Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Horse Eye Jack (talk | contribs) at 07:07, 17 August 2020 (→Page move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Occupational Safety and Health C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from N95 respirator appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 April 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the melt-blowing technology used to create N95 respirators was previously used to produce ready-made ribbon bows and bra cups? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2020/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/N95 mask.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment or view
• Article history

• ... that the melt blowing technology used to create N95 respirators had previously been used to make bra cups and premade ribbon bows? Source:

• Reviewed: Leah Lowenstein
• Comment: Much of the text is closely paraphrased from public domain U.S. government sources, which is within policy, but this text doesn't count towards the 1,500 character limit. However, there is more than 1,500 characters of original text, mainly in the lead and the history section. See DYK rule 2b.

Created by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk), Victorgrigas (talk), and Fuzheado (talk). Nominated by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) at 01:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC).

What were N95 respirators originally designed for?

This article says that N95 respirators were originally designed for ... but there is no authority for that. I think the original purpose of the masks is important and an authority for that is important. Sam Tomato (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The source is the California Department of Consumer Affairs. You don't think that citation is valid? MartinezMD (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

KN95 vs N95

OK So my experience

Bought these at my local electronics store (Needham, MA) 10 @ $5.00 each on May 25, 2020

Some details (Comparison)

These masks have similar superior properties as N95, but they go by different names based on where they are certified. The WHO (World Health Organizations) considers N95 equivalent to KN95 and other similar masks. (WHO Article 1. WHO Article 2.)

I'm sure there is no wikipedia article on KN95

So worth a mention in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.76.29 (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://physicianestate.com/kn95-vs-n95-masks/

Page move

@HLHJ: Your justification for the page move was "per talk" but I see nothing here or at Talk:FFP mask. Which talk page were you refering to? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Horse Eye Jack. The merge template redirected to Talk:Mechanical filter respirator#Merge discussion. Since no-one else participated, this basically consists of my explaining why I think it's a good idea. Now that someone else has taken an interest, I'd be glad to discuss it in more detail. HLHJ (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I should probably have merged this talk page too... will wait now, or as you see fit. HLHJ (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I can see the logic in your argument but I think you should have given notice on all the relevent talk pages (especially after getting no responses at Talk:Mechanical filter respirator) and gotten an actual consensus rather than just a lack of objection before completing the merge. If I were you I would revert and post on the relevent talk pages but I'm not gonna bring the house crashing down on you if you don't. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I got busy and didn't say anything, but I think the merge might be premature. In principle it makes sense to have a single Filtering facepiece respirator article to avoid duplication. (Also the N95 mask title is a bit problematic, since N95 filters are used in elastomeric respirators as well, and also because nearly everything in this article equally applies to the other N-, R-, and P-series respirators. The current title is useful from a WP:COMMONNAME standpoint and is technically correct, but hides some of the nuance.)

However, in practice the N95 mask article is very U.S.-heavy, which is appropriate for an article about a U.S. standard but not for one with international scope. In order to be balanced it would need to be extensively rewritten to include standards and guidance from the EU and other jurisdictions. Also, the merge should have been done as a page move rather than a cut-and-paste, to reduce the number of redirects left behind with extensive history and talk pages. And yes, even though there was a merge banner, the discussion should have been on one of the talk pages for an article actually involved in the merge, instead of a third article. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I entirely agree that a move would have been better. Apologies. I did split parts of the FFP mask article to FFP standards, and included just the standard-specific material. I did not do this to the N95 mask article as all of it fit into either the merged FFR article or the Mechanical filter respirator article (with the exception of a list of patents which I dumped on Talk:Mechanical filter respirator until I figure out what to do with it). I could make a US-filter-standards article, too. I had every intention of rewriting the merged FFR article, though it would take a bit of time; it is mostly US&EU at the moment. Where should we go from here? HLHJ (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I take your point, Horse Eye Jack. I followed the instructions at Template:Merge (and WP:Merging), but a couple of extra posts to the talk page would not have been that hard to do. I guess I figured anyone watching the talk page would be watching the article anyway.

In the current state, the same informational content is available on Misplaced Pages as before my rearrange (with the exception of that patent list). Unmerging... I could re-instate the N95 mask article fairly easily. There would be nothing terrible about Misplaced Pages having both an "N95 mask" article and a "Filtering facepiece respirator" article (with heavily overlapping content) for a bit. Possibly I could change it into a US-filter-standards article and then move it to a new title. Unmerging the FFP would be a bit more bother because I changed and rearranged the content, but resurrecting the old version, so we had an article containing much content duplicating FFP standards would also not be a huge problem. I should have moved that rather than creating it de novo, too; I suppose I could fix this but I would have to figure out how. I'd also like to go over the articles on cloth mask and masks in the COVID-19 pandemic, which are getting a lot of reads and desperately need updating. I will have to leave this for now but will come back to see what you two say. HLHJ (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll worry about requesting the history merges. If you were about to add non-U.S. information to balance out this article, I think that's fine. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Again this is more preference rather than anything you did wrong, it was a bold move which you took appropriate steps to make. If this was a pre-merge disussion I would probally argue against it based on the second reason for avoiding merging given at WP:MERGEREASON ("The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles"). I don't necessarily agree that we need a page between respirator and a page like this. I'm also not super convinced that "filtering facepiece respirator" is the WP:COMMONNAME but thats kind of besides the point. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• C-Class Occupational Safety and Health articles
• Low-importance Occupational Safety and Health articles
• WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles