Talk:Overpackaging

	This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Packaging 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

This is a new article on overpackaging based on section of Packaging waste. Feel free to improve on this start. Pkgx (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the problem also exists in Packaging waste article and there is a twin discussion there. (added on June 20th, 2024)

The tone used in the section discussing excess packaging by design is questionable. Words like “much” and “very” give a sense of the difference being enormous. The phenomenon itself and wastefulness are not disputable, but the scale suggested is not in par with data. Optimal cuboid packaging uses 1/4 less material and, it being impractical, in reality achievable savings are less than that. But I have no idea, how to change tone without making it sound clumsy. -- wikimpan (Talk) 21:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your input. First, cuboid cartons and boxes are not optimal; the box blank area includes inner flaps etc. It is very common for thin folding cartons to use MUCH more than 25% waste compared to an efficient shape. I would like to include specific examples but that would require naming brands, including offending photos, and naming the producing company: Wikipedia editors would reject that. Please drop by a local grocery store and look at the breakfast cereal aisle; Note that many cartons are very thin resulting in low volume and low net weight. The large "billboard" front panels have high graphics to promote impulse sales. This is clearly excessive and is "overpackaging". Watering down the language in the article would involve using "weasel words" which would understate the reality of wasteful packaging. Pkgx (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I initially noted, I don’t dispute the practice. The issue is with how the scale is presented. The current language is deceptive in the same way the product packaging is.

  A trip to a grocery store isn’t going to change maths. The absolutely optimal shape can offer an improvement in the range of 2/5 less material. This is an unrealistic solution too: it has no flaps at all and is hard to manufacture, store, and use; it’s a true sphere. For cuboids gains are even less.

  

  With the lower bound of improvement being that close, the sense of scale indicated by the section is wrong. Compare to the attached image for some scale reference. -- wikimpan (Talk) 13:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The math is quite simple. Two cartons with the same volume can have very different box blank areas. The material is all of the panels, inner flaps. manufacturers joint, scoring allowances, etc. An inefficient thin carton is very wasteful; An efficient shape with the same volume can often be 25% different. This is a large difference. What words offend. you? Please make a specific proposal. Pkgx (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no specific problems with the present wording in the article. I will remove the tag. Pkgx (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The issues have been indicated in the first paragraph of this talk. They were not addressed, so there is no reason to remove the warning. I’d also ask to refrain from making such changes: Nemo iudex in causa sua. -- wikimpan (Talk) 03:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for getting back with me - - - but after three weeks you still have not identified any offensive words or phrases. You seem to agree that poor design of a carton can result in a waste of materials: The box blank area is excessive for containing a certain volume of material. You need to communicate your specific concern. Pkgx (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that overpackaging is an issue and an article on it belongs to Wikipedia. Which is why I mark an issue I can’t address myself, instead of simply nominating it for deletion. This can’t be willy-nilly extended to me supporting the current content.

    Silence is not consent.

    Consent by silence

    is a thing, but it’s not reached by a participant merely not responding.

    No offensive words were ever mentioned, so there is no obligation to point to any. You didn’t discuss the style issue either, which is the purpose of the talk page. So what am I supposed to respond to? I don’t intend to debate your beliefs regarding overpackaging, which you’re focusing on.

    Even if I wanted to argue about an opinion (and I don’t), a discussion requires addressing relevant arguments of other participants. Not reiterating one’s position, merely rephrased. Finally, you disregard maths and ask me to go to a store and check. Does this even need a comment? (For the record: I did check) -- wikimpan (Talk) 09:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • You need to clarify your position; I do not know what your objection is. You mention a 25% difference from an optimal versus a poor package. Is that figure not enough to consider it as “very wasteful” or “excessive” ? With any type of engineering analysis a 25% material and cost difference would be considered as HUGE. Packaging waste is a serious problem and needs to be called out. Lets not use weasel words or euphemisms.

    Your 25% figure is supposedly based on a cuboid optimum, but a cuboid shape is NOT optimal. The material usage is the full box blank including inner flaps and joints. Thus the specific style and flap structure is important.

    Consider a folding carton needed for 125 cubic inches of material. One reasonable option (not optimum) might be 6 x 3 x 6.9 inches (LWD). In this simplified example, the the carton has a 0.5 inch joint and 0.5 inch flap overlaps; the blank would use about 201.7 square inches of paperboard. The same 125 cubic inches would fit in an inefficient 10 x 1.25 x 10 inch box. This narrow carton has a large billboard area for advertising but it uses about 40% more paperboard. This is very wasteful and is an example of overpackaging. How else can we describe it? Pkgx (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

If the concern is with the words "very" and "much", I would suggest removing those. They don't seem to be doing a lot in the article anyway. Beyond that, it is not clear what wikimpan thinks is problematic in the article without them providing an explanation of their position. – notwally (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is no issue with any particular word. The issue is with tone and bias.

I see the entire article as an essay, written by a single editor, presenting their private beliefs about the topic and using persuasive language to convey them. I agree that overpackaging, as a phenomenon, may be described in Wikipedia. But notable overpackaging is the situation shown in the photo attached. Not a box using a bit more paper than the theoretical optimum. The optimum, which isn’t viable, making the realistic reference point is even less distant.

Yet the article is nothing more than an open, completely one-sided accusation of a harmful and destructive behavior, which is meant to be intentional and by design, presented at a scale that is heavily exaggerated compared to what the reality is. To persuade the reader it even contains a misleading photo of an item, which isn’t used for single-use retail packaging.

No single word is a problem, because any single word is technically true: the problem is the tone and heavy bias of the entire article. It should be written from more than a single editor’s perspective. I hope the article can be rescued. I marked the section, which I found most problematic. It really needs an urgent repair, yet I myself can’t find a way to rephrase it, bearing witness to how inherently biased it is. Rewriting the entire article is also not a task I can do without creating equally biased text — because I lack well-sourced knowledge.

For the record: I went to two large hypermarkets. Both had the entire cereals aisles filled with plastic bags. In one there were two version of their own brand, which used boxes. In both cases even closer to optimum to what the values I found earlier on the internet. -- wikimpan (Talk) 09:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wikimpan, I am just here to provide a third opinion as requested, but I have to say that it is hard to know what exactly your concern is. Many of your statements are fairly broad and non-specific. I understand that you are finding it hard to describe exactly the issue, but please also understand that may make it hard for the other editor to know how to fix the issue you see. Maybe taking a few sentences that seem most concerning and providing examples of the issues in them or alternative ways of phrasing them would help the other editor make improvements? Not all Wikipedia articles are necessarily the most well-written, and I think it is more helpful to have maintenance tags based on specific concerns that can be addressed, rather than a broader, more ambiguous notion of not quite being up-to-snuff. Perhaps quoting some of the language in the sources, either in the article or on this talk page, could help. In any case, I would focus on specific, concerete examples, and try to take it step by step. – notwally (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed two uses of the word "very" in an effort to accommodate more opinions.Pkgx (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]