Talk:Sustainable packaging

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mflloyd, Greengal.02, Iadaniel. Peer reviewers: Josh VdR, Mollyyg, MajorTom2GroundControl, Lupineflower.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Green packaging[edit]

Duplication of Sustainable packaging, or at least some scope for merge? --Oscarthecat (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page shoud redirect to sustainable packaging. In addition, the content of this page needs a major revision to proper terminology and wiki editing. Rlsheehan (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly the same topic, so I am in favour of a merge. -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear author of this page I am the creator of the green packaging page and I am new to wikipedia. I am curious to know if you could aid me in the merge of our two articles to create an even better article. I know it is not properly formated for wikipedia and that is why I seek your aid. thank you for your consideration(User talk:bobstacoshack) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.237.70.228 (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Reference[edit]

Note that policy prohibits the linkage to commercial references. Pkgx (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's discuss WP:COI and how it relates to promoting the commercial interests of the members of industry groups. See the discussion below and your editing history for examples. Flowanda | Talk 07:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

An editor has tried to remove legitimate references. Two citations which are relavant to a statement are not "spam". Wikipedia clearly allows this. A book which is referenced should have its publisher listed, again by WK guidelines. Please discuss this further here on the talk page. Rlsheehan (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time you've done this. The past two times we've sought third opinions and they went against including such information in the article. At this point, it seems that my good faith assumptions are being taken advantage of. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks. If you have an editorial point to make, please discuss. Rlsheehan (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus established in WP:EL, Talk:Packaging_engineering#Third_opinion and Talk:Packaging_and_labeling#Linkfarm. Please note it is the responsibility of the editor introducing or restoring information to make a case for that information. Accusations of personal attacks are not valid reasons to restore anything. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I have no idea what your objections are to a reasonable edit which comforms with with WK guidelines. You had flagged the article - - that the references were not in-line citations. I followed your advice and moved two from the external link section to in-line citations. These are legitimate and relavent citations for the statement in the article: "General guidance, metrics, checklists, and scorecards are being published by several groups." The citations were to two organizations which have been formed specifically for the purpose of clarifying the question of sustaiable packaging. I am only guessing that you have some type of objection but you have not provided any discussion. Please be specific with your objection and offer constructive soulutions. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"You had flagged the article - - that the references were not in-line citations." No I did not. Please look at the history. I tagged the external links section as a linkfarm - the same problem that was discussed and addressed in Packaging and labeling and Packaging engineering.
"I followed your advice and moved two from the external link section to in-line citations." Whose advise? Where? Moving improper external links to citations is not a proper way to address the problem. The proper way to address the problem is to remove the links, per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTLINK, Talk:Packaging_engineering#Third_opinion, and Talk:Packaging_and_labeling#Linkfarm.
"General guidance, metrics, checklists, and scorecards are being published by several groups." No, they are examples of such groups, with inappropriate links to these groups' websites. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific about your objection to this particular edit. What do you find objctionable about these citations? WK certainly allows citations and allows links. Please state your position more clearly. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my case. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question was posted on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The response is that the two organizations are legitimate and reliable sources. They are suited for in-line citations and for external links. I will add these to the article now. Rlsheehan (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you've not addressed my concerns here or on RSN. First and foremost, I'm not questioning that they are or are not reliable sources. I'm questioning if they're being used as sources at all. If they are, then we have WP:OR problems, not to mention WP:SELFPUB concerns.
As I've stated, my concern is that they are simply examples.
The section where they're being proposed for use is as follows:
The criteria for ranking packaging based on their sustainability is an active area of development: ASTM Committee D-10 on Packaging and the Institute of Packaging Professionals are currently experimenting with a rankings system. General guidance, metrics, checklists, and scorecards are being published by several groups.
Exactly what are these links being used to verify? All of it? Some of it? What specific quotes from the linked websites support this information? --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The SPA site has a working definition and discussion published. They use spider diagrams to plot characterists for comparisons. They are working on material selectors and have several reports avaiable to read. The SPC has a definition and discussion and has an example of sustainable metrics. Other work relates to comparative packging assessments and briefs of packaging materials. These two links support the statement that other groups are active in these areas. The WalMart reference discusses their own checklists and metrics.
Please state exactly what your objective is here. What specific sections of the article are you challenging?
The readers of this article should be aware of the work that these and other organizations are doing on this subject.
Rlsheehan (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read my comments above? I'm asked what information is being verified by the links. If no information is being verified, then they are just examples and should be removed as linkspam. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, these links verify that other organizations are active in this area: developing definitions, metrics, procedures, etc. Please state your objection. Rlsheehan (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the links don't actually verify anything in the article, but are examples. Exactly as I assumed all along. Such links are inappropriate. Please read WP:V, WP:EL, and WP:SPAM. --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz, I've responded to both the RSN questions. I really don't see why you have a problem with these sites. If there are other major bodies then they could be added. Both are non-profit. I read and re-read WP:EL before responding, and in fact it seems to me that these are exactly the kinds of websites we should be linking to. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one has proposed adding them as proper external links. The discussion is about adding them as if they are references when they are simply examples. Further, Rlsheehan feels they need to be promoted, "The readers of this article should be aware of the work that these and other organizations are doing on this subject." So WP:SPAM applies as well. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are reliable sources and can be used to confirm the statements in the article. Nothing RIsheehan has said indicates that he wants to promote particular organisations above others. The statement above means that he thinks the activities of these bodies are germane to the article. I think so too. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're simply talking around each other. Just as no one has proposed using them as proper external links, no one has proposed using them as proper references either. Instead, they're being proposed to be included as linkspam. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These web pages support the article and should be linked. Pkgx (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTLINK --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've looked at Notlink. There is clearly a history here that I am not familiar with. As I said on the RS noticeboard, there is a perennial problem of spam on environmentally-related articles. I don't think this is the case here. I'd be grateful if you could spell out your concerns more explicitly. If you think RIsheehan might have a conflict of interest then it would be a good idea to take your concerns to that noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If something is unclear about my concerns, please indicate what is unclear.
I've not made any accusations of COI that I recall. --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus of comments is favorable to including links to the two web sits to support the article. Do we need to go any further with this? Rlsheehan (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus here. See WP:CON. No one has yet responded to any of my concerns. --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is clear agreement that the SPC and the SPA are legitimate sources. Ronz had objected to a citation of these supporting the statement that there were other groups, and had also asked for support of specific factors in sustainable packaging. To solve both, I have cited a relevant page from SPC and SPA regarding the definition of and factors which encompass sustainable packaging. This should resolve the issue as I understand it. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Ronz had objected to a citation of these supporting the statement that there were other groups, and had also asked for support of specific factors in sustainable packaging." No I haven't. Please just try to clarify your own position and ask questions to clarify others' positions rather than misrepresent others.
I'll look at the new links you've added. Even before I do though, I have one question: Why are these examples worth noting? --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several edits made by several editors since you last visited this site in December. Feel free to raise any specific issue you have and lets discuss it on the talk page. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Green[edit]

