This article is within the scope of WikiProject Packaging, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of containers, packaging, 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.PackagingWikipedia:WikiProject PackagingTemplate:WikiProject PackagingContainers articles
"Tin box" is incorrect. This is a steel can and the title should reflect this. Also the article needs clean up and some expansion. An alternative is to merge this stub into the main can article. Pkgx (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I have redirected to tin can (expanded)Pkgx (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone the redirect. A tin can (at least in the UK) refers to a sealed can which cannot be re-closed once opened - one which is used for the storage of (often wet) foodstuffs. A tin box is a metal box which is re-sealable, and is often used to store dry products such as tobacco or mints. I invite further discussion if anyone objects to this reversion. Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up some extraneous material. Your opinion on "tin (plated)" box and can are interesting. The Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology (Wiley) and the Glossary of Packaging Terms (IOPP) disagree with you. What are your reliable sources? Pkgx (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are those physical books (that you own?). I do not have a copy and am unable to read the definitions. I think the point I was making is quite clear - a tin box Tin boxes - resealable, used for storage of dried goods, generally re-used for another purpose once empty. is a resealable item, in which you may buy mints or tobacco, and then subsequently keep and use for the storage of other items - in the links you seem to have inexplicably removed from the article, tin boxes have been used to store drugs and vital evidence in court cases.
A tin canFile:TinCans-Three.JPGTin cans - once opened are not resealable, used for storage of wet goods, generally recycled after use, however, is a non-resealable item which is used for the storage of wet goods, and is not generally re-used by people for the storage of any items.
I am not saying that the Tin box article is perfect by any old chalk, but I have endeavored to start improving it and bring it up to scratch. If you truly believe these items are the same thing, then by all means call for a formal merge discussion. I have just searched for images of "tin box" and "tin can" on Google images, and the results are remarkably different. Would you say a tin gift box, for example, possibly containing biscuits and other treats, is the same item as an empty can of beans? Horatio Snickers (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We need to stay with reliable sources, not just opinions.
The two books I have referenced do not have any reference to a "tin box" ; these are a variety of steel can.
Britanica online says: "Cans of tin-plated steel, both those that are permanently sealed and those with tops that can be lifted and replaced, are also used predominantly for food storage." These are all a variety of cans.
The Association of European Producers of Steel for Packaging does not discuss tin boxes [1]. They call it steel packaging.
The British MPMA calls this a specialty steel package [2]
This article on "tin boxes" needs to be merged into the tin can or steel can article.
I can tell we are not going to agree on this. Just because a tin box is not described by a Steel Packaging association does not mean that it is a different article from a tin can. And the link from the MPMA seems to suggest that this page ought to be renamed [[Decorative general
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is a slightly unusual merge discussion, as I, the proposer, do not believe that this page should be merged into Tin can - having been unable to reach agreement with the only other editor on the talk page, I believe opening this up to a wider range of editors will be an effective way to reach consensus on this. I have discussed this in some length above - essentially, a re-sealable tin box (eg: a tobacco tin or gift box) is an entirely different object to a can of baked beans. Therefore I propose that this distinction is maintained by having two separate articles for these very different items. Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a definite merge. I have identified five sources (above) that indicate "tin box" to be incorrect. It is just one type of tin can or steel can. See: WP:SOURCESPkgx (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge These are totally different, despite being made from tin covered steel. Tin boxes are resealable and reusable, while cans are not. One is a collectable item, and the other is not. Totally different. Decorative reusable tins. DreamFocus20:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose A tin can is a hermetically sealed functional container with relatively little decoration and that usually applied by a paper label. A tin box is a reclosable short-term store, with a long tradition of shaping and on-metal printing, for deocrative and marketing reasons. Their names are perhaps up for discussion (although I have no better ideas than what we have), but their distinction should be obvious. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As consensus was to not merge, why are you now going ahead and merging the articles? Tin box has just sprouted a section on Cans, which incorrectly describes cans as boxes. Cans are the result of a canning process: a process of hermetic sealing of aseptic contents. They are not mere boxes, nor do they have hinged lids. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not merging the articles, just trying to make sense of this one, Two scholarly sources (and trade associations) state that one variety of "can" is that described by the photos; hinged covers or removable covers. Yes, some people call these "tin boxes" so they can be in this article. We need to stick with what the reliable sources say. Pkgx (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that a "can" is, as Andy D suggests, a product of a canning process rather than a box which is used for storage, and have argued at length above. I do not believe there is consensus here to make this change. Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus of this section was to keep this separate article and not to merge. The question of tin boxes being a type of steel can does not belong here and will continue below. Pkgx (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Toddler trapped in metal box refers to a freight container the size of a room or shed. That's way outside the scope of tin box. Yet again, text string matching through Google is no substitute for understanding the semantics of words and sentences.
Shirley McKie case is a police investigation hinging on a fingerprint, found on a tin box – But it could just as easily have been a wineglass or a doorhandle. No specific relevance to tin boxes at this level.
" three tin boxes containing cannabis seized in less than a month." is utterly trivial. Cannabis has been stored in tins for so long that the '60s measure of it was a "lid". If we're using this, can we at least cite the York University student (and friend of mine) who was caught this way in the '80s, as it gave rise to the laconic newspaper headline, "Student found with tin labelled 'Drugs'". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sounds like a great idea. Do you have a reference for it? I would love to include that article. I think the phenomenon of drugs being stored in tin boxes is a key aspect of the nature of a tin box. I also think the Shirley McKie case deserves a mention here - perhaps in the "See Also" section? I agree that possibly the size of the tin box makes the tinned toddler less likely as an addition - I had pictured the box involved as a gift-box which is why the event seemed so surprising. Horatio Snickers (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, here's a thought - how about a separate article on Stash tin or similar, being the tins in which marajuana is concealed? They seem to clearly pass basic Notability, given how often they seem to turn up in the press. There's hundreds of them on "Google Shopping", many of which seem to contain images of Bob Marley rather than labels saying "Drugs". Horatio Snickers (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some discussion about whether or not small metal containers, sometimes called “tin boxes”, are a type of can. Some editors have the opinion that these are not related to cans; and that all cans must be hermetically sealed.
Wikipedia editors should be aware that our opinions are not important. Information in articles must be verifiable. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources requires citations to published authoritative sources of information.
Three excellent sources on the question of “what is a can” follow:
1 Probably the most authoritative source in packaging is the Wiley “Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology”, 2009. The chapter on Steel Cans, pp 205-216, discusses many styles of cans including those with hinged or removable lids. Table 1, titled “Steel Can Styles and Sizes” discusses what we are calling “tin boxes”: flat round cans, hinged-lid pocket-type can, slip-cover cans, etc.
2 Another very reliable source is “Fundamentals of Packaging” (IoPP) by Canadian author Walt Soroka. In Chapter 7 he discusses “Cans with hinged lids, usually steel, used for medications, confections, small parts, and novelties.”
3 Britanica online agrees that small cans may have hinged or removable tops: “Cans of tin-plated steel, both those that are permanently sealed and those with tops that can be lifted and replaced, are also used predominantly for food storage.”
Many sources refer to this type of container as "tin box", "tin boxes" and "tins". Per WP:COMMONNAMES, commonly recognizable names should be used for the titles of Wikipedia articles.
Yes, this article may be titled "tin box" as that is one of the common names. The question concerns making reference within the text to the fact that small hinged cover "tin boxes" are a variety of tinplate can or steel can. A couple of editors do not want to admit this. I have provided reliable sources that state clearly that these are types of cans. This fact needs to remain in the article Pkgx (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete properly cited material without a consensus; and please provide reliable sources for your proposed changes. I have provided three reliable sources above; one American, one Canadian, and one British. All agree that these "tin boxes" are also a variety of can. The title of the article can remain as "tin box". Please discuss prior to controversial changes. Pkgx (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[3] You removed "or boxes", you changed "A gingerbread box" which is clearly pictured as tin box to "A gingerbread container", and "Some types of tin boxes" you changed to "Some types of metal tins or cans". That's what I was reverting. What was the point of any of those things? And why say a metal tin? Are there any tins that aren't metal? You seem determined to remove the word "box" for no reason. DreamFocus00:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This type of container is clearly stated as being a type of "can" in the Wiley “Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology" and other authoritative reliable sources. Certainly individual people call these things "tins", "packs", "cans", "boxes" , "containers", or whatever they choose to. If editors want to pick one of these common names and title the article "tin box", that is OK with me. It is important, however, that the text of the article include "can" as a well documented name; that is what the literature usually calls these. Pkgx (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that we need to make a decision here. What constitutes a better source for this statement? If the Wiley Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology and associated sources come up trumps, then we'll go for "can". If not, then this should be reverted back to "tin box" and any extraneous information should go in the tin can article. Which processes in Wikipedia are best to decide this? Horatio Snickers (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors want different things. So you have to be the tie breaker and make the decision, otherwise it just results in edit warring. I still find his edits ridiculous. [4] The construction section of the article said "Some types of tin boxes have", tin box being the name of the article after all, and he changed it to "Some types of metal tins or cans". DreamFocus17:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia requires resolution based on published reliable sources, so we should use them: see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I'm sorry that you do not like the books I have referenced but they are solid authoritative sources. Wikipedia certainly allows books in addition to web pages: see Wikipedia:Offline sources. If you want, you could have a Call for Comment to bring other editors in on the resolution. Pkgx (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionaries, even technical ones, are not ontologies. There are overlaps between meaning and terminology. No-one is doubting that there are "cans" and "boxes" and that the words are sometimes used in a way to overlap with one another. I've never seen a film box, but nor have I seen a film can that was soldered shut and hermetically sealed.
It is trivially obvious and sourceable that two concepts exist: Tinplate enclosures that are hermetically sealed, and tinplate enclosures that are lightly closed and are easily reopenable and resealable. There is zero confusion between these two concepts other than the words applied to them. We are here to primarily explain concepts (we are an encyclopedia in the Platonic sense, rather than a lexicological or etymological dictionary) and the names are sometimes secondary to this.
Our articles are currently correct, as named and scoped. Arguing otherwise, no matter how many well-cited counter-examples one produces, is mere sophistry: unconstructive and confusing. This is, sadly, the WP way amongst those without the wit to read beyond string-matching, but it's still incorrect. Conflating "tins", "boxes" and "cans" because the words overlap damages our ability to explain the concepts behind such words and so should be strongly resisted. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
