Talk:Beverage can

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Containers (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.


What are the dimensions of an aluminum can?

how much aluminum is need to make an aluminum can?

As little as possible. You can simply weight it. The can's material is nearly 100% aluminum except for some trace elements to improve its physical properties and the ink. Wasted material during production is almost 0. Years ago there was a Scientific American article on this issue. Go to your library and check it out. I'd like to but don't wait for me to write. -- Toytoy 23:55, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


Although traditional cans ("tins") (late 19-th century) where tin plated, I've never come across a tin-plated beverage container in my life. E.g. in the Netherlands Coca Cola containers are steel and they have a plastic (organic material) lining inside. It is interesting that Coca Cola makes a point of claiming the lining of aluminium cans contains PTA but is safe while remaining silent about steel cans. I don't feel confident and don't know the figures to change the reference to tin-plated.

Spelling of article[edit]

The Wiki article on the element from which the cans are made is spelled aluminium. I therefore tried to change the article 'aluminum can' to 'aluminium can' for consistency with this. Please feel free to revert if you don't like. Ian Cairns 22:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am aware that IUPAC's spelling for the element is "aluminium"; nevertheless, we should retain the original spelling of the word in the article. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:29, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Could you please explain why we should retain the original spelling? Ian Cairns 22:34, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In North America, we usually call steel food cans "tin cans," even though there's no tin in them (I think in other parts of the world they may just be called "tins"... not sure if the "tin" on "tin can" stuck because "tin" is a generic term for food containers, or because they really used to be made of Sn). So the name/phrase/pronounciation "aluminum can" may be just as legitimate as "tin can," even if it isn't absolutely right. I think it is Wikipedia's policy to use aluminium when referring to the element (a legitimate case for consistency), but we're not really worried about elemental aluminium here, we're talking about a secondary product. What if they were popularly called "Aluminy Cans"? Would we still make the fuss? Plus, if we go around changing every little regional quirk, you'll have Americans and British fighting revert wars over the use of "biscuit" before long.
Then again, I could just be rationalizing :/ Iroll 04:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm going to move it to bring it in line - makes much more sense. violet/riga (t) 18:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me the major materials used in making an aluminum beverage can? Someone hinted to me that there were three and i can only come up with the obvious two; aluminum and ink.

I believe plastic is used too - a plastic coating on the inside to protect the aluminium from the stuff that aluminium can't stand, unlike (presumably) stomach walls :P a chemistry teacher "proved" it when (I think) he left the inside of a can empty but soaked the outside in conc. HCl (I might be wrong though, can't remember the exact experiment) Maycontainpeanuts 02:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Article title (again)[edit]

It seems to me that the move of this article to "aluminium can" was out of order. Naming policy says that articles should respect the convention used by the original author of the article, which in this case was the American spelling. Policy says nothing about renaming articles to make them consistent with the titles of other articles. Nohat 06:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed the links to the dialects because they didn't seem relevant to the topic, nor entirely accurate. At one point it was change from North American English to United States English (later to AmE) under the supposed claim that Canadians spell it "aluminium". A Google search of .ca sites, however, gives "aluminum" a 5 to 1 advantage over "aluminium", strongly indicating that Canadians use the American spelling, not the British spelling. In any case, whoever knows the word will recognize the spelling they are familiar with, and don't need to be directed to irrelevant articles on English dialects that don't mention the aluminium/aluminum spelling distinction. Nohat 04:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahl_yhew_min_eum! When you shout it, it's much more impressive than aluminum, Aluminium gets my vote. ggb667

Whatever. Aluminum is the dominant usage in English-speaking North America, and it's going to stay that way for the foreseeable future. Anyway, Nohat has correctly summarized and applied Wikipedia policy above. --Coolcaesar 01:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Given that the category this article in is spelt "aluminium", it makes sense to use that spelling. (Anon)
How about we spell it Alumin[i]um throughout the article? Arcturus 21:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You can see that now is not a problem. I merged Beverage and Aluminum can into Beverage can. I hope that doesn't make any problem.


I am skeptical of two claims in the following text: "The stay-on-tab has had a huge impact on the environment. If you took all the tabs that have stayed on from 1970 to today - tabs that would be on the ground - they would amount to a couple of trillions."

