Talk:Single-serve coffee container

(Untitled)

The comparison of usage and function section is just an advertisement. Is this deliberate?

Check out those photos! Advertisement or what??? I can't see that as being neutral at all... Cmjrees (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Added a comparison table, mostly because I and my colleagues spent an hour trying to work out if the Nestle Krups Dolce Gusto machines took Nespresso capsules. They don't. Imagin8or (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Compatibility Table or Chart Required

If you visit enough coffee and barista forums you will find various claims, many contradictory, about which capsules or pods are compatible with which machines or capsule systems. Could someone with access to many machines and lots of capsules from different systems compile a compatibility table? It appears that in different markets systems are branded differently; for example, in the UK Tesco, Starbucks, K-fee, and Aldi espresso machines all take the K-fee capsules which may not be identified as such by different retailers who have house brands.

Perhaps contributors to this article could try out capsules that appear to be compatible with their machine and produce consistent results reliably could report back to this Talk page? We could cooperatively build a compatibility table here for peer review before it is released onto the article page for consumption by the unsuspecting general public. (8^) Hedley 09:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfinger (talk • contribs)

coffee pods are not the same thing as coffee capsules

This article is called Coffee pod, but also talks about coffee capsules as if these were identical to coffee pods. Perhaps there are some similarities, but they differ so much the article should separate the two. If you look at the same article in other languages, they either just describe coffee pods, or the article is named something neutral like "coffee doses".

Pods (or pads) consists of coffee inside a pad (pod) of filter paper while a coffee capsule is made out of impermeable material, and is packaged in airtight packaged single portions (either the capsule itself is airtight, or the capsule is packaged individually in an airtight bag). These are two very different systems, you should not portray them as the same thing. The article should either have a neutral name, be named coffee pods and capsules, or coffee capsules should be a separate article.

The first option does allow to place pods and capsules in a single comparison table, but then it should have an entry in the table whether a capsule or pod is system is used. Mahjongg (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There is so much overlap and duplication of the technology methods that it doesn't make sense to separate into separate articles.

Plastic/metal capsules may contain filter paper. I have not done a dissection of all types available, but it is conceivable for a filter disc to be suspended inside the capsule above the bottom surface so that it is not pierced during the loading process. This can be done using either a folded crimp in the shell or a tension ring inserted into the shell, to hold a filter disc in place.

Also, dissection sounds like an interesting project. It would be useful to see cross-sectional pictures of the interior profile of each type of packaging and how they compare. DMahalko (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have recently viewed a number of forums related to coffee machines and my impression is that "pod" is the generic term in wide use in the United Kingdom, but elsewhere -- and certainly in Australia -- "capsule" is the generic term. Perhaps there ought to be a disambiguation page or a redirect page so that whatever term is known to the reader redirects here? I don't think we should be giving readers a vocabulary lesson. Hedley 09:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfinger (talk • contribs)

move request

I request moving the article to a name more representative of its content, according to rules laid down in Wikipedia:Reasons for moving a page

• It is an article at a descriptive name and the scope of the article has been reduced, extended or otherwise changed

Clearly the article has been extended beyond describing coffee pods.

Mahjongg (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a page move, per se, but I don't like the proposed title. Coffee pods, bags and capsules is (1) cumbersome and (2) suffers from the same problem of terminology: Other terms get used ("discs", "brew cups", "cartridges", etc.) and new ones may be introduced. So that sort of title is either inaccurate or grows without bound. Better would be a more encompassing, generic term. Perhaps just single-serve coffee? As an added bonus, the article could treat all aspects, not just the packaging of the coffee itself, which is really only part of the picture. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I also found the term cumbersome, but I could not think of a better term immediately. Mahjongg (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

What about single portion coffee dosage systems? I agree its quite long though.Mahjongg (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

One more problem is that these systems often are not necessarily tied to just coffee, I have seen hot chocolate "pads" too. Mahjongg (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Single serving holders is acceptable? Mahjongg (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I prefer single serve coffee over single portion coffee dosage systems. Both communicate the same thing. • Now, you make a good point about these things not just being limited to coffee. But single serving holders omits critical information, and could refer to any number of other things, so I don't like that one. Single serve hot beverage systems would be most accurate, but now we're again into cumbersome territory. Hmmmm... —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it might be good to think about what we actually want to describe. This article is about "containers" that are used to hold coffee (or another base for a hot beverage) for a single serving of this hot beverage. I think the main word here is container, its about the things that contain coffee. I agree that holder, to describe the container, is the wrong word, as is is more associated with things like cup holders. Still container also seems to be the wrong word. Jokingly we could use "hot drink munition". Mahjongg (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessarily single-serving either. Food service systems can also use the bag/pod/capsule concept for multi-serving beverage dispensers. Has benefits of being quick and easy for employees to load into the machines without needing to measure proportions precisely, and can also be more sanitary for customers with less direct food handling. DMahalko (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Beverage dosage systems appears to be the most descriptive article title, as the technology has the potential to apply to any type of concentrated liquid food product, wet or dry, hot or cold. I could just as easily see capsule technology applied to single serving concentrated fruit juice as it does to espresso.

Of course the various branded coffee capsule manufacturers trying to claim they have an exclusive patent on a "novel beverage delivery solution" won't like being all lumped together like this, but that does not matter because articles aren't supposed to be written like advertisements anyway.

DMahalko (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Beverage dosage systems sounds about right, it also would describe bags of liquid coffee extract as used in some office coffee equipment, but why not, the article could be expanded to mention these too. I agree this article should not be for just one system or brand. Perhaps the article should have several paragraphs, so a redirect can redirect to a relevant section of the article. Mahjongg (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This is fun. I just tried typing "beverage dosage..." into Google and it suggests beverage dosing technology which also forks off into beverage dispensing technology... DMahalko (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, neither of these two seems to be related to private coffee brewing machines, all the google references point to the kind if soft drink dispensing systems you will find in discotheques and pubs that mix syrup with carbonized water to make coca cola and other soft drinks. English isn't my first language, I just hope somebody can come up with a better term for this article. Mahjongg (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the simplest solution is to rename the article to coffee pods and capsules, at least it accomplishes that the article is not simply only about coffee pads, other attempts of a name all suffer from being too complex or not associated with the actual content of the article. Otherwise we would end up with something silly like private beverage soluble powder containers. If nobody objects I will do the move in a couple of days. Mahjongg (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC

 Done Mahjongg (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Table problem with Espresso Point MAXI

While editing out overlinks in the table, I discovered that the date link for Espresso Point MAXI was 1992 in the text, but 1983 in the link. Lavazza, on their English web site, didn't want to talk to me about old products. Does someone know which date is correct?   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"Environmaneal impact"

This section is WP:OR, has only one citation [1], and that one citation doesn't even appear to mention single-serve coffee containers. I'm going to remove this section. If anyone wants to recreate such a section on [what should be spelled] "Environmental impact" (and it should be recreated), it should come entirely from sources that mention single-serve coffee containers, such as [2] and [3], and it should contain no original research. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Single-serve coffee container. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.monodor.ch/pages/societe.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Table problem with Espresso Point MAXI

Monodor link leads to a dead page since 2017 at least. The last one is from 2016 but all the content seems to be behind Flash plugins. Is there any way to provide links that are useful in modern browsers?

Refs:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20160308052735/http://www.monodor.com/pages/societe_historique.asp?lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.170.248.143 (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)