Talk:Aluminium bottle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Containers (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Containers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all types of containers with an emphasis on commercial containers including intermodal containers, packaging, barrels, cartons, boxes, buckets, bottles, jars and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Big Sky Brewing was in fact the first brewery to us an aluminum bottle in the United States. A special release Moose Drool brown ale was introduced in an Aluminum Bottle June of 2003.

Big Sky was clearly the first US brewer to use an aluminum bottle.European and Japanese brewers were utilizing aluminum bottles prior to that time. The first aluminum beverage bottle, used in the USA, was intoduced by Coca-Cola's Powerade brand in 2001. Cadbury's Mistic RE was 2nd in 2002 and Cadbury converted a significant portion of their Snapple Elements line from glass bottles to aluminum bottles in 2003. The breweries were well behind the energy drink marketers in the use of aluminum bottles in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bottlecan (talkcontribs) 16:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


I think this article was written by someone trying to promote something. All aluminum bottles are made from 100% recycled aluminum? And not a single citation to back up this claim. This is little more than ad copy from CCL Industries.

It says recyclable, not recycled. I'm removing the [citation needed] tags because this POV claim is based on simple lack of comprehension. Also this is just an aluminum can we're talking about, there is no need for a citation that it is capable of being recycled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to help. All impact extruded aluminum bottles are made from 99.5% - 99.7% pure virgin aluminum. The impact extrusion process will not tolerate harder metals or aluminum alloys so the use of post consumer recycled aluminum is not possible. Standard beverage cans and bottles made from a "coil based process" not impact extrusion have a post consumer content of 50%-65% depending on the extent to which the general public is recycling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bottlecan (talkcontribs) 15:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


I renamed this page and edited the text to be consistent with the Wikipedia policy on outcome of the Aluminium/Aluminum debate. If the consensus on the naming debate changes over there, then this page should be changed accordingly. Manning (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hgrosser (talk) moved the page back to "Aluminum bottle" claiming "primarily a north American product". I have reverted it to "Aluminium" per the consensus above. Dricherby (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Your renames are based on a faulty claim: The alleged consensus does a. not exist (although an official policy, a majority, or similar might), b. refers only to the general word and does not address the article specific complication that Hgrosser mentions. Wikipedia has a clear preference for using the "local" language conventions for articles of a "local" character, including spelling and grammatical rules (e.g. use of singular/plural when dealing with music groups and other multi-person entitities). I strongly urge that the name be corrected to use the context appropriate "aluminum". (As an aside, irrelevant to the current discussion, the case against "aluminium" even in general is devastingly clear and it is depressing that a Wikipedia policy could go that wrong.) (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This should be renamed to Aluminum. This is how the article was created. These bottles were invented in the US. MidAtlanticRidgeback (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


The section on Products is a list of undocumented marketing claims. A list of brands or manufacturers is not needed and is unencyclopedic. I suggest it be removed or, if not, fully documented with independent Reliable Sources. No advertising please. Pkgx (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Agreed. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 19:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)