First, what is the source for "a couple of trillions"? This ought to be substantiated with a citation for the number of cans manufactured since 1970. If nothing else, such a cited source may help guide updates to this number as the years go by: "1970 to today" is a non-constant span of time.

Second, why does staying on matter from an environmental standpoint? You're still consuming metal and energy resources to manufacture the cans, and that metal still ends up in trash heaps whether the tab and can are attached or not. Is there a recycling angle here? Are stay-on tabs more likely to be recycled with the accompanying can? I suppose that's possible, but it's certainly not manifestly true, and therefore should also be substantiated.

Ben Liblit 05:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well you can step on the tabs. And that hurts. Ggb667 18:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I used to work at a can plant running two lines that made 1.6 million cans a day, five days a week. Most large market can plants run 4-10 lines 7 days a week. (Newer plants at much faster speeds.) There are 50 + can plants in the US give or take.(May actually be hundreds, You would have to look up the number of plants of each major manufacturer plus the beer companies that run their own plants.) So some simple math gives you trillions of cans produced in one year.(Conservitively.) So yes that statement is in line if not not even a litte small.--Sean697 05:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're still off by quite a bit. 2 lines turning out 1.6m cans/day equates to a 10-line plant turning out 8m cans/day, or 2.92b cans/year. Figuring 50 plants at this capacity still only equates to 146b cans being turned out each year. Unless there's 7 times as many plants or the equipment's 7 times as fast, it would take nearly 7 years to crank out a trillion cans.PacificBoy 23:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


iron city and alcoa created the first aluminum can and stay on tab —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) May 4, 2006.

Oiled cans used for soda[edit]

This was removed:

Beer cans allegedly vary in quality from batch to batch, and the oil coating the can may adversely change the taste of beer to a greater extent than for soft drinks. Such substandard cans are then apparently used for soft drinks whose consumers allegedly "won't know the difference".

I think it belongs in here unless someone can prove differently. The coors beer engineer I spoke to at Georgia Tech had no reason to lie. Sorry I don't remember his name, but this was related to us in class (Chemical Engieering) as an interesting anecdote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ggb667 (talkcontribs) May 11, 2006.

All cans go through a washer after forming before printing. There is no oil on them at all. The coatings, while changing greatly over the years, are more like a varnish and desinged to have no taste. Some oil may get on the outside of the can from the necking process but it is not likely unless the machine is leaking oil and not operating correctly. The inside of a finishe can is usally spotless before filling with no oil whatsoever. Older can coatings are purported to have had a flavor that was discernable but newer coatings are pretty much flavorless. Now coating defects do happen periodically and they catch most of them before shipping but if you do get a can you may get an aluminum taste from the beverage disolving the metal. If it hasnt ate a hole in the can already. They actually take test cans from every few thousand and pour a conductive solution in the can and test conductivty and from outside of can to the inside. Should be none or very little. If it conducts electricity the coating is defective and that whole batch of cans would have to be sorted and possibly scrapped.--Sean697 05:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Banned in Germany?[edit]

I heard from a german friend that aluminum cans are now BANNED in germany! can i get a second (as i have no source)? THX Schafer (

They're not banned. Retailer have to take them back from customers no matter where they bought them from. This rule became effective on the 2006-05-01, because of this a lot of retailers have stopped stocking and selling drinks in cans. The PET bottle has replaced the aluminium/steel can as a drink holder. Demerzel 14:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
There are aluminium/steel cans available in Germany, so it's an exaggeration to say: "The PET bottle has replaced the aluminium/steel can as a drink holder." However, it is true that beverage cans are quite rare in Germany, compared to other western countries. Mintaru 15:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Current characteristics[edit]

Why is there a Citation Needed at the end of that section's first paragraph. Surely people from these contries (Australia and South Africa) can verify this and if there is a change make the necessary change. Demerzel 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The beverage can industry in South Africa is currently in the process of converting to the 330 ml standard can. JacquesIzumi 11:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Red Bull Cans[edit]

Shouldn't we mention the different size for energy drink cans, like Red Bull or Adrenalin Rush? I just don't quite know how to put it into words... (Me-pawel 05:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC))

The energy drink cans exist as they are purely for cosmetic reasons. The article is better for being generic. Htra0497 17:42, 23 November 2006 (AEST)

Material Composition[edit]

