that Al is always covered with a thin but strong film of oxide) and with this it deteriorates the taste and color of food. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That discoloration, and the fact that the pans slowly dissolve in a dishwasher, probably has a lot to do with the modern preference for stainless steel. I doubt if aluminium toxicity is a major concern for consumers in this country. Plant surfer  19:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

pronunciation
I say /ˌælᵿˈmɪniəm/, dropping the yod entirely. Is this not common enough to include? I've heard it pretty often.

Similarly (posting here for increasing the likelihood of a response), for me lutetium is /luːˈtiːsiəm/, and I can't imagine the pronunciation given in the infobox there with /ʃ/. Double sharp (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Aluminium - mineralogy etc.
There are some errors here, especially concerning geology/mineralogy. It is not true, that all Al minerals contain trivalent Al. Native aluminium and steinhardtite have Al0 and minerals like icosahedrite or hollisterite, which are alloys, almost certainly don't contain trivalent Al. Also, not feldspars but plagioclases are dominant Al minerals in the Earth's mantle.Eudialytos (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

aluminium carbothermic
The article mentions the aluminium carbothermic process but doesn't say what it is and we don't seem to have an article on that (aluminium carbothermic). RJFJR (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no such (practical) thing, hence we don't (and probably shouldn't) have an article on it.
 * The question is, "Aluminium is expensive to smelt, iron is cheap to smelt. Can a carbothermic process like that used for iron be applied to aluminium?" With current practical technology, no. I've linked where I can. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is clearer.  RJFJR (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Magnetic Susceptibility
TerpeneOtto (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC) I want to publish the magnetic susceptibility for aluminum. I have tried to edit the box but it won't appear in the "Aluminum Box". I also want to publish the magnetic susceptibility for all the other elements and inorganic data I have (published in the CRC 64th ed. Handbook of chemistry and physics). Is there a way for me to upgrade my status to a higher level editor or could a higher level editor publish the magnetic susceptibility data for me? I would prefer if you upgraded my status, I am a dedicated editor with hundreds of data posts in the chem. boxes. please mention me when you reply to this.


 * MagSus =+16.5 ·10−6 cm3/mol

Here is the coded magnetic susceptibility data I would have published in the chem. box.
 * Can we add a parameter "| magnetic susceptibility" to ? (Don't quite dare to do it myself!) Double sharp (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Continued at WP:ELEMENTS: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements, of general interest. -DePiep (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Needed: Al in human physiology
I'd like someone who knows to add info. re. Al in humans. Once it enters the body, does it float around as a ion in the blood/lymph? Does it form compounds and float around? Does it get preferentially deposited in some tissues/organs? Does it enter cells and if so, where does it go and what does it do? Does it pass the BBB? As what? Where does it go from there (CSF, CNS, specific neurons or everywhere)? How is it eliminated from the body? I'm sure there are many other related questions the answers to which would make the article better.

Phantom in ca (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want some attention on the subject of aluminum, just change the spelling from "British English" to "American English". You'll have plenty of "feedback" and "participation" in seconds. Otherwise, its not an important subject, as you can see. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.60 (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But of course. I imagine that the barrier for participation in the spelling dispute is much lower than for questions about biochemistry. In the meantime, this journal article may prove useful. We are aware that this article is at the moment not well-developed: some of us at WikiProject Elements are trying to get to the remaining ones, but we're only five people at the moment, and we can't get to everything quickly. Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aluminium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://aggregain.wrap.org.uk/document.rm?id=1753
 * Added tag to http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015055358108%3Bview%3D1up%3Bseq%3D394
 * Added tag to http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4433551%3Bview%3D1up%3Bseq%3D162
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150225051128/http://www.duncanaviation.aero/intelligence/201102/fuel_starvation_system_contamination.php to http://www.duncanaviation.aero/intelligence/201102/fuel_starvation_system_contamination.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aluminium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120914043825/http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/aluminium_water_hydrogen.pdf to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/aluminium_water_hydrogen.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aluminium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326001046/http://moa.cit.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fmanu%2Fmanu0018%2F&tif=00019.TIF to http://moa.cit.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fmanu%2Fmanu0018%2F&tif=00019.TIF
 * Added tag to http://www.world-aluminium.org/About%2BAluminium/Story%2Bof/In%2Bhistory

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2017
Aluminum isn't non magnetic, it is magnetic according to the Lenz Effect and in high strength magnetic fields. 64.25.130.131 (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  JTP (talk • contribs) 21:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Al is paramagnetic. That is, not diamagnetic or ferromagentic.  Gah4 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

On texts
Here I want to point out some text questions.
 * Lede now says: "Aluminium metal is so chemically reactive that native specimens are rare and limited to extreme reducing environments. Instead, it is found combined in over 270 different minerals". Even I, a very interested reader, do not get this. And no, clicking links should not be necessary to understand the lede, only to go into detail.
 * Allow me to question:
 * "Aluminium metal is so chemically reactive that native? specimens? are rare and limited to extreme reducing? environments. Instead?[what is the contradiction?], it is found combined in over 270 different minerals[this i understand ! ]."
 * -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't gotten there yet. I will rewrite this later.
 * Nonetheless, here are your answers:
 * "native" refers to aluminium metal (or, to be precise, ores containing it) existing in nature;
 * "specimens" hints at the fact that this native aluminium does not exist in bug chunks;
 * "reducing" is a fair chemical term. See redox;
 * the contradiction is that aluminium exists as a metal in the nature only very rarely, while it is very common as a part of various minerals.
 * Hope that helps.--R8R (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ??? Don't explain here, improve the text there!!! (yes later on is OK too, it's just: don't waste you time here). It is not for me, just asking for a friend (aka our Reader). -DePiep (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Move the history of alum to ....
Alum. This is an article about uh... what ... oh, aluminium, not some compound of it. Alum has been selected with the best of intentions but arbitrarily. Why not this history of feldspar, which I have heard is the most abundant mineral? Or cryolite, the key to making aluminium? Or AlCl3, which we all teach in class? It worries me that someone can march in here (being bold, I know) and select their favorite compound, declare sovereignty over all of aluminium, and then reorient an article called aluminium to a quaternary phase thereof.

So is R&R going to march into sodium and declare that henceforth its history should revolve around his favorite sodium compound? And then on an on?

The solution to this exercise in synthesis (WP:SYN) (creating concept that alum is a particular standout) is obvious: history of X goes into an article on X. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but you seem to miss the fact I've stated twice: this is the article about a chemical element, not the simple substance formed by the element. That's what even the line directly under the title says. We have articles on elements, not simple substances (which is why the article on mercury is called mercury (element) and not mercury (metal)).
 * Alum has not been chosen arbitrarily. Alum has been chosen because that's the compound we have most information on prior to the creation of the simple substance. This is the criterion used (so please stop with the "arbitrary" thing). If you have such information about feldspar, or cryolite, or any other mineral, please let us all know, as I have already suggested you do if there is any.
 * And stop accusations of me doing some things you've just come up with.--R8R (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Two questions at this stage about "Alum has been chosen because that's the compound we have most information on prior to the creation of the simple substance."


 * Who is "we"?
 * And: which body declared that an article about an element should have a large section on one of its compounds? --Smokefoot (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Myself and, I guess, you, since I've twice invited to submit information on any other compounds and you've provided none.
 * None to my knowledge. Which body prohibited such information, though? Which body is there at all to regulate this?--R8R (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I am just registering my view that the inclusion of the history of alum in this article is tangential and, sorry to use this word, arbitrary. The section is a form of synthesis (an editor decides something vs an authoritative source decides something).  Regarding you being a committee of one to select alum, I guess anyone can just write about their favorite compound and insert that an element article?  Why not write a big section on methane for the page on hydrogen? Well, we should definitely have a bigger section on water, right?  But ammonia drives so many environmental and heath aspects, that should be featured, we can agree?
 * I don't doubt that your intentions are good, but, IMHO, I assert that they are misguided.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay then. But let's register one more thing that is not clear to me yet: what "authoritative source" are we talking about that I am contradicting?
 * Why not a big section on methane in hydrogen? Well, if methane was nearly as important to hydrogen as alum is to aluminium (if it was the problem to see what this light element in methane was that kept research on methane for decades; that alone would deserve a mention) and if it was, if methane played such an important role in the history of trade and chemistry (it was an important part of the world trade at some point, was declared a major type of gases prior to the atomic theory; that would deserve the history part), then I'd be all for it. But it wasn't and it didn't, so no. That's why it's also a no for water. If it was the desire to see what water was made of that led to the discovery of hydrogen, I'd think otherwise. Ammonia in hydrogen is different than, say, mercury in mercury fluoride in that it's not the hydrogen in ammonia that is toxic; it's the entire molecule. That's why I'm all pro metal salts in Toxicity sections of metal articles but not hydrogen in ammonia.
 * Thank you. I'm glad we could assure a respectful thinking of one another.--R8R (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggested answers:
 * (1) "what "authoritative source" are we talking about that I am contradicting?" You have the argument backwards. what authoritative source on aluminium compels you to write a large section on alum? We dont do things because they are not banned, we do things because the actions are encouraged.
 * (2)you ask "Why not a big section on methane in hydrogen?" Because most editors know better.
 * Oh, well you have exploited the central problem and strength with Wikipedia, anyone can edit. And few really care, because it takes work to care.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) If you ask me, you are putting the argument backwards. I'm doing what I am because of my own judgment (so I guess I can take the "arbitrary" argument in a way). That's sort of the point of Wikipedia: you don't have rules you couldn't stray from if you believe you're improving Wiki. What's even better, there's no rule I'm straying from even; I guess if there was one, you'd have provided it already. What I'm doing is encouraged by a general guideline (WP:BOLD, also see this flowchart). That's a rationalization in the spirit of Wikipedia. Also, nice way to dodge the question. You anticipated my action to an unnamed "authoritative source" and when I asked what that source was just went "you got that backwards." So is there no answer to my question and is there no authoritative source I'm contradicting? Is there then a chance I'll see you take this anticipation back? And since we're at it, what can you name what leads you other than your own judgment, something written in Wiki rules, something that beats my rationalization, and something that should prevent me from issuing the "arbitrary" label to you as well?
 * (2) Did you notice I provided a detailed answer to that one myself? Also, do you realize that "most editors know better" is no reply at all because there's nothing that could be challenged and then reasonably agreed with? "I know better that my way is the better way" -- see, this comment is pointless.
 * I care. I presume you do, too, in your way, which is good. What isn't good is that you're seeming to deny me that feeling because you don't like my way.--R8R (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The fluorine article starts its history section with 1400 characters before coming to the isolation, sodium uses only 600. Aluminium starts now with 4600 characters on alumn. The history of alumn might be interesting but it is only a starting point, now it governs the whole history section. The main point I would ask, why do we do it here so much different than on the other elements. I always tried to put the discovery and the first identification or production of the element into the focus of the history section. It would be nice to hear why it is an improvement only for this article to start with the compound which is known for much longer and was widely used. There are elements which have a long history of usage before the first isolation CaCO3, NaCl as an example. Is it considered to be an improvement if we include the extended history there too?--Stone (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My general belief is that alum is important to aluminium. Aluminium was synthesized from alumina, which camу from alum. That's the it is here at all. It also deserves some extra space because of the not yet very well covered story on how it was an important part of the Mediterranean trade. Alum looks to take too much space compared to the whole section because I'm going chronologically and I haven't completed the section yet; upon completion it should look better proportion-wise. However, the section takes so much space now and I myself believe that the size of the History section is already too great, and it will only keep growing. So upon completion it will be moved to a separate subarticle, which was, by the way, precisely the thing that happened to fluorine. I don't want to add too little material because after all material has been added, there won't be any flaws of judgment on what we should be featured and what should not based on editors' willingness and unwillingness to add material to Wikipedia. Also, we'll have a nice subarticle.
 * As for other elements: I can't judge for them all, and would rather not right now. I do hope that the paragraph above should satisfy you for the time being but if not, could we still wait for when I've completed the story?--R8R (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The quality, importance and the style of the added text was never in question. It is well written. To shorten it to the appropriate length is a good idea, the alumn article will look funny with a long and detailed history section while the rest of the article is not to the GA standard. --Stone (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The development as described by R8R sounds inviting and wiki. (Maybe the split off can happen before the section itself is a full-fledged article though). -DePiep (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if the alum article starts looking like a funny mix of qualities. To my mind, it's better to have some bits of high quality than none. But this sort of thing is exactly why I tend to do this sort of a rewrite in userspace: that way, when the proportions are unbalanced because some things have not been written yet, they are not really affecting the article as the readers are going to see it. I too would support a summary being left here and a move of the full version to a subarticle. It doesn't seem to me that an article on Al should start with 4600 characters on a compound of it, however important. 600 to 1400 seems good, like Na or F. Double sharp (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The first three sections of History focus on alum. That seems like WP:UNDUE. We are not arguing quality, but weight (=length, topic selection)  --Smokefoot (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Intermediate suggestion for History section

 * (by Smokefoot (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC))

These are opening sentences for each of the three opening sections on the history of aluminium: The history of aluminium has been shaped by usage of alum. ... a rich source of alum at Tolfa near Rome, he reported excitedly to his godfather, "today I bring you victory over the Turk". "The nature of alum remained unknown.... In 1760, French chemist Theodor Baron de Henouville declared he believed the earth of alum..."
 * Early history
 * Establishing nature of alum
 * Synthesis of metal

--Smokefoot (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Continue main talk

 * When I mention quality, I mean that the text is of quality, but should be in the alum article instead (where goodness knows it would do it a great deal of improvement). To my mind, the history of Al starts at the most with the first inklings when someone thought there was an metallic element that awaited isolation from one of its compounds. Some of the later things about the "earth of alum" are a step in this direction and I would not object to them remaining, but I think the "early history of alum" is quite irrelevant here. Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Guys, can judgments wait for until the planned work has been done? I have stated I will at least partially address your concerns but for some reason you don't just stop for a while now to see how it actually goes. We can then see what I have intended to get done and you'll be welcome to judge it then.--R8R (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll layoff. Happy editing.  --Smokefoot (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll try to keep you waiting for not too long.--R8R (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Because of a thread like this I like wikipedia and its authors ;-) --Stone (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

To do

 * Complete 20th (maybe start early 21st) century
 * Emphasize the importance of aluminium's properties for its uses and history in general
 * Fix reference formatting
 * Move the text to a sub-article and leave a shortened version here

--R8R (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If it is to be a stand-alone, then why ... not ... do ... split ... right away? Why stretch it this long? It might snap. -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because of my own flaws if nothing else. I won't be as interested to contribute to an article other than the one I am seeking to improve.
 * Also it won't snap. This article is rated C and rightly so. I guess I could have to be subtle on a good GA. This isn't the case, so there is no reason to apply the high criteria while the article is being constructed.--R8R (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I have completed the History and related Etymology sections. As promised, you all are now welcome to provide comments.--R8R (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest to split it right away, as intended. Already three weeks ago (!) we agreed it was too unbalanced. As it is now, the main article is used as a sandbox. Also, I don't see any advantage in polishing it in a situation where it will not stay. -DePiep (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I already have, as intended. The long text is in a subarticle now and the main article features a shortened copy.--R8R (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, great! I'm sorry I did not check this ... -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Section with isotopes

 * Changed section title "Nuclear" into "Isotopes" -DePiep (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * From my talkpage:

I get the intention, but don't let uniformity be the only trait that guides you. I want to try out something new here. A story is especially interesting when you see its different parts affect each other. This is why I run my usual order of sections (I don't know if it's the one preferable by our project; certainly it is not the order I met this article with), for example. Here, I want to try this as well: start with nuclear properties (not only isotope-related, but also the generally element-related lightness of nuclei) to show why aluminum is so light i.e. not dense (aluminum is well-known for its low density, so this is perfectly appropriate to try here if you ask me). Can we have the previous subtitle back?--R8R (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My reply :
 * I'm not claiming that the section title should be exactly "Isotopes". I just expect that word to be in the TOC, maybe like "Isotopes and nuclei". Some ten (heavier) elements have such a construct, IIRC. Having the word 'Isotopes' in section title helps readers when searching, especially since it supports the importance we give them in the infobox (infobox should reflect main topics). Also, it builds recognisable (similar) article structures. -DePiep (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that would be good, too. Meanwhile, can you name one element that does use such a construct?--R8R (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Beryllium
 * Flerovium
 * Livermorium
 * Moscovium
 * Oganesson
 * Oxygen
 * Plutonium
 * Tennessine
 * Unbinilium
 * Unbiunium (has not)
 * Ununennium
 * Yttrium
 * All others have "== Isotopes ==", two or three = deep.
 * -DePiep (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've clicked many articles and wasn't able to find a single one. Of the stable elements, there are only three, so no wonder, really.
 * All three have basically "Isotopes and nucleosynthesis." I don't intend to cover nucleosynthesis there (rather in Occurrence). I'd want to have a title like "Nuclear properties and isotopes," but the word "properties" is already taken by the section. I'll give it a thought. I am inclined to follow your suggestion to keep the word "isotopes," though.--R8R (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, same idle searches here ;-). So today I ran an AWB check. (I remember checking/creating them last February/March when I was working on the new Infobox isotopes).
 * The 'Properties' wording needs more playing I agree. I note, reading 'Nuclear' in an article about Al is correct but also associating with radioactivity with me (a half-layman).
 * Btw, did you consider using Infobox aluminium isotopes? CAn it be improved to use this? -DePiep (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't be wrong thinking about radioactivity. It is mentioned in an Isotopes section of every element.
 * I used "Nuclei and isotopes." I want to follow the nuclei--electrons--bulk pattern, which is the reason to want the word "nucleus" in the subtitle.
 * I'm leaning no on the isobox. Certainly not until the element infobox has been shortened (will either sandwich the text or be misplaced depending on if aligned left or right). Even then, as long ad the isobox is not mandatory, I am still learning no: as long as I know, only two isotopes are of importance. We don't need to devote an entire table to them.--R8R (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

#Etymology seems to say the US uses "aluminium" (two Is)?
As in the title of this section, the Aluminium currently reads as follows:


 * It is, however, spelled differently nowadays in the Northern America and most other countries: aluminium is in use in the U.S. and Canada while aluminium is in use elsewhere.

The US, however, spells aluminium (at least frequently) without the second i. Currently, both spellings of aluminium in the sentence are identical, and so, since it looks like it's set up to contrast the spellings ("X is in use in North America, and Y is in use elsewhere"), I think the variant without the second i should be in use here.

There was an attempted fix which was reverted  per Talk:Aluminium/Spelling, but this seems to have been automatic and erroneous. I thought I would bring the matter here so it didn't look like I was edit warring, but it does genuinely seem like that section should state that aluminum is in use in North America, as opposed to how it currently says aluminium.

(I would like to clarify that this is *not* a proposal to change the spelling used throughout the article, and so it seems wrong for me to place it under Talk:Aluminium/Spelling. It is just this single example, which looks to be specifically contrasting the spellings.)

Throne3d (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we made a mistake. Fixed; thank you! Double sharp (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response! This seems resolved now. Throne3d (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Did you even bother to READ the sentence prior to fixing it? (I suspect not.)  As my teacher often said: Doublecheck your work.  Or as carpenters say: Cut once, but measure twice (or even thrice) so you don't screw up.  I don't think you bothered to read the article..... you simply POUNCED on the "aluminum" as a mistake, without bothering to read the CONTEXT of the sentence.
 * I think your rhetoric is misplaced, since I am certainly not the one who introduced this typo. Sadly we can't read the mind of whoever did, but it strikes me that there's a great difference between editing Wikipedia and carpentry: here you can cut more than once. Double sharp (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Spelling in en.wiki
I mentioned that en.wiki uses one spelling only as a description of an editorial policy. We don't claim to confirm an external fact with our own research, which would indeed be a self-reference. A similar example can be found in a Washington Post article, where they mention what form of writing they use. We are free to describe, not claim; and describe we do, but nothing more.--R8R (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, which is why I left the statement in: I only removed the word "legitimate", which seemed a bit redundant. Nonetheless, the internal link to our policy at WP:ALUM seemed a little bit much to me, though I understand the reason for it.
 * (Incidentally I have wondered for a while if it would not be better to write the Al, S, and Cs articles in the spellings that look right for their titles. Otherwise they would probably keep attracting "corrections" as the average reader has probably never heard of IUPAC. But you are the one working on it and it is your decision: if it was me working on the sulfur article, I would be rather persuaded to try to use American spellings just that once.) Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot see why a spelling of one word should dictate spellings for other words.
 * However, "sulfur" is slowly becoming the British spelling as well. While looking for info about spelling, I learned that while American scientific organizations such as American Chemical Society and PubMed use aluminum and cesium, the Royal Society of Chemistry uses sulfur. IUPAC acknowledges aluminum and cesium but not sulphur, not because of the AmE/BrE conflict but because they despise that particular spelling (I don't remember the exact reason, though, but I even remember reading an article devoted to the subject spelling, and the article is said to have influenced IUPAC along with some other factor). Even our sulfur article mentions that the process is on the way. One may argue that the language of science has two spellings for Al and Cs but only one for S.--R8R (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) WP:ALUM is not just an internal editorial policy, it clearly references the IUPAC Recommendations (Red Book 2005). They say p59/pdf: "The IUPAC-approved names of the atoms of atomic numbers 1-111 for use in the English language are listed in alphabetical order in Table I". So not only recommended, but "approved" even. I'm absolutely fine with current habit: mention the alt name in opening line, and maybe dedicated sections (like history), but prevent at all costs spreading those. In compound names they would be deadly, even.
 * Why is this still an issue? -DePiep (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the approach. Many internal IUPAC documents use aluminum and they openly acknowledge these alternative spellings. They don't have a mandate over all of chemistry and they are not even trying to say anything more than "this is what we [i.e., IUPAC] use." Why do you see such a problem in using these?--R8R (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are downplaying the significance of the IUPAC statement. They only say "The alternative spelling aluminum is commonly used" (but is not in the Table I p. 248); same for Cs, not for S. There is reason enough: be consistent, do not introduce confusion, follow the authority. -DePiep (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, the policy of Wikipedia is not following a single standard but rather following whatever particular editors find comfortable. See WP:ENGVAR. Consistency is not to be maintained (both color and colour are allowed). The confusion is not going to be a shocker (the British, for instance, are not going to be any more confused about aluminum than about color). As for the authority, I think you are giving their statement more credit than it's worth and even that still allows for the disputed spellings. I presume you are talking about the Red Book. The Red Book is a part of the nomenclature of IUPAC, i.e. nomenclature they use. Other scientists may or may not follow them; some, including the aforementioned American Chemical Society, actually don't (now is a good moment to remember about the spirit of ENGVAR). But given that the book acknowledges the existence of this spelling, I don't see why we wouldn't.--R8R (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * the policy of Wikipedia is not following a single standard??? This is not ENGVAR, this is IUPAC about element names. The Al, Cs, S spellings are not by language, but by a set definition (set by an international body, named "Recommendations" per title, and "approved" in case of these names). Nowhere in IUPAC or chemistry these spellings are "disputed", it's just people here bringing up an already settled case (and some institutes simply don't follow). Yes I am about the Red Book, as I already linked. These are not "nomenclature they use"; it's called Recommendations for the outside world.
 * To cut things short, what are you actually proposing? Return to local spellings for these element names? To what gain? -DePiep (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not (not at the moment at least) proposing anything. But I genuinely don't understand why people argue for standardized spellings. Since you're pro it, I'm trying to acquire that information by asking you questions and suggesting countering theses. I've read past discussions and the theses used there did not convince me. So I'm trying to learn whether there's more to it. For instance, I admit you are correct on the purpose of their nomenclature.
 * Here comes the question of why a definition of common words is to be at all overwritten by any recommendations. If a world color association suggested that the word "color" is spelled "color" while "the alternative spelling 'colour' is commonly used," would we have to unambiguously follow? Especially since their recommendations acknowledge the other spellings; I assume that if they wanted to say "use this, period," as I think you're trying to imply, they would not mention those; this marks a difference from the 1990 Red Book, where they did mean that.
 * The case indeed appears to be settled by IUPAC. The questions are, is your interpretation of their settlement correct and do we have to follow their particular settlement in the first place.--R8R (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Back in Autumn 2004 we (a group of science minded editors) decided to try establishing a standard for science articles to stop the constant edit warring over the spelling of sulfur and aluminium (and caesium to a lesser degree). We decided to go with IUPAC spelling and developed WP:SULF and WP:ALUM. Once the guidelines were established and were there to cite the edit warring slowed ... a victory for sanity. (Even tho' I preferred aluminum and cesium :). Let's not return to the pre-2004 chaos. Vsmith (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you very much for signing in to this discussion. Indeed, an arbitrary solution (I consider the current solution to be quite arbitrary for our purposes) for the sake of stability of articles is certainly better than an arbitrary solution for the sake of the solution.
 * It appears to me that not having the guideline wouldn't be a problem so much today. The rationale for the current solution sounds like the solution is temporary. I'd love to understand the difference between the Wikipedia we have today and what you had in 2004 (that was 13 years ago and Wikipedia was still young). Personally, I've only been able to dig back to 2005 and I didn't know there was more to look into.
 * First of all, was the WP:ENGVAR policy in widespread use back then? Personally, I don't think there's much difference between undoing an edit referring to WP:ALUM and WP:ENGVAR. It seems that now ENGVAR is fully respected and known by most, if not all, editors.
 * What kind of mess existed in 2004 that are we talking about? I genuinely don't know and would love to hear from you on this. I've only seen the extensive talks here and there after the solution has been invented.
 * You said that edit warring slowed down after this guideline had become active. Could you elaborate on this as well?
 * I find it interesting that the decision was in fact made in 2004. Back then, the contemporary Red Book did not allow aluminum and cesium; now it does.--R8R (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it really matters when exactly the decision was made. Guidelines have evolved over time. Whether you agree or not, what we have now keeps the encyclopaedia much more stable than it was in 2004 and, I believe, much more balanced. Rather than edit warring we can focus on issues that matter like sourcing, which used to be far more optional, and populating articles on important things rather than on the most popular things. Overturning the apple cart to suit certain editor's personal preferences will simply lead to more edit warring, so, generally, we keep the status quo. If you really want to learn about the article's history you can see it in the article and talk page history. If, however, what you want to do is argue about the rationale for using the spelling we use then there is a separate talk page for that. Come armed with your best Google stats and other original research, like all the editors who've tried in the past. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Under no circumstances do I want to edit war. Let's make that clear.
 * What you say here cannot be taken for granted. It is indeed quite possible you are right, if you can prove that, that is. If you do, nothing will proceed on my side. I am asking you questions which possibly have the answers to refute my doubts about the credibility of the rule. It appears to me you'd want that. And make no mistake, as of yet, I am not claiming the opposite.
 * I realize I could look into all of this, and I will anyway. But I'd love to hear it from you as you may add something I would miss myself. I do actually consider that you may reveal information that would convince me that status quo would be the best. Since you are so confident with your take on this, I believe it should be no problem for you to answer my questions.
 * Also please don't accuse me of doing something I did not do and did not plan to do.--R8R (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Harsh" approach? Maybe because we've seen it all before. In my view settling on an independent standard was a convenient way of bypassing original research on language usage. You can see all the contrived arguments in the talk pages (both this one and the aluminium spelling one). If, however, you want to discuss/reconsider the guideline and the viability of the standard that underpins it then this is the wrong place. Perhaps try naming conventions (chemistry)? Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears to me there is some misunderstanding here. I am not proposing any changes, and given all the previous talks, this wouldn't be the place if I did. I am gathering information and nothing more. Since Vsmith joined the discussion, there are questions I want to ask. Indeed, I don't like not even a particular spelling but rather the mandatory rule enforcing it. But currently I'm seeing something before my eyes that could potentially justify it, so of course I have questions.
 * I never argued we should change the spelling right now, with the rule still intact. It's a rule and as long as it is, I have respect for that.--R8R (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If there's no proposal to change anything here, I would propose closing. I support the long-standing compromise embodied in WP:ALUM. --John (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? This doesn't seem like a discussion to be closed at all, as it is not related to a action to be or not to be executed and it is not a general gathering of opinions like an RfC. Besides, I asked questions that I would love to see answered just two days ago.--R8R (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTFORUM. This page is strictly for discussing improvements to the article on aluminium. --John (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this discussion disobeys the rule since we're discussing a rule directly related to this article. But perhaps your position can be defended, too, so I won't argue and will rather ask Vsmith directly. (Though please don't close the discussion, this would be excessive from any perspective.)--R8R (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Reaction of aluminium with mercury
Mercury will amalgamate with any non-passivated aluminium and the dissolved aluminium will quickly oxidize, meaning that mercury is a corrosion hazard for bulk aluminium. I don't know how to meet the citation standards for the article, would someone look into this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60sRefugee (talk • contribs) 16:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Ørsted's synthesis.
Ørsted made his procedure harder than necessary by using potassium amalgam (potassium dissolved in mercury) instead of (pure) potassium. After the reaction, that mercury had to be distilled (boiled off) to get the aluminium. Wöhler in 1827 simply left out the mercury, making the whole process (if his description is accurate) about as basic as you can get: put a few lumps of potassium and AlCl3 in a crucible (no mixing needed), close the lid, heat it until the (quite violent) reaction starts, let cool, drop the contents in water, pour through a filter, rinse with clean water, done. He wrote (free translation): the method by which I managed to produce aluminium metal is based on the reducibility (? "Zersetzbarkeit") of aluminium chloride by potassium and the property of aluminium not to oxidize in water. Did Ørsted believe the mercury was necessary to protect the aluminium from oxidation? (I don't know Danish so I can't read what he wrote) Prevalence 02:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked for more info on this briefly and it appears that this is indeed the case, judging from a couple of Google Books incomplete snippets. Unfortunately, I don't know Danish, either.
 * interestingly enough, I found a book suggesting Oersted was not the discoverer; this would be an interesting addition to the story.--R8R (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aluminium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006124655/http://tejas.serc.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/feb252000/NMC2.pdf to http://tejas.serc.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/feb252000/NMC2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2018
too many I's in the word. Thechemist21 (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 20:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)