Talk:Blunt trauma personal protective equipment

Merge discussion

This article does not appear to contain any information not already covered by Personal protective equipment. It should be redirected to that one. If no one objects, I will be performing the merge in a few days. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important content was added since then. All the aspects of a Blunt Trauma PPE (Protection, Mobility, Cooling) are essential for the safety of the users. This article contains information that is too specific to be merged into the Personal Protective Equipment article. I think the Blunt Trauma PPE article should stay, because important public knowledge on this page should be shared. Shareitnow (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good enough. The new information and your explanation suffice. Thanks for taking the time to solve this issue. I think, however, that the title needs to be expanded to a more formal title per the naming conventions. If you don't object, I will move it to Blunt trauma personal protective equipment as it is properly capitalized, and avoids abbreviations; both of which are required by Wikipedia:Naming conventions --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think changing the article title to Blunt trauma personal protective equipment is a good idea. Thank you for your cooperation. Shareitnow (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To my sense this article has a Lead Section. Also, it is written from a neutral point of view. Those 2 issues are already resolved "Hysteria18": Shouldn't we remove those 2 issues from the top of the article? Shareitnow (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is also listed in 3 categories, so it is not uncategorized anymore. Shareitnow (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah, I removed those as it looks like you have resolved those three specific issues. There are still some stylistic issues, and the article could use a general copyedit to be more generally compliant with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Some issues that jump out at me: include inappropriate use of bolding and of capitalization and general grammar issues. If you are having trouble in this regard, you could contact someone at the Guild of Copy Editors or you could add the {{copyedit}} tag which will mark the edit for attention from people who are good at copyediting. It is looking better tho! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Edits

I have done some simple editing to clean up the Lede. --BwB (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sick to death of doing this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.25.112 (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article reads like industry advertisement

This reads like something you would find on the webpage of the "organization for blunt trauma protective equipment manufacturers". It should be re-written with an encyclopedic voice. Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blunt trauma personal protective equipment. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]