Jump to content

Talk:Caesium/Spelling

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aluminium Sulfur Caesium

Spelling: caesium vs. cesium

[edit]

Why is this page called 'Caesium', while all the sources you quote say have Cesium in their names? Shouldn't we also name our article cesium, and put a redirect from caesium? Cederal 16:48, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would say it is best to leave the title as is, seeing as how that is the approved spelling.

It seems to me that the "approved spelling" criterion is in violation of the "use common names" policy. "Cesium" is in fact more common than "Caesium". [1]. Nohat 23:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The IUPAC name for the element is "caesium". The use common names part of the MoS is so that we have article titles like caffeine instead of 3,7-dihydro-1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6-dione. If you move this, you're going to open a whole can of worms with aluminium/aluminum and sulfur/sulphur. -- DrBob 02:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But also, according to the article, "cesium" is an approved spelling variant. Gene Nygaard 04:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This arguement is futile. The best and most obvious solutionis to leave the page where it is and change every occurance of 'cesium' to the more correct 'caesium'. Google results are inadequate: everyone knows American English is more popular, while International English is more correct in being universal. It's really too bad that Americans have skewed such a wonderful language. --Zippanova 16:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to get so emotional over different spellings. "Wonderful," especially when used to describe a language, is completely arbitrary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.126.5.184 (talk • contribs) .

The UK spelling being more "proper" is a crock. Do you suggest we also change magnesium, xenon, helium, platinim lanthanum to magnaesium, xaenon, haelium, platinium and lanthanium? --Paul2505 08:26, 13 August 2005

The Norman conquest of Britain all but destroyed the English language. Anything the Amercans do (whether it's attempting to undo damage or adding more idiosyncrasies) is inconsequential when compared to what has already been done.
That's laughable. Old English can hardly be described as "the English language." How could something (the Norman conquest) that contributed so much to what English is now "destroy" "the English language," when in fact it (the Normal conquest) altered Old English to *create* "the English lanuage"? It's symmantics, I know, but I can't let people get away with twisting their words to get away with false logic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.126.5.184 (talk • contribs) .
Darrien 13:36, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
The Norman conquest of England created the English language. Anything before that was Anglo-Saxon. --Carnildo 03:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Norman conquest of England created Middle English, which in turn supplanted Old English. Anglo-Saxon is just another name for Old English.
Darrien 21:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

If using the UK spellings is so important, why arent the articles for Fetus, Pediatrics and Anemea not Titeled "Foetus" "Paediatrics" and "Anaemia". In fact, shouldnt this whole site be called "Wikipaedia" instead of Wikipedia??? -Guest


The results of a little Googling may be interesting: 

                                                  cesium/caesium
                          cesium  caesium  cæsium  ratio
                          651,000 199,000  826       3.27  
site:.au                    9.180   8,260            1.11
site:.ca                    8,340     641           13.0
site:.nz                      173     255            0.68
site:.uk                    5,790  14,800            0.39
site:.us                    5,090   7,310            0.70
site:.za                      224     232            0.97
[English language]        377,000 142,000  291       2.65

site:.edu                  44,500   3,530   14      12.6
site:.gov                  92,800   1,720           54.0
site:.com                 164,000  63,900  131       2.57
site:.mil                   5,950      35          170
site:.org                  97,000  14,700   54       6.60

site:nist.gov               4,070      10          407
site:bipm.org                   5      15            0.33
site:harvard.edu            7,180     398    2      18.0
site:npl.co.uk                  5     125            0.040

site:.de                   15,000   9,690    3       1.55
site:.fr                    7,740   1,090   69       7.10
site:.no                    1,670     340    3       4.91
site:.jp                    6,600     723            9.13

Gene Nygaard 04:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can I convince you, of all people, with a hypothetical googlefight "u vs g/mol", that the prevailing use of an equally accepted variant should have little influence on settling on another as per the suggestions from an international body of standardization? Femto 12:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Convince me? I can't even figure out what you are trying to say. Gene Nygaard 22:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On the one hand, the unified atomic mass unit is the most widely used and approved variant of writing things, yet we change it to "g/mol" (which I think is good, by the way). On the other hand, at xenon you reverted "caesium" back to "cesium" in which was almost an edit war. In a scientific context such as these articles, either variant is perfectly valid English, in any flavor. But the single preferred IUPAC spelling, if you're not strictly bound by other style rules, is the UK "caesium" (they do swallow "sulfur" in turn). Usage statistics and approved spelling variants or not, I think Wikipedia as a whole should try to uniformly follow IUPAC as much as we try to follow BIPM. Even where localized spellings would be more appropriate, it's good practice to use a piped link cesium to avoid a redirection. Femto 14:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What's the relevance? None of the Wikipedia articles I edited used either "u" nor the "unified atomic mass unit". See http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec05.html#5.1.3
Furthermore, in that case there is an additional factor other than whatever rules any standards agency promulgates—there is also our explicit, self-limiting claim in the footer of those tables that "SI units are used". We can indeed limit ourselves to one choice among the acceptable alternatives. While doing so is certainly an issue that is appropriate for debate, the fact is that as it stands now, that claim is made in those footers.
Since the units which were used (namely, "amu") are NOT even on the list of units acceptable for use with SI, it was quite reasonable for me to change those to the SI g/mol.
Like you say yourself, "either variant is perfectly valid English". That justifies a reversion, as I did in xenon. In other words, if either is acceptable, you need a better reason to change it than personal preference. If you just do it on the basis of personal preference, you deserve to be reverted.
In the spelling of cesium, that spelling is accepted by the IUPAC, which apparently has taken the lead in this area. That has to have some meaning. You are interpreting it as if that were meaningless. The IUPAC don't have any plenary authority, but I'm not claiming at this point that any other standards agency sets any contrary standards in this area. I don't need to. IUPAC has accepted "cesium". This may well be a political decision, a facing of the reality shown by the Google statistics I cited. They probably decided, quite reasonably and understandably, not to hinge their credibility on this issue. Gene Nygaard 15:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The relevance of "cesium" being accepted as an equally valid American English variant, for me, as an European Wikipedia user, is none. My point is, "u" is accepted within the SI and is widely used, yet you made a choice to go against common use but with a standard. IUPAC suggests an international spelling-neutral naming standard, and to deviate from that would be the personal preference here. I couldn't see a better reason to change something than to avoid local spellings. Femto 16:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of relevance,
  1. Can you show me anything specifically stating that it is only acceptable in "American English" from the IUPAC?
  2. Even if you can, my Google statistics clearly show that this variation is NOT specific to "American English". There is nothing "local" about it. Not even anything limited to "English" about it, in any flavor of English. Even the web sites in Germany and France use "cesium" more often than "caesium". Gene Nygaard 17:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, I can't. Divide the English language like you want, the fact remains that some people use aluminium/caesium/sulphur, while others use aluminum/cesium/sulfur, neither of who are willing to use all of the other's spellings. But they all can agree on a unified compromise like aluminium/caesium/sulfur as suggested by IUPAC. Femto 18:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edited the Caesium page to change everything to Cesium. Would have moved, but cannot. I agree that Cesium should be used because it is most widely used. I have yet to EVER see Caesium except on british sites and wikipedia. It more seems like UK is the oddball here and not the US this time.

above unsigned post by Ergzay.
Reverted. Please don't restart disruptive spelling disputes. The situation has been quite stable, let it be. Vsmith 04:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did all we "cesium" advocates get corralled by the "caesium" people so we're beating around the logic bush, are just playing their games, and got manoeuvred into group-think paralysis? This is an American Web site that uses American english. Period. The first time I linked to "Cesium" and saw the link had been redirected (WTF?), I questioned my own sanity. I looked up cesium in my American encyclopedia (World Book) and read some NIST papers. Even all my spell checkers flag "caesium" (so I had to double-check it as I typed this message). The objective in all writings—especially technical writing—is to communicate without confusion. This Web site needs consistency across its articles. If someone who speaks British-English adds an article using British spellings, bless their hearts for the contribution. But the British spellings must eventually be converted to American conventions. Reverting articles back to British spellings would be simple childish vandalism. Someone with sufficient Wiki stature needs to fix this and be done with it. Greg L 17:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is being politically correct. The practical reality is that Wikipedia articles contain many, many articles that mention "cesium" and which provide links to an article titled "caesium." Notwithstanding Wikipedia's P.C. poslition that ‘no point of view, or position on a topic, or cultural practice is more meritorious than another’, having different spellings for an important noun (and an article's title) throughout Wikipedia is inconsistent and simply detracts from Wikipedia's value. Cesium should either be spelled one way or the other, not both.
I recommend a reading of WP:LAME before anybody goes much further with this. We've been there.Steve 03:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such confusion results from failure to define and use standards. Sometimes, not everyone accepts proposed standards. British spellings are accepted by a large minority of English users. It would be wrong to completely ignore them. Generally in such cases, the obvious thing to do is note the majority usage and notation (whatever that is), and then (if the minority is a large one) to note it secondarily. Here, I think cesium should indeed be the article name. As also anesthesia (not anaesthesia) and hemoglobin (not haemoglobin).Steve 06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the article on Technical writing. Wow--- it was in need of a surprising amount of editing. :). It's still not pretty. Steve 06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fight!!! Seriously though, cesium may be more common (one reason being that Americans have more scientific influence that any other nation, so cesium would naturally occur more frequently - even in non-English speaking nations), but the fact is that it is recommended by the appropriate international body to spell it caesium (maybe due to to historical reasons: I for as hell don't know and I also don't care). The proper people to argue with would be with them. Just accept it that caesium is the convention. From the UK vs. US perspective both sides should be dignified enough to accept comprimises. Krea 19:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a book Published in London that contains a periodic table with the spelling "cesium" so therefore I conclude that "cesium" is used in both countries. The Spelling Cesium is used by the Los Alamos website the main resource for this page. This should be titled "cesium" the poper AMERICAN way of spelling it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And as far as sulpher and aluminium go, they should, in my opinion, be changed to sulfer and aluminum

Except that no one spells it "sulfer" or "sulpher." If you want to appear as a credible contributor to a spelling debate, you should at least use spell check. --Pyrochem 05:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, how sad. Rather than so many people blowing their own trumpet, or their own country's trumpet, perhaps we could address this issue in the right forum- either in WP policy on naming conventions for chemicals, or encourage IUPAC to change the name (they did for sulfur). Me, I'm happy to follow IUPAC as it's an international body, not tied to one dominant country. If/when they change the word, I'll go with it. Krea has it right- accept compromises; we're a democracy, not a dictatorship, and dignified is the word. Freestyle-69 (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curious

[edit]

Why are we using caesium instead of caesium instead on cesium? Look at what the other languages have:

Bosniak: Cezijum
Catalan: Cesi
Czech: Cesium
Corsican: Cesiu
Welsh: Cesiwm
Spanish: Cesio
Esperanto: Cezio
French: Césium
Galician: Cesio (elemento)
Croation: Cezij
Ido: Cesio
Italian: Cesio (elemento)
Latvian: Cēzijs
Lithuanian: Cezis
Hungarian: Cézium
Dutch: Cesium
Norwegian (both languages): Cesium
Polish: Cez
Portuguese: Césio

So if we really want an international spelling, we should go with cesium.Cameron Nedland 18:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The /e:/ written as 'é', is backwards compatible with 'ae' in English and Latin. 80.98.179.160 (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in French (césium like César), but evidently not in Italian or Spanish with just a plain e. German also has a similar issue, with a official spelling of Caesium that is Cäsium in everyday life (same with iodine; Iod officially, Jod everywhere else). Double sharp (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page is at Caesium as it is official policy. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Element_names for clarification. I think it best to prevent this talk page from becoming like the pages of arguments over where Aluminium should be. Atomic1609 01:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad.Cameron Nedland 14:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think all the languages except Latin, Greek, German, and Danish use some form of "ces -ium/-io", but no comment on changing unless IUPAC decides to update the name. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is it written and spoken as "é" (/e:/). 80.98.179.160 (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]

Moved from Talk:Caesium Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to drop by and note that IUPAC is considering changing the name to cesium in the next Red Book. Ronk01 talk 00:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case the discussion should be re-opened and I think that would be a good reason to change the spelling that the article uses, if there EVER was one. Let's see what they do, but in the meantime, let's stick to how they say it is currently spelled.--AndresTM (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the name is changed, I'm sure we'd all be willing to move the article immediately, since we've decided to follow the IUPAC spellings for all the chemical elements. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, could you post a link to the source where you found this information, or (if it's a book) give the title? (Lanthanum-138 with a new username) Double sharp (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It shall remain Caesium, as Caesium is original. 80.98.179.160 (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic we should have sulpur (yes, that's not a typo; the "ph" comes from an etymologically unjustified Hellenisation of the original Latin) and alumium (as that's what Davy originally named it), so other considerations must surely come into play. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Can't believe I forgot the funniest example: by that logic we should also have dephlogisticated air rather than oxygen.) Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caesium/Spelling&oldid=1123294780"