Talk:Overpackaging

New article

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]

Exaggeration in “excess packaging by design”

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.

Overpackaging scale reference

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]