Talk:Packaging engineering

I tried to write the article from a non-biased point of view, but I guess I failed. If I remove the link in the text and then still allow other companies to add thier sites to the list will this be better? Please let me know before deleting the article as I feel it is important to have this information out there. Stt0229 15:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Will this work?
I deleted the link from the actual article text and allowed for any company to add in their name in the list below the article. There are no biased comments in the article what-so-ever. Please let me know if this will work, or if there is something else I can do to allow the article.

Thanks so much! Stt0229 15:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles are not meant to be lists where companies can come and enter their names. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

References?
These appear to be references, but I haven't checked the editing history to confirm:
 * "IoPP 2006 Salary Survey - What are you worth?", IoPP, January 2007
 * Added by Rlsheehan . I'm unable to find the reference online and cannot see where it is being used as a reference. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

--Ronz (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Outsourcing: Una tendencia global en la industria del empaque", elempaque magazine, Sep/Oct 2007
 * Added against a conflict of interest by Rihazchughatta . The information has been heavily edited since, so it's probably impossible to determine if they're still useful without access to them.  I'm unable to find this citation or the related one listed below. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Outsourcing the Packaging Function", Future Pharmaceuticals
 * Added with the source above. See notes above. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Please do not arbitrarily remove valuable information from articles.  These are relavant to the article and good links for readers to connect with. They add value to the article.  I have reverted to a reasonable version.  Rlsheehan (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone removing information arbitrarily. Do you have anything to say about their use as references? --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
It is not appropriate for the educational institution links to remain. They don't add understanding to the topic of the article. For a FA example in engineering see Electrical engineering. If there is professional bodies for this branch of engineering, they can be added, but not individual schools that teach it.  fr33k man   -s-  18:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My third opinion is that the entire 'Associations and Organizations' section is original research and should probably be removed. -- neon white talk 18:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The material could be cited, to show its source. The wording could also be tightened up as needed. Do you consider citations better than uncited references? Rlsheehan (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for responding to the request for help. --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may say so, I concur in removing educational institutions whose webpages merely describe the curriculum. However, if any of the institutions' webpages contains a detailed introduction to the subject, in English, then it should be kept. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, editors, for your input. One asked about the sites for educational institutions; yes, they do offer information about the subject in addition to curriculum. As mentioned earlier, if other editors prefer we could have some of this material as citations rather than as a list. It does not matter to me but it is good information for readers and that should be our goal. Rlsheehan (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag Farm
The article is currently tagged with several confusing and sometimes contradictory tags.

One complaint is that the article does not cite any references or sources. This is countered by other complaints that the article lists sources. Well, which is it?

Another complaint is that the article contains spam. Since spam is links “for the purpose of promoting a website or product”, please explain how non-commercial sites relavent to the article are included.

WP:LISTCRUFT refers to trivial lists. This article has important lists of professional associations related to the primary subject. Also is has (or had) a list of educational institutions which relate the primary subject, adding depth to the subject matter: curriculum, specialty studies, types of laboratory equipment, career options, etc. These are not “trivial”.

Spam is a link “for the purpose of promoting a website or a product” which is not allowed. These are non-commercial sites and are not promoting anything.

As a coutesy to the editor who placed the tags, I will leave them for a while or until we achieve a consensus on their meaning. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you reread WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:NOT#LINK. Just because a site is non-commercial, does not mean it isn't spam, promotional, or otherwise inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Professional Associations
There has been some discussion about a current list (recently deleted) of relavant professional associations. One editor believed the present wording to be original research. Rather than trying to form a consensus on an acceptable revised wording, one editor deleted the section.

This information and links to professional associations are important to the content of the article. The information is useful to the readers of Wikipedia. Professional associations are legitimate non-commercial links. They are not trivial. They are not spam.

To achieve a Worldwide View, relavent associations from various English speaking countries need be included.

I will draft a revised paragraph and list and place it in the article. Rlsheehan (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Pkgx (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus indicates otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Educational Institutions
There has been some discussion about a current list (recently deleted) of relavant educational institutions. One editor commented that these are acceptable if they are not not trivial, not strictly promotional, contain relavent information about the subject, and are in English. As previously indidcated, this is certainly the case. One editor acted without consensus and deleted the list. The information on these links is useful to the readers of Wikipedia. I will revise the list and place it in the article. Rlsheehan (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Pkgx (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus indicates otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I need pictures
I need pictures of something related to this job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.7.148 (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)