Talk:Foam food container

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

English name[edit]

This item is massively prevalent in North America. Can we please use the English name for the title? Badagnani 17:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes this article should get more internationalized preferably with an official English name. Lunch box, food box, takeout box? The oyster pail is synonymous with Chinese food in the US just as much as this box is synonymous with food in the east. Benjwong 04:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard any name for it other than "styrofoam takeout container." Does the term "faan hap" apply only to the rectangular one depicted in the photo you uploaded, or also to the larger square one that has different compartments? Those are the two I most commonly encounter. Perhaps in the trade there are different English names for these items; that would just take a little research. Badagnani 04:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well in the US, every restaurant has a little different box. But it is quite standardised in HK. "styrofoam takeout container" is what I would personally use too. But come to think of it, few people would say "oyster pail" either. "Fann hap" is more of a romanization temporary name if anything. This page can move anytime. Benjwong 04:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone say "oyster pail" for that container. Then again, I've never heard anyone call an herbal tea a tisane either. Regarding the styrofoam containers, I do believe the rectangular one in your photo and the larger square one with the compartments are the main varieties. There are probably names for these in the trade that produces them. Badagnani 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If styrofoam takeout container is what we need to get internationalized, is at least a start. The material is right on. Benjwong 04:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, we don't even have a styrofoam cup article, and that item is at least as common, if not more common. Actually, the material is polystyrene and Styrofoam is a trade name. But "styrofoam cup" is by far the common name, "styrofoam" having become genericized in the manner of kleenex, xerox, plexiglas, etc. Badagnani 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we need a new category like "container" including strofoam box/cup/candy box/lunchbox articles etc. These are used by millions of people. Benjwong 13:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article[edit]

Good job on this article, Benjwong. Badagnani 19:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fairly complete now, except I can't find a photo of the round styrofoam cup with styrofoam lid. Most of the photos show a plastic lid, or no lid. Badagnani 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Article needs to be renamed[edit]

Styrofoam is a Trademark name for building insulation (usually blue, I think) made by the Dow Chemical company. The material that makes up these containsers is Extruded polystyrene foam (XPS) or simply just "foam" for short. It'd suggest the new article name be ""Foam takeout container". Your thoughts? If there's no disagreement I'll make the move in the near future.Plhofmei (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Foam takeout container" is not the most commonly used name in English. It's "styrofoam takeout container." Badagnani (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Article problems[edit]

This article is overdue for a serious revision. Badagnani, if you're reading this, then please STOP THE REVERTS. There is nothing substantially useful or important about the sentence "They may also be embossed". Again, I am only going to continue the revising and I would like you all to help. Eugene2x-talk 19:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Kindly do not use all capital letters. When adding to an article, please be very careful to not remove (blank) earlier text and links that were carefully selected to produce the most encyclopedic article possible. Hyperaggressive and insistent blanking does not enhance this article, nor your reputation at WP. Badagnani (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Enough with that nonsense. Either you compromise and we work out a solution, or I'm reporting you for edit warring on the noticeboard. Eugene2x-talk 00:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the photo links should be included. The one reference is not a WP:RS. A simple solution is to trim back the article to information that isn't likely to be disputed by anyone, while looking for real sources. --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ronz, please see WP:STALK. Badagnani (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Flickr is technically not a source. However where are you going to find that much references for a lunch box, really? Benjwong (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Badagnani's to see WP:STALK. As usual, if you're unable to follow WP:TALK, WP:DR, and WP:CIVIL don't be surprised if your comments and actions are ignored, and editors continue to work in good faith with those who are. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Badagnani is indeed being uncooperative. However, Eugene2x could have done a bit more to engage him in discussion. I suggest we stop this edit war and begin debating here on the merits of the deleted parts. So Eugene2x, would you please make your case? --MQDuck 14:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


Can we try to get a few more introduced? Also is a RS? TIA --Tom 14:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Massive deletions[edit]

See [1]. Badagnani (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Most was non sourced original research. Only thing cited was from Is this appropriate? Tom 17:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Without reliable sources, WP:V states that unverified material can be removed. If anyone wants to restore any of it, please provide proper sources per WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not insult a long-time, productive, and sincere editor. All was clearly sourced. Please take another look. Badagnani (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No insult intended, but it looks like a bunch of photos and an page used as citations? Using a photo as a citation smacks of original research, imho. Anyways, why not add links/material here and then discuss. The article could still use help so I will see if I can find any/more citations, ect. Thank you, --Tom 20:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. At the very least they should have been made into a references section (which I did), but it's probably better to get rid of all the photos (half of which were dead links anyway). Eugene2x-talk 22:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If "they should have been made into a references section," a hyperaggressive, insistent deletion campaign should not have been engaged in instead. However, it's never too late to begin editing in a collegial manner, showing good faith to other long-time, productive, and sincere editors. Badagnani (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me in this. You can go ahead and restore the content (or reformat them as necessary) now. Badagnani (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please use this page strictly for proposing improvements to this article. Importantly, WP:STALK should be avoided as well (as it was not in this case). Insistent, hyperaggressive blanking against consensus is quite against Wikipedia's collegial mode of editing, to which most editors here aspire. Badagnani (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani, I find your tone and manner very insulting. Calling me hyper-aggressive for removing inappropriate Flickr links and a questionable source, along with forcing me to "show good faith" when you don't is hardly conforming to WP:CIVIL. I think you need some time to rethink what you said. Being overprotective of your content is not necessarily good for the project, and it usually does more harm than good (especially when you revert with the same edit summary about "blanking" and everything was chosen to be "as encyclopedic as possible".Eugene2x-talk 23:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
In addition, many of your edits are questionable. A lot are just unsubstantiated reverts such as this and this. But enough of this talk, let's get back to the subject instead of behaving rather uncivilly. Eugene2x-talk 04:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine; please restore the content you earlier had blanked (see [2]), then we'll discuss which should be reformatted, prior to the actual blanking rather than after. That would represent a collegial manner of editing, to which we should all aspire, following Wikipedia's original ethos. Badagnani (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should try to get others involved in improving this article or post the "material" and links here for discussion? Tom 04:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a sensible idea, something we've done at many other pages in similar situations. The thing is, it should have been thought of and done in the first place, not much later than the repeated deletions took place. Badagnani (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've readded the health issues section and revised it a bit by adding arguments on both sides (crude as it might be), as it's a pretty controversial subject. Eugene2x-talk 04:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, this was done only after great protest, and represents only a fraction of the text that was so insistently removed, again and again, without prior thoughtful discussion and collaboration with other editors knowledgeable and interested in this subject. It's never too late to do that, though. Badagnani (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


Hello to both of you. I am your mail-order mediator for this case. I request that both of you come to the mediation page to state your side of the story, plain and true. I try to read this talk and it is circular and unclear. Please come to this page so we may have a clear and mature discussion about this. --NewSinew (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Use reliable sources - Health issues[edit]

Some listed sources are not reliable: I have placed two tags on sources. One is listed as being from National Geographic (sometimes a reasonable source) but is really from Media Demand which has no credibility. In addition, the short opinion piece is about the reuse of plastics and not the primary use of foam food containers. The source does not support the statement. The industry support piece is also not a reliable source. Let's use technical journal articles and government reports to support technical claims in the article. Pkgx (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The industry reference is at best self-published, but it is qualified as their own pov.
Good catch on the NatGeo source. It still might be usable, or its references:
  • Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: Researcher Dispels Myth of Dioxins and Plastic Water Bottles
  • American Chemistry Council: Plastic Packaging Resins
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Phthalates Chemical Summary
  • "Occupational & Environmental Medicine"; Phthalates and Human Health"; R. Hauser and A. M. Calafat; November 2005
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Settles Case Against Phoenix Company for Toxic Chemical Reporting Violations; February 2004
  • World Health Organization: Styrene in Drinking Water
That's if we can track them down...
The section definitely needs far better sources, and a rewrite based upon them, keeping in mind WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)