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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  • 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)
  • 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)

    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)

  • 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)

    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)

    • 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)

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)

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)

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)

@Notwally Please, put yourself in my position. Try to see, how could I fulfill your request to show specific sentences if the issue is what I reiterated below. Emphasis added, because I feel as if the key points aren’t noticed. I’d be happy to learn, how others did it — I don’t recall ever seeing a fight over a… cleanup box.

In short: the article needs contribution from multiple editors to balance perspective and provide the complete picture.

Details: I’m not concerned with any single word or phrase. The entire article is biased towards single author’s opinion, ignoring the wider picture, it’s accusatory in tone, it’s a case of persuasive writing, and focuses on one aspect only. The section marked is also exaggerating, misrepresenting a tiny issue as something much more serious. For scale I provided a picture above: this is the important level of overpackaging, not being slightly off from a better solution. Removing word “very” conceals the issue, not fixes it.

The article goes as far, as showing a reusable, home-use container as if it was retail/shipping packaging. As well as presenting photos of individually packed fruits in the context, which is devoid of any indication of nuances involved. Again, simply removing those is not helping. Two of them have to be discussed, providing a wider view of why they’re packaged like this. -- wikimpan (Talk) 15:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

wikimpan, I have repeatedly tried to put myself if your shoes, but if you cannot provide any examples or specifics, then how am I supposed to? I honestly don't believe that is engaging in a good faith discussion, and I'm not aware of any other discussion or review process on Wikipedia that could work that way. Someone has worked hard on an article, and your response is basically "it can't get any better unless you stop editing the page". You have spent a lot of time responding on this talk page, often repeating what you already said, but have made no edits to improve the page and have repeatedly refused to provide any specifics that may help the other editor improve the page. Maintenance templates are not meant to be badges of shame, they are supposed to facilitate discussion and improvement. If you don't want to or are not able to engage in that discussion, then it may be better to refrain from placing or restoring the tag, IMO. It seems to me like you are refusing to engage with the other editor who is trying to make those improvements but doesn't know what you think the issue is because you won't provide details about it. My third-party opinion is that if the other editor has tried to make reasonable efforts to address the claimed issues, then the tag should be removed until specific details can be provided. There isn't really a lot more I can say without starting to repeat my own self now. – notwally (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m repeating myself, because I feel like what I wrote is not being read. An example?

• I explained, why I can’t correct the article myself. In response… it’s pointed to me, that I haven’t made any edits to address the problem.
• I explained, why I can’t point to any specific words or phrases. In response… I’m being asked to point to them.
• I explained, why I added that template. In response… I’m being lectured they’re not badges of shame (did my explanation in any way suggest I used it in that way?)
• I explained, why I quit engaging with the editor. In response… I’m being told I’m not engaging.
• The issues I listed more than once are not referenced at all in the discussion. It’s not that somebody disagrees with me — they are not even touched.

Words are being put in my mouth. I never urged anybody to not edit the page. Until being forced to I didn’t even make any negative comments about their work. What I write is ignored, yet I’m being accused of no honest discussion attempts.

There is one true thing in what you wrote. I spent much time on this talk. Way too much. I’m not willing to xkcd 386 myself. I’m out. -- wikimpan (Talk) 00:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You have explained why you can't or won't engage in a discussion that could help address the maintenance tag you put in the page. My point is that you still insist on it being there. I'm sure you have tried to your best ability, and I think that should be appreciated. Thank you, and please take care. – notwally (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

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

  As noted multiple times: no single word, “very” or any other, is the issue.

  Please, just let other editors contribute. This is the purpose of cleanup boxes and similar features. It’s not a request for you to take action. It’s for other editors. And this is where Wikipedia takes it strength from: articles not being authored by a single person.

  I’m aware you may not see any problem. This is expected: you wrote it. A lot of training and skill in self-moderation is needed to notice shortcomings of one’s own writing. True for any person, me included. That’s why my rewrite of the article isn’t the solution: I’m as vulnerable to not seeing own mistakes as everybody else. -- wikimpan (Talk) 15:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• • • This discussion has been going nowhere since mid May. Resolution is needed. We still do not know the details about the claim by User:Wikimpan that the wording is exaggerated and biased. Efforts have been made to ask for clarification with none given: we have not had any proposed revision by User:Wikimpan. The burden is on User:Wikimpan to support and clarify the claim of biased wording. If there is no cooperation from User:Wikimpan or other editors, the tag on this article (and Packaging waste) will be removed. Pkgx (talk)

• There has not been clarification provided for the charge of bias. There has not been specific wording identified as having bias. There has not been alternative wordings provided. The tag is being removed again. Pkgx (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)