Talk:BodyPump

message: The correct name is BODYPUMP (all caps), and Les Mills usually includes the ® symbol.  Don't know if BODYPUMP® with the ® is outside the naming convention ... but I think the article should be renamed either BODYPUMP or BODYPUMP®, since BodyPump is not actually correct.
BODYPUMP is definitely NOT a 'more general freely distributed form of exercise'; it's a brand.Nikitin 01:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just go ahead, it is indeed BodyPump. Move it! JKW 17:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name?

message: I went ahead and moved the article from Body pump to BodyPump, per the request at Wikipedia:Requested moves.  Since there was a non-trivial history at the target location, I swapped the histories in order to preserve the contributor information for the content that was merged from BodyPump to Body pump in June. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: Tracklists for the current Bodypump 60 have been removed. 21st November 2006. Les Mills requires that all tracklists for the current releases are not made public till December 2006. Pipera
Again, I'm a little naive about the legal technicalities concerning a registered/copyrighted fitness program. Don't we have the right to spell out a copyrighted list? --LQST (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tracklists

message: Re: the "advertising" complaint ... The page has been updated with substantial external references, and the tone of the text is fairly neutral (if a bit wordy!).  Would it be less like advertising if the track lists came out?  There's a link to them anyway down below. [User:Nikitin|Nikitin]] 01:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Still needs fixing

message: I see this exact program being marketed as Pump & Tone in the UK. Worth adding an alternative name? I'm not exactly sure about the legal status of it, but surely that's none of Wikipedia's concern... EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative names 

message: The second reference link does not work anymore. It now redirects to search.com. I couldn't find another link that contains the full article.146.52.52.199 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link on safety principles 

message: This article said "Research shows that lifting weights in a group setting, such as a BodyPump class, is more effective than an independent weight training.", and sure enough, the cited source (http://www.lesmills.com/knowledge/fitness-research/raise-the-bar-together/) says "The results prove that when you work out with others you achieve more than you would alone".  However, the actual study () which analyzes the results of BodyPump doesn't compare the BodyPump participants to individual weight training, or anything.  Thus I've removed the sentence from this article.  David@sickmiller.com (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group vs individual 

message: Article does appear to be promotional but no where are any health claims made. References include independent coverage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:2CA0:251:91AB:E842:A356:D810 (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion