Talk:Sun tanning/Archive 1

message: Hope nobody objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.12.173 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant advertising for fake tan product removed 

message: Do other animals besides humans tan? I've never heard of such a thing, but I don't see why not, really. Especially relatively hairless animals like elephants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.145.113 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other animals 

message: One thing I've always been a little perplexed by is this: if you're skin tans in response to exposure to UV radiation, and you're told to wear sunscreen/sunblock (which blocks or screens such radiation) then isn't this kind of a catch 22?? Does wearing Sun Screen cause a person to take longer exposure time or more levels of UV in order to tan since the tan is linked to amount of exposure (more UV = more tan) and since sun block actually limits this. Thus if you're sunning yourself in order to Tan isnt it counter productive to use sun block or sun screen??
Secondly there is no mention in this article about the effect of getting enough betacaratine on your body's abillity to tan. Also excersize promotes rapider tanner. There are also tan extenders that claim to help extend a person's tan, and personally I seem to find that using moisturizers help the tan keep longer. This article also does not make any mention of tanning techniques (such as the need to build up a base and then to have maintenence tanning), nor does it mention what is now widely accepted as scientific fact: that tanning can be mildly addictive (related to release of endorphines as well as behavorioral psychology).
There's also a difference, I believe, between sunblock, sunscreen, and suntan lotion. Sunblock = deflects radiation away from skin. Sunscreen = absorbs the radiation. Suntan lotion = little or no UV protection, with moisturizers and other components to promote tanning, reduce peeling, replace moisture and nutrients lost from sun exposure etc. This should be noted.
- Anon User, 1/30/06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.130.131 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some serious questions this article does not address 

message: The caption on the first picture says that many girls said ... in a survey. It would be a good thing to say something more about the survey - giving an idea of what group of tennage girls think this. JPD (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey in pic caption 

message: "stimulates the production of Vitamin D, which promotes lower rates of disease, and ironically lower rates of skin and other types of cancer"
cool, i did not know that...so does that mean tanning isn't bad for you? (Oahc) 14:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no. it increases damage to dna and hence cancer, but also raises antioxidants that help fight cancer. the good stuff probably doesn't increase past a fairly small exposure, whereas the bad stuff increases with your exposure. patrickw 18:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: also, most people can probably get their daily requirement of Vit D from diet anyways (it is added to milk, etc.) 199.126.246.247 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most people can? Maybe, if they drink a quart of milk each day and regularily eat fish. Peoplesunionpro 13:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vitamin D synthesized in the skin is far more readily absorbed than consuming Vitamin D orally, please read "The UV Advantage" by Michael F. Holick, Ph.D., MD. --Vox Teardrop 15:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  i wanna sun tan now after reading this article! 

message: There are numerous references to doctors in the article; most are of the form "Dr John Doe"; for greater clarity and professionalism it would seem better to use the form "John Doe, Ph.D.", "John Doe, M.D.", "John Doe, D.D.", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.178.194 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better yet, unless it's someone of note (i.e. notable enough to have their own page here), they probably don't warrant a mention at all. Anyone who cares about who did the research can follow the reference link, but for your average person this information is entirely irrelevant. --203.206.183.160 11:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Dr's 

message: "Sunshine also has positive effects on psychological mood and in prevention of suicude, as suicide rates increase in winter."
this statement is actually not true, it's a myth and summer has higher average suicide rates. From the suicide article "People commit suicide more often during spring and summer. The idea that suicide is more common during the winter holidays (including Christmas in the northern hemisphere) is actually a myth.[14]" I ask that this be removed. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.160.169 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Powers 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide Rates 

message: One gets the impression from reading this article that UVA and UVB are completely distinct from each other, when in fact they're nothing more than arbitrary subsets of a continuous spectrum. Surely this binary description of UV radiation breaks down at some point... if anyone knows of an example in this context, the whole thing might deserve a brief mention. For the moment, I've just replaced the statement "The two frequencies of light which cause tanning are UVA and UVB"... --203.206.183.160 17:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right, UVA and UVB are terms created by scientists to group together certain parts of the spectrum. For example, a milliwatt of 280nm (UVB) behaves quite differently to a milliwatt of 314nm (also UVB). Don't even get me started on UVC. --Vox Teardrop 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UVA and UVB 

message: There are two sides to this coin and I feel that there are definite benefits to moderate tanning/sun exposure. I am going to compile a list of websites that study the benefits of UV exposure. I wish people would educate themselves fully instead of listening to "scare tactics" by the Dermatology society without question.
: http://www.sunarc.org/
: http://www.tanningtruth.com/
: http://www.sun-wellness.com/
: http://www.uvadvantage.org/
--Vox Teardrop 21:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Benefits of Moderate Tanning/Sun Exposure 

