Talk:Aluminium

Article changed over to new WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 10:17, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 02:33, 20 Jun 2005).

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Aluminum. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Aluminum Statistics and Information, USGS Periodic Table - Magnesium, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

---

Talk

---

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

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

Article says:

Discovered by Humphrey Davy in 1812... In 1825 the Danish physicist and chemist Hans Christian Orsted produced aluminium for the first time.

How can Humphrey Davy have discovered it if it wasn't produced until later? Shouldn't we say Orsted discovered it? (Webelements lists Orsted as the discover; it has Davy as giving it a name before it was discovered.) -- Simon J Kissane

according to my research Davy discovered potasium and sodium but not alluminium. I have changed the article to reflect this. -- mike dill

Actually you can discover comething without being able to produce it, as Davy did with Aluminium, he realised that it existed but couldn't make any. Yet that didn't stop him from naming it, and "officially" discovering it. -- Sam Davyson see http://153rd.com/sam/as/physics/aluminium/normal/redirect.html for more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

There does not seem to be any mention about the effect that the rapid oxidation has on electrical conductors. Is this ever taken advantage of in practise? At least I believe it makes it very difficult to make good eletrical contact to aluminium conductors. That might deserve a note in the article. --blades 01:02, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

---

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

---

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

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

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

Moving to "aluminum"

The "use common names" policy applies to all articles. The most common name for this element is "aluminum": [1]. Blindly obeying IUPAC conventions is a violation of NPOV. Nohat 23:59, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Currently the Wikipedia:Manual of Style says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is interesting, though, that the areas where the so-called "common" English usage "Aluminium" is preferred comprise less than 30% of native English speakers (less than 25% if you count Canada, which also has a preference for "Aluminum" [2]). Nohat 18:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever#Spelling.

Move to AL?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spelling

Can anyone confirm the edits by User:The Noodle Incident (12:07, 2004 Oct 29 and 12:08, 2004 Oct 29) ([3])? Surprisingly, all these were marked as minor. I'm adding the missing bit about "alumium", anyway. --Elektron 22:35, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Uses

Powdered alumin(i)um is commonly used for silvering in paint. Mention that, and this could get a Category:Pigments link. But I don't see a good place to just stick it in. --Elijah 01:17, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

I took the liberty of sticking it in with the other examples of usage. --Deelkar (talk) 05:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Aluminium article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Aluminium}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could anyone confirm?

Could anyone confirm the change [4] (made by anonymous user 80.5.160.8 with history of vandalism). Pavel Vozenilek 02:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. 80.5.160.8 seems to be an ISP cache server, not an individual user.

Darrien 08:46, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

It looks more or less OK. The abstract of the original paper [5] (requires sub) doesn't actually discuss isolated clusters of Aluminium atoms (these may not be stable), but does discuss the iodine salts written as Al₁₃I^–_x where x is an even number. -- Solipsist 08:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should click on the link that Mr. Vozenilek provided.

Darrien 09:46, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Ah - I thought I did, but you are right - looks like I'm out by one on the edit under discussion. -- Solipsist 09:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Confusion over oxidation/passivation/inertness

The introductory section says that aluminium is "remarkable for its resistance to oxidation ". This is incorrect. Aluminium metal is readily oxidised. Water will do it rapidly with the evolution of hydrogen gas and considerable heat. What prevents this is that the oxide is insoluble except in alkali conditions. This is the "passivation" to which the next sentence refers. This needs to be reworded to illustrate that under normal conditions aluminium is inert due to the oxide coating, without saying that aluminium metal itself is resistant to oxidation.

General spelling

Over the past few of days there have been a couple of edit and reverts changing the general spelling throughout the article between British English and U.S. English.

I hope this isn't going to continue — its enough trouble keeping a lid on the choice of IUPAC spelling of the article title. The Manual of Style at WP:MoS#Usage_and_spelling is quite clear on these issues. As far as I'm concerned, this is an international article with no prior preference for one version of English over another. As such the spelling should conform to whichever version of English was used when the article was created (I haven't checked but I would imagine that was U.S. English in this case). The choice of IUPAC spelling for the word 'aluminium' itself, is an independent decision and shouldn't be taken as an endorsement to convert to British English spelling for the rest of the article. -- Solipsist 17:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The article was inconsistent in spelling, as the title of the article uses British English ()and indeed was begun using the British spelling the article should be consistent and follow with British English spelling. Jooler 22:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Asserting that title of the article is British English is misleading. It was chosen because it is the IUPAC preferred spelling, as otherwise discussed on this page. Use of the IUPAC spelling does not equate the article being written in British English. Your changes in spelling are not warranted. Dforest 00:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not the strongest proof, but the original revision as of 15:09, 30 October 2001 uses the phrase 'silver-gray appearance', which if anything would be American English. -- Solipsist 05:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Since the original author of the article (User:Sodium) was an English medical student, I think it's unlikely that the first version[6] of the article was intended to be written in American English. Really not worth getting exercised about though, as the spelling of "aluminium" used throughout the article is the correct one. --Andrew Norman 07:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Dforest that if the spelling used in the title is bases on IUPAC recommended spelling, then it cannot determine whether the article should use British or U.S. or some other national variant of spelling. Furthermore, who the first contributor was is immaterial; it is the first use by a significant contributor (not a stub) that matters, and the "gray" spelling is as good a clue as any for determining this.

Check the link above - User:Sodium's initial article (which uses the spelling "gray" for some reason despite his being English) was not a stub. Regarding the variant spelling of the element name itself, it's a mistake to see "-ium" as the British form, it's the international form and historically the most common form (as the article explains). "-um" is parochial to North America in the last hundred years. The IUPAC recognises "aluminum" and "cesium" as optional alternative spellings, and I can't find either being used in a modern IUPAC document on their own, as opposed to in brackets after the preferred spelling. --Andrew Norman 13:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Google "aluminum" 15,200,000 hits; "aluminium" 6,420,000 hits. It's not just "parochial to North America"; if it were, you'd have more than a 1.7:1 ratio for aluminium to aluminum when you limit it to site:.uk (e.g., litre:liter is more than 12:1 on site:.uk). Some of that, of course, is North American usage, but you will also find lots of examples of native usage of "aluminum" there and around the world, Australia, New Zealand, wherever. Gene Nygaard 14:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Absolute Rubbish - No-one in Britain pronounces the word as "aluminum" let alone spells it that way. This is where the Internet throws things skew-whiff. A lot of pages that have a .uk suffix are simply cut and pasted by large American organisations from their international corporate site to the sites they use for marketing their products in the UK. This is why Google is a complete waste of time for making these kinds of decisions. Jooler 15:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, IUPAC often uses both spellings, and sometimes only aluminum. Can anybody actually point us to a specific IUPAC rule actually prescribing a certain spelling? Is it like caesium/cesium, where the alternative spelling is officially recognized as well? Gene Nygaard 12:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That latter question was answered in the article itself, with the 1993 official recognition of "aluminum" as a variant spelling by IUPAC. So it isn't quite true that IUPAC prescribes the "aluminium" spelling as is sometimes argued, nor as Andrew Norman claimed that it is the "correct" one in any absolute sense, though if we read his comment as "the correct choice for use in the Wikipedia article" it makes sense as a validly held opinion shared by others including some who'd spell it aluminum themselves. Note that a Google search for aluminum and not aluminium on site:iupac.org gets 171 hits. Gene Nygaard 12:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The article title used British English, the reason, which is entreily irrelevant. The article itself contained inconsistent BE/AE usage. like the word "labourer" and the word "favor". I made it consistent with the BE used in the article title. Jooler 15:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The title was not chosen because it is "British English", but because it was considered the dominant IUPAC spelling. You may not think it is relevant, but it does not make this a British English article nor justify your changes in spelling. The word labourer was perhaps the only CwE spelling in the article prior to your edits. Nowhere in the style guide does it state that the title should be the deciding factor in spelling disputes. Dforest 04:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

For Nth time spellings should be consistent that IS MoS policy. Jooler 08:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what they should be consistent with is debatable. (And technically it's a guideline, not policy.) Better to stick with neutral English. Dforest 02:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Dforest. I think going with neutral English is probably the best compromise, and those wording changes look quite successful. -- Solipsist 06:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Dforest - please stop changing the the spelling of the only remaining word on this page which has a different spelling in BE and AE. The choice of spelling of the words within the article should be consistent with the article title -as per MoS. The reason for the choice of one spelling over the can be for numerous reasons. In this case it has been decided to use the BE spelling and therefore the choice of spelling and idiom within the article should reflect BE usage - You and others (to the detriment of the value of the article itself) - ) have taken it upon yourselves to rid this article of words which have different spellings in BE and AE. Please stop disrupting this page. Jooler 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Jooler, you took it upon yourself to change all the so-called AE spellings to BE. Others agreed that the choice of IUPAC spelling does not mean the article is British English. Following Darrien's lead, I tried to compromise by rewriting the contentious words in neutral English. Anyway, the spelling you edited is irrelevant as Kaopectate does not contain Al. [7]. Dforest 01:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The Google Test

A few days ago I added this comment to the spelling section of the article:

"As of 2005, a Google search on the words shows a popular preference for the aluminum spelling, more than twice that of aluminium. However, such a test may be considered biased. See Google test."

Vsmith quickly reverted this, claiming it is irrelevant. Yet it keeps coming up on the talk page... I'd like to hear what other WPs think. Dforest 15:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to an encyclopaedia article on Aluminium. It is relvant to the naming of an article on Wikuipedia. so it should not be in the article, and it is no suprise that it comes up on the talk page. Jooler 15:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

IMO, a mention of the Google test is relevant as a footnote in the section of an article specifically concerning the spelling of "aluminium" vs. "aluminum". Dforest 02:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only point in mentioning it is to establish the relative frequency of use of each spelling. In the past I've worked with someone developing word counting/indexing software for use by dictionary editors (I can't now remember whether it was the OED or Collins). They pay careful attention to source of text that would be considered relevant and I doubt Google would pass muster (for example you don't include data from the language used in the 1911EB to determine current usage). They were actually using vast collections of electronic texts - I have a vague impression that collections of newspapers were considered particularly fruitful, but I can't remember the reasoning - possibly because their daily timestamp was useful for tracking the historical variations in word usage.

So if we don't completely understand the biases of Google, it shouldn't be presented as fact in the article. However, I saw a news story suggesting that Google had started a project to put a large number of books online, so that might produce a dataset that could be used. -- Solipsist 05:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, use of Google hits counts is a fast-growing area of real (albeit informal, but done by professionals, not just amateurs) linguistic research. Second, I don't see anything wrong with including the fact that Google has more hits for aluminum than aluminium. It's a verifiable fact, something that is perfectly acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia. It would be a step too far to say that the Google results necessarily mean that aluminum is more common than aluminium in English usage overall, but there is nothing wrong with saying that Google has more hits for aluminum than aluminium, and in a section describing contention over the spelling of the word, such a fact is perfectly relevant and demonstrative. Nohat 06:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Google means nothing in terms of usage. Absolutely nothing. Usage on the Internet is dominated by American usage because American companies cut and past their pages to UK sites as described above. For example Look at http://www.pricerunner.co.uk/ a supposed UK site but on the front page we find "Find the best price on your favorite music". Google also provides very many false positives. For exampe go to Google and type in 'aluminum site:uk' look at the first site "Aluminum Packaging Recycling Organization" - alupro.co.uk if you click on the cached version, what do you find? "These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: aluminum" -the google test is bollox. Jooler 09:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The points you bring up have no bearing in aggregate. Google indexes over 8 billion pages. The relative distribution of spellings may be biased;however, they make up for it in volume: the sheer vastness of the quantity of matches makes the results necessarily relevant. It is a fact that Google reports that more pages have the aluminum spelling. What purpose is there in suppressing the presentation of actual, verifiable facts on Wikipedia articles other than to further some hidden agenda? Since it's disputed, why don't we let the readers decide how to interpret the facts concerning the spelling of aluminum? Nohat 05:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

"It is a fact that Google reports that more pages have the aluminum spelling.' - No it is not. The very top hit for 'aluminum site:uk' does NOT contain the word 'aluminum'. In any case "pages cached by google" does not reflect International usage, it merely reflects the american domination of the Internet. how many exammples of American corporations using sites with a .uk suffix and cutting and pasting content from pages written with american English do you want me to provide? Jooler 08:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nohat's comment. Jooler, you write "It is relvant to the naming of an article on Wikuipedia" but "Google means nothing in terms of usage." There appears to be a contradiction here. Google is not perfect as a method of determining popular usage, but it is a good rule of thumb, and often used as such. Note that Google News, which indexes many newspapers around the world, has a ratio of 4:1 of aluminum:aluminium. I suggest that if you have objections to Google's results, find a more accurate source of usage statistics and add it to the article as a rebuttal. Dforest 04:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have just demonstrated that the very first hit on google for 'aluminum site:uk' does not even contain the word 'aluminum'. What more evidence do you need to prove that Google provides false positives? Jooler 08:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but your attacks against Google's relevance just don't hold up. If you search using "allintext: " at the beginning of the Google query, it ensures that the pages include the search terms. The results are unstartlingly parallel to the searches without "allintext". Nobody is claiming that Google is an exact mirror of all usage, but it does provide some data, and your minor complaints about possible problems do not stand up against the vast weight of millions of real examples of usage that it provides. Nohat 08:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The Google comment amounts to original research in addition to being irrelevant and biased. It does not belong in the article. Vsmith 12:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hear hear. I fail to see the relevance of this original research. — OwenBlacker 12:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. James F. (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not original research, in fact it is mentioned on the Google test page. (see: Idiosyncratic usage). A link back to that page is perfectly reasonable. --Dforest 00:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It is original research, and that page is not an article, it's in the wikipedia namespace. We should not use an article in the wikipedia namespace as a reference, nor should we link to articles in the Wikipedia namespace from the main namespace. -- Joolz 02:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Merging Super-Purity Aluminium

Super_Purity_Aluminium is a different beast than the run-of the mill stuff produced in the current Hall-Héroult process. Of course, I still haven't been able to figure out how they make it. (I have an email addy for a producer in the industry, but haven't had time to monkey with that...)

I guess it could be merged, but I was hoping that as a seperate article it might get worked on more, since it's not being worked on within the Aluminium article....

~ender 2005-07-22 15:53:MST

Put down the I, and step away from the word

The extra I fails the Google test and the population test. Let's please just be reasonable, and move this to 'aluminum'. -Litefantastic 17:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yawn. Do we have to keep putting up with ignorant comments like this? Jooler 21:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I've taken it up with the manual of style. I'm not trying to give you a hard time (I briefed myself on some previous complains akin to my own for reference), but the fact remains that the manual of style disagrees with popular opinion... Aside from the fact that you're sick of hearing dissenters, what are your thoughts? -Litefantastic 23:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you claiming to be popular opinion? The spelling of aluminium? For the love of Mike, that spelling is almost exclusively used by Americans. It is popular in America. The Internet is mostly American. The world mostly isn't. Jooler 00:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. If the Internet is mostly American, it will be mostly Americans viewing the 'Aluminium' page. Correct me if I'm wrong - please - but I think I'm just reconfirming what you said. On a side note, I'd like to apollogise for the hubris I took when I started this thread; it was the wrong way to approach this. -Litefantastic 00:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Well. No I think most American internet users are too busy downloading porn. The IUPAC use Aluminium, so that is why this page is at Aluminium. That is an end of it. But I imagine you would want to use US spelling throughout Wikipedia for the reasons you state. Using your argument we should only use Chinese. The fact that most of the Internet is written by American speakers is because America is rich and rich American corporations and rich American universatives put together most of the content. Most readers are not American. This has been argued countless times. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Guerilla_UK_spelling_campaign for a lighter take on it. Jooler 00:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. I'm an American and I teach chemistry in the good old USA. My textbooks spell it aluminum and with my students I use it as aluminum (although I point out the IUPAC spelling). Aluminium is the IUPAC reccommended spelling just as sulfur is - and wikipedia chemistry project made the decision to go with IUPAC. It's been bashed about too many times, give it up - on wikipedia it is spelled aluminium. When I find aluminum on wiki, I change it to aluminium - just as I change sulphur to sulfur (Historical/archaic usage and place names aside). So cut the google/American snobism and accept it. And note, please refrain from using the stupid porn slur. Thanks, Vsmith 01:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Total, utter nonsense. Wikipedia has no "official spellings". Each article is spelled according to the national spelling style used for that article. If an article otherwise uses American spellings, then there is no reason why it should use the non-American spelling aluminum. AFAIK there is no policy which supports changing all instances of the word aluminum to aluminium, so I suggest you stop that. Furthermore, the fact that IUPAC chooses some particular spelling should have no bearing at all on how Wikipedia chooses to spell an ordinary word like aluminum. I accept that community consensus supports spelling it aluminium at the moment, but I definitely do not support Wikipedia's acceding to some foreign spelling authority. We decide our own spellings around here based on our own policies which are decided using the NPOV. To do otherwise would be a flagrant violation of NPOV. Nohat 02:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"Foreign" to whom exactly? Bad attitude. "We" do not decide our own spellings - that's nonsense. This is an encyclopedia and it is supposed to reflect the world, not shape it. In this case the article explains the etymology and adequately covers the fact that in the American branch of English sub-dialects there is a slight deviation from the normal spelling. The view of the international body simply reflects the status quo. Wiki-Ed 12:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

IUPAC is foreign to Wikipedia and they have no authority to legislate how we use the English language, nor is there any policy that says we should obey IUPAC's preferences. A majority of native English speakers are speakers of American English. Calling American English a "branch of sub-dialects" makes it seem at though American English is some uninfluential minority dialect. It is not. And furthermore, if you want to accurately "reflect the world", the reality is that a giant fraction of English speakers, if not a majority, spell and pronounce this word "aluminum", and I see no Wikipedia policy that says valid American spellings should be dispreferred. Nohat 06:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I am American, but let me share a small anecdote. One time on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire", the questions was "What is the capital of Australia?" The choices were Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, and some other city. The contestant decided to use his ask-the-audience lifeline and I knew immediately he would lose. Sure enough, they picked Syndey and he went with them. The moral is: the majority is not always right and Americans are bad in geogrpahy. Nelson Ricardo 03:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC) (edited: Nelson Ricardo 11:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC))

Sophistry. The point of this anecdote is to impeach Americans' intelligence, and then by implication impeach their authority to decide how to spell words. Spellings of words are not "facts"; they are conventions. Conventions are established by usage or custom. If a large fraction (or even a majority) of users of a word spell it a particular way, then that spelling is by definition conventional. This story has nothing to support the theory that "aluminium" is somehow "more correct" than "aluminum". Nohat 06:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nohat; Vsmith's comments are nonsense. Note that even the French Wikipedia featured article (see notice at top of page) sometimes uses "aluminum" spelling, as do several other French Wikipedia articles, mixed in with aluminium spellings.

IUPAC accepts both spellings; their choice of one of them in their "house rules" for in-house publications isn't particularly relevant to anything, and even the IUPAC website has a great many articles using the "aluminum" spelling. Gene Nygaard 06:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably wirtten by French Canadians - put "aluminum site:fr" into Google. How many pages do you have to go through till you find an article written in French? What does the point about French Wikipedia prove anyway? Jooler 06:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It is worth noting some usage statistics in the article. I added a mention of the Google test. If others find this biased, I suggest you find another source and add it as a rebuttal. --Dforest 06:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The Internet is inherently biased as I have pointed out before and Google reflects that as well as emphasizing it. Saying that aluminum is more popular on the Internet is like saying aluminum is more popular in the New York Times. Jooler 06:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The internet may be inherently biased, but it is sophistry to compare the results from an unregulated global medium to a heavily regulated and nationally-oriented newspaper whose style is mandated from above. The two are not comparable at all, and the suggestion that statistical results on usage of the two are in any way comparable is symptomatic of what I perceive to be a desperate attempt to cover up interesting facts. Indeed, I'd say that the fact that IUPAC's official style guide prefers aluminium is less relevant to the topic of aluminum in general than the results from Google. The statistical results from the web's largest search are perfectly reasonable to mention on this page. Nohat 07:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!? The NYT is an American newspaper, butI would imagine, like all newspapers around the world it carries syndicated stories written by international news organizations like AFP and Reuters. Likewise the Internet is predominantly an American entity, the rest follows. Statistics without context are meaningless. The context is that Google both reflects and and enhances the American English bias of the Internet (which is a no-brainer). With this in mind the fact that Google prefers aluminum over aluminium is no more interesting or relevant to this page than the fact that Google prefers humor to humour. Jooler 08:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Newspaper that carry stories from international news organizations copyedit them to adhere to their house styles. All articles published in the NYT follow NYT house style rules. If you didn't know that, fine, but the analogy remains totally inept and unapt. Second, it does not go without saying that the internet is inherently biased in favor of the U.S. It has been a long time now that the U.S. does not constitute a majority of the internet. Information about relative sizes of usage groups is not necessarily a given, and we mustn't lose sight of Wikipedia:State the obvious. It may be obvious to you that a Google search will show more hits for aluminum than for aluminium, but that's not true of everyone else. I don't have any problem with tempering the information with caveats about potential biases and so forth, but I don't really see a reasonable argument for completely suppressing it. Furthermore, the interesting fact is that even though "aluminium" is the "official" spelling of IUPAC and is the supposed "international standard", Google still has more hits for aluminum than aluminium, but that the number of Google hits for aluminum is about 13.5 million and the number of Google hits for aluminium is about 5 million; that ratio on the internet is about 2.7 to 1 in favor of "aluminum", which indicates that yes, "aluminum" has a majority of usage on the internet, but that "aluminium" also constitutes a significant minority usage, not a marginal spelling. The statistics serve as a counterbalance to the other descriptions of usage, which seem to "favor" the spelling "aluminium". Nohat 08:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I want to add that the comparison with "humour" is also an incredibly unapt analogy. That spelling is simply a regular difference in spelling only between the BrE and AmE. Aluminum/Aluminium, on the other hand, is a completely unpredictable and idiosyncratic difference that is represented in both spelling and pronunciation. The two are not even remotely comparable. Nohat 08:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The Internet is not "predominantly an American entity"; read this excerpt from the Internet article. Note "a majority of the population".

"Countries where Internet access is a commodity used by a majority of the population include Germany, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Australia, Denmark, the United States, Canada, the UK, The Netherlands, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea and Norway." Dforest 08:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Re NYT - try looking at [8] - what happened there!? - did the spellchecker break, or was the copyeditor having a coffee break!? - But this, along with the pointless bashing of the humor/humour analogy, (unapt?) is irrelevant. The notable thing about a commodity' is that there are producers and there are consumers. The majority of producers of websites on the Internet and the software products that are used to produce them are American. In this sense it IS without question a predominantly American entity (certainly from the perspective of the English language). The reason for this imbalance is primarily the economic power of American IT corporations. If you load up Microsoft Word using the default installation for English, what do you get? You get English (U.S.), how many non-native English speakers in Germany, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea and Norway change this to English (British)? No-one - that is no-one - in the UK pronounces the word as aluminum, and consequently no-one - that is - no-one - in the UK spells it as aluminum, and yet we find that a huge number of web-pages sited within the .uk domain use the American spelling!? What is your explanation for this ? Is it that suddenly we have decided to adopt the US spelling? No. The reason is that these web-pages are almost mostly written by Americans and have been cut/and pasted to .uk sites. It is thus a prime example of the pro-American bias of the Internet and displays that Google hit-counts are entirely meaningless in the real world. Jooler 13:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

All of those .uk websites are not written by Americans or copied from them.

Of people whose mother tongue is English, 69% are in the United States and 5% in Canada;[9] North Americans outnumber the rest of the world by 3 to 1 when looked at this way. Gene Nygaard 14:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

That's funny. The Wikipedia article on English language says there might be up to 2000m people speaking English worldwide. I make the total population of the US and Canada to be about 330m (according to Wikipedia) which equates to about 16.5% of people speaking English. Of course I don't think any of those articles are completely accurate, nor do I think that all the other English speakers would necessarily use the non-American spelling, but hey, statistics are fun right? Wiki-Ed 18:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

And yet again we have the same rubbish trotted out. Is Wikipedia for native speakers only!? The majority rules and damn the rest? Is this what Wikipedia is about? 300 million people on the Indian sub-continent say no. You say "All of those .uk websites are not written by Americans or copied from them" - what percentage then? - I can tell you for sure that Britons do not pronounce or spell the word as aluminum - so why the hell would we write it? Jooler 16:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding English speakers on the Indian sub-continent, if you include 'English as a lingua franca' in the above statistics, counting India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, you get 48.4 million, a far cry from the 300 million you state. Dforest 19:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

American English *is* a branch of English. It may not be uninflential but it is certainly a minority as the majority of people speaking English do not reside in the US (nor do they spell aluminium without an 'i'). Fact checking needs to be done... and not through use of American internet sources like Google. This is a fundamental stumbling point. I believe the point of Nelson Ricardo's anecdote was not to impugn the intelligence of Americans, but to illustrate that just because one group sets a convention does not mean that it is correct, either in absolute terms or in relation to the rest of the world. When perception is coloured then facts will be confused. This topic is a case in point. Wiki-Ed 09:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

If you disagree, then cite some counter-evidence. But you can't just delete valid information just because you think it may be biased. Show us some evidence. The Google results are a fact, and they have a caveat. Both the fact and the caveat are on the page. There is no valid reason to remove them. Nohat 17:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The "evidence" is extraneous when the article already explains the etymology quite thoroughly. Google results are not factual because there is no way of telling whether they are accurate or representative. Also, you can tailor them to suit your argument. For example if I remove all US-sourced domains from the search criteria I end up with "aluminium" outnumbering "aluminum" 2:1. Bit contrived, but it seems to support Jooler's hypothesis. Try it. That's "counter-evidence" isn't it? Wiki-Ed 18:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

So, information on how a word is spelled on 18.5 million web pages is completely irrelevant to a discussion of how a word is spelled. Nohat 18:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It is relevant to this discussion on this talk page, but it is not relevant to the encyclopaedia article, and frankly I'm staggered that you still think it is relevant. BTW I strongly object to the accusation of vandalism that you have used on the edit summary. The Google results are a 'fact and they do have a caveat, the caveat is that it is and entirely bogus statistic that proves precisely nothing. Jooler 18:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is it entirely bogus? Is how people spell things on the internet not relevant to the topic of spelling? What exactly is the harm in including this information? Are people in some way misled or lied to if they are informed about the Google results? I understand that you think that it's entirely bogus and that it proves nothing, but others here, including me, disagree that it's completley bogus and think it's informative and relevant. 18.5 million web pages is a significant data point, whether you like it or not.

What happened to the spirit of NPOV? We're perfectly willing to explain that the information comes with a caveat, but you appear to be totally unwilling to budge on the point that it be included in any form at all whatsoever. There is a disagreement; Wikipedia policy when there is a disagreement is to compromise by contextualizing disputed points, not to completely remove them. Where's your spirit of compromise? How can you completely discount 18.5 million web pages as not being relevant? That's approximately 18,499,999 more opinions than yours, and yet you would silence them. For shame. Nohat 18:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, when you remove information from an article when there is no consensus to do so, especially where there are a number of people on the talk page who disagree with that removal, then that's vandalism in my book. There is no consensus that this information should not be included, so removing it constitutes vandalism. If you don't want your actions described as vandalism, then I suggest you not vandalize articles. Nohat 18:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the best way to solve this is to follow the relevant authority where there is one. In the case of chemical names, go with the IUPAC primary spelling, as we have for the elements Caesium and Sulfur. I am from the United States, so that will mean using something other than what I was taught in grade school for this article, but so be it. Jonathunder 18:18, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

The information about the official IUPAC spelling is already included in the article. The question now appears to be whether information about the number of Google results for the different spellings can be included in the article at all. Nohat 18:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

If I went out and wrote a virus which changed the spelling on all those pages would the "results" still be relevant? No. Are they now? No. Above you claim that IUPAC is a "foreign" entity which we should ignore because it has no authority over Wikipedia. However, it seems to me that instead you are trying to use the authority of a tiny number (relatively speaking) of non-recognised "foreign" website authors to justify how a word is spelt. Hypocrisy? Yes. Wiki-Ed 18:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand. There are two different issues here. The first is how Wikipedia articles in general should spell the word "aluminum". The second is whether or not the article about aluminum should include information from Google about the number of pages that use different results. Furthermore, there is a qualitative difference between making linguistic arguments based on some what self-appointed authority says is correct and making linguistic arguments based on preponderances of usage. The former is called "prescriptivism" and the latter is called "descriptivism". The former is not really accepted by professional linguists as a valid argument for pretty much anything, but the latter forms the basis for how all scientific study of language is undertaken. Nohat 19:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

So is that what you kept adding to the article--a "scientific study" of spelling? Looks like original research to me. By the way, you clearly broke the three revert rule in adding it back over and over. You can be blocked for that. CDThieme 20:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The ban on original research does not mean that one can't present simple facts gleaned from a pair of Google searches. Trying to apply that policy here smacks of desperation. Saying that you can't include results from Google searches would mean that almost everything on Wikipedia would be "original research". As for the 3RR, it doesn't apply to vandalism, which is exactly what continually removing valid information from an article despite a lack of consensus is. Nohat 20:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Lol. I was just about to say that! I understood there are two elements to this, but the threads are a little confused. On the first point, as I have said, I think the article covers the fact that there are two spellings adequately. It even gives quite a detailed history. The second points seems like primary research to me too. I suspect you may disagree, but I haven't been able to find a policy line on the use of Google. Wiki-Ed 20:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't given any statistical information on distribution of usage, which, if you ask any linguist, is absolutely the most important information in any kind of linguistic analysis. Nohat 20:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Get over it you guys! The non-US contributors to Wikipedia have to put up with an enormous amount of US linguistic imperialism. Let's go with the internationally recognised standard and go on to something useful. DJ Clayworth 21:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? What does American linguistic imperialism have to do with presenting some simple facts about usage in the article? Are you suggesting that the fact that according to Google "aluminum" is 2.7 times more common on the internet than "aluminium" should be suppressed as some kind of "compensation" for alleged American linguistic imperialism? Nohat 21:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is a U.S. versus anyone else issue: opinions from American editors above have been on both sides. I really don't think the charge of "imperialism" is helpful in finding a solution. Please withdraw it. (This request is from an American who probably agrees with you otherwise.) Jonathunder 21:08, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Nohat. I was in fact following the consensus that the Google statistics were not relevant and should not be included on this page that had been established quite some time ago, when Dforest last went about trying to include them back in July. So your alleged vandalism charge is unwarranted and disengenous. You were the one making continuous reversions against that consensus. Jooler 21:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What consensus? I don't see any consensus. All I see is acrimonious debate, with one side logrolling their POV through without any attempt to compromise. Nohat 22:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You say "what consensus?" - back in July along with myself, we had

• "Hear hear. I fail to see the relevance of this original research." — OwenBlacker
• "Agreed." James F.
• It is original research -- Joolz

And the debate ended there until DForest re-ignited it, and you fanned the flames. Jooler 22:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and back in July neither Dforest nor I agreed but moved on temporarily to other issues while we let the issue sit. There wasn't a consensus then and there isn't a consensus now. Nohat 23:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I was on holiday. Dforest 01:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Dforest. Those figures are well known to be hugely inaccurate for several reasons and were in fact the subject of some debate on the talk:English language page. See [Talk:English_language#Pie_Chart] and then see [Talk:English_language#Indian_English_Speakers] which states "a 1997 'India Today' survey suggested that about a third of the population has the ability to carry on a conversation in English you end up with around 350 million English language speakers in India" - I was being conservative. Jooler 21:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

But it's comparing apples and oranges. Certainly it is quite a lot different being able to carry on a conversation and using it as a lingua franca. Dforest 01:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Apples and Oranges, yes Apples are native speakers and Oranges are people who read web pages. There are a lot more of the latter. Jooler 08:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

But it is the former which set the standards for the use of the language. The latter are followers only, not leaders, in this regard. Gene Nygaard 15:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

My goodness this must be where I must have got it all wrong. I didn't realise that I was a follower, an obedient servant who is humbled before his master and leader who is there to teach me the proper way to speak English. I live in the country that invented the language. Listen! Your standards are NOT my standards. This is not YOUR Wikipedia and you are not here to dictate how the rest of the world should speak English. This is our Wikipedia and it is pluralistic. There are no leaders and there are no followers. Jooler 16:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

My point was that you shouldn't discredit the data just because it doesn't fit your criteria. Dforest 11:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This still doesn't address the issue of how statistics of usage on the internet are invalid. They don't represent all written English, sure, but the internet is a large and important subset of written usage, and has the added benefit of being measurable. Imperfect data shouldn't be suppressed; it should simply be presented with its imperfections. With the exception of cold, hard, data that directly contradicts the Google data, there is nothing you can say or do to convince me that it's invalid.

However, given that, I disagree that the data is as useless as you claim, and until anyone provides any kind of data or evidence; anything at all whatsoever that directly contradicts the Google data, I don't see any reason to discount it. All these theories and arguments about how Google may potentially be biased or unreliable are just that: theories and arguments. Unless hard facts can be shown that directly contradict the data, the data cannot be denied. Nohat 22:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok try to convince me - what exactly' do 18.5 million Google hits actually tell us? (BTW I get 13.5). What do 389,000 "aluminum site:uk" hits tells us? That's the clincher isn't it? 18.5 million hits for aluminum proves that a whole bunch of people wrote the word aluminum on the Internet, and Google counted 'em and added a whole bunch of other false positives (see above) and came out with a figure of 18.5 million. Nothing more nothing less. What do 822,000 hits for "Guiness"(sic) tell us?, What do 2,960,000 hits for "seperate" tells us? what do 4,910,000 hits for "millenium" tell us? It tells us that a lot of people don't use a spellchecker when they write stuff on the Internet (myself included, but my main problem is my inability to touch type). Jooler 22:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What does 4,780 hits for "analogue disc record" tell us? It tells a that term invented on Wikipedia and now discarded has spread to 4,780 websites despite the fact that virtually no-one in the real world would ever use it. Ohh and before you start to bang on about the "unaptness" of these analogies - I would like to point out that all analogies are subject to failure if you attempt to take them too far. As it might say on a the cover of a TV dinner, they are for illustrative purposes only. Jooler 22:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Aluminium is not a misspelling. It's a variant spelling. So making comparisons to common misspellings is not a very illuminating analogy. Besides, none of your examples show anything interesting. All of the misspellings get significantly fewer hits than the correct spelling: "Guinness" gets 3,170,000 hits and Guiness gets 822,000, a ratio of 3.8 to 1. Same for seperate/separate: 40.8 to 1. And so forth. Google shows us that misspellings are not as popular as the correct spellings, and that's not a particularly interesting or unexpected fact. One would expect that correct spellings are more popular. On the other hand, the aluminum article says that IUPAC's official spelling is aluminium and that is the spelling used in most English-speaking countries except the U.S. and Canada. And yet, despite the official preference by IUPAC and the apparent popular preference by so many countries, the American spelling still has dominance on the internet. This is where the Google search shows evidence that is contrary to what someone might expect. That's an interesting fact, and that's something that should be included in the article. Nohat 23:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Nohat, your interpretation of selected data from Google could indeed make a most interesting article... but it is original research and has no place here. Wiki-Ed 23:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting my interpretation should be included on the page, just the facts. But even just the facts are being censored because they're "irrelevant", which I dispute, and I explained here why I dispute it. We should let the readers decide for themselves whether or not it is relevant. Nohat 23:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Right - so as far as I can see you have just proved my point. You say "And yet, despite the official preference by IUPAC and the apparent popular preference by so many countries, the American spelling still has dominance on the internet." - well what can be the explanation for that? What can be the explanation for 389,000 "aluminum site:uk" hits? If you don't accept my explanation, what is your explanation? Oh and again, the analogies are for illustrative purposes only, i.e. they illustrate that Google hit counts are generally not particulary interesting usefull or informative, which is precisely my point with regards to Aluminium. Maybe an article on it's own, but then we have Wikipedia:Google test and the caveats with its usage should be listed there. The number one caveat being that there is an inherent US bias on the Internet. Jooler 23:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the data is relevant and you don't. Why don't we just include the facts and let the readers decide for themselves whether they think it is relevant instead of you deciding for them? Nohat 23:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It these are facts you can cite a source for they may be relevant. If it is the original research of your own analysis of certain selected google searches you did, it is irrelevant and fattening. CDThieme 00:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but entering a URL and then reading information from the resulting page does not count as "original research". It's just "looking something up on the web", which is how the vast majority of information on Wikipedia gets here. Nohat 00:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I note how you fail to answer the question. What are the facts? As far I can see the "fact" is that US spellings are generally more common on the Internet. What relevance to a light shiny metal is that? Jooler 23:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought I explained this. The way the article reads without it makes it seems as though "aluminium" would be the most common spelling. The Google evidence counterbalances that. You know, NPOV and all that. Nohat 23:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

This was precisely the reason I added the Google comment to begin with. We are religiously following what we consider to be an international standard--but one set by scientists, not by linguists. (Not to imply they cannot be both, only that their choice is as arbitrary as anyone else's, especially considering they accept both spellings.) The article seems to imply that it is the correct or "preferred" spelling, and thus it seems relevant to me to show some contradicting evidence of how the language is actually used. Again, prescription and description. Neither spelling is more correct than the other. Dforest 01:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I still don't get it. How does the Google "evidence" counter anything? All that can be judged from the "evidence" is that "aluminum" is used on the Internet more than "aluminium". So what? I don't find that in any way suprising. Jooler 00:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I do. And besides, when did the criterion for relevance only include "surprising"? "Aluminum" is used on the Internet more than "aluminium"—why should that information be suppressed? A short sentence indicating that fact, with the Google results as evidence is all that is necessary. At least two people think it's relevant and interesting. I think most of the other facts in this article are unsurprising and uninteresting, but you don't see me suggesting that they be removed. Why is this fact, which clearly concerns the topic in question, being so vehemently suppressed? Nohat 00:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It irrelevant, it doesn't prove anything. It is not unique and it can be easily be explained away. It doesn't enlighten the reader in any way shape or form. You say you find it suprising, I cannot fathom why? I've given you a clear explanation of the reason behind it, and you cannot refute it. I think you're just trolling now. Goodnight. Jooler 00:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

You're continuing to miss the point. The fact that you can explain the results does not mean that the results aren't true. It just means that there is an explanation for them. The fact that there is an explanation doesn't mean that the facts aren't true. I explained why I think it's surprising. I think it's perfectly valid for you to not find them surprising, but being surprising is not the criterion for inclusion or relevance. It's related to the topic in question and it's verifiable. There is no reason to suppress the information. Nohat 00:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

They are true in a very narrow context, a context which is not particularly interesting in this case, or indeed in any other case regarding US English usage. Why can't you see that? It seems perfectly obvious to me. If it is not obvious to you then fair enough, make your "interesting" point about usage, but make it somewhere else where the context is right. It has no relevance to this article. This really is the lamest article dispute I've ever come across. Jooler 08:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This article has an extensive section on "spelling" of the word aluminum. It contains information about which organizations have an official spelling for the word. It contains information about which countries generally prefer which spelling. It even contains information about how the word is spelled in Finnish and Estonian! I don't see any reason why it shouldn't also contain information about which spelling is more popular on the internet. I don't understand how you can say that how the Estonians spell a word in Estonian is relevant to the English Wikipedia, but which English spelling is more common on the internet is irrelevant. That is blatant and POV preference for prescriptive information, while descriptive information is being suppressed by being called "biased" and "irrelevant" without any actual proof of it, just a lot of speculation and blubbering. This discrimination against valid linguistic information is unjustified and intolerable.

If you want this article dispute to go away, then you should stop being so incredibly obstinate and make a proposal for some kind of compromise that might appease everyone. I've tried to make suggestions for how the wording might be adjusted to be acceptable to everyone, but so far all the suggestions and proposals for including any kind of descriptive usage information have been rejected without any valid justification. Nohat 19:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could propose something other than your own analysis of one search engine's results, some independent work which could be cited. Just a suggestion. Jonathunder 19:32, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

I'm not proposing any analysis at all anymore. Just the simple facts that Google returns 13.5 million for "aluminum" and 5 million for "aluminium". All I propose is to just use Google as a primary source to give two facts, and let the reader decide for himself whether the facts are interesting or relevant. I note that WP:NOR says "... research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

I recognize that not everyone is linguistically savvy and capable of comprehending the importance of descriptive linguistic data when discussing usage; however, linguistic naïveté should not motivate the suppression of valid and relevant information. Where else would be a better place to put descriptive linguistic information about the relative frequency of two spellings of the word "aluminium" than in a section called "spelling" of the article called "aluminium"? Nohat 20:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

"If you want this article dispute to go away, then you should stop being so incredibly obstinate" - I'm being obstinate? You are in a minority of two and I am being obstinate!? Get real. I agree with you the details regarding Estonian spelling etc should be trimmed. It's not useful or interesting to list these languages, some will inevitably be left out and some readers will inevitably feel aggreived that their language isn't included and add it to the list. Where would we be then if this page listed the speeling in "all known languages in the galaxy (including Welsh) [that's a reference to Red Dwarf in case you didn't get it]. You think Google hit counts are relevant, I don't think they are, I have explained why I think they are not relevant and all you have done is quote the hit count, and not tried to offer any kind of explanation defending the relevance of the hit count other than "it must be significant because it is so big" or words to that effect. I repeat - statistics (in this case the hit count) are meaningless without context and in this case the context is that the hit count reflects the nature of the Internet, nothing more. Put this information on a page about the Internet and spellings where the context is meaningful, otherwise you should set about initiating a campaign to add the same bogus statistical information to all of the Wikipedia articles that use an American spelling rather than a British spelling or vice versa. Jooler 22:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

More sophistry. You keep retreading the same tired arguments. Again you seem to be claiming that the Google statistics have no context, which if course is a statement that couldn't be further from the truth. The context is that this is a section "spelling" of an article called "aluminum". The context is that there is a heap of prescriptive information about English-language usage without any descriptive information to counterbalance it. I can't imagine a situation in which these statistics could have more context.

Your slippery-slope argument about adding statistical information is yet another inapt analogy that you seem to be so fond of. Obviously statistical information about frequency of usage would only be needed in articles that already have extensive linguistic usage information, such as this one. No one is proposing or suggesting that these types of statistics are needed on any page.

I recognize that you don't think this information is interesting or relevant. I think you're wrong; it is both interesting and relevant, and necessary to maintain balance and NPOV. You still have not given any compelling reason why readers should have it decided for them that this information is irrelevant rather than allowing them to decide for themselves. You do Wikipedia and its readers a great disservice by unilaterally removing information for which there is clearly no consensus to remove. Nohat 23:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Quoting Google search results for the two terms would be both original research and misleadingly unscientific. For example, the Google results could be heavily skewed to North American Internet references in English. The internationally recognized name of this element, in English texts, is aluminium. The American spelling aluminum should be a re-direct. Wyss 22:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. However, I believe there is some misunderstanding. Wikipedia:No original research explicitly states "... research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Google is a primary source and including statistics from Google is simply "collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources". Had I attempted to count the usage of the different spellings on the internet myself, then that would be original research. Simply consulting an established primary source for usage statistics does not constitute original research.

There is already a multiple-years-old tradition of using Google statistics for scientific inquiry among professional linguists. Your speculation that Google results are heavily skewed to American sources is unsubstantiated and likely false. Google indexes web sites from every country and every language and it has been a long time since American interests have held a majority on the internet.

Furthermore, the English language is not legislated by any body, and there is no such thing as an "internationally recognized name" for anything. However, if there were, such a name would be recognized by all countries. Seeing as how the United States is a nation in the international community like any other, and the spelling "aluminium" is not recognized in the United States, either popularly or officially, even if there were such a thing as an "internationally recognized name", it couldn't possibly be "aluminium", which is not used by a majority of native English speakers. The suggestion that the title of this article should be based on an "internationally recognized name", which doesn't exist, is not a particularly helpful or well-informed one.

Finally, if you had actually read this discussion, you would know that the title of the article is not currently under debate. What is being discussed is whether information from Google should be included in the article. Nohat 23:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

First, I read the discussion and responded to it. Did you read my post? Second, if linguists have used Google searches for statistical research, It's highly likely their studies had strong controls and were peer reviewed. Your quick and dirty keyword search on Google doesn't compare. Third, I never said the English language was legislated by anyone. Please re-read my post if you have any questions about what I said. Fourth, I think you are being needlessly confrontational and certainly unscholarly about this whole discussion. I was amazed to find the article protected over something so trivial. So...

• Your argument is unscientific
• Your cite is original research either way
• Your behavior on this page has been somewhat disruptive and unhelpful Wyss 23:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you again for your comments. However, your points are neither valid nor germane. The proposal is only to report the facts of how many results Google reports for two searches. There is nothing unscientific about reporting facts. Nevertheless, there is no reason to believe that conclusions about English usage on the internet drawn from Google search results, especially when those results number into the millions, are in any way unscientific or biased. Google indexes all of the internet. However, if there is substantial concern that Google may be biased, we can certainly collect and organize information from other search engines. Furthermore, it is not original research to report facts collected elsewhere. As Wikipedia:No original research says, "it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Finally, thank you for your observations about my behavior. You can rest assured that I will give them all the consideration they are due. Nohat 00:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I've already explained why your approach is unscientific. Further, as an interpretation of a primary source you are citing your own original research. Your suggestions about collecting data from other search engines would raise further problemtic issues and also, would be more original research. Wyss 01:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Reporting facts is not original research nor is it an unscientific approach. What could possibly be unscientific about reporting facts? You fail to explain what "further problemtic issues" there would be with collecting data from other search engines other than claiming that it would be original research, which, if you read WP:NOR, you will see it is plainly not. It clearly and unambiguously says "... research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged.... This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." You can't just ignore this statement in the official policy page and claim that reporting facts constitutes original research. It is not original research, and the policy page on no original research makes this quite clear. Nohat 01:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I already said it's your interpretation of them (by inference, presentation or otherwise) that makes it original research. Wyss 01:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. How is including facts in articles original research? It seems to me that including the information about number of search results constitutes "collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources", which is not only not original research, it is "strongly encouraged". Nohat 19:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The difference between interpreting data and collecting and organizing it is stark. Wyss 19:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The difference is not stark. It's quite muddled, actually. Organizing data is a form of interpretation, is it not? And yet, organizing data is explicitly encouraged in the no original research policy. However, the proposal to include information about Google results is quite starkly on the "collecting and organizing" side of the line. Where's the interpretation of data in "As of September 2005, a Google search reports 13,200,000 results for aluminum and 6,320,000 for aluminium"? I don't see any interpretation; all I see is facts. Nohat 19:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

One indication showing how interpretive it is, in presentation and inference (and hence original research), is that such an unqualified statement could lead the reader into thinking such a Google search has any meaning or sway as to the scientifically, industrially and commercially recognized name for this element, which is aluminium. Google keyword searches in themselves are entirely unscientific, and any conclusion or inference drawn directly from them and cited or included in an article would be original research. This differs from the rough "Google tests" we might run to help reach consensus on an article's status on VfD or whatever. Wyss 19:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Readers make all kinds of conclusions and beliefs based on things included in Wikipedia. If it is believed that the inclusion of some fact will mislead (and there is absolutely zero evidence at all whatsoever that Google results are in any way misleading), then a caveat can be included with the statement of fact. It is possible, sure, that the Google results are biased, but no one has shown even the tiniest scrap of evidence that they are, and what is known about how the Google search engine works strongly indicates that it is not. The mere possibility of being misleading is insufficient cause to not include a fact. At most, the fact should be noted with a caveat. Wouldn't it be better for readers to get all of the available evidence and allow them to draw their own conclusions, rather than withhold information because you think it might be misinterpreted? To do otherwise is simple censorship, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored.

Furthermore, being "scientific" is not a criterion for inclusion of information at Wikipdia, not only because only including so-called "scientific" information would be a blatant violation of NPOV, but for the simple reason that we would never be able to come to an agreement on what is and is not scientific. The argument that the Google searches are "unscientific" is inapplicable. However, the fact remains that Google searches are the only descriptive linguistic information we have concerning spelling of the word "aluminum", and including descriptive information is important for maintaining a NPOV balance from all the prescriptive information already included in the article.

If readers draw conclusions based on information presented to them on Wikipedia, then that is their business, and it's not our responsibility to withhold information from readers in the fear that if, God forbid, they find out a piece of factual, verifiable, and relevant information, they might draw a conclusion from it. The "no original research" policy only applies to editors, not to readers. Our duty as editors is to present all of the facts and let the readers decide for themselves. The exclusion and suppression of this valuable, factual, and verifiable information is a flagrant violation of the NPOV policy. The claim that Google keyword searches constitute original research is laughably false. The "no original research" policy does not apply here, and this is made clear by the explicit mention in the policy that it is highly encouraged to collect and organize facts for inclusion on Wikipedia. Your bizarrely twisted interpretation of the policy is plainly sophistry devised to suppress valid, verifiable, and relevant facts from the article.Nohat 20:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find my attempts to help you understand original research "laughably false... bizarrely twisted... sophistry." Wyss 20:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems that it's you who needs help understanding original research. You could start by reading the actual policy. Nohat 21:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I cannot believe that you are still banging on about this. Please accept that you have lost the argument and walk away. You are now demonstrating the behaviour of a troll, although you may not see yourself as one. Only you and Dforest wish this dubious information to be included, and given Dforest's edit histroy on the Breatharian article I have to wonder whther you are not both trolls. I see no point in continuing any further in this discussion. Jooler 21:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This comment is completely uncalled for. I take strong offense at being alluded to as a troll, particularly after standing up for you against accusations of vandalism. If you have objections to my edits of Breatharian, I suggest you discuss them on that article's talk page. See Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. Dforest 03:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on my behavior. You can rest assured that they will be given all the consideration they are due.

No one has :

• Presented any evidence that the Google search results information is in any way biased or false, other than unsupported conjecture
• Provided any reason why this information should be supressed from readers rather then letting them decide for themselves whether it is useful, interesting, or relevant
• Presented any other counter-proposals for balancing the POV of the spelling section
• Provided any other compelling argument for why information which is directly concerned with the topic in question should be deleted

Unless these points can be convincingly answered, in my estimation the argument has been lost by the censorious prescriptivists who hope to silence me by bringing up the same tired and fallacious arguments over and over until I submit. I will not. The truth must be told. Nohat 22:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Help, I'm being oppressed by censorious prescriptivists! Get over yourself, please. Apparently, no one else agrees with you that your google searches are serious research that should be included in an encyclopedia. So, if you want the information included, find it in some published science and cite it. CDThieme 23:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Just keep everything as it is. And see this:Aluminum and Aluminium It doesn't matter what it's called, what is important is it's properties and the like.--Jetru 15:58, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it doesn't matter to you what it's called. But some of us actually do care about English usage and actually do care to see that valid information about usage doesn't get suppressed. If you don't care about something, you are not likely to spread your apathy by claiming that things that people do care about don't matter. Nohat 20:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that this is a Chemistry article, there is a link to North American English for anyone interested in the usage of English dialects (unless it's been "suppressed" too). It can be inferred from such pages that the majority of the English speaking world resides in North America, so if you're going to mention usage then mention that, not half-arsed original research using Google.

Inane usage ramblings just seem out of place in the article and are little more than trying to say "I can't get my way but I'm right anyway". A decision has been made to stick to IUPAC conventions, there is no need to complicate the issue. StuartH 01:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

A Compromise

I suggest that American users, who spell it aluminum, follow the example of the United States Government in arms control treaties. One of the categories of equipment subject to reporting in these treaties consists of fighting vehicles having a heavy protective covering. In the United States, they are known as "armored combat vehicles", except for treaty purposes. In the United Kingdom, they are known as "armoured combat vehicles". The English text of the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, which is ratified by the United Kingdom and the United States (as well as Canada), refers to "armoured combat vehicles". The reason is, simply that the United Kingdom is the mother country of the English language.

Wikipedia is international, and the English Wikipedia has editors from various English-speaking countries. Why can't Americans simply compromise by recognizing the British spelling on articles of international interest? Wikipedia guidelines say to use American spellings in articles about American places or people, and British spellings in articles about British places and people, and to be consistent within each article. Wikipedia guidelines also say to try to reach agreement by consensus and compromise. The compromise appears to this American editor to be either, first, to accept IUPAC, or, second, to recognize that the United Kingdom is the mother country of the English language. Robert McClenon 22:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't go quite that far; I don't think we need to go that far. But already in practice Wikipedia follows IUPAC for the names of all chemical elements in the article titles for those elements. Since that is already the practice, maybe we can agree it should be policy, just to end the arguments and move on. Jonathunder 22:55, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

You wrote: "Why can't Americans simply compromise by recognizing the British spelling on articles of international interest?" Your idea of a compromise asserts British hegemony of the English language. Why should British spelling be considered more international? As far as I'm concerned, we already came to a compromise, to use the IUPAC preferred spelling of "aluminium". The current discussion is about whether to include a mention of the Google results as a measure of popular usage that appears to contradict the IUPAC 'standard'. It is unfortunate this discussion is taking place in a section started under different intentions. Dforest 20:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

"Why should British spelling be considered more international? " - because for the most part - it is more international. Not only is British English used in nearly all of the countries of the Commonwealth, it is an official language of the European Commision - see [10]. It's as simple as that. Jooler 21:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It is natural that British conventions of English usage tend to be dominant in its sphere of influence (chiefly, the EU and the Commonwealth) and likewise, U.S. conventions tend to be dominant in its sphere of influence (chiefly the Americas, its former colonies and protectorates, and countries with close economic or academic ties). This does not make one more international than the other. Dforest 07:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm impressed. This 'Put down the I' section and the immediately following one has rumbled on for quite a while. With this comment I should be able to push the total word count over the 10,000 word barrier. That's 10,000 words of effort arguing about whether the letter 'i' and associated Google tests should be included or not — over twice the number of words contained in the whole main article on aluminium.

I should think that is quite a bit more time and effort than I spent re-writing the history/etymology section. I should think it is far less likely to ever be read in full by anyone and almost certainly a lot less interesting to research.

It is important that these things get thrashed out on talk pages, but given that this has been discussed a couple of times before, I can't help think that all this effort is misplaced. Are we drawing to a conclusion now? -- Solipsist 19:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

IMO (and experience) this is what happens when users attempt to edit by attrition rather than by consensus. I'm still amazed one or two editors have been able get the article literally locked into such an unproductive discussion when the consensus so clearly goes the other way and worse, when it has been discussed before. Wyss 19:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It's obviously a sticking point. Also, some recent visitors have got confused. I believe there is consensus over the article naming. The issue here now is that one editor believes we should have the results of his Google test on the page as it shows a prevalence of the use of the aluminum spelling on the internet. Other editors think the test is biased and constitutes original research. Although I agree that Google is not accurate and the test results are not representative, the test itself is not. A basic non-filtered search on any engine will confirm these proportions. The etymology is actually quite interesting and if we block the bit about the internet we would probably have to remove the material about the other languages too. As a compromise I propose we allow a single sentence that does not use figures (since they'll change daily) and does not attempt to infer anything from the "results". What would people say if we inserted something like this at the end of the paragraph?

Unfiltered internet search engine results show the "aluminum" variant is currently used more frequently on webpages.

It's doesn't take up masses of space, doesn't infer anything about the real world and is actually true. I think the use of Google shoud be discussed (again) more thoroughly elsewhere as this is clearly a policy issue. Wiki-Ed 20:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Consensus means agreement that all reasonable people can live with. I have made numerous compromise proposals and yet several perfectly reasonable points have yet to be addressed by those who would censor this information. I'm still waiting for compelling answers to these points:

No one has :

• Presented any evidence that search engine results are in any way biased or false, other than unsupported speculation
• Shown how any part of the WP:NOR policy applies to this information in any way other than its inclusion should be strongly encouraged
• Provided any reason why this information should be supressed from readers rather then letting them decide for themselves whether it is useful, interesting, or relevant
• Provided any other compelling argument for why information which is directly concerned with the topic in question should be deleted

I will not accept the censorship of this valid information unless substantially compelling argument for the points above can be presented. Unless these points can be convincingly answered, in my estimation the argument has been lost by those who wish to remove the information.

Answer my points in a compelling way, and then we can come to a consensus. Wiki-Ed has made a reasonable proposal that I accept. Nohat 20:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

- "suppression" and "censorship" are strong words which simply do not apply here. It is not suppression or censorship to omit irrelevant and flawed statistics. The inclusion of flawed statistics, even if they are qualified in some way, gives the impression that they are of some value. In this case they are not. I have already presented the evidence you request above, but you have chosen to ignore it. - Answer these points.

• "Unfiltered internet search engine results show the "aluminum" variant is currently used more frequently on web pages"
  • So what? Why is that important to the study of aluminium? Who cares?
  • What value are unfiltered internet search engine results?
  • Does any official body consider that the use of such 'unfiltered' results have any real statistical value?
  • What is the actual context of the suggested 'unfiltered' search result?
  • It it influenced by the way that the search engine caches, or catalogues web pages?
  • Do web pages reflect usage in general or or is it skewed to those who possess the technology?
  • Is this technological advantage skewed in favour of particular nations?
  • Does the search engine in question favour pages generated by certain institutions?
  • Does the fact a high proportion of the English language pages on the Internet are written by Americans have any influence on this?
  • Does the fact that there are a very large number of academic and scientific establishments in the United States influence the number?
  • Does the fact that these institutions generally have a larger IT budget than institutions outside of the USA influence the results?
  • Does the fact the products used to produce electronic texts are mostly produced by companies from the United States influence the results?
  • Does the fact the product like Microsoft Word default to installing in English (U.S.) rather than English (British) affect the results?
  • Does the fact that Americans are less aware of non-American spellings, whilst Britons and others are generally more aware of American spellings mean that people who would naturally write using British spellings find that in order for their page to obtain a larger number of hits they must resort to using American spellings to attract American customers?
  • Why do we get 509,000 hit counts on pages with a .uk domain when aluminum is not used by Brits?
  • Why do we get 47,000 hits on pages with with a .fr domain?
  • Is it significant that when you filter those 47,000 hits on site:fr to restrict to English language pages, half of the hits go away?
  • Is it significant that of the remaining half (the French half) most of the pages still seem to be written in English? How many were written by Canadians?
  • How many pages are written by Chinese authors using their default MS Word installation, which the spellchecker corrected for them?
  • How many of the hits are pages saying things like "Americans spell it aluminum, but I prefer to spell it aluminium and so I won't use aluminum on the rest of this page"?
  • Are the results of a web search any more significant than going onto the street somewhere in California (where a large fraction of the websites on the Internet are actually produced) and randomly asking 100 people how they spell a word?
  • Would it be any more significant than looking at how a bunch of 12 year old kids would spell it?

• • • If you have to answer "I don’t know" to any of these questions, (and a whole host of others I can't be bothered to list) then the Google statistics have no place in this article because the value and significance of the results cannot be judged. Jooler 21:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Even if I were to answer these inane questions (which I could, but won't because they're irrelevant and inane), they still fail to address my points above, and as I explained earlier, are all speculation based on not a shred of evidence. When you're talking about corpora in the billions of words, biases such as the ones you speculate aren't sufficient to change the results of simple searches. Also, you vastly underestimate the diversity of the internet. Even if it were true that a "large fraction" of web sites are produced in California (which is completely untrue), the reality is that the vast majority of content on the internet is not "produced", but is the result of people all over the world communicating with each other. Messaging boards and wikis and so forth contribute many orders of magnitude more content to the archived web than "produced content".

Secondly, even if any of your alleged biases are significant, that's still not a sufficient reason to exclude the information. If there were better information, we would use that. But we don't have better information, and it is better to provide some statistical information about usage, with any relevant caveats explained, than to provide no information at all. Do you really think that "aluminium" is actually the more commonly-used spelling on the internet and that Google is simply wrong? Or do you think that the search engine results are too affected by bias and that in some unmeasurable ideal consideration of the world, "aluminium" is in fact more commonly used? I think it's really actually the case that "aluminum" is more common on the internet, and I think that it fits in quite well with all the other vaguely-relevant pieces of information about usage. In general, more information is better than less, and since we can't agree that this information is valid and relevant, we should let our readers decide for themselves, rather than having you decide for them. Nohat 05:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Put down the I P2

Where's the policy that says that the only information that can be included on Wikipedia has to be from "published science"? WP:NOR says "... research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. " Google is a primary source. Collecting and organizing information from primary sources is "strongly encouraged". Where does it say that this policy doesn't apply to this article? Nohat 01:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Google is not a primary source, it's a search engine. Anything you infer statistically from a keyword search of Google is your own original research, never mind the raw comparison you've discussed above is unscientific, for the reasons outlined above. As for scientific publications, because they're peer reviewed their reliability tends to be rather high. Since we're dealing with a basic article about an elemental metal whose definition depends wholly on peer reviewed science, I'd suggest that peer reviewed scientific publications can be reasonably asserted as the only acceptable sources for this article. Wyss 01:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Google most certainly is a primary source. I ask it how many internet pages that it has indexed have a particular word, and it tells me. I can't imagine a more prototypical primary source of usage information than Google. There's no original research going on when directly comparing two numbers. 16 million is a larger number than 6 million. That's not original research; that's a fact. If doing a comparison using these methods were some idea that I just dreamed up, then I could understand calling it original research. But the method itself does not constitute original research; it has long been established by linguists and also on Wikipedia:Google test. Neither does the particular data constitute original research—it's just collected information from a primary source. Of course, other information has to be taken into account when making decisions about usage, but there is no reason not to report the data as collected in the article.

Secondly, we're not talking about the element per se; we're talking about English usage of the name of the element. The criteria for information about English usage is not the same as the criteria for the information about the element itself, for the obvious reason that linguists are the experts on usage, not chemists. When discussing English usage, the methods used by usage commentators are appropriate, which in this case means consulting large corpora for statistical information. Seeing as how Google is the largest corpus of English text available for general searching, it necessarily is the most precise source of such information. Accusations that Google is somehow biased are unsubstantiated and irrelevant, as the proposed information specifically indicates that this is information from Google searches. The idea that this information could only be included if it were part of some scientific study is laughable. It would be like saying that you have to cite a scientific study that says broccoli is green. You look at broccoli—you see it's green. You consult the largest corpus in the world of English text, and you see that "aluminum" is more common. There is no scientific study that will say that aluminum is more commonly used on the internet and there never will be, because scientists don't fill their publications with such trivialities—it's just a given that the information is trivial to glean from the corpus if it is desired. The fact that the people here have been unwilling to accept statistical information from Google is just an example of the masses being slow to catch up with the paradigm that professionals have already been using for years. Nohat 02:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm ... the professionals use the transient, unreliable and essentially meaningless Google search stats. Wow! Professioanl what? To use it as you would want to do is original research and quite meaningless at that. If only we could replace all the wasted blather here with some real editing, think what we might accomplish. Get over it so the page can be unlocked. Vsmith 03:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I've already explained how it's not original research and how the policy on WP:NOR explicitly encourages information of this sort. It's not original research and excluding the information on the grounds that it is is completely bogus. Nohat 20:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep... and there is a difference between use and misuse. Wyss 03:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Please explain what is being used and misused. Nohat 20:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Google. Wyss 20:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Protection

This is a fine mess. The discussion above appears deadlocked and the participants have resorted to a revert war leading to this. By my count two editors feel the Google statistics on spelling are important and deserve a spot in the page. Another seven or eight editors feel the info is either irrelevant or original research (that count includes me) and inapropriate for the page. Perhaps the matter needs to be referred to an RFC concerning the original research bit, or concerning the rudeness and name-calling indulged in by one of the editors involved. Refering to those who disagree with you as vandals is against wiki policy. Can we resolve this amicably here please. Vsmith 01:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

While it may seem like a silly edit war, there are valid points being discussed here that could serve to the betterment of Wikipedia. Let me give some credit to Jooler and the others for bringing up some (but not all) valid criticisms of the Google test. I think they may be valuable additions to Google and Wikipedia:Google test (which I suggest be linked from this article once a compromise is reached). However, I strongly disagree it is completely 'bollox' (to use the word Jooler once wrote) or that it is original research. Google, in practice, falls something between a reference work (albeit vast) and a search tool. Further, I don't think rules of thumb like comparing Google-supplied page counts should be considered original research, just as patents are not granted to obvious methods. Note there are many, many references of this method here in Wikipedia and elsewhere on the Internet, some of which reference this exact comparison. Also, let me say I disagree with the vandalism accusations; as I personally think Jooler was acting in good faith, though I do take offense at his (and others') jabs on Americans. But I can take them in good humo(u)r so long as we can come to a suitable compromise. Dforest 05:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think "bollox" must have been used in some other debate. I can't see it here. What jabs do you mean? The reference to Internet porn? That's not a jab at Americans it's a jab (and even a joke) at the expense of Internet itself and what the majority of people use it for, but I'm not suprised that you take offence. On Wikipedia I consistently see accustations of "Anti-Americanism" been thrust at editors who expresses apoint of view that disagrees with an American one. Jooler 16:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

What the @#%@^! is wrong with these people? Just put a re-direct at the "American" version, keep the article under the International version and NOTE THE DUAL SPELLING AT THE TOP OF THE ARTICLE. Yeesh. And I thought the US Congress was bad... Zotel - the Stub Maker 00:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The world recognises Aluminium and America recognises Aluminium and Aluminum. Seems like a pretty obvious conclusion to me. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

And that's what the article says. This seems to me to be one of the most pointless debates on the whole of Wikipedia, way worse than the naming of Polish cities. What we have is good - let's leave it and move on. DJ Clayworth 18:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It has been about including raw Google keyword search data in articles. Pointless, I agree, but maybe a learning experience for someone? Wyss 18:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What is going on in this picture?

A piece of aluminium metal, approximately 15 centimetres long.

Alright, exactly why is there a size comparison for an arbitrarily-sized chunk of aluminium? Is this the standard size that the metal forms in? Maybe I'm missing something, but the picture and caption seem unintentionally humorous. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 14:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The caption is odd, and the penny doesn't add much to the reader's understanding of the subject (other than showing the scale is not microscopic, I suppose). Jonathunder 19:07, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

I've cropped the image, and made an alternate caption to rule out a microscopic scale. The size was roughly figured by comparing with the penny. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 19:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It's on commons so please work there on it. --Saperaud 19:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

My opinion:

Hi,

Reading the discussion on this page, I just have to wonder one thing... Why is everyone arguing over aluminium? Not only have you stopped other people being able to access the edit function on the actual artical, but you're also wasting your breath trying to get your point across. So stop ruining it for everyone else & stop bickering so we can edit what ever page we want to...

Regards,

Spawn Man 01:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll give you a hint. StuartH 00:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you meant another hint.

I said a hint, that's cheating. StuartH 12:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Commons

Please insert {{Commons|Aluminium}}. --Saperaud 22:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

raw Google

Here are three keyword searches... which do you think is the most true?

Hitler loved the jews - 241,000 hits [11]

Hitler hated the jews - 165,000 hits [12]

Hitler was a genocidal sociopath - 438 hits [13]

How does this reflect on the argument for including the raw results for similar searches on aluminium and aluminum in this article? Wyss 17:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"Godwin" + "Law" 841,000 Google hits. Jonathunder 17:10, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Doesn't apply, but funny. Wyss 10:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathunder that Wyss has conceded the argument by involving Hitler and/or the Nazis. In case it wasn't clear, please see Godwin's law.Nohat 01:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

That is opportunistic sophistry, Nohat, I didn't involve AH in the argument at all and I doubt you're even offended. I used it as an example of the unreliability of Google keyword searches, which I copied directly from the AH talk page. I strongly suggest you know the difference between having used this example and calling someone a Nazi, and further suggest perhaps you have conceded the argument through your blatantly disingenuous and insincere tactic. Wyss 10:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Fallacy. When I search for those phrases I get a 20x relationship in favor of the latter.

Hitler loved... = 64 Hitler hated... = 1290

Surely you are aware that by conspicuous omission of quotation marks, you are not searching for the phrase, but for the relative frequency of the individual words. Similar to your queries, loved gets more hits than hated. (about 5x at present)

Further, it is completely different to search spelling variants to compare their relative use and to search phrases to compare their truthfulness. Google is not a measure of truthfulness, but it is a good measure of relative use. Dforest 00:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

That rather proves my point. Extensive qualification is involved, which quickly seeps into original research, never mind if there's any truth to its results. Wyss 00:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that extensive qualification is involved. Comparing the relative use of spelling variants does not infer truthfulness. Dforest 00:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hence, it is not helpful. Wyss 00:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This line of reasoning is not only unnecessarily inflammatory by involving Hitler, but is also complete sophistry. The question is not "which is more true: aluminum or aluminium?". The question is "which spelling appears more frequently on the web?". Nohat 01:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, you're further proving my point: 1) How often either spelling appears on the web is irrelevant to either the naming of the article or its content, 2) raw data from a Google search doesn't tell us how frequently a spelling appears on the web, it tells us how many pages on the web it has indexed with one or more occurences of that word. Opportunities for skewed results and misinterpretive original research abound.

As for the example I used, I originally came up with it on the Adolf Hitler talk page and thought it would be helpful here since it so clearly shows the pitfalls of raw Google word counts, so I copied it over. If you think it's inflammatory I apologize. Most readers have at least a fuzzy idea who that person was, so the example is rather stark and plain to understand.

Lastly, please do try to be more polite. Luzzing around the word "sophistry" the way you wontedly do sounds more and more like a personal attack to me and truth be told, is not helpful towards swaying me. Wyss 02:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You wrote "How often either spelling appears on the web is irrelevant to either the naming of the article or its content,"

This appears to contradict your user page: (emphasis mine)

I can learn from and be swayed by:

• Verifiable peer-review and scholarly references
• News reports and commentary on credible web sites
• A few dozen unique Google hits

Is there a reason this article is exempt from your philosophy? Dforest 08:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as the discussion has been Godwinned, can the article be unlocked? Seriously, though, I don't even see the point of including original research usage statistics - are we going to dedicate half of every article which has different spellings in US and Commonwealth English to mindless bickering about which version is more popular? Why not have different statistics for each relevant country, then adjusted for race, educational status and age? The very first link in the article is to North American English, hyperlinks are extensively used in Wikipedia for a reason - so that users can easily jump through to related topics without cluttering the main page with irrelevant information.

If someone is really insecure enough to think that the French have suppressed their word for a metal, they can just click through one or two pages and reassure themselves that the U.S. makes up the largest proportion of English speakers, and by extension, the U.S word for aluminium is more common. I wouldn't worry about Nohat's overuse of the word "sophistry", he probably just learnt what it means and thinks it's a general purpose "your argument is convincing, so you're trying to trick me and I'm still right". That and, ironically, to use smart words to distract from his argument (you can't really blame him for trying to distance himself from his argument, do you?). StuartH 06:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It was Nohat who asked for article protection. So it's up to Nohat to be the big man and make an assurance that he doesn't go against the majority view and re-add the useless Google stats when the page is unprotected. Jooler 07:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The majority view according to whom? I don't recall there being a vote. Dforest 07:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You think you are in the majority then do you? Do you really believe that you are in the majority, when you look at the views expressed here? Do you want to have a vote to confirm it, or do you just want to scan the page and judge for yourself? Jooler 07:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This isn't of much relevance to a U.S. vs. Commonwealth English discussion in other articles, and not just because Canada is part of the Commonwealth. It is because of the oft-repeated claims that this doesn't deal with U.S./Commonwealth differences, but rather with an "official" international spelling.

The Google statistics should be included in the spelling section, because of their highly probative value in explaining why the IUPAC isn't willing to hinge its reputation on its ability to enforce this spelling rule. That's a damn good indication why they have officially accepted the aluminum spelling, something which should also be included in the first paragraph in the spelling section.

I'd also like to note that there is a huge difference in single-word Google searches compared to the multiple word searches (with many possibilities in the Boolean operators and other limitations applied to them) which we saw in the Hitler nonsense on this talk page. Gene Nygaard 13:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

What? I wish I could understand what you are trying to say. You are saying the IUPAC doesn't enforce the spelling aluminium because of Google!? Not because most americans are not even aware of the spelling aluminium? Jooler 21:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Jooler—I wasn't making that assumption. But regardless, according to WP:NPOV we are not supposed to represent only the majority point of view:

Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy.

The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased.

So let's work together, shall we? I think it's time we stop bickering and settle on a compromise. Wiki-Ed's proposal sounds reasonable--what do you think about it? --Dforest 08:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This isn't an NPOV issue about how to balance one opinion against another. This a matter of the inclusion or exclusion of unfiltered stastistics. In article disputes of this nature having a vote to decide on inclusion is far from uncommon. Wiki-Ed proposal is not acceptable. If any kind of reference to Internet search engine hit counts enteres this article it must be qualified by a great deal of text explaing the context and in all honesty I would rather not do this or I would be accused of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Jooler 21:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It is completely an NPOV issue. There is a dispute concerning whether this information is accurate. Furthermore, there is no information already existing in the article about the actual distribution of usage to explain and/or contrast with all the prescriptive information about who says which spelling is "preferred". We'd like to include the information; you'd like to not include the information. It seems like the compromise would be to include the information, but include any relevant and non-speculative caveats. This is what we have suggested from the beginning, but have been continually rebuffed. I still haven't seen a good reason why it is of paramount importance that this information be excluded from the article rather than included so that readers can decide for themselves whether or not it's valid or relevant. Obviously there are some people that think the information is interesting and relevant, and there are likely readers who would agree. We should have enough respect for our readers that we give them information that they may find useful. Nohat 23:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

My point, which some people got and had some fun with, and others didn't (or didn't want to or whatever) is that this would be "non-information." Why can't one mention that aluminum is a spelling widely used in North America and leave it at that? The rest of the world (and the professional community in the US for the most part) calls it aluminium. Wyss 07:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

More Google raw-stats nonsense

What can we conclude from Google if no qualification is used

• "Americans are stupid" - 47,100
• "Americans are not stupid" - 508
• "Americans are clever" - 354
• "Americans are intelligent" - 510
  • conclusion according to Google - very many more people think Americans are stupid than don't
• "dog bites man" - 62,400
• "man bites dog" - 262,000
  • conclusion according to Google - men bite dogs more often than dogs bite man
• "Bush is hetrosexual" - 0 "Bush is heterosexual" - 6
• "Bush is not homosexual" - 30
• "Bush is homosexual" - 1,360
  • conclusion according to Google - according to those who have declared on the matter, an overwhelming number of people think that bush is homosexual
• "dolphins are more intelligent than humans" - 152
• "humans are more intelligent than dolphins" - 27
  • conclusion according to Google - Dolphins are more intelligent
• "the world is flat" - 953,000
• "the world is not flat" - 17,600
• "the world is a globe" - 234
• "the world is a sphere" - 906
• "the world is spherical" - 582
  • conclusion according to Google - most people think the world is flat
• "the capital of australia is sydney" - 401
• "the capital of australia is canberra" - 457
  • Conclusion accordign to Google - It's a close run thing...

Jooler

• "Bush is a heterosexual" - 6

There, fixed it for you. StuartH 07:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Untrue, they could be quoting another person saying "The world is Flat". The Google search is only for sites which have that sentence (or part of it) in the web site. I'm pretty sure you're right bout the "Americans are stupid" tally though. I'm not going to argue with that. (he he he heheeeeeeeeeeeeeee). Spawn Man 07:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Got it in one (about "the world is flat")! You have had to qualify it, and give the context - that is precisely my point! Jooler 07:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Watever man....lolSpawn Man 09:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we can agree that search engines are not reliable. This is not in dispute. However, someone using an unqualified search would find more "aluminums" than "aluminiums". This is not in dispute either. Given that this Wikipedia article asserts that the standard spelling has an 'i' we ought to acknowledge the discrepency or certain visitors will continually question whether the article is complete and accurate. Hence my suggestion for a short neutrally worded sentence. Wiki-Ed 08:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I would probably be fine with a brief clarification sentence if it is from a citable source (i.e. not just a snapshot of Google results someone has taken), but there should be no question of the accuracy of the article if it is clearly stated that the word aluminum is more popular in North America (as it does now). StuartH 09:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, with no mention of meaningless Google keyword searches. Wyss 09:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Well just cause I wanted to, I conducted my own Raw Google Experiment:

• Spawn Man= 3,500 hits.
• Jooler= 586 hits.
• Cheese= 43,800,000 hits.

From this we can assume that I'm more popular than Jooler & that Jooler is less popular than cheese?

• Arguing is stupid= 1,240 hits.
• Arguing is good= 2,070 hits.
• Arguing is not good= 269 hits.
• Arguing is bad= 708 hits.

From this we can judge that people want to have early heart predicaments in their life?

• My buttocks hurt= 291 hits.
• My buttocks don't hurt= 1 hit.

From this we can gather that more or less most of the world's population struggles with silent gluteus maximus maximus problimius?

• My dog ate my homework= 15,400 hits.
• My cat ate my homework= 206 hits.
• My fish ate my homework= 143 hits.
• My bird ate my homework= 70 hits.
• My ferret ate my homework= 11 hits.
• My chinchilla ate my homework= 35 hits.
• My bed ate my homework= 1 hit.
• My dad ate my homework= 13 hits.
• My grandma ate my homework= 14 hits.
• My grandfather ate my homework= 3 hits.
• My mom ate my homework= 134 hits.
• My mum ate my homework= 2 hits.
• I ate my homework= 625 hits.

From this we can verify many things; We could say that children should throw away the old "My dog ate it" excuse & instead turn to "My dad was hungry" or "My fish ate it over the weekend". Or in extreme cases, the student should simply eat the homework in front of the teacher. Another thing we can say is, that American mothers eat more homework than British mothers do? Or that only on very rare occasions has a bed actually eaten homework (I believe it was an essay on Hamlet).

And finally:

• Aluminum= 36,200,000 hits.
• Aluminium= 13,600,000 hits.

This is all very irrelavent, but if you guys can do it I wanted to do it to (with a splash more humour). Thanks for reading my results. Spawn Man 10:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

What The Heck Is Wrong with You people?

What the heck has Hitler got to do with aluminium? It's just not right! Please in future can you keep all frenzy-driven, phsycotic comments etc, to your self? It has nothing to do with aluminium!

Regarding Spelling

I work for the UK Aerospace industry (what's left of it), and have worked with Aluminium every day for the past 10 years, and i can assure you that the card it comes wrapped in, is labelled Aluminium Alloy - and the metal itself (depending upon manufacturer) is often marked in the same manner. IUPAC states that the British spelling is official, with the US spelling as an acceptable alternative. Can we please have an end to this? Just accept the 'ium' and acknowledge the 'num'.

Grey Area 09:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do think consensus has spoken on both the spelling and including raw Google keyword search data in an article. I do apologize again to anyone who was actually upset by the AH example I used. I'll make it up to anyone by doing some chore on an article if they like... leave a note on my talk page. Now, on the AH talk page, someone had brought up Google search results with a similarly mistaken notion, I did some comparative searches on that topic and thought to myself it was such a clear (general) example of the pitfalls, I copied it here too. Maybe my familiarity with 20th century western European history does desensitize me to some topics others find incendiary. Wyss 10:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there a consensus? There's still an ugly great lock on the front of this article, and the content seems perfectly fine...

And as for proof by Google, how can that be in the slightest bit accurate? (unless someone didn't tell me that Google looks at Libraries & other non-internet sources as well =P ) Anyway, i really can't see how this can be such a contentious issue, as there is an internationally recognised way of spelling the word in question and there is adequate information regarding the next most acceptable variant. Ah well.... Back to work i'm afraid :/ Grey Area 10:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep! ...to all the above. (By the bye, the "clarify" remark in my last edit comment was only about clarifying something in my own edit- which I guess I should have clarified :) Wyss 11:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Remember to clarify your requests for clarification - for the sake of clarity =P

There also seems to be triple posting afoot as well. Some people are just too keen methinks...

Me again:

As I've said, this dispute over the spelling of things is getting out of hand! Instead making pages 'locked', we should just accept that not everyone is going to say everything or spell everything the same. For example, the word Herb. In most countries we pronounce it herb. But it seems in America they all pronounce it as 'Erb. What happened to the 'h'? Another example is Mom/mum. British spell it mum, Americans mom. Just because of that do we have to create a dispute & lock a page away so the public can't use it? If we do, I think we really have to ask ourselves if it's really worth it? Most people are going to notice the different spelling & alter the word when their making notes or printing it out etc. But then again, most people don't really care if one letter is missing! I personally spell it aluminium. But just because of this I'm not going to detract from other's fun & making this the best site ever. Honestly, if we spent half our time working on the dead ends & stubs on this site, this site would be better than ever before. But that's just my opinion. P.S: (I didn't find your comment about Adolf Hitler offensive, just highly irrelevant to the topic).

Spawn Man 11:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I made zero comments about him. I did copy over an example of another Google keyword search. Wyss 12:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

??? (huh?) Spawn Man 12:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't make any comments about AH on this page. If you think I did, you really should re-read my "raw Google" post. I'm blown away that I even have to say this, much less repeat it. Wyss 14:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

My my, someone does have a case of aluminum-induced PMS don't they? I was just replying to your comment:"...I do apologise again to anyone who was actually upset by the AH example I used...". So I'm sorry if you had to type out a few extra words to actually make it legible English (or American if you prefer), but if you're going to start a sentence, "I made zero comments about him..." at least add a subject matter to the statement. But other than that, I'm fine. Spawn Man 03:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion, the PMS wasn't aluminium triggered, though :) Wyss 07:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh...sorry, I meant Aluminum triggered.....(hehehee)Spawn Man 07:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)