Why do we have a [[Sulfur]] article and also a [[Sulphur]] article?

[Milton Beychok]

They are both the same element. "Sulfur" is the American spelling and "Sulphur"
is the British spelling ... but that is no reason to have two articles about the same element.

The "Sulfur" article consists of three short paragraphs and was created first. The "Sulphur" article consists of one short paragraph and was written last.

As a Chemistry Editor, is there any reason why I should not turn the "Sulphur" article into a Redirect pointing to the "Sulfur" article? Any comments?

Milt Beychok

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Phine with me.

Seriously, I have noticed both aluminum and aluminium, phosphorus and phosphorous, and perhaps others in text, although not articles. Rather than it being a British or American issue, aren't there IUPAC names that should be definitive?

[Milton Beychok]

Howard, both of the sulfur (sulphur) articles include both words in their first sentence ... and I have no problem with that ... no problem at all.The problem I have is that we don't need two separate articles.

Its fine to include  "aluminium" along with "aluminum" in the first sentence of an article about "aluminum" (or vice versa) ... but it isn't okay to have an article about aluminum and another article about aluminium. I am sure you would agree with that sentiment.

Does anyone disagree that we don't need both articles?

Milt

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Howard, both of the sulfur (sulphur) articles include both words in their first sentence ... and I have no problem with that ... no problem at all.The problem I have is that we don't need two separate articles.

It fine to include  "aluminium" along with "aluminum" in the first sentence of an article about "aluminum" (or vice versa) ... but it isn't okay to have an article about aluminum and another article about aluminum. I am sure you would agree with that sentiment.

Does anyone disagree that we don't need both articles?

Milt

I agree that we don't need both, which then sets up an editing criterion that anything that uses a nonstandard name is redirected to the standard which, I trust, IUPAC defines.

[Milton Beychok]

Howard, in the case of sulfur, IUPAC uses "f" rather than "ph" in all of its compounds containing sulfur. As for other cases, (aluminum vs aluminium and phosphorus vs phosphorous), I don't know what IUPAC does. Nor do I know what other naming organizations would prefer.

I think in this particular case, I will redirect the "sulphur" article to the "sulfur" article which is the larger of the two and which was written first. Thanks for discussing it with me.

Milt Beychok

[Paul Wormer]

These duplicate articles are clearly mistakes. My vote is for: title of article in American spelling, redirects with English (oops, British) spelling. And, of course, no duplicates: one (1) article for whatever (element, compound, French geographic names, etc.)  that differs in spelling only.

[Aleta Curry]

Okay, kids, this needs tuppence' worth from me.

While I wax close to rabid on the topic of US-centric writing, world view, and CZ editing in general, and I therefore support our policy of leaving it up to the individual author to decide the language choice for an article, I don't think that the naming of a group of articles--in this case, elements--can be left to hazard.

I think the chemistry editor(s) should make a decision on the spellings of the elements, and apply that consistently, so we don't have main articles at [[sulfur]] and [[aluminium]].  One set with the article, the other set with the redirect.

In either case, the chemistry workgroup and any other workgroups and subgroup and interdisciplinary groups should have the same short blurb stating the CZ convention and that it was chosen for consistency and used advisedly and no slight is intended against users of other standard variants of English.  Authors can, of course, continue to spell as they are comfortable with in the *body* of an article; such spellings should not be reverted.  I'm only taking about the name where the official article lives.

Do others disagree?

[Hayford Peirce]

Paul's comments reflect the only possible sensible solutions.  One article name per topic, with many, many, many redirects....

[Hayford Peirce]

A minor edit conflict came up here while I was writing my previous comment -- yes, I agree with Aleta also.

[Paul Wormer]

I think the chemistry editor(s) should make a decision on the spellings of the elements, and apply that consistently, so we don't have main articles at [[sulfur]] and [[aluminium]].  One set with the article, the other set with the redirect.

Exactly, that's why I (chemistry editor) used the word "vote".

To open a can of worms, how  are famous pairs as: cell/mobile phone, truck/lorry,  railroad/railway, etc., etc. treated ? Fortunately, I (a non-native) am out of this, I don't care either way.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

It is probably a good idea to follow IUPAC -- which decision we made in principle some time ago. Otherwise, the English variant of the first non-stub article predominates, and every other spelling should redirect to that.

[Hayford Peirce]

What means IUPAC, Iowa University Peaceful Academic Campus?

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. online at www.iupac.org

As long ago as the early 1970s, I was taught IUPAC terminology in school chemistry classes in the UK. It is, therefore, long-established as a global standard setter for chemical names.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. online at www.iupac.org

As long ago as the early 1970s, I was taught IUPAC terminology in school chemistry classes in the UK. It is, therefore, long-established as a global standard setter for chemical names.

EEEK! I first had it in class in 1964!  One worries if it shouldn't have been, in those ancient days, the International Union of Pure and Applied Alchemy. 

[David E. Volk]

Please see CZ:Chemistry style guide and note that IUPAC names should be used for all chemicals.  One article per element/compound and use heavy redirects as needed.