Talk:Aluminum can/Archive 1

Aluminium
I appreciate the US spelling on this article, but the use of the spelling Aluminum does run counter to the internationally accepted version of Aluminium and to WP:ALUM. Should the spelling of Aluminum be changed to Aluminium, whilst leaving any other US Eng variants in place?--Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would expect an article in American English to have spellings in American English.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Wikipedia uses IUPAC spellings for chemical elements like aluminium and sulfur (notice how it's the British spelling for aluminium and the American one for sulfur). The article Aluminium uses American English with IUPAC spellings, and I'm switching this one to the same. (So it's still American English, just in accordance with Wikipedia's naming conventions)

Energy cost of an aluminum can
The recently added  3.5 kWh figure for the energy cost of manufacturing an aluminum can doesn't appear to be correct. With all due respect for the NY Times as a source, it appears they got this figure wrong. It's off by an order of magnitude.

The Wikipedia article and other searches puts the mass of a can at between 12.5 and 15.5 grams. The Aluminum Association puts the recent manufacturing costs at 13,000 kWh per ton. The Aluminium article puts the cost at :"approximately 15±0.5 kilowatt-hours per kilogram of aluminium produced (and) modern smelters achieve approximately 12.8 kW·h/kg." By my calculations, that puts the cost per can in the 0.18 to 0.22 kWh ballpark. This source states, "recycling one aluminum can saves enough energy to keep a 100-watt bulb burning for nearly four hours." That's about "nearly" 0.4 KwH. The latter source also states, "Each aluminum can is worth about a penny." That would be consistent with 0.2 KwH at $0.05/kWh or 0.4 kWh at $0.025/KwH. US wholesale electricity prices seem to be closer to the former.

The above calculations might be considered WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, but think it is enough to eliminate the NY Times figure. It would be best to have a definitive KwH-per-can source, but am seeing a wide range of figures. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Naming
I'm contesting the rename of this article. Per my understanding of WP:ALUM, this rename was not justified. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. Rlsheehan (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Second the motion. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Concur with all three of you. Consensus should have been sought first. At the very least, an editor acting in good faith to change this long-established article title should have had the decency to post a warning a day or two in advance. (I always do.) User:Hendrick 99 should be monitored for any further unusual edits. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Potential Updates, Issues
The aluminum can has a very long history and has multiple modifications since its birth, yet the article does not mention it whatsoever. The article's statistics are outdated on how many aluminum cans are produced each year, and needs to be corrected. Also, more topics can be created for the aluminum can such as its effects on the environment. The article is very basic and needs expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msacco32 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Aluminum can. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828215158/http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/about_alcoa/time_machine/time_machine_html.asp to http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/about_alcoa/time_machine/time_machine_html.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Impact extrusion?
It's unlixely that cans are made by stamping. Much more likely, they are made by impact extrusion. As I understand it, a disc would be dropped into a die, and a second, cylindrical die would move down quickly to make the aluminum squirt up the side to make the can bottom and body. Regarding "impact", a lot of force would be needed, so the die would be heavy, and forced down quickly to use its kinetic energy. 96.230.239.158 (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Material  Works   (contribs)  19:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Aluminum can → Aluminium can – WP:ALUM DePiep (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Per WP:ALUM: These spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article. This article is not chemistry related, nor does it follow British English (aside from the spelling mentioned in the intro). --Vossanova o&lt; 20:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose:No need change, both spellings are already given.Pkgx (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose: WP tradition is to stick with the dialect in which an article was originally titled and drafted (in this case, American English), unless some other rule controls. This article has always been titled aluminum can and has always been about aluminum cans. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is clearly not a chemistry related topic I don’t see WP:ALUM as relevant.--65.93.193.94 (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose not a chemistry topic so MOS:RETAIN applies—blindlynx 12:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.