Talk:Packaging waste
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Overpackaging
[edit]I added a section on overpackaging: reducing packaging waste at the source is vital. I may have more material to add to it but perhaps this should be a separate artiale on Overpackaging. Some of the material in this article would go into a new article and a link would connect the two. Any thoughts would be welcome. Pkgx (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Exaggeration in “Overpackaging”
[edit]Note: this section is the same as Overpackaging#Excess_packaging_by_design and the issue has been initially spotted there. The copying led to a parallel discussion for “Overpackaging” and me copying the intro.
The tone used in the section discussing overpackaging 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.
I can’t correct the wording myself without making it look clumsy. I also can’t rewrite the section completely: I didn’t read enough sources on the topic to provide a good, comprehensive and unbiased overview on it. A rewrite would be inherently biased and not an improvement. -- wikimpan (Talk) 10:14, 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) 21:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- There has not been clarification provided for the charge of bias, neither here nor on Overpackaging. . 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) 16:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)