Talk:Blister pack

Therapy compliance?

the lack of transparency of the package (a therapy compliance disadvantage)

Opaque packaging threatens therapy compliance? Can I get a citation, or is this generally considered common sense? I've never heard it before. Zenostortoise 02:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Therapy compliance" sounds like horrible jargon to me anyway. Hopefully someone can put that bit into plain English. 86.132.140.45 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Therapy compliance, taking the right medicine at the right time in the right quantity, is among others driven by recognizing the correct tablet or capsule. The recognision order of importnce is: the color/size/shape of the tablet or capsule; followed by artwork on the folding carton; followed by the product name. Transparent blister packs help compliance by product recognition. Michiel4 (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What's missing here...

...is at least some mention of the fact that at least some blister packs (generally clamshells) are horribly difficult to open. For example, I recently bought an SD card and have found that, while hacking away with scissors (not exactly a safe process!) got me the card itself, getting at the warranty details inside the backing card was virtually impossible. They are often very hard to open, and this is worthy of mention; if I can find some suitable sources I may well add a little bit about this myself. Loganberry (Talk) 15:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You might find Consumer Reports' Oyster award a good starting place for sources (see this link) -- SiobhanHansa 15:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I usually carry a multitool but rarely effective shears. Perhaps the article should mention the wonderful efficacy of a saw, even the small saw in a multitool. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a neat tool just for the purpose.—Strabismus (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also missing here is any reference to recycling. In the UK, there is a scheme run by Boots, see https://recycleatboots.com/, but I am not sure of the general or global picture on recycling blister packs. Is anyone able to add coverage of this aspect? BobKilcoyne (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

why called a blister pack?

i would expect the article to explain why it is called what it is called - i.e., a blister pack. i never know what people mean when they refer to a blister pack and still don't having read the article and seen the photograph. to me it's annoyingly excessive packaging environmentally and dificult to use. but then i'm a 50+ who probably takes at most one or two ibuprophin or azetaminiphen per year.--71.183.238.134 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Does blister give you any hints? The name seems pretty descriptive. 50.68.13.81 (talk)

File:Mulit-pack of insect repellent.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Mulit-pack of insect repellent.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What is Medical blister tray? Are there any picture available?--Huhss (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe it's simply an alternative name for a blister pack, since they're essentially foiled-sealed trays. Rhys Tedstone (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

History

since when was it widely used? --93.133.181.111 (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Promotional Tone Issue - direct copying from sellers website.

Reading the article, I noticed it has a rather promotional tone, especially the Benefits section stood out. Digging back through the edits, my concerns have grown over the edits made by 2603:3026:100:C900:3DE1:9F0D:DDCD:FE2F, many of which last to today.

Looking at specific edits, I noted explicit company promotion occurred, luckily this has already been resolved. Digging deeper I noticed that practically all edits by this user were direct copies from the promoted website, just compare the above edit to the benefit section on the previously promoted website. This tone obviously does not match Wikipedia's style.

While many good faith editors have come along and made minor edits to better suit Wikipedia, I still strongly feel given the direct copying of large swaths of text this article clashes with WP:NOTADVERT, and requires a major overhaul.

I do not consider my understanding of the topic deep enough for such major edits, but felt compelled to leave this background such that more proficient editors could come along and know what and how to improve this article. 86.145.180.147 (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Their contributions on Packaging and Food packaging seem to be similar, however they were removed promptly. It's clear promotion, so I removed it - especially since the benefits were already better-explained, in-context within their respective headings. Rhys Tedstone (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)