Perhaps someone can answer this, but in Europe I've noticed the cans are magnetic (hence not made of aluminum). An engineering friend of mine says the cans are steel, with a tin inner lining, and aluminum is only used for capping the ends. Is this a European thing, or are the cans only coated with aluminum (like US coins that are primarily made of zinc)? - IstvanWolf 07:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Essentially all beverage containers in the United States are manufactured from aluminum, whereas beverage cans made in Europe and Asia are approximately 55 percent steel, and 45 percent aluminum alloy. Food containers are still mostly made from steel stock in both Europe and North America
We should mention this fact in the article, so i added the first sentence to it. Mintaru 15:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I just read this article specifically because I was curious about the reason for different material compositions in different countries. Here in Sweden, all beverage cans are made out of aluminium, and imported beverage cans are now effectively banned, because of new regulations which mandate that all such cans must be sold under a deposit system. Thus, I can no longer buy Cherry Coke (which is only available in Germany) in Swedish stores (Grrr!)
But seriously: I wonder why it is that aluminium beverage cans are so popular, since they are - as I understand it - relatively expensive to manufacture. A deposit system does make sense for aluminium cans, as is stated in the article, but why bother? Why aren't more cans manufactured out of steel, like in Germany? Steel is ridiculously inexpensive, and steel cans rust away quickly. No deposit system needed. Would be happy if someone could explore this issue further, and write about it in the article. Thanks! —Per Hedetun (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Aluminium is a lot easier and cheaper to recycle - hence "politically correct". Roger 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Growing up in South America beer and soda cans were made of steel. Maybe not steel, but they were heavier, stronger, and would rust. Sometime in the 90's they started using aluminum, but I don't remember when. Did the same transition happen in the US? It would be good to add to the history section. Aij (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sierra-Mist-Can.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Sierra-Mist-Can.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Split Current characteristics[edit]

In order to compare to the "Impact of bottled water" article, I think the second part should be split off into its own topic which address environmental impact and health concerns.

"In Japan, canned fresh air is available."[edit]

Canned fresh air? Could someone please give any sort of proof that this exists, and is not just a joke grabbed from Spaceballs? A source, a picture, a manufacturer, anything? I live in Japan and have never seen a can of fresh air, and I do a substantial amount of can consuming here, I might add.

Cans of compressed oxygen however are available, but that has nothing to do with pollution, they are mainly for very physically demanding work or athletes, and they do not resemble beverage cans in any way, they have a nozzle and a mouthpiece, as you can see here

if you do insist on having beverage cans of air in the article, the only example I could find were these cans of mountain air from Iceland

I apologize if I come off harsh, but all the time I see this kind of stereotyping of the Japanese as the crazy asian people, based on unfounded myths or hearsay.

Alex Lee 00:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Chen Guangbiao, valued at $740 million, is selling fresh air in soft-drink cans — and they’re available in different flavors. The cans, priced at 5 yuan each (80 cents U.S.), come in flavors such as Pristine Tibet, Post-industrial Taiwan and Revolutionary Yan’an, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.[1] Cheers! RichardMills65 (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be in Pet rock? - SummerPhD (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"like a 1970s American-style brake fluid can"[edit]

Are non-Americans supposed to know how such a can looked? A better description or (link to) picture would be nice, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:28, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Tapered cans[edit]

There's mention in the article of the tapered tops common in today's cans, but does anyone have any evidence as to when that design started in the U.S? I know it was some time in the 80s. PacificBoy 15:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Aluminum can-making machineries[edit]

Is there some one who knows any aluminium can-making machineries manufacturer except in USA and China? for example in Europe, Korea etc..)

If so please E-mail me at  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC) 
Ball (one of the major US can maufacturers) has plants in Canada, Puerto Rico, and plans for one in India. I suspect they also have plants in Argentina & Europe. Mike 15:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

US Patent Number Incorrect?[edit]

Searching for the specified 'stay tab' patent number on Google Patents brings up some chemical process. Searching for 'easy open wall' brings up a few can tab patents, of which I believe 3967752 is the closest to modern popular can tops. Does this mean the patent number in the entry is incorrect?

Mike 14:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Can Manufaturers Institute: [1] --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling again[edit]

I really feel we should be following our policy of using the IUPAC spelling of element names. I have previously stood up for "sulfur" over "sulphur", so it isn't a matter of my own bias. This is an international project and an article like this should use the internationally accepted spelling, which is aluminium. --John (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this was vandalism..[edit]

The beverage can is derived from an earlier model which was distributed to Allied soldiers during WW2. It contained an aerosol solution which the soldier would deploy upon capture by enemy units to put himself in a euphoric state of mind. Once he was in his chemically induced state, the soldier could then twist the can in such a manner that it would come apart, exposing a sharp metal edge the soldier could use to commit suicide under the influence of the gas. An underground version was distributed to American spies during the Cold War, and became popularized on the market as a beverage holder sometime thereafter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perel (talkcontribs) 03:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sierra-Mist-Can.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Sierra-Mist-Can.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Any Health Concerns?[edit]

I didn't read any in the article. I do not know if there are any health concerns, but once somebody told me that aluminum is poisonous and can cause brain damage? (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Aluminium in solid metal form is not really a problem - the soluble salts can be dangerous. Beverage cans are in any case lined with a polymer layer inside to preven acidic contents from disolving the metal. Roger (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Diet Coke.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Diet Coke.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Collecting and building[edit]

In December 1997, a scale model (scale 1:5) of St. Peter's Basilica was built in Rome, Italy, from 10 million beverage cans. This is allegedly reported in the Guinness Book of Records (which I guess should be a citable source) and has some great photos on this website. It surprised me that the beverage can article doesn't mention the collecting or hobbyist aspect of cans at all. --LA2 (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wide mouth[edit]

The article states that the wide-mouth opening was originally implemented by Mountain Dew, but I seem to recall some brand of beer advertising their use of such a can before I ever saw one used by Mountain Dew. B7T (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe this to be an inaccurate statement, and I have to agree with the user above. I believe that the introduction of the wide mouth can came from Coors beer. My best guess for a year would be 1995. I don't recall Mt Dew coming out with that style of a mouth until after Coors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pica0331 (talkcontribs) 00:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The article that's linked as the source on Mountain Dew introducing the wide-mouth can actually specifically says that Coors introduced it in 1996. I'll update the article. -- (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Less filling, metallic taste[edit]

I saw on "Jeopardy!" (OK, not RS...) the first beer in cans was by Kreuger Brewery in Newark in 1935. Can anybody substantiate & add? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 04:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish beverage can.jpg[edit]

Why do peope not like images in articles? I am going to revert this till the end of my days... because I simply think it makes the article better. If my image description is lame for you, help yourself to write a better one.--Kozuch (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Dharma Initiative?

Someone has added the inventor of the modern stay tab as a former employee of the Dharma Initiative which is from the TV series Lost. The link in the article even goes to the description of the Dharma Initiative from the show. I don't know who really invented it and where but this definitely has been altered.

Oddly though the only reason I looked up this article is due to the fact that on the Lost series they are currently trapped in the early 70's and someone cracked a beer and they used the newer type of stay tab for the prop. My wife insists that they would probably have had the older pull off tab.

Pull-tabs were a common form of litter. Some users dropped the aluminum tab into the can and occasionally swallowed the sharp-edged tab by accident. The New England Journal of Medicine reported one person inhaling a pull-tab, similarly dropped in the can. Stay tabs (also called colon tabs) were invented by Daniel F. Cudzik of Reynolds Metals in Richmond, Virginia, in 1975 [2] [3]. Previously employed by the Dharma Initiative, Dan returned home with a new tab design that would prevent the injuries caused by removable tabs and reduce roadside litter. In this can model described in U.S. Patent No. 3,967,752,[4] the lid contains a scored region and a pull-tab that can be leveraged to open the hole by pushing the scored region into the can. Stay tabs almost completely replaced pull-tabs in many parts of the world by the early 1980s, though pull-tabs are still common in places such as China and the Middle East. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

History Redundancy[edit]

Why is there a section separate from history that talk about old can styles? -Tsinoyman (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Title: Aluminum Can[edit]

This currently is titled "Beverage Can" which can be aluminum or tinplate. There is an article on tin cans, some of which are used for beverages. This article should be titled "aluminum can" regardless of the contents. Aluminum cans are used for beverages and also several types of food. Rlsheehan (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is about a particular configuration of can: Cans used for beverages and that has an opening tab which creates a small opening for pouring or drinking directly. Other cans such as contain baked beans or sardines are a totally different configuration. Roger (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Does anyone know how much pressure the contents of an aluminum can are usually under, and how much pressure the can can take before it ruptures?--RLent (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google search delivered this: but I doubt it would pass muster as a reliable source! Roger (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

The short article Tab (beverage can) should be merged into this article. I don't see why the pull tab should be discussed separately from the can. Roger (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would support this, it wouldn't take much to merge them, and the Tab (beverage can) section isn't particularly long, and wouldn't detract from the main Beverage can article. Perspeculum (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. And it's an important facet of the development of the can, too, IMO: before tabs, how were cans opened? (I bet a lot of people don't remember using bottle openers on them...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, no objections posted in almost two months since the proposal. I'd do the merge myself but I really havn't got a clue how. Please will someone with the necessary know-how do the necessary. Roger (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Somebody, do the merge please. Roger (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I have merged the Tab article into this one. While doing so, there were redundant sections and references: I have tried to clean these up. There were also some bad references and poor wordings that needed work. Please check this over to see if I have left any critical sections out. Rlsheehan (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How is the label applied?[edit]

I suspect that beverage can labels are anodized onto the surface of the aluminum, but I don't know. Could someone with a source add this to the article? sprocketeer (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a source but I saw a "how its done" tv show about making cans: the "label" is printed (not anodized) on the flat sheet metal before the can is formed. Roger (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It would get distorted, if you mean it was applied in the early 3 inch stage 'cup'. I think it must be when the can is a cylinder, with a bottom. If you look closely on many cans, you can see the printing overlap, in a thin vertical strip, usually near the barcode, my guess is from the silkscreening process. But I'd like to know how they manage to taper the top of the can, to fit with the top piece of the can. Wouldn't the printing show some signs of scratching ? No signs. Maybe they use PTFE coated forming parts!DaveDodgy (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cans per pound[edit]

"There are roughly 30 empty aluminum cans to an avoirdupois pound (450 g)." Why is this information of any value? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Junk yards and salvage yards are currently (Sept.20ll) paying 60 cents per pound for empty aluminum beverage cans. If you want to predict about how much you could get for your collecting efforts, it helps to know how many cans you would have to collect to get even one pound. Then you can decide if it is worth it. There are stories on the news about how some parent(s) went out almost every night collecting discarded aluminum cans and redeemed them for metal value in order to pay their kid's college tuition. I don't know if this is true, and it IS hard to believe, but I personally have gotten from $24.00 to $32.00 for a number of large plastic garbage bags-worth which I collected over about 6 months' to a year's time. (No, it's not worth it, but if you are an environmentalist or the type who will try out anything once, you might give it a shot.) (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Spelling of aluminum[edit]

There have been several edits and reverts on the various spellings of aluminum and aluminium. I have made an edit to resotre the article to aluminum with a reference to the British spelling. Let's have further conversations here, rather than keep up the revert cycle. Pkgx (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the instances of Aluminium should now stay because of the greater instances of that v Aluminum in the original article. Indeed, the one instance of Aluminum was only used as that was the title of the article on the element before it was changed. I think it makes more sense to keep an article which is chiefly about a product made of Aluminium in keeping of style with the elemental article. I am not interested in British v American v anything else which is why I wouldn't dispute utilizing v utilising or favor v favour. Aluminum here just makes no sense.
The Manual of Style WP:MOS is very explicit on this issue.
Begin Quote:
Retaining the existing variety - Shortcut:WP:RETAIN
If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.
End Quote.
The article can not use "color" with "aluminium" or "flavour" with "aluminum". the variety of English used must be consistent.
The only question that now needs to be answered is: What version was used in the earliest edition of this article?
The answer is US English.
End of discussion. I'm going to bed now. Roger (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The answer is clearly not US English though,
"can made out of aluminium instead of steel."
"all aluminium can"
"sharp-edged aluminium tab"
"average aluminium beverage"
So it is clear to me that the originator intended to use the recognized spelling v any alternative. Choosing only to use Aluminum once to enable a link, and since the beverage can article itself now supersedes aluminum can that can't have any relevance either. (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you got the phrases you quote - they are definitely not from the first "edition" of the article.
The first version of this article is
The word "aluminum" (US spelling) appears only twice in it.
I'm happy to see that we appear to agree that the spelling used in the article about the element Aluminium is not relevant.
Just for the record - in my own variety of English (South African English) we use the "British" spelling, so this is not an "ego trip" for me. I'm simply applying what I believe the MoS requires - to follow the variety established by the first editor. Roger (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The citations and the reference books predominantly use aluminum- not aluminium.
There is not a concensus to change yet. If there is a clear consensus to change then we should make that change, unitl that happens, the article should stay at aluminum. Rlsheehan (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe there is much confusion here. I don't think anyone can claim the the bullet points first submitted for this page constitute the first significant contribution which would be here and clearly tidies the article up into a satisfactory format and uses the accepted official spelling of Aluminium. It remained that way for years and the conflict appears to arise when Aluminum Can was merged with Beverage Can. This was basically a botched merge. Aluminum Can should have been merged and the spelling should have standardised to Aluminium. And it seems to have been a mess of to and fros since. This perhaps raises a greater issue of what happens when two articles are merged which have common words clashing on spelling. It's not covered in but I think it should default back to aluminium. rougehectoir (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please STOP the edit wars. One editor just tried to change spellings in published material to suit his/her personal preference. Please let's use the talk page to form a consensus and then make reasonable changes as needed. Rlsheehan (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two questions here. The first is the spelling within the Wikipedia article. This is a valid question with good support for both sides. I will follow the consensus of editors.
The second question is whether a reference or citation can be artitrarily changed to support one or the other view. My position is NO. It is indeed Vandalism to change published material. Yet, one editor seems to press this point with such enthusiasm to create an Edit War. Is there a consensus to change existing literature?
Pkgx (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The "Second question" isn't really a problem at all. "Editing" published sources cannot be tolerated under any circumstances whatsoever. The question of which version of English should be used is a more complex issue than I first thought. The resolution of the qustion hinges on the definition of "first major contributor". The difference[2] between the version that I cited and the one that rougehectoir pointed out is in fact merely a matter of style and does not qualify as a "major contribution" of substance. Other than turning the list into paragraphs the only other significant difference between them is the arbitrary change from aluminum to aluminium. It is my contention that that change was itself contrary to the WP:RETAIN rule. Thus it cannot be used to resolve this matter. I really don't know where to go from here. Roger (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I am willing to accept either version of the First question. Whichever is the consensus should be used throughout but some reference (BrE) or (AmE) should be made to the legitimate alternative spelling. The Second question is not negotiable: Any reference must be listed as it is published - without second guessing about the language. Rlsheehan (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
"One editor just tried to change spellings in published material to suit his/her personal preference." I have fixed the references so they are spelled according according to their sources. There is no consensus there either as they are a mix of Aluminium and Aluminum! (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's somewhat over-egging the stability principle to argue seven-year-old bullet-pointed nano-stubs as binding precedent on "national variety". Or vice versa, from almost as old nano-stubs with sentences and paragraphs. On merit, since the metal is indeed of such importance to the article, I'd favour following "elemental convention", in line with the IUPAC spelling. (Likewise, for an article discussing sulfur with similar prominence, there should be a presumption in favour of that spelling.) Smartiger (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

On the face of it, Smartiger's suggestion seems to be a very reasonable "logjam-breaker" but (there's always a "but") I'm afraid it might be creating a precedent that might bite us in future. As I understand it the IUPAC spelling should be used in chemistry articles - which this isn't. We run the risk of edit wars breaking out all over in articles about a plethora of everyday objects just because they mention "Aluminum" or "Sulphur". I think we should pass this issue "upstairs" to a policy level discussion. I think WP:MOS should be directly involved with our problem. Roger (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It's probably just a choice of logjam, ultimately. Neither criterion is anything like clear-cut, I freely admit. It's indeed certainly not a chemistry article, but it does a lot more than "mention" alumin(i)um. A heads-up to MOS certainly seems prudent, yes. Smartiger (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
For heaven's sake, there are better things to discuss. The AmEng got in first in the bullet point. It should stay. (I am not American.) Tony (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, the chemistry Wikiproject made a very bad decision to privilege the IUPAC spellings in the first place. But I'm not a chemist so I won't fight that one. I will say it should be strictly cordoned off to chemistry articles, and should have no relevance whatsoever outside of them. --Trovatore (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that it would have been better to have a whole slew of chemical compound articles, say having one at "aluminium acetate" and one at "aluminum oxide", based entirely on the principle of which side of the Atlantic (or border) the person who wrote the first nano-stub happened to be on? Or did you have in mind some other sort of "privileging"? Smartiger (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think it would have been just fine to have one article on aluminium acetate and another at aluminum oxide. It works fine for other ENGVAR issues; why shouldn't it work for chemistry? --02:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Because it would produce a ludicrously inconsistent result, as just described, that no serious reference work would consider to be anything above a "laughing stock" level of quality control. And because it relies on hopelessly subjective criteria like determining what is or is not a "major contribution". In almost every case that's either on the one hand, trying to over-parse a series of very incremental revisions for the one that's mysteriously determinative of all future spelling; or else it's validating someone's radical revision as legitimatising something remarkably akin to article ownership. Not my idea of "working fine" at all, personally. Smartiger (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, you're new here. It is accepted at English Wikipedia that different articles will use different varieties of English, even when they talk about the same thing. I see nothing special about chemistry in that regard. --Trovatore (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm using an account largely because my entire ISP keeps getting range-blocked; don't assume that I'm "new here", just based on account-based "editcountitis" -- even if that were any sort of valid basis for dismissing someone's input, which it isn't. It's equally "accepted" at Wikipedia that chemistry articles use UIPAC spellings: that didn't seem to stop you having a swipe at such a practice, for no real reason that you've troubled to articulate. "First come, first served", however, works against other, even more "accepted" principles (such as reversibility and non-ownership, as I mentioned), so I think there are excellent reasons to minimise the scope of its use, when there are other criteria that could be used. I don't say it should never be used, if there are no sensible criteria to use at all. In any case, I'm not arguing that the article need use BrE (though it's been pointed out that the first prose version in fact did), just that it ought to follow the standardised spelling of aluminium. Smartiger (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
But it doesn't have a standardized spelling, apart from ENGVAR. Yes, IUPAC has a spelling that it uses internally, but even IUPAC does not try to impose it on chemistry as a whole, and chemists in North America still call it aluminum, including in published papers. --Trovatore (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Lest my use of the seemingly mystifying expression "standardised spelling" have thwarted attempts to reply to the substance of my point, I was indeed referring to the IUPAC spelling. To say that it "doesn't have" a standardised spelling is just semantic quibbling, frankly. In which spirit I would retort that Noah Webster, the ACS and the like playing the awkward squad do not render a standard non-existent -- merely not universal in adoption. Smartiger (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Inventor of the beer can?[edit]

According to Rbt. Mclaughlin (The Heartland [Time-Life Books] 1967, p. 13), J. L. Bennett invented the beer can. Kdammers (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


"rimple" = pull tab is American English? This is the same pull tabs on today's pop cans, sardines, cat food, etc... right? I live in the western part of the USA and as far as I know we call them pull tabs or simply tabs. I have never heard of a pull tab referred to as a rimple. I'd change the article, but I don't know enough atm. Some clarification would be appreciated. Shaggy2286 (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To me (English speaking South African) "rimple" looks like what its called after consuming too much beer. I'm going to tag it{{dubious}}. Roger (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Can sizes under "Current characteristics"[edit]

I'm nut sure that Dimension guide is a reliable source. And from what I know the standard can is about 65mm in diameter in Europe, as far as I know only energy drinks and some cans on aeroplanes have the diameter of 52mm. I could edit, but I have no source more than that I live in Sweden and have never seen a 52mm can with regular soft drinks in regular stores. Andnewman (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I also don't have a source but I think you're right. However, I think I know why someone may think 52mm is the standard in Europe. I'm from Germany and beverage cans once were almost extinct here. (See also "Banned_in_Germany?" on this page.) That changed in 2009 when some of the large German retailers started to reintroduce drinks in beverage cans. Today (2011) there are much more beverage cans available in German stores then in 2006/2007, but the PET bottle is still the more common beverage container on the German market, especially since very most of the many relatively small German beverage producers prefer these bottles. The problem with the reintroduction was that very most German producers sold their old beverage can filling machines in 2006, in most cases to Eastern Europe. Therefore, they had to invest into new equipment. The first large company to do so was Coca-Cola Germany, and they did choose equipment for 52mm cans. Today, all German Coke products are sold in these 52mm cans. Many smaller German companies followed Coke's example and today most German beverage cans are 52mm in diameter. The only notable exceptions are virtually all German breweries (which, however, generally prefer glass bottles) and the German subsidiary of PepsiCo. 52mm cans may be the de facto standard in Germany, but not in Europe as a whole. Unfortunately, all this is more or less original research. I don't know a reliable source which would prove it. (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Reason for flavor[edit]

I tried desperately to fit in somewhere a bit of information on why there is a difference in flavor between aluminum cans, glass bottles and fountain drinks. Analytica Chimica Acta 1986, 190, 143-153 at has a detailed discussion of the issue. To summarize, lubricating agents from the can manufacturing process are oxidized into ketones and aldehydes, such as 2-nonenal, that give rise to off-flavor notes, such as 'woody' or 'oily' flavors. Careful cleaning along with the application of internal coatings on modern cans must reduce this, but I can't find anything more recent in the scientific literature. There would also be subjective reasons why people would prefer one or the other; fountain drink mixes could be adjusted improperly, cans may not stay cold as long as glass bottles, etc., but the formation of off-flavor aldehydes and ketones appears to be the only clear scientific reason for canned beverages having a different taste.

OK, so, like I said, I tried to fit that in, but there's just no way. As the article goes, there's a bit about how the cans are made (rather technical), then a bit about the lids, then about how they're filled, then about the flavor, and then about how the lids are attached. That needs to be cleaned up and I am not being 'bold' enough to cut it up viciously. There should be a clear, understandable description of how the cans and lids are made, how the cans are filled, and how the two come together. Recycling should come last, because for the consumer that is the last step. Please do remember that the general public does not necessarily want to know what alloys are used in cans. I know it's a little audacious to say that the general public would care about oils oxidizing to form 'aldehydes and ketones', but I think a lot more people out there are wondering "Why does canned beer taste funny?" than "How much magnesium is in this can?".

What stopped me altogether is the Alzheimer's bit. 2-nonenal can be tasted at 0.1 parts per billion, but I just didn't want to put the fact that beverage cans contain tiny bits of oil and 'ketones' next to the idea that there is aluminum in the cans, and 'some people' think it causes Alzheimer's, but the scientific consensus is that it doesn't.

Roches (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:German beer can 500ml.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:German beer can 500ml.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Macho" Pull-Tab Disposal[edit]

Early-on, when detachable pull-tabs were first introduced, it was considered "macho" to let people see you remove the tab and drop it into the can before you drank. This was considered "smart" because you were disposing of a piece of metal so that no one would later be accidentally cut by it, or step on it (say, barefoot), or you were not "littering". Numerous cases of people who accidentally swallowed the tab and the medical complications which resulted therefrom, I think, provided some motivation (along with the avoidance of lawsuits) toward the invention of today's non-detachable tab that merely folds out of the way of the opening. (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

BPA in can liner[edit]

The source cited for this claim (presently source 8) is just a google search... I don't think that's an acceptable source. Yanroy (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Can design[edit]

Has anyone got any info on the switch from straight sided cans to the roll tops that proliferate today? danno_uk 23:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Alternate uses[edit]

It has been suggested in Talk:Urination that uses for target shooting and pipes should be included. I would also suggest the use of cans in folk art/artifact production in the 3rd world. Any reasons not to create this section? (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Just the usual lack of coverage in reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Pull-tab phased out because of farmers' complaints?[edit]

I remember, somewhat vaguely, that during the transition from pull tabs to push tabs in Germany in the 1980s, articles in the press (and ads?) gave as the main reason the fact that grazing animals, especially cows, had a high tendency to hurt themselves on discarded pull tabs and farmers were consequently unhappy. Was this a German specialty? Should it be mentioned? Is it even true that cows tend to chew on them and get hurt? -- (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening Mechanisms - Add resealable can?[edit]

There are two resealable aluminum can tops I know of. Should these be added to the "Opening mechanisms" section? They are:
1) An Aluminum twist-off cap, as seen by googling "Monster Nitrous"
2) Plastic twist tab, as seen by googling "Monster Import"
Robisodd (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


The Tallboy disambiguation page links here, but there's no description of a Tallboy. It's 16 oz in North America, but I'm not sure if that's consistent globally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSnow (talkcontribs) 22:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^