Jump to content

Talk:Environmental impact of single-serve coffee containers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re-title before merge?

[edit]

@Slakr: Hi, I don't know if you recall this, but this article's AfD was closed nearly two months ago (by you), as a merge. Nothing has been done to it yet in that time. My proposal is as follows: Could we re-name the article before merging, to avoid the WP:UNDUE factor? I propose re-titling it Environmental impact of single-serve coffee containers, without leaving a redirect from Environmental impact of K-Cups (because it would cause a double redirect per my suggestion in the following sentences). And then selectively merging the applicable bits to both Single-serve coffee container and Keurig. As mentioned in the AfD, there's not much that can actually be merged, because all of the science is WP:OR, but the reliable-sources from the article that mention either single-serve coffee containers in general or K-Cups in particular, can then be factored into those articles, with the actual redirect pointing to the generic article Single-serve coffee container rather than the more specific article on one company. I think that would satisfy most people, most neutrally. Could you (and anyone else who wishes to) look back at the AfD and see if you agree? Therefore slakr, if there is no objection, could you re-title the article Environmental impact of single-serve coffee containers without leaving a re-direct? Then one or more of us can do the merge bits. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I just read the AfD, and I think the above proposal is the right way to go with this. I'd like to help, but really, I fear plastics science is far from my area of expertise. Maybe I'll try to learn some when I arise tomorrow.  :-)   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The plastics part does not need to, and should not, be merged into either article, and should be completely ignored. The only applicable RSs are those that mention that the items' non-recyclability and non-biodegradability is a problem noted by either journalists and/or environmentalists. The fact of the items' non-recyclability and non-biodegradability is an incontrovertible fact and does not have to be elaborated upon; only need to mention that the concern about this is a matter of public record/concern. Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In broad strokes, I agree with all that. The article's problems are just starting to have an impact. I've had to pull out from my slumber the fact that my father is a chemical engineer and my brother a chemist. The lopsidedness toward primary references in this article really does WP:SUCK for the encyclopedia. I'm having difficulty tracing the structure and flow. I see that our admin is busy, perhaps we can move the page ourselves? The re-direct can be fixed subsequently? (Should it not ultimately be a section redirect to a section within Keurig or Single-serve coffee container?)   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat, do not add anything scientific to either article. All of that is and would be WP:OR, and all of this is well-covered in the AfD -- the science is ludicrous and this article was a poor and misguided homework assignment required for a grade. The only applicable information is the fact that journalists and environmentalists have noted the environmental problems of single-serve coffee containers. The fact that they are non-biodegradable and non-recyclable is a well-known and well-established and incontrovertible fact that does not need to be cited, proved, or elaborated upon. The only citations (and information) from this incredibly bloated and trumped-up article that can be used are the two or three that specifically mention either single-serve coffee containers or K-Cups, and those citations are listed in the AfD. Since none of the watchers of this article have objected to the rename before the (extremely selective and tiny) "merge", anyone can do the move and then post a requested speedy-deletion tag on the leftover re-direct as being/causing a double re-direct. Softlavender (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a professional editor you must know, the more you repeat your arguments, the less compelling they become.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the above. As you can see below, I got real frustrated last night. I'm better now.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I give. The chem student produced this in earnest, and without a preconceived end. However, I was just going over every single blasted reference, prior to merge, to make that life easier.

Ref:

(US5325765[1]) (US6645537[2])

References

  1. ^ US patent 5325765, Sylvan, John E. & Dragone, Peter B., "Beverage filter cartridge", issued 1994-07-05, assigned to Keurig, Inc. 
  2. ^ US patent 6645537, Sweeney, Richard; Lazaris, Nicholas G. & Beaulieu, Roderick H. et al., "Beverage filter cartridge", issued 2003-11-11, assigned to Keurig, Incorporated 

And now I've given up. He cites the chemistry of the VUE cups, as the chemistry of the original K-Cup, and I know that this is not correct. I cannot rectify the article and merge it. There is a factual conflict here. Patent US 66 45 537, currently cited at [3] in this article is not the same patent cited as US 53 25 765, the original K-Cup, that's caused all the muss and fuss in the press.

The article cites, and goes on to deride, the 537 cup, yet the press is all over the 765 cup. The VUE cup, 537, as described in the press is a whole hearted flop, and you can't even buy one on your store shelf, they aren't for sale. No fish has choked on a 537 cup, but to hear the press tell it, we're all about to die of a 765 cup.

Now the 765 cup is going gang-bangers to this day, and the refuse circles this planet many times around, as has been proven. But I've come to a complete stop understanding this article, since it apparently breaks down the molecular particulars of the 537 cup.

Maybe I'm just at an impasse. I'll try to make a few more inches tomorrow.

This isn't Wikipedia. This is Wikidiarrhea.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only information that is to be "merged" into either article is maybe one or two sentences; not actually from this article, which is ludicrously bad, but from the two or three RSs listed in the AfD which are from journalists or environmentalists and mention single-serving coffee containers or K-cups. Please read the AfD; it's well discussed there and the useable sources are listed and linked. None of the science should be retained at all; that also is well discussed in the AfD. The closing admin made a judgement call to close the AfD as "merge", but what should be taken into account is the fact that nearly everyone in the AfD who actually examined the matter agreed that the substance of this article itself is non-workable; there were more Delete !votes than Merge !votes. There is no point in cleaning up this article -- none of the text of this article is actually going to be added to either of the destination articles and this article is just going to become a redirect, so any attempt to clean it up is an enormous waste of time. Softlavender (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you selectively merge appropriate material from environmental impact of K-Cups to appropriate articles and leave the original article as a redirect to Keurig per the deletion discussion and WP:R#KEEP. --Kkmurray (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin choice was random per the closing admin's own admission, and he said it could be changed. The redirect title as it stands now creates an unnecessarily WP:UNDUE emphasis on one brand, in my opinion, whereas all single-serve coffee containers create environmental problems. You yourself noted that in the AfD. WP:R#KEEP is about not deleting; no one is suggesting deleting -- we are suggesting retitling prior to the merge and re-direct. Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "retitling" unless it is move plus delete redirect. Deleting environmental impact of K-Cups (even as a redirect) per WP:UNDUE conflicts with WP:NOTCENSORED. My suggestion is to redirect environmental impact of K-Cups to Keurig#Environmental_impact. The latter section can Wikilink to any generic environmental impact material that you merge to single-serve coffee container from environmental impact of K-Cups. An environmental impact of single-serve coffee containers article should redirect to single-serve coffee container if it exists and is not a stand-alone article. --Kkmurray (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the (admittedly tiny amount of) material is going to be merged into two different articles, I would like to now suggest retitling (moving) to Environmental impact of single-serve coffee containers, then redirecting that to Single-serve coffee container, and then re-redirecting the leftover redirect (Environmental impact of K-Cups) to Keurig (or a section therein). In other words, two topics, two titles, two redirects, if that makes sense. That also takes care of the issue that if a reader is actually looking for info on the Environmental impact of single-serve coffee containers (generic), there is a redirect title that covers that (and there is also a redirect title that specifically covers K-Cups). Also, since the patents on K-Cups expired 2.5 years ago, there may be an increasing number of, or amount of market-share dominance of, other brands besides K-Cups. Softlavender (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and make the moves and redirects that you've indicated. Once the material is in the target articles, they can be cleaned up and the content details sorted out. --Kkmurray (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_impact_of_single-serve_coffee_containers&oldid=1198451969"