message: The section "This Wikipedia article in the middle of plagiarism controversy" posted on January 13, 2007 was removed.
I think it is of some interest, as it shows how Wikipedia is used today by traditional media.
The original text was:
The author of an article published in October 2006 in Portuguese newspaper Público was accused of "a way of plagiarism" by the newspaper's ombudsman in January 2007.
Apparently, it is an unquoted translation of an article in an English-language science magazine. The box is a translation of the Wikipedia article about sun tanning, with a sentence left in English, considered by the editor as "a regrettable editing lapse".
The newspaper posted all the relevant documentation online. [link]"
Please comment.  Ricardo Monteiro 22:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is interesting. However, I do not agree that this is something of interest for the Sun tanning article. I'd suggest that it might be better placed in the Wikipedia:Press coverage space. MLA 09:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How? Ricardo Monteiro 15:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can only assume this is a technical question and unfortunately I can't really help as my understanding of wiki templates is limited. MLA 15:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism controversy 

message: Incidence of skin cancer in Queensland, Australia has risen to 75 percent among those over 64 years of age by about 1990, due to thinning of the ozone layer.
An article is cited after this sentence, but ummm, the ozone hole is over Antarctica. Queensland is in Australia, not Antarctica. So, I propose if that if the skin cancer rate is actually 75 percent (which from what I've read is apparently plausable) then the "due to the thinning of the ozone layer" bit should be removed.  Constan69 23:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ozone hole is indeed in Antartica, but ozone is thinning all over the world.—anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.188.49 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ozone hole 

message: How does the sun affect aging of the skin? Does any amount of sun exposure have the potential to produce fine lines and wrinkles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.155.14 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aging 

message: How come all East Asian people can tan but most Caucasian people can't? East Asian people have light skin when they are born...just like Caucasian people. I don't understand why they never burn. It's always been a mystery to me. (69.117.20.128 - talk) 20:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Who says that the sun is strongest between 10am and 4pm? Solar noon is around 12pm and 1pm in areas with some form of Summer Time. Could we just say around solar noon (with a wikilink to a description of what this is)? Ufwuct 11:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/actionsteps.html EPA states that this face is indeed true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.160.254 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4pm

message: On June 6, User:Jamhotjosh vandalized this article . User:86.141.37.33 reverted the vandalism, but for some reason two sections were missing. I restored them. --Urod 13:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health risk section and Cultural history section. 

message: What's with all the reverts? Anyone up for some discussion on it? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using one of Sven's images is ok with me. More than that will ultimately distract some readers. Moreover, too many distracting photos in a short article like this gives undue weight to the naked breasts and bottoms they show and some may consider that disruptive, which is a blockable vio. Another editor has already reverted them altogether. Wyss 04:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I think that one or two images is enough for this article. WP:NOT censored, and they're all roughly equivalent in terms of licensing, so it's pretty much which one editors want more. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the tits picture. However, enough people have a problem with it to make me not want it there, as you can have pictures illustrating tanning without showing bare boobs, however silly the uproar over that is. It's not inappropriate in the slightest, but it is controversial, and less controversial alternatives exist. That's my opinion. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  The Romania pic should be re-added, as she has a very dark tan and that would suit this article well. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've re-added the very dark, horiz. tan pic as per above. Wyss 13:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think more than 2 pictures of girls suntanning is gratuitous. In fact, it might be better if we have one picture of a girl and one picture of a guy. Also, the picture with the nudity should probably be placed lower in the article than the non-nude picture as this is often the custom with controversial images in articles. How about we switch the positions of the two current pictures in the interest of being less provocative? Kaldari 19:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kaldari, good solution, though other contributors will, eventually, without a doubt object to the topless pic and I think s/he will have a point if other good pics are available with a complete bikini or bathing suit. Andries 20:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Truth be told, although this is only my opinion, I like the dramatic nature of the opening photo and since there is only one from the series included in the article, it's much less open to criticism for being gratuitous or disruptive. Wyss 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally I share your opinion, but from experience with similar issues, I can assure you that others will not. If you want the picture to have the best chances of surviving for the long term, you'll want to minimize the shock value. Ways of doing this include keeping the picture at a reasonable size (the current size of 400px seems excessive), and moving the picture lower in the article. Just my 2 cents. Kaldari 21:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your 2 cents is likely a shilling but if you're ok with it for now, I say let's leave it until someone else stumbles across it and has something to say. Wyss 21:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't see what's wrong with :Image:Sunbathe breasts.jpg. I mean it's only a pair of tits for fuck sake, half the world has 'em. Gerard Foley 23:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I gotta say that it suprises me to see these two images on an article about tanning. I agree there should be 1 male 1 female. Neither image in itself is offensive but the topless one could just as easy be a small bikini.Garrie 04:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: i find it rather sexist that only women are shown sunbathing. how about a picture of a guy sunbathing? or a picture of a guy and a woman? Kingturtle 06:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I raised this issue a while back. It might be a good idea to try to find pictures of both genders, lest we imply that only women sunbathe. Kaldari 20:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This falls way into the realm of the obvious. Mentioning that both genders sunbathe and showing pictures to prove it seems to be redundant at best. - Nosforit --130.237.6.40 22:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexist 

message: I am not trying to censor anything on wikipedia, I am a strong advocate of free speech and am against censorship, But I think that showing a picture of tan lines would be much more informative than showing a topless woman tanning. Omgitsasecret 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Where are the tan lines. patrickw 18:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You object to the topless pic? Well, it does seem gratuitous. But what about the pick of the guy with the hairy arse/monkey butt? I mean dang. Looks to me like someone's due for an ass wax. deeceevoice 01:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nude Woman 

message: That's what wikipedia needs.
hmm, I think I'll go register wikiporn.com  
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.106.2 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More topless hotties 

message: Can someone tell me the point of having multiple nude/semi-nude sun tanners? It would work just as well to keep just one to explain the popularity of nude tanning and have the other with at least some shorts on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.34.73 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Pictures are good. We have one woman sunbathing with normal swim attire, one woman sunbathing topless, one man sunbathing nude, and one man taking shelter from the sun. I believe that covers the spectrum pretty well, don't you? Powers 23:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It just seems it would be... less offensive to some if a single nude tanner were pictured followed by a discussion on nude tanning.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.34.73 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't intentionally offend anyone, but neither do we take special measures not to offend anyone. It's a quagmire; if you do one thing to make sure someone isn't offended, then there's little reason not to do another thing to make sure someone is offended, and pretty soon we're spending all of our time trying to figure out who might be offended by what, instead of writing an encyclopedia. As I mentioned, we have only one picture of a nude tanner. The second picture is of a topless woman, which is not, in fact, nude suntanning in the sense Europeans would think of it; it is very common in many places in the world. Powers 02:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Tanning without clothes is common and popular because it reduces tan lines and because it is more comfortable. I wish the nude tanning shots did not cut people off at the head. The other image is from a weird angle below the feet. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 21:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not safe for work. Powers 11:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Wikipedia is not necessarily safe for work. If it's a concern, you can turn off the display of images in your browser. These are not rules I've made up; they are long-established conventions on Wikipedia. If you have better images than the ones we show -- free ones, ideally -- by all means, put them up. But illustrating the different ways that people sunbathe is hardly unecncylcopedic in an article on sunbathing! It is of immense value to show the many ways people sunbathe. Powers T 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the point? 

message: Aaaargh! that picture of the monkey ass guy is absolutely, positively and extremely nasty. I do not object in any way to the nudity. Rather, I am objecting to the extremely nasty look of that picture. I feel soiled for having seen it. It seems there has been discussion as to what pictures to use, so I will not remove it, but I will ask the people who have been discussing the pictures to reconsider. That picture is NASTY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.5.162 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah i think we get the point with the womans breast tan lines but is the second nude pic really nessesary?Barry White 07:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Suntanning in the nude is very common. We ought to have a picture of it, and this is the only one presented so far. Powers T 01:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugh! 

message: I thought we had already covered this that the photo of the male nude was not needed and potentially in poor taste. Another nude of a woman was also removed for being objectifying. Many people don't see a nude photo as being necessary to begin with, but if others feel it is necessary, it should more tasteful, and one is enough to convey the message. Unnecessary nudes of questionable taste (ie: money shots...) take away from the article. We have one, it appears that the concensous agrees it is enough. Pharmboy 13:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see much of a consensus. I see Dandelion and Pharmboy agreeing that the male nude picture is unnecessary. Two people does not a consensus make. Regardless, other people have also commented on the gender imbalance of the picture selection; we have two clear pictures of women sunbathing and one picture of a man under and umbrella and viewed from behind. As it is, the picture selection strongly implies that only women lay out in the sun to tan. That's misleading. Powers T 14:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maintaining equal images of males and females in articles is not any goal I am aware of. The concensus is not misleading, it is just based on more than the Talk page, it is based on the History of the article. The image of the male has been removed without explanation many times without it being vandelism. The old female image was FINALLY replaