Talk:Q207822

Label, description

w:Packaging: 1) technology of enclosing or protecting products for distribution, storage, sell, and use. Packaging also refers to the 2) process of designing, evaluating, and producing packages. Packaging can be described as a 3) coordinated system of preparing goods for transport, warehousing, logistics, sale, and end use. Packaging is a object which 4) contains, protects, preserves, transports, informs, and sells. So, what is product packaging (Q207822)? --Fractaler (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fractaler Indeed, I have the same question after asserting that blister packs are made of plastic. "But a blister pack isn't something that can be made from a material; you need a physical object to assert that" the constraint ruleset complains. And blister pack is a subclass of product packaging, which in turn is defined as an intentional human activity and an industry (mainly sense #2 in your quote from the English WP article).

A brief look at some of the other WP language articles suggests that most of them describe the package objects (sense #4) rather than the process of designing and producing them, and so do most of the claims in this product packaging (Q207822) item, just like most of its subclasses. I'd therefore say the subclass of (P279) claims on this item are wrong and should be replaced. --SM5POR (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Created items product packaging industry (Q117156504) and product packaging process (Q117156507), could use help moving Wikidata links and Wikipedia articles to those as appropriate. Swpb (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Swpb Thanks; though while most of the changes seem fine, I think I disagree with one of them: To me, product packaging (such as bag, a container, a bottle, or a box) is distinct from packing material (plastic, paper, cushion, wood). Thus I found the previous description of this item "enclosure or protection of products for distribution, storage, and sale" just fine. The current "material used to enclose or protect products for distribution, storage, and sale" describing product packaging (Q207822) is very similar to "material used to protect, cushion, or brace objects for safe shipment or storage" which describes packing material (Q66157003). I'd say the former is potentially a composite item with features such as lids, caps, seals, and labels, which is in turn made from one or more of the latter materials (which are essentially homogeneous in their physical constitution. Would you agree with my characterization, or do you wish to point out some aspect that I have overlooked before I restore the description if this item?

In accordance with this, I'm inclined to remove material (Q214609) from the subclass of (P279) claims, as blister pack (Q1334675) isn't a material, but it's made from a material (plastic).

As for the WP articles, I'm about to create (some packaging label) as an instance of Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471) with the intent of relinking the English article to it, and potentially other article editions as well. --SM5POR (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That's mostly fine, except "enclosure or protection" is ambiguous and could refer to either the object or the product packaging process (Q117156507). How about "products that enclose or protect other products for distribution, storage, and sale". Swpb (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I find myself somewhat disadvantaged by English not being my native language, meaning I'm inclined to accept your interpretations, but I'm still a bit surprised to learn that "enclosure" might refer not only to the paper (or other material object) that is wrapped around an item before sale, but also to the process or activity of wrapping it (unlike "protection", which I do agree may be either an activity or a physical cover). If that's the case, then I accept your objection and let you rephrase the description (and I suppose we should also remove the statement that product packaging is "said to be the same as" packing material).

Another thing is the wide variety of items that count as "packaging", from mere rubber bands or pieces of adhesive tape keeping light-weight products together, stapled paper wrappers around the handles of some tool serving only as price tags or informative labels that may neither "enclose" nor "protect" those products in any meaningful way, all the way to hermetically sealed, airtight containers keeping foodstuff from going bad or liquids from leaking out. If a single noun such as "product" doesn't describe every single one of them, maybe a few examples could be listed jointly.

Not to forget polystyrene inserts for stability, moist absorbers, transport safety pins, tamper-proof authenticity seals, shock indicators, old newspapers, and reusable or disposable wooden pallets made for fork lifts.

With respect to my (reverted) deprecation of the "uses" claim, I was thinking of the package as the result of the process, not as a means, but then I suppose it could be either, depending on the exact circumstances (in some cases, you start out with an unpackaged item and a continuous roll of plastic film as packing material, and let the process create a package out of it).

What do you say about the four product packaging (Q117187070) main subjects covered by en:Packaging and labelling article; did I get them right? In particular, I find product labeling (Q11898694) too distant from the other three topics to keep the comprehensive English-language article under product packaging (Q207822) only. --SM5POR (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Swpb Could we also figure out which packaging items are supposed to be subclass of (P279) product packaging (Q207822), and which ones may be instance of (P31) same? In my opinion, as long as we are talking physical objects and not merely meta-level abstractions such as "type" or "style" of packaging, an instance of (P31) a product package should be an individual physical item, such as a unique stamped envelope in a philatelist's collection, while a subclass of (P279) a product package could be a generic envelope, box, bag, bottle etc.

However, envelope (Q170124) is currently stated to be an instance of (P31) product packaging (Q207822), but simultaneously a subclass of (P279) covering (Q23497974) as well as mail item (Q2106340), and I simply don't see the logic behind that distinction as long as we are dealing with package, plain and simple, not package type or package category. Is there any logical reason here, or should I change the instance of (P31) claim to subclass of (P279) as well? --SM5POR (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)