The article has taken an unfortunate turn. The term "green packaging" sounds nice and it gives warm fuzzy feelings to some people. But what does it really mean?
The basics of environmental considerations are disussed in the Packaging and labeling article. The point of earlier versions of this article was that more specific technical definitions of sustainable packaging are being developed and broader use of LCA and LCI are required. Some recent edits have watered that down to talk of unspecified greenness.
The example of changing from Styrofoam brand EPS peanuts to wadded paper is simplistic and could often be wrong. Again, a formal analysis may point to a different conclusion. Justifying a claim that a packaging system is "sustainable" (by which definition?) requires a lot of analysis and documentation.
An example of a bank going paperless in not packaging. Lets delete it.
Just referencing a company website that claims greenness is not adequate. Superficial articles in the popular press are not much better. Try to get more books, peer reviewed journal articles, and other technical references from goverment, industry and acedemia.
Pkgx (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've not looked into this issue yet, though I've noticed it. In general, if we don't have independent, reliable sources for contested information, then it should be considered for removal. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Warm fuzzy" is no better than "cold calculating", so let's be clear: industry marketing associations are not reliable sources, no matter how altruistic or uber-reviewed their research/journals/articles/books/edits appear to be in the short term. Sourcing strictly to well-respected, clearly objective and independent authorities meeting WP:RS is the best way to ensure the stability of information in this and the many related articles. Flowanda | Talk 11:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made several edits to help correct this but more is needed. Pkgx (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There could potentially be a problem with associations that are set up by a single industry to promote that industry, although, we do frequently use such associations as reliable sources. With regard to one of the associations that has been proposed here as a link, it does not belong to a single industry at all, but has been signed up to by companies as diverse as BASF, Microsoft and Unilever. It is impossible to conceive that this association would be promoting a minority or narrow view. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples[edit]

This section cannot be "examples of sustainable packaging" because the definition of sustainable is highly varried. Sustainable packaging is often a "Target" rather than an achievement. Also, please keep the commercialism out of this article. Pkgx (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Sustainable packaging[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Sustainable packaging which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.sgs.com/en/Consumer-Goods-Retail/Packaging/Ecodesign.aspx
    Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Pkgx (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sustainable packaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits[edit]

Is there a reason benefits is only about corporate impact, and not actually about environmental impact? Toad02 (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria Citations[edit]

Citations under criteria are really confusing and all over the place. Needs clarification of what is sourced and what isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toad02 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of laws and bills[edit]

An editor has started a list of laws regulations and bills. That does not fit well with the main article which about the broad subject of sustainable packaging. These are individual small scope subjects; some of these have some relation to the broad subject but it does not fit. Most approaches to sustainable packaging employ life cycle inventory and management and broad overviews.

Similarly, plastic replacement technology is a good topic. But not really a good fit in this broad article.

Let me know your thoughts. I suggest that the article get back to its broad scope and not be burried in lists of local laws and lists of plastic replacement. The new direction is wrong. Pkgx (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The section on Chitosan was moved to Bioplastic. It is a much better fit there. Pkgx (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list or local regulations has been removed. This is a broad-scope article on sustainable packaging. We need to keep a world view of the subject. Local efforts are great but they do not need to be listed here. Perhaps a new article could be justified. Pkgx (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sustainable_packaging&oldid=1205521502"