Talk:Packaging waste

Environment Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Packaging

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Packaging, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of containers, packaging, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PackagingWikipedia:WikiProject PackagingTemplate:WikiProject PackagingContainers articles

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)[reply]

DonePkgx (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]