Talk:Packaging/Archives/2012

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

Early discussion

Commercial Links

This article should not have any commercial links in it. This is an informative encyclopedia article and not means of generating sales. Rlsheehan May 24, 2007

excelsior ??

Is "excelsior" really a common packaging material? I've never heard of it. Sound of seems like someone's attempt at inserting an advertisement. ike9898 20:12, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


Hard to open plastic packages on consumer electronics

What do they call these horrible plastic containrs that require sharp scissors or a knife to open by cutting along the edges. This doubles as preventing the consumer from returning the item "in resalable condition", thus getting hit with a restocking fee (5%-20%). This could be it's own article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.192.0.27 (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The article discusses packaging functions which are contraditary. Packages can be made which open easily for the convenience of the end-user. However, packages sometimes must be made more difficlut to open to deter tampering, pilferage, theft, etc. Pkgx (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

packaging

This isn't really doing justice to "packaging". There's so much more that isn't covered here. How about military packaging, medical packaging, industrial packaging, etc. I think you get my point. Even under the list of packaging machines there's no mention of how they make paper packaging. I also didn't see any mention of corrugated or glass packaging. This article needs serious work if it's to be taken seriously.

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Packaging in car design

Packaging is also an important term in car design; it is basically the design step where all the innards of a new model are "packed" inside the design to the best possible effect, interior dimensions specified etc.--Cancun771 09:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


This Needs Expanding Badly

There are several colleges in the United States granting degrees in package engineering and almost every major corporation uses packaging or has a dedicated packaging group.

Can't someone take one of the well regarded textbooks/guides out there and crank out a 3-4 page summary that does this topic justice?

I know someone with above average writing skills is sitting at home with their copy of Fundamentals of Packaging, The Handbook of Packaging Techonology, The Fiber Box Handbook, The International Paper Pocket Pal, or The ASTM Guide To Selected Packaging Standards.....

Packagingengineer 01:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking of un-redirecting the "Packaging Design" page and writing a (hopefully) decent article instead. I have already started the article structure (I could possibly post it here if someone could give me some feedback on it), but there is so much ground to cover... I currently do not have the time. But it's on my to-do list for several months now. I don't think "Packaging design" should be redirected to "packaging and labelling", it should be the other way around. Plus, I don't like how the present article is structured. It seems to stem in different directions (some of them seem to be related to Postal practices rather than Packaging Design), developing none of them to a satisfactory degree. So it seems easier and more practical to just start an article from scratch than to try and fix this one. 0cm 20:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

In April 2007, a user proposed merging Wrap rage into this article. I think it has some merit. Comments? Mdotley 03:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrap rage is a slang term for people's reaction to some packages. It does not belong in the packaging and labelling page. The article currently discusses easy-open packages and some reasons why they sometimes are not. Pkgx July 16, 07

Specification function

I have removed the addition of a function of specification. Specifications can involve the protection or barrier functions. The communication function indicates which level is met. Rlsheehan August 10, 2007

The purposes of packaging and package labels

A large part of my packaging course is the use of the packaging functions/enviroments grid from Lockhart, H. E. (1997). "A Paradigm for Packaging". Packaging Technol. 10: 237–252. for package design and evaluation. Is this widespread for courses elsewhere? Not that there is any wrong with the current list, but if the packaging grid is widely taught than it would make sense to re-organise using standard terms. BeamerNZ (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Several authors have lists of packaging functions, each parsed a little differently. Feel free to offer any specific recommended changes or expansions. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Recycle-resin-logos-lr 01.png

Image:Recycle-resin-logos-lr 01.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Linkfarm

I've removed it twice. I think the relevant policies and guidelines are clear: WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You have deleted significant content from this article. Most of your claimed references are not relavent to your action. These were clearly not spam. These were useful links which have been in place for a long time. Your link says: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article". It goes on to caution against "excessive links". I agree with this but it seems to be a matter of personal opinion as to what is excessive. Please lets cooperatate here and not just junk the whole thing. Do you have any specific links which you would like to remove. Lets keep some others.

Rlsheehan (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to support Ronz here. None of those links adhere to the policies per WP:EL:
"Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic."
None of the links are on topic. They are all links to main page of a site. EL are supposed to link to thinks that cannot be added because of "copyrights" or the "amount of detail". Also, it doesn't matter how long they have been here if they don't adhere to the rules. Wizard191 (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
WK:ELYES says external sites may include "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." These sites qualify for this. WK:ELMAYBE allows links to organizations, etc. if the list is not too long. I am willing to work on the length of the list but policy clearly allows for these types of sites. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Packaging_engineering#External_links deja vu. Consensus clearly is against such links. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not aware of a consensus on Packaging Engineering.
Please discuss what specific aspects of external lists you object to. Yes, we can work on the length of the lists. But no, we should not delete all external links. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I see consensus here and in Packaging Engineering. You're free to follow WP:DR to get others involved, but I don't see any need to further explain obvious consensus. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing your argument. If you look at WP:ELYES all of the examples are for links to info that is specific to the article. As for WP:ELMAYBE it actually says: "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations". That means one link to a directory. Right now this article is the directory of organizations, which is unacceptable. If you can find a directory that has a similar listing, I would approve of that. Wizard191 (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

labelling or labeling

We need to agree on a proper spelling. The title is labelling but the spelling labeling is used in numerous locations in the article. I don't know if labelling is a British spelling, but here in the US I've only seen it spelled labeling. Wizard191 (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I have made the change which should make the spelling more consistent. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

toxicsinpackaging.org as a source

I don't think this webpage meets WP:RS. It's self-published, correct? --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not the type of "vanity press" which WP:SPS warns against. The subject which needed a citation was toxic content of packaging. This site is the Toxic in Packaging Clearinghouse which was set up by the state govnernments of WA, CA, MN, IA, IL, NY, NH, RI, CT, and NJ (9 other state governments also support this site). This site is relavent to the subject and clearly represents an external expert(s) in the governing legislation. It has further links to the specific legislation of several states. This is a reliable source. Rlsheehan (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure it's not a lobby? It doesn't have any information about itself, which kind of smacks like a lobby. If it is a lobby then I wouldn't qualify it as a RS, for obvious reasons. Perhaps someone should post secondary sources explaining exactly what toxicsinpackaging.org is. Wizard191 (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This is not a lobby. It is an association of state governments for coordination of the toxics issue. The group had its start in the 80's regionally as CONEG and has expanded to other states. Only states can vote on issues. Industry can provide input (lobby) but has no vote. This is a reliable source. Rlsheehan (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a site set up by NERC | Northeast Recycling Council: http://www.nerc.org/projects/index.html#current9. It's not a "press" of any sort.
No one has answered my question, "It's self-published, correct?" Take it to WP:RSN please. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Please take a little time to read WP:RS and WP:SPS. There is not a requirement for the press to interpret laws and regulations. This site was set up by state governments to communicate the laws and regulations for toxic materials. This is as reliable as it gets. If you want to take it to WP:RSN or formal dispute resolution, go ahead. Rlsheehan (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I've removed it as self-published. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

On another note, I noticed this "reference" doesn't appear to verify the information. If anyone thinks is it a source, please indicate what page from the website the information is sourced, and the exact quotations that verify the information. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a relavent and legitimate reference. Please discuss what specific problems you have. More important, please offer some constructive input for us to discuss. Rlsheehan (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Ronz again. The citation doesn't even support the text. The closest thing on the website is:
"...it is hoped that this legislation will curb the amount of heavy metals entering the municipal solid waste stream and, ultimately, landfills and incinerators. A reduced contribution of these metals to the waste stream will gradually lower their harmful presence in the environment."
That doesn't say anything about: "Material content should be checked for potential hazards to emissions and ash from incineration and leachate from landfill." (bold mine) The source is talking about removing toxins from the manufacturing process. The text is talking about checking the packing before it is being disposed; two totally different things. Please delete this bogus ref. Wizard191 (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the specific comment. I have clarified the statement in the article to address that. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the information from the site linked above, and the lack of information on the toxicsinpackaging.org site itself, the site appears to be for lobbying and promotion. We have absolutely no indication whatsoever that the material is reviewed in any way. This fails WP:RS in almost all respects. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the results of the WP:RSN request were that the website could be used as a source. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

History and Reasons for Package Sizes

I am looking for why cans and packages are a certain size. For instance, why are tuna cans 5oz, ice cream 1.75 quarts, or vegetable cans 14.5oz while fruit cans are 15oz? Septagram (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition

We should start with the DEFINITION of the activity of packaging (temporarily integrating an external function and a product to enable the use of the product). Subsequently we can continue with the description of the several (sub)activities and their functions (protecting, ....). This also clearly sets the activity of packaging apart from the material of packaging, in other words: 'putting the product in the box'is the activity of packaging, 'the box' iself is the packaging (matreial).OOTBX (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Health

Can it be included that some packaging (eg low-density plastic) is found unhealthy ?

According to a study, conducted by the Goethe University at Frankfurt found that a high percentage of the bottled water, contained in plastic containers were polluted with estrogenic chemicals. Aldough some of the bottled water contained in glass were found polluted with chemicals aswell, the researchers believe some of the contamination in the plastic containers may have come from the containers themselve. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.203.223 (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Separation

Can I suggest this article be separated into two? The bits on packaging and labelling are almost written like separate articles anyway. The only slight issue is that there is already an article called Labelling, about something slightly different. Perhaps it should be called Labelling of objects / Labeling of objects. Yaris678 (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The subjects are closely related. See also the article on Label. Pkgx (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Many things are closely related to many other things. The beauty of Wikipedia is that we can link the articles as appropriate. The article on label is arguably more closely related to labeling than packaging is.
This article, as it stands, is saying to me that they should be two separate articles. I give the following as evidence:
  • The two subjects each have there own introductory paragraph.
  • Most of the sections relate to either one thing or the other.
The only exception to this second point is the section "The purposes of packaging and package labels", but I am sure the points mostly relate to either one or the other and hence could be separated out.
Yaris678 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

The previous version of this "In many countries it is fully integrated into government, business, institutional, industrial, and personal use." read rather like a statement about the United States and may not be true of the whole world.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Bottled water in plastic containers contaminated from plastic containers


Country Specific Abbreviations and Definitions

Opening Paragraph has the twin names "package labeling (BrE)" and "Labeling (AmE)" , but the abbreviation is inconsistant to other texts in Wikipedia. with the usage of "en-UK" and "en-US" to differentiate the two spellings or usages.

i.e. "Petrol" (en-UK) and "Gasoline" (en-US).

Not sure if there are differences in en-AU or en-CA between "Labeling" and "Package Labeling".

Richard416282 (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

These abreviations are listed in American English and British English. What would you prefer? Rlsheehan (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tetra Brick Aseptic packaging

Since the Tetra Brick Aseptic packaging is such a big player on the market, perhaps this type of packaging can be linked/looked into closer in this article ? 81.245.93.185 (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


Seperation of pages

Which administrator is in charge of this project? I am looking for an admin to talk about possibly expanding and separating the Packaging and labeling page into two separate pages, the reason I believe this would be valuable is due to the fact adding more specific sections on either might make the page unbalanced and not helpful. --Cayden Ryan (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Administrator's don't own articles. Instead flesh out your reasons for wanting to split the article and all of the interested editors will weigh in and we can discuss what makes the most sense. Wizard191 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't presume admin's own wikis just that one might be contributing or editing more then others. My reasoning is simple. A wiki is information on a topic, but if the wiki is too long, people do not find it as user friendly to get the information. They can find it overwhelming. If you break down Packaging into packaging machines, liquid filling machines, dry filling machines, the process of packaging and the different machines used, and box packaging etc. doing the same to labeling, labeling machines, labeling processes, high speed labeling machines, single stamp labeling machines, single labels, label spools, different uses of labels, and labeling companies that incorporate labeling machines into packaging. I believe this much information is too much for one wiki. I think it would be more beneficial to create two wikis, interlinking where necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cayden Ryan (talk • contribs) 16:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

By Wikipedia standards, this article is comfortably large at 28k, but not necessarily too large to split; see WP:SIZE. Also, it's generally bad practice to separate topics between machinery and processes if the machinery can only be used for that one process (or closely related processes). However, in situations where a piece of machinery can to multiple processes (e.g. a milling machine) then it does make sense to split the topics. In this case I don't think it makes sense to split between machinery and processes because labeling machinery is only used to the labeling process. Wizard191 (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Correct, however, adding any more information, no matter how valuable, would be making this wiki encroach upon the size where splitting could be neccessary. And in regards to what you said about not splitting, would it not be valuable to wikipedia readers to have more information on any subject? I assume that making two seperate pages might be hard, but if that makes the wikis themselves more valuable, why would this be a problem? I am confused on your point possibly. --Cayden Ryan (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with you (or anyone else) adding content. Please do so. I think we should just consider splitting the article after your additions. Wizard191 (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cayden Ryan (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have thought about splitting also. See below comment. I really think a section on packing is needed to distinguish it from packaging. And also Labelling can redirect to something like "packaging regulations" -that can included labelling, weight and tamper-evident regulations and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Packman99 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Packing?? Section or new article?

Packing is a separate phenomenon to packaging. Packaging which is really a consumer interface. Packing is putting the items into bags in the first place, it involves weighing things into bags and board makers and convertors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.43.64 (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Education

An editor has been trying to include a list of schools that have a major in packaging. This subject does not belong in this article on packaging. It is discussed in Packaging Engineering and there is a link to a list of the schools in that article. There is also discussion there about whether or not to have the list as part of the article. Pkgx (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Books

There have been several edits regarding how best to reference books.

If a book is listed for optional reading and not used to verify article content, then it should be in a section called Further Reading. See Wikipedia:Further reading
A reference to support and verify the content of an article is often an inline citation. When a book is used to broadly support the content of an article, it should be listed as a General Reference. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources para 5.7
Two of the books in the article are clearly General References: the others perhaps could be in a Further Reading section. I hope this clarified the listed Wikipedia policy for books.
These edits have been made.
Pkgx (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

PullApart and packaging considerations

Whilst I appreciate and invite the editing of my work, the total removal is somewhat harsh, and the reason is because: “Subject already included in other sections”? It is imperative that “Zero waste” and ease of disposal are designed in from the outset, its a major contemporary consideration. This is all about our environment and thoughtful service to we customers, and if a few relevant words help to inform and encourage designers to make all our lives better – where's the problem? Demonstrating that this page is informative and relevant to current “packaging” concepts. In the UK, award winning PullApart is, as far as I know, the only organisation, perhaps in the world, that gauges, measures packaging quality for the environment and consumers - ease of disposal, and is influentially relevant, since 2005. So, does anybody else here have any constructive ideas, suggestions? This page has “Package development considerations” and “Environmental consideration” - what's wrong with “Consumer considerations”, don't we also deserve a mention? AnthonyPA (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. This is an overview article on the broad subject of packaging and labeling. It is fine to make reference to a local effort to improve recycling (and the article does reference PullApart) but this specific program is does not follow for other countries where other efforts are being made. Recycling convenience is currently mentioned. The PullApart article covers your subject well, almost to the point of commercialism.
This article is full of consumer considerations, both from packaging development and from environmental standpoints. Packaging not focused on the consumer is destined to fail.
Please offer other constructive input. Pkgx (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Constructive input: Any article including the broad subject of “packaging” - today, without comparable representation, consideration for consumers ease of disposal makes it read as though it is written by the packaging industry - for the packaging industry, and not truly reflective of contemporary consumer's profound hassles with packaging, including accessibility. Its not only packaging that's “not focused on consumers that's destined to fail”, it can be articles too. Pullapart couldn't be further away from “commercialism” it is fiercely independent, operating totally for free (unlike packaging industries and recyclers), and without adverts. With help, it can be applied to any location throughout the world that uses bin/bag kerbside collections, its quite unique. Suggestions: Perhaps, within this article, there could be a separate page for all packaging “design considerations”, another for those non commercial organisation, you mentioned - adding their opinions, a page for different types of packaging and one for illustrating what's the best/easiest/greenest and hardest packaging for people (us), throughout the world? Meanwhile, if nobody disagrees, I'll carry on giving this page little tweaks. Has anybody else got any ideas? AnthonyPA (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have raised several possible points. Here is a start at an answer.
1 - Be careful of strong advocacy: read WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting your position.
2 - This article on packaging does talk about ease of recycling in a few places. Is more really required in an overview article? I say, no.
3 - The PullApart concept you are promoting is OK but is not for everybody. Existing curbside recycling works fine in other area. Some communities have co-mingled recycling collection that also works for them.
4 - Package rating systems are being used by several organizations around the world. Read Sustainable packaging and some of the references. Ease of recycling is ONE of the considerations of this topic. There are many other environmental considerations. This topic is being discussed by governments, communities, and standards organizations around the world.
Pkgx (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to your points:
1 - I'm only attempting to add information to this article, to create a more balanced, neutral and contemporary inclusive read.
2 - “Packaging and labelling” contains no mention of “ease of recycling” and one mention of “ease of disposal”, which I recently included, and one sub heading called “disposal”, which then goes on not to mention “ease of disposal”? This is hardly representative of one of the most troubling aspects of packaging in our modern life, for most people, kerbside recycling, over the last 10 years or so.
3 - All things have critics, and your comments clearly demonstrate the worldwide significance of disposal. Also, these other “existing kerbside” collection communities that are doing better in serving their customers, would also score highly in PullApart.
4 - All the more reason to reflect, add this profound concern in “packaging and labeling” on the front page, demonstrating this article's contemporary relevancy.
Would anybody else like to chip in? AnthonyPA (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You criticize Packaging and Labeling for lack of coverage of recycling. Did you miss the following?

  • One of the primary functions of packaging is listed as Convenience that includes “. . . reuse, recycling, and ease of disposal.”
  • The article has a major section on Environmental considerations. Discussion of Recycling includes “Emphasis is focused on recycling the largest primary components of a package: steel, aluminum, papers, plastics, etc. Small components can be chosen which are not difficult to separate and do not contaminate recycling operations. Packages can sometimes be designed to separate components to better facilitate recycling.”
  • There is a link to the main article on Sustainable packaging that further discusses the many aspects of environmental stewardship. Increasing recycling is one part of current efforts
  • There are links to several other Recycling and Environmental articles
  • Link in nav box to your PullApart article

This (and the several linked articles) seems to be reasonable coverage for an overview article such as Packaging and Labeling. Pkgx (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Tylenol case

I have only a layman's knowledge of this subject, but maybe someone with expertise in the area will consider adding to the article's "History" section some sort of footnoted mention of the impact of the Chicago Tylenol murders on packaging. Those murders took place in September 1982, when I was not quite twenty-nine years old. Not long after they became national and, I guess, world news, I was in the fruit-juice aisle of a Los Angeles supermarket. As I peered at the hundreds of brightly-colored bottles of juice on offer before me, I realized that anybody could surreptitiously put anything in the package of any ingestible. Evidently, that realization was experienced by manufacturers of all kinds of ingestibles around that same time; not long after that, the various tamper-resistant and tamper-evident packages that are now ubiquitous in pharmacies and supermarkets began to appear. That, anyway, is my recollection.

I see that the "Product packaging" section of Wikipedia's article on tamper-evident packaging includes a reference to the Tylenol case. As I say, my layman's sense is that the case resulted in the creation of the regime of tamper-resistant and tamper-evident retail ingestible packaging with which we now live. The amount of money that was spent to develop that packaging and that is still expended to employ it must be enormous.108.36.209.26 (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

PS You know that lid on a juice bottle? I mean the lid whose center is depressed and does not pop up until the bottle is opened for the first time. I never saw such a lid before the Tylenol case.108.36.209.26 (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added reference to this in the history section. Pkgx (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Packaging/Archives/2012&oldid=1197469842"