Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:59, 2 March 2019

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pittsburgh Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Ohio Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 23, 2019.

Owner

The owner of Aluminum Company of America

Note the spelling on Halls patents here - http://www.fluoride-history.de/p-aluminum.htm

Spelling of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania spelled its name Pittsburgh from its founding until 1891. The name was changed to Pittsburg, but it was changed back to Pittsburgh in 1911. By the criteria of what it was called when Hall went there in 1888 and of what it is called today, it should be spelled Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh#Name_and_spelling

Ortcutt 21:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Number of siblings?

According to <a href="http://www.oberlinheritage.org/hall%20walking%20tour.pdf">this document (created by the Oberlin Historical Society)</a>, Hall had six siblings. Yet this article says he had four siblings. Which is correct? --tgeller 02:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Biography

The timeline of events makes no sense. If CMH attends a lecture in his second term at Oberlin (~1880 or 1881) then how can he see the aluminum sample obtained by Jewett during Jewett's studies in Germany (1883-1885)? The article also strongly implies that CMH's initial experiments in 1881 were inspired by Jewett's lecture/aluminum sample, so that further muddies the water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.246.164 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Updated External Link

I have updated the dead external link to the ACS National Historic Chemical Landmarks program. I am the program coordinator of the ACS-NHCL program. KLindblom (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice bloody article

And I am generally disinclined toward exaggeration or flattery. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.154.39 (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

One issue though

As noted above, the timeline for the Jewett background material is incosistent with the Hall discovery timeline. (Hall cannot have appled for the first patent in 1886, based on an interaction with Jewett, who is stated to have started at Oberlin in 1890.)

The Jewett paragraph is unsourced, while the Hall discovery paragraph presents a citation. Hence, the Jewett paragraph is moved here, until the discrepancy can be resolved.

Hall was encouraged in his scientific experiments, with ideas and materials from Professor Frank Fanning Jewett (1844–1926). Jewett received his undergraduate and some graduate training from Yale University. From 1883 – 1885, he studied chemistry at the University of Göttingen in Göttingen, Lower Saxony, Germany. There he met Friedrich Wöhler, and obtained a sample of aluminum metal. Upon return to the United States, Jewett spent a year assisting Wolcott Gibbs at Harvard University, then spent a further four years as Professor of Chemistry at the Imperial University of Tokyo in Japan. In 1890, he became the professor of chemistry and mineralogy at Oberlin College.

Le Prof 73.210.154.39 (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You are sockpuppeting? I ought to report you. 104.218.136.34 (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Martin Hall. 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/20141013075809/http://www.chemheritage.org/sci/perkinmedal/Perkin-Medal-Award-History-Past-Recipients-2014.pdf to http://www.chemheritage.org/sci/perkinmedal/Perkin-Medal-Award-History-Past-Recipients-2014.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Martin Hall. 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/20130130055253/http://specialsections.suntimes.com/education/14202059-555/the-semi-precious-joy-of-a-campus-tour.html to http://specialsections.suntimes.com/education/14202059-555/the-semi-precious-joy-of-a-campus-tour.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Martin Hall. 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/20060324095412/http://www.oberlin.edu/archive/holdings/finding/RG30/SG182/ to http://www.oberlin.edu/archive/holdings/finding/RG30/SG182/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Re my revert

@DePiep: This is the edit I have reverted. The edit was justified by reference to WP:ALUM. The rule has its own applicability limits. In the past, there was an accident when supporters of the IUPAC spelling raided the articles on atomic clocks, which use cesium, or, as IUPAC suggests, caesium. The (presumably primarily American) editors argued they should not adhere to IUPAC rules as the topic is too far away from chemistry for this adherence to make any sense. The latter point of view prevailed and since then, as I recall, WP:ALUM explicitly mentions that it is only concerned with chemistry-related articles. (I remember the story only vaguely, so there may be small errors in my narrative, but the wider picture is correct.)

Now is this article chemistry-related enough? I'd argue that it isn't. You don't call Hall a chemist first and foremost; for instance, the lead of this article describes him as "an American inventor, businessman, and chemist." The book I have heavily relied on while writing history of aluminium, Aluminium: The Thirteenth Element, describes Hall as an engineer. If Hall produced aluminum as a chemical, with intention to use it in chemical reactions, then it would make perfect sense to declare this article chemistry-related; but this is not the case. He produced it as a material, that would be used in the very form it was made in (maybe alloyed). His production method, while still technically chemical, is normally distinguished from the previous production method, which is normally called the chemical method (as opposed to Hall's electrolytic method). The focus of the article is not on chemistry in any other fashion, either. That is why I argue the article is not chemistry-related, or if so, then only marginally, and the rule that is concerned with chemistry-related articles is not applicable.--R8R (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

From the first two sentences: " ... and chemist. ... best known for ... producing aluminium". How is that not chemistry? You are supposed to give an argument for not applying the MOS (instead you introduce personal opinion as argument to deny MOS). -DePiep (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@DePiep: First of all, do not again revert a revert. If you think you're right, you can prove that within a couple of days in a way that if not your opponent, then any external observer of the argument would agree with you. See also WP:BRD.

Second, you say, "You are supposed to give an argument for not applying the MOS." And give an argument for not applying the MOS I did. The second paragraph of my original post was exclusively dedicated to that. How could you miss that when my last sentence was "That is why I argue the article is not chemistry-related, or if so, then only marginally, and the rule that is concerned with chemistry-related articles is not applicable"? The phrase "chemistry-related articles" comes from the very rule itself (please read it), I didn't invent it.

Third, I do have a personal preference on spelling the name of the metal but I didn't use it to justify my revert. I haven't even said a word about it. Feel free to prove me wrong by posting a quote from the message above. Similarly, I did not suggest to deny MOS entirely; again, feel free to prove me wrong by posting a quote.

In general, I would suggest you actually re-read what I wrote. It appears to me you've missed my point entirely. (Just in case: there are two paragraphs. The first is concerned with the fact that the rule has its limits, the second is concerned with how I think this article is beyond those limits.) What I have been meaning to say (and I indeed referred to it) is that if the criterion for a rule applicability is only marginally applicable, it is not applicable and is overridden by more general rules (in this case, WP:ENGVAR). I have read a lot of information of Hall, his discovery and subsequent improvements. I have not gotten at least once an impression that we are dealing with first and foremost, a chemist. What people emphasize much more commonly is that he not only invented a process (that, I will remind you, is usually distinguished from the chemical process of Deville), but he also put it to wrok on an industrial scale, set up (eventually) a plant at the Niagara Falls, which provided him with an incredible amount of energy, spread his production methods to other countries; there is far more engineering and entrepreneurship in this than chemistry. That's what people focus on and that's what he is best known for. In an article on, say, Friedrich Woehler, the person who was long considered the discoverer of the metal and who was the first to thoroughly describe it, your line of thinking would be more appropriate because Woehler is indeed first and foremost known as a chemist.

Now I will do what you should have instead of reverting a revert: I will ask for comments from other editors. If you ever find yourself in a similar situation to the one that we have today, please do that instead.--R8R (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I have notified all WikiProjects listed at the top of this talk page (save for WikiProject Biography, which in its edit mode has a box that, as I see it, discourages editors from discussing specific articles): Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, United States, Ohio, Technology.--R8R (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I generally try to refrain from responding to back-and-forth discussions like this one because I don't want to be drawn in an "edit war," but in this case, I feel that I need to weigh in here as a member of the Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, United States, and Biography WikiProjects. The spelling should be "aluminum" because the biographical subject was American, and because this article is primarily a biographical sketch, which places it more under the heading of history/the humanities rather than making it "a scientific article." (Misplaced Pages provides numerous guidance articles indicating that "American English" is the preferred spelling format for American biographical subjects, events, organizations, etc., including the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Spelling, which has a chart showing that the preferred spelling in the U.S. is "aluminum.") Furthermore, multiple American style guides (even those which are used by American scientists) use "aluminum," particularly when writing for the general public in America since many Americans would view "aluminium" as a typo.

An even better indication that the spelling in this particular article should be "aluminum" and not "aluminium" is the existing article itself. The final paragraph in the "Awards and honors" section of the existing Hall article uses "aluminum":

"The center features an exhibit called Aluminum: The Oberlin Connection."

The chosen spelling in the title of the exhibit mentioned above was created by the staff of an historic preservation organization in Hall's hometown (a community with which Hall had a lifelong affiliation - Oberlin, Ohio). The historians who decided on this spelling for the exhibit title are people who are well acquainted with Hall's writing and spelling preferences because of their familiarity with documents which were created by Hall.

I would suggest that the best way to swiftly resolve this debate and prevent an edit war would be to use the spelling of "aluminum" throughout the article and then expand the paragraph of the article which explains how the spelling variants ("aluminum" vs. "aluminium") evolved over the years. (You might even want to create/devote a separate section since this is a fascinating piece of history.) In any event,the spelling for this article about Hall should be "aluminum." Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

re R8R: I applied the MOS WP:ALUM. In other situations there may be more leeway (BRD), but this is a MOS. The guideline also clearly states that ENGVAR does not apply. I wrote "... not applying MOS" not about the considerations you mentioned (ENGVAR, cultural), but about annihilating the guideline itself. Why completely deny WP:ALUM, and restart that topic from scratch?

In short, WP:ENGVAR does not apply. It is not a cultural thing, the names of elements are well-defined; -um is outdated. In Shakesperian articles we do not write "Thou canst read more info at ...".

47thPennVols Of course the title of the exhibitions should not changed spelling. It's a title. Same with literal quotes. Point is that -ium is defined to be the one and only spelling, per WP:ALUM (and per IUPAC, as the MOS says). Very clearly it also states that ENGVAR or cultural preferences, as you invoke, do not overrule that MOS. Nice catch btw the /spelling overview. But as it states itself: just an overview. WP:ALUM being so overly explicit, it trumps this overview statement. -DePiep (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

And this is a perfect example of why I choose not to weigh in on these kinds of disputes. There is nothing that can be said to convince DePiep because this user is not willing to listen and seriously consider other points of view. (I note that DePiep has spread this debate across multiple talk forums, over several months, including Talk:Aluminum via the thread "AluminUm is local only - so say so".)

To be clear, this article about Hall is a biographical sketch about a native of Oberlin, Ohio with strong ties to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and is NOT a scientific article. Because Hall was a businessman, member of the board of trustees of Oberlin College and philanthropist - and not merely a chemist, this biography should present the common American spelling of "aluminum" because the article will be of interest beyond those interested in scientific terminology. (The spelling for "aluminum" in American business news articles, by the way, is "aluminum.") I note that similar opinions have been expressed by @The Rambling Man: and @Sca: (courtesy pings to both) on Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors (for February 23):

"The target article uses aluminum almost entirely, as it's a bio of an American. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)"

"At a miniumum (Ha!) we should recognize that either spelling is correct depending on context, and in this case, since it's a U.S. item, it should be 'aluminum.' Changing the title of the article to solve an OTD problem seems a rather dubious expedient, IMO. – – Sca (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)"

Whether or not you feel that the spelling of "aluminum" is "outdated" in America is really not for you to decide, @DePiep:. The reality is that "aluminum" been the common spelling of the word in the United States for quite some time, is commonly used today by multiple major newspapers (just Google "'aluminum' and The New York Times"), academics, businesses, style guides, and local, state and federal government agencies, and is, therefore, likely to remain the choice of spelling for the word in America (and in articles about Americans) for the foreseeable future. 47thPennVols (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed! Sca (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Furthermore, the claim by DePiep, "Point is that -ium is defined to be the one and only spelling, per WP:ALUM (and per IUPAC, as the MOS says)," is actually false. Not only does the IUPAC have pages on its website which use the spelling "aluminum", the Misplaced Pages article on aluminum provides this history re: the spelling variants, specifically noting that IUPAC "recognized aluminum as an acceptable variant" in both 1993 and 2005 (the most recent edition of IUPAC nomenclature, according to this article):

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

Again, rather than continuing to debate over this and risk the situation degenerating into an edit war that then prompts a request for formal dispute resolution, I would suggest that a better way of improving this article would be to use the spelling of "aluminum" throughout the article (since the article is a biography and not scientific article, and since the subject of this biography was an American businessman) and then expand the paragraph of the article into a separate section which explains how the spelling variants ("aluminum" vs. "aluminium") evolved over the years. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You can't just switch a MOS off when you like. This Misplaced Pages choose to follow the IUPAC preferred spelling. That's the job of MOS guidelines: to clarify and solve such disputes. If one wants to change that, you know where to start to propose that—it's not this incidental talkpage. (And there is no need to repeat "My way or there will be an edit war"). re is really not for you to decide is not for you to decide -- you are badly misrepresenting my post here. That decision was made and established by both IUPAC and WP:ALUM. Would you please fix that? -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

That MOS itself states "These spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Misplaced Pages, even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article." The disagreement is over whether this article is "chemistry-related" for the purposes of applying WP:ALUM. I would say that it is not. --Khajidha (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There seems little point in reiterating the point that I and other editors have been making since you don't listen anyway, but I'll give it one last try. Nobody questioned the authority of WP:ALUM as such. Nobody said they didn't like it as it was a bad rule and thus should not be followed. The point that was made is that this particular article is outside of the scope of its applicability. You keep putting words into my mouth that I did not say and ignoring the words that I did say. Cease that for once.

47thPennVols did not misinterpret what you said. You said that aluminum was an outdated spelling and compared that to the Shakespearean language. In direct response to that particular remark, an American told you it was not up for you to decide what was outdated in the English language and what was not and provided numerous examples of how people in their (English-speaking) country predominantly use aluminum and not aluminium today. It is you who keeps misinterpreting others' words.

(This may come as a surprise, but IUPAC does not have authority over English language in general. It does not even have full authority over chemical nomenclature---nobody would say gadolinium is a transition metal even if it complies with the IUPAC definition. In fact, IUPAC admits that---and this is a direct quote from the Red Book, page 249, including the period---"The alternative spelling ‘aluminum’ is commonly used." Therefore, if you believe that just because IUPAC decided that their spelling would be aluminium, the other option is entirely outdated and it was that that made you say that, then change your beliefs. However, for the purposes of this whole discussion, and not just the rebuttal to your comment that aluminum was outdated, it doesn't matter what IUPAC thinks. What matters is that we have our guidelines. Again, this article is outside the scope of the said guideline. That's why the guideline is irrelevant in this particular case, not because I don't like it or find it bad.)

There is a preliminary consensus on what sort of action should be undertaken as a result of this conflict. I will say it is only preliminary as we could hear many more opinions: after all, this discussion started not only yesterday, but also during the weekend. To anybody reading this, I plead to read the discussion that has taken place so far and provide more opinions, whether you agree with me or DePiep or maybe even have a different, entirely new opinion. Unless the consensus changes, at the end of the working week, on Friday evening per my time zone, UTC+3, I will begin to deploy 47thPennVols's suggestion. If you at that time still disagree with this, you can appeal to the Arbitration Committee. If you revert me again, then I will do that instead and I will also file a complaint to an admin on you. Not because I don't like you in general (which isn't the case) or because I don't like your position (I believe differences can be overcome), but because of how you have been acting during this discussion. I don't know how this works but I'll be sure to find out.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

To weigh in, I'll reiterate that DePiep has misinterpreted WP:ALUM and attempted to apply the relevant guidance to contexts outside its scope (articles whose subjects are chemistry-related – not anything and everything with the slightest chemistry-related aspect).
Additionally, the assertions that "-um is outdated" and "-ium is defined to be the one and only spelling" are simply incorrect. —David Levy 18:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Bad faith? I claim that WP:ALUM is straigthforward. -DePiep (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Bad faith?

Please clarify this question.

I claim that WP:ALUM is straigthforward.

To what is this statement a response? —David Levy 01:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

There might be repetition, but alas.

In this article, "aluminium" is used as a chemical element and its reactions full stop. The fact that it is in a biography does not change that. (It could be different when used as a topic of poetry, fantasy, SF, art—maybe). It's not that I am "not reading" other serious positions, it's just that I am not convinced for reasons already described. Second, I can only repeat myself: it is not my opinion to say "outdated", it is an IUPAC stated preference that has been incorporated in the MOS. It is disingenious to repeat otherwise after I pointed this out. Also, the guideline clearly says it overrules WP:ENGVAR. With all this, there is no need to show a NYT search here nor to explain that the -um spelling is common in the US, being ENGVAR arguments i.e., out of place. Any change of MOS belongs at Misplaced Pages talk:ALUM, not in an incidental talkpage. In general, it is a MOS for a reason: one is to make these such recurring discussions moot.

Now some more detailed replies.

re David Levy articles whose subjects are chemistry-related: no, that is an incorrect quote that conveniently changes the core point: it says "topics" not "subjects" (as in: the topic of aluminium production). No base in accusing me, by reiterating even, I "misinterpreted" based on a wrong quote.

re 47thPennVols & others: what I just wrote about "IUPAC and MOS decision": it is not my opinion then. And others repeating that does not change that. Re (I note that DePiep has spread this debate across multiple talk forums, over several months, including Talk:Aluminum ...") — Are you accusing of discussing an issue on a talkpage? You call this an argument? What were you looking for anyway? And: the Rambling Man quote you took from Main page MP ERRORS was from before someone started invoking WP:ALUM at all, so is quite incomplete to say the least. wrt Sca's quote: "Changing the title of the article ... dubious" indeed, and that was not proposed at all.

R8R: since you don't listen anyway — I object. I invoked and applied MOS, I described why, I pinged you, I responded to posts, I pointed out errors/mistakes. My very first sentence in my very first post here referred your point. The point is I do not agree with your reasoning, but I'm sure you can see that differing from "not listening". Re Nobody questioned the authority of WP:ALUM as such actually, 47thPennVols did so (@ 23:16) before you posted this, and there may be more. -DePiep (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"In this article, "aluminium" is used as a chemical element and its reactions full stop. " No, in this article aluminum is treated as something with which the subject worked. The article is not about aluminum, it is about Mr. Hall. And that is the important fact that renders MOS:ALUM non-relevant. And it may come as a surprise to you, but the IUPAC is not some god-like being with the power to determine what is and is not current English. --Khajidha (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

re The articke is not about aluminium - No one says that, you are protesting things I did not write. One more time: aluminium in here is used as a "chemistry-related topic" (to quote the MOS). No more, no less, no need to deviate. WP:ALUM does not require that the object of the article (the title) is aluminium. re IUPAC is not some god-like being with the power to ... - this too, no one claimed. IUPAC took a decision oon preferred spelling, and Wthis Misplaced Pages decided to take in that decision as WP:ALUM. It is a Misplaced Pages community decision. -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

One more time: aluminium in here is used as a "chemistry-related topic" (to quote the MOS). No more, no less, no need to deviate.

There is more, actually. To quote additional words from that sentence, the guidance applies to "articles about" such topics. (Why do you keep omitting that part?) This article is about a person.

WP:ALUM does not require that the object of the article (the title) is aluminium.

No one says that; you are protesting things others did not write. —David Levy 22:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @DePiep: I don't really expect to be pinged at discussions I am a part of anyway, since I normally watch them, but I appreciate the courtesy. Here's your ping in return.

Thank you for the civil tone of your comment. I will try to keep suit.

It appears to me this discussion heavily confuses the questions of how the word is spelled in general and how the word should be spelled within Misplaced Pages, the latter also subject to subdivision into spelling in chemistry-related articles and all other ones. So let's set the record straight on this one.

For instance, when you said In short, WP:ENGVAR does not apply. It is not a cultural thing, the names of elements are well-defined; -um is outdated. In Shakesperian articles we do not write "Thou canst read more info at ...", other editors, including myself, saw in this a proclamation of that it does not matter what the ENGVAR says because that is how the language is anyway. IUPAC decided is the only aluminium spelling and that's how it is in the English language now. Other options are obsolete. That's what other editors (again, including myself) saw in your comment. I still don't see if you actually meant something else, but did you?

Regardless, again, 47thPennVols in their 23:16 comment opposed that notion. They provided a quote that included your words that said that aluminium is the only spelling because IUPAC said so. That was what was opposed, both "aluminium is the only spelling" and "IUPAC said so." Aluminum is not obsolete in the English language; it's how the word is spelled in America and Canada. IUPAC voluntarily recognizes that aluminum is a spelling, too (which it does not do for sulphur, which is widely used in the Commonwealth countries. This is not a coincidence, IUPAC does not like that particular spelling. It, however, has nothing against aluminum). If you re-read that comment with this perspective in mind, you'll see 47thPennVols did not attack WP:ALUM; they attacked what they saw (and I see) as your claim that IUPAC settled on aluminium and that took the other option out of consideration entirely. WP:ALUM itself was not even mentioned, directly or indirectly. there may be more no no no, the discussion isn't too long. If there is more (I think there is none), please point that out exactly.

since you don't listen anyway -- I stand by these words, you didn't listen. To reiterate, here's a quick summary of our discussion. First, I started the discussion by commenting on why I undid your edit that replaced all occurrences of "aluminum" with "aluminium." My central point was that WP:ALUM was not applicable in this particular case. I did not once mention that WP:ALUM was stupid and I absolutely did not suggest we should ignore the rule on that basis. You, however, responded with what not only missed my point (more on that in the next paragraph), but you also said, you introduce personal opinion as argument to deny MOS. You didn't listen to what I actually said. But the discussion continued. I reiterated my point and provided more illustrations along the way. Again, you said basically the same: I wrote "... not applying MOS" not about the considerations you mentioned (ENGVAR, cultural), but about annihilating the guideline itself. Why completely deny WP:ALUM, and restart that topic from scratch? (Anyone is free to see the full text of my and DePiep's words to make sure I'm not whitewashing some horrible truth that I actually said or that I'm taking DePiep's quotes out of context.) You twice accused me of something I did not say during this discussion and you did not listen to what I did say, even after I especially pointed you were misinterpreting my words and suggested you use any words I said to make your case about my intentions. You did not---and could not---do that, because I didn't say such a thing. I invoked and applied MOS, I described why, I pinged you, I responded to posts, I pointed out errors/mistakes. You did invoke and apply MOS and you did describe why. I think you were wrong in how exactly you had done that but people can't always agree, some disagreement is fine as long as it comes from good will. You did respond to posts and it's your responses that make the problem because in doing so because instead of responding to the words I said, you thought of different words and responded to them, pretending those were my actual words. I'll leave it to your judgment how what you pointed at were "errors" and "mistakes"; personally, I don't see anything as such.

My very first sentence in my very first post here referred your point. Somewhat, but not quite. Here are the first two sentences of yours: From the first two sentences: " ... and chemist. ... best known for ... producing aluminium". How is that not chemistry? Funny enough that I had mentioned them both: he isn't primarily known as a chemist and his production method is not just not, but directly opposed to, what is called the chemical method of producing aluminum. And I had suggested that the article may be marginally about chemistry, and I had said this was not enough to be really "chemistry-related." (And as this discussion shows, I wasn't the only one who thought that.) But you acted as if I didn't say about it at all. It would have been fine if you had argued this was more than just marginally chemistry-related, but you acted as if I did not consider that at all, and this sort of reiterates my "you didn't listen" point.

Some context for an external observer: I do think WP:ALUM is a stupid rule and I do hope to see the day it is repealed (I'll get to that myself after aluminium is at least a GA). DePiep is aware of my opinion of the rule, presumably that's where their suggestions that I repeal the rule in a different fashion come from. However, as stupid as I find it, it is still a rule and I will not sabotage it as long as it stands. This is best illustrated by how I started the article history of aluminium (now an FA). I was reluctant to do so, I thought the title should be "history of aluminum." However, I knew WP:ALUM was a rule and I abided it. Anything I said about aluminum in this article came entirely from how I see that this article is outside of the scope of the rule, not because I find the rule stupid, which I did not say or hint at even once during this discussion. I really didn't focus on that, I don't live with a burning passion in my heart that would prevent me from finding peace until the rule is finally repealed. I see from this discussion that I am not alone in seeing that this article is outside out the scope of the rule. I do think this kind of information that helps take one's actions into perspective, so any observer is free to know that. I don't see why you would have problems with 47thPennVols trying to do the same to you (and that's it, all they did is pointed out is that you've consistently held your opinion and negated the other ones. They did not say you were wrong because of that; they didn't agree with you for different reasons). They did not try to conclude that you were wrong or right because of your past actions; simply that it was unnecessarily difficult to argue with you, and that was based on your actions. We're in a public environment, after all.

If things go the way they are going now, it seems that the consensus stands at that WP:ALUM is not applicable here. If things proceed how I think they are going to proceed, please don't undo me when I implement the consensus. If you really think you're right, it wouldn't hurt to wait for a few days for decision of an external arbiter to conclude that. This isn't as time-pressing an issue as would be a false claim of a crime a living person had done.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

In this article, "aluminium" is used as a chemical element and its reactions full stop. The fact that it is in a biography does not change that. (It could be different when used as a topic of poetry, fantasy, SF, art—maybe).

The relevant guidance pertains to articles about the elements listed, not to any and all mentions in that context.

I can only repeat myself: it is not my opinion to say "outdated", it is an IUPAC stated preference that has been incorporated in the MOS.

Where is such a rationale for the "aluminium" preference stated?

no, that is an incorrect quote that conveniently changes the core point

It was a descriptive statement, not a quote. Is it set off with quotation marks on your end? I didn't type any in that instance.

it says "topics" not "subjects" (as in: the topic of aluminium production).

To elaborate, it says "articles about chemistry-related topics". (This time, I am quoting the guideline.)

The Charles Martin Hall article is about Charles Martin Hall, a person. Certainly, elements of his life have significant connections to chemistry. This doesn't mean that the article is about a chemistry-related topic.

I object.

Please see WP:NOTUNANIMITY.

actually, 47thPennVols did so (@ 23:16) before you posted this, and there may be more.

Noting that "the article is a biography and not scientific article" is recognition of WP:ALUM's basic nature, not an expression of dispute as to its validity. —David Levy 13:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

re The relevant guidance pertains to articles about the elements listed, not to any and all mentions in that context. No, you are making this up (again, I can say after my previous post re you using the guideline). It does not have that limitation. You even suggest that in articles about other elements, say boron, the rule does not apply?

Where is such a rationale for the "aluminium" preference stated? - Search the MOS. Also, this thread may have some helpful links.

re the "(@ 23:16)" reference: that was to point to posts that did question the authority of WP:ALUM, which was denied in the post I replied to.

The article is about Charles Martin Hall, a person: Yes, that is the subject. However, aluminium as used in this article is a topic, chemistry-related actually. -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You even suggest that in articles about other elements, say boron, the rule does not apply?

That wasn't my intent, but I realize now that my wording was flawed. My apologies.

I meant to say that the guidance pertains to mentions of those elements in articles about chemistry-related topics (as opposed to any and all mentions in chemistry-related contexts).

Search the MOS.

For text with which I'm unfamiliar? Why don't you simply quote it?

Also, this thread may have some helpful links.

If so, please cite them.

re the "(@ 23:16)" reference: that was to point to posts that did question the authority of WP:ALUM, which was denied in the post I replied to.

Please quote the specific comments to which you're referring.

Yes, that is the subject. However, aluminium as used in this article is a topic, chemistry-related actually.

Again, the guidance applies to "articles about chemistry-related topics", not to any and all articles in which chemistry-related topics are raised. —David Levy 22:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Please quote the specific comments to which you're referring. - I already did. Just read the post referred to.

re Again, the guidance applies to ..: For a third time now, David Levy, you distort WP:ALUM and charge me. And that is after you firstly accused me saying I misinterpreted WP:ALUM. I don't think you are performing this dscussion sincerely. I don't think any next reply by me would help this discussion, given your attitude^3. Let's just read & apply MOS. -DePiep (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

That's what we're trying to do. Mr. Hall is not a chemically related topic, therefor MOS:ALUM does not apply to this article. --Khajidha (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I already did. Just read the post referred to.

In response to "47thPennVols did so (@ 23:16)", I quoted text from the message by 47thPennVols timestamped "23:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)" and noted that it doesn't dispute the validity of WP:ALUM. You replied by stating that the "(@ 23:16)" reference" "was to point to posts that did question the authority of WP:ALUM, which was denied in the post replied to". I realize that, and I'm asking you to quote the specific comments to which you're referring (purportedly contained within the aforementioned 23:16 post and one or more additional "posts" not yet specified).

For a third time now, David Levy, you distort WP:ALUM

By quoting it?

and charge me.

Pardon?

And that is after you firstly accused me saying I "misinterpreted WP:ALUM".

Why do you regard an assertion that you erred as an invidious accusation (and why have you prepended "")? My comments stand in stark contrast to your suspicion of "bad faith" on my part.

I don't think you are performing this dscussion sincerely.

I'm baffled as to why you've concluded this. —David Levy 13:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Five days ago, I said there was a preliminary consensus and that I would implement it at the end of the working week unless the consensus changed. The issue was DePiep's edit that changed all occurrences of "aluminum" within the article to "aluminium." DePiep's rationale was that writing "aluminium" would comply with WP:ALUM. My counter argument was that this article was not within the scope of that rule. After my revert was reverted, I appealed to the WikiProjects listed at the top of this talk page to provide more comments. All people that had provided comments by then shared my attitude in that the article was not within the scope of WP:ALUM. Nobody said that the rule itself was bad and should not be followed at all, despite the claims to the contrary.

Since then, the number of voices who suggested WP:ALUM is not relevant in this particular case has only increased and is now at five; the count of those who claimed the opposite remains at one. The consensus is certainly clear. As I promised, I will now change the spelling back to "aluminum." I think 47thPennVols provided good advice when they suggested we expand on how Hall influenced the spelling of the metal in the United States and I will implement that as well (but it is rather late already in my timezone, so not today, but I promise this will be my next activity in the article space).

@DePiep: I hope you can accept a consensus here. If you honestly think that we all are mistaken and want to change the spelling back to aluminium, then please seek a way to do so that would not include you undoing me. I believe this is the kind of thing that the Arbitration Committee exists for. If you undo me again, then I will take precisely the course of action I outlined five days ago. I'm sure that every administrator will agree that going against a consensus without a really good reason for it (like if we sought to reinstate a wrong claim on a living person) is edit warring.--R8R (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

References

1. ^ 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.
3. "Standard Atomic Weights Revised" (PDF). Chemistry International. 35 (6): 17–18. ISSN 0193-6484.

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).

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Pennsylvania articles
• Low-importance Pennsylvania articles
• Start-Class Pittsburgh articles
• Low-importance Pittsburgh articles
• WikiProject Pittsburgh articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Ohio articles
• Low-importance Ohio articles
• WikiProject Ohio articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Start-Class Technology articles
• WikiProject Technology articles
• Selected anniversaries (February 2019)