![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This item is massively prevalent in North America. Can we please use the English name for the title? Badagnani 17:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard any name for it other than "styrofoam takeout container." Does the term "faan hap" apply only to the rectangular one depicted in the photo you uploaded, or also to the larger square one that has different compartments? Those are the two I most commonly encounter. Perhaps in the trade there are different English names for these items; that would just take a little research. Badagnani 04:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard anyone say "oyster pail" for that container. Then again, I've never heard anyone call an herbal tea a tisane either. Regarding the styrofoam containers, I do believe the rectangular one in your photo and the larger square one with the compartments are the main varieties. There are probably names for these in the trade that produces them. Badagnani 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, we don't even have a styrofoam cup article, and that item is at least as common, if not more common. Actually, the material is polystyrene and Styrofoam is a trade name. But "styrofoam cup" is by far the common name, "styrofoam" having become genericized in the manner of kleenex, xerox, plexiglas, etc. Badagnani 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Good job on this article, Benjwong. Badagnani 19:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's fairly complete now, except I can't find a photo of the round styrofoam cup with styrofoam lid. Most of the photos show a plastic lid, or no lid. Badagnani 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Styrofoam is a Trademark name for building insulation (usually blue, I think) made by the Dow Chemical company. The material that makes up these containsers is Extruded polystyrene foam (XPS) or simply just "foam" for short. It'd suggest the new article name be ""Foam takeout container". Your thoughts? If there's no disagreement I'll make the move in the near future. Plhofmei ( talk) 22:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is overdue for a serious revision. Badagnani, if you're reading this, then please STOP THE REVERTS. There is nothing substantially useful or important about the sentence "They may also be embossed". Again, I am only going to continue the revising and I would like you all to help. Eugene2x- talk 19:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
A user has requested mediation on this issue. NewSinew ( talk) is here to help resolve your dispute. The case page for this mediation is located here.
None of the photo links should be included. The one reference is not a WP:RS. A simple solution is to trim back the article to information that isn't likely to be disputed by anyone, while looking for real sources. -- Ronz ( talk) 03:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that Badagnani is indeed being uncooperative. However, Eugene2x could have done a bit more to engage him in discussion. I suggest we stop this edit war and begin debating here on the merits of the deleted parts. So Eugene2x, would you please make your case? -- MQDuck 14:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we try to get a few more introduced? Also is treehugger.com a RS? TIA -- Tom 14:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
See [1]. Badagnani ( talk) 16:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Please do not insult a long-time, productive, and sincere editor. All was clearly sourced. Please take another look. Badagnani ( talk) 17:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If "they should have been made into a references section," a hyperaggressive, insistent deletion campaign should not have been engaged in instead. However, it's never too late to begin editing in a collegial manner, showing good faith to other long-time, productive, and sincere editors. Badagnani ( talk) 05:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in this. You can go ahead and restore the content (or reformat them as necessary) now. Badagnani ( talk) 17:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Please use this page strictly for proposing improvements to this article. Importantly, WP:STALK should be avoided as well (as it was not in this case). Insistent, hyperaggressive blanking against consensus is quite against Wikipedia's collegial mode of editing, to which most editors here aspire. Badagnani ( talk) 19:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
That's fine; please restore the content you earlier had blanked (see [2]), then we'll discuss which should be reformatted, prior to the actual blanking rather than after. That would represent a collegial manner of editing, to which we should all aspire, following Wikipedia's original ethos. Badagnani ( talk) 04:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
That is a sensible idea, something we've done at many other pages in similar situations. The thing is, it should have been thought of and done in the first place, not much later than the repeated deletions took place. Badagnani ( talk) 04:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, this was done only after great protest, and represents only a fraction of the text that was so insistently removed, again and again, without prior thoughtful discussion and collaboration with other editors knowledgeable and interested in this subject. It's never too late to do that, though. Badagnani ( talk) 05:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello to both of you. I am your mail-order mediator for this case. I request that both of you come to the mediation page to state your side of the story, plain and true. I try to read this talk and it is circular and unclear. Please come to this page so we may have a clear and mature discussion about this. -- NewSinew ( talk) 15:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Some listed sources are not reliable: I have placed two tags on sources. One is listed as being from National Geographic (sometimes a reasonable source) but is really from Media Demand which has no credibility. In addition, the short opinion piece is about the reuse of plastics and not the primary use of foam food containers. The source does not support the statement. The industry support piece is also not a reliable source. Let's use technical journal articles and government reports to support technical claims in the article. Pkgx ( talk) 18:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This item is massively prevalent in North America. Can we please use the English name for the title? Badagnani 17:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard any name for it other than "styrofoam takeout container." Does the term "faan hap" apply only to the rectangular one depicted in the photo you uploaded, or also to the larger square one that has different compartments? Those are the two I most commonly encounter. Perhaps in the trade there are different English names for these items; that would just take a little research. Badagnani 04:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard anyone say "oyster pail" for that container. Then again, I've never heard anyone call an herbal tea a tisane either. Regarding the styrofoam containers, I do believe the rectangular one in your photo and the larger square one with the compartments are the main varieties. There are probably names for these in the trade that produces them. Badagnani 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, we don't even have a styrofoam cup article, and that item is at least as common, if not more common. Actually, the material is polystyrene and Styrofoam is a trade name. But "styrofoam cup" is by far the common name, "styrofoam" having become genericized in the manner of kleenex, xerox, plexiglas, etc. Badagnani 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Good job on this article, Benjwong. Badagnani 19:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's fairly complete now, except I can't find a photo of the round styrofoam cup with styrofoam lid. Most of the photos show a plastic lid, or no lid. Badagnani 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Styrofoam is a Trademark name for building insulation (usually blue, I think) made by the Dow Chemical company. The material that makes up these containsers is Extruded polystyrene foam (XPS) or simply just "foam" for short. It'd suggest the new article name be ""Foam takeout container". Your thoughts? If there's no disagreement I'll make the move in the near future. Plhofmei ( talk) 22:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is overdue for a serious revision. Badagnani, if you're reading this, then please STOP THE REVERTS. There is nothing substantially useful or important about the sentence "They may also be embossed". Again, I am only going to continue the revising and I would like you all to help. Eugene2x- talk 19:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
A user has requested mediation on this issue. NewSinew ( talk) is here to help resolve your dispute. The case page for this mediation is located here.
None of the photo links should be included. The one reference is not a WP:RS. A simple solution is to trim back the article to information that isn't likely to be disputed by anyone, while looking for real sources. -- Ronz ( talk) 03:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that Badagnani is indeed being uncooperative. However, Eugene2x could have done a bit more to engage him in discussion. I suggest we stop this edit war and begin debating here on the merits of the deleted parts. So Eugene2x, would you please make your case? -- MQDuck 14:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we try to get a few more introduced? Also is treehugger.com a RS? TIA -- Tom 14:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
See [1]. Badagnani ( talk) 16:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Please do not insult a long-time, productive, and sincere editor. All was clearly sourced. Please take another look. Badagnani ( talk) 17:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If "they should have been made into a references section," a hyperaggressive, insistent deletion campaign should not have been engaged in instead. However, it's never too late to begin editing in a collegial manner, showing good faith to other long-time, productive, and sincere editors. Badagnani ( talk) 05:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in this. You can go ahead and restore the content (or reformat them as necessary) now. Badagnani ( talk) 17:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Please use this page strictly for proposing improvements to this article. Importantly, WP:STALK should be avoided as well (as it was not in this case). Insistent, hyperaggressive blanking against consensus is quite against Wikipedia's collegial mode of editing, to which most editors here aspire. Badagnani ( talk) 19:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
That's fine; please restore the content you earlier had blanked (see [2]), then we'll discuss which should be reformatted, prior to the actual blanking rather than after. That would represent a collegial manner of editing, to which we should all aspire, following Wikipedia's original ethos. Badagnani ( talk) 04:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
That is a sensible idea, something we've done at many other pages in similar situations. The thing is, it should have been thought of and done in the first place, not much later than the repeated deletions took place. Badagnani ( talk) 04:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, this was done only after great protest, and represents only a fraction of the text that was so insistently removed, again and again, without prior thoughtful discussion and collaboration with other editors knowledgeable and interested in this subject. It's never too late to do that, though. Badagnani ( talk) 05:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello to both of you. I am your mail-order mediator for this case. I request that both of you come to the mediation page to state your side of the story, plain and true. I try to read this talk and it is circular and unclear. Please come to this page so we may have a clear and mature discussion about this. -- NewSinew ( talk) 15:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Some listed sources are not reliable: I have placed two tags on sources. One is listed as being from National Geographic (sometimes a reasonable source) but is really from Media Demand which has no credibility. In addition, the short opinion piece is about the reuse of plastics and not the primary use of foam food containers. The source does not support the statement. The industry support piece is also not a reliable source. Let's use technical journal articles and government reports to support technical claims in the article. Pkgx ( talk) 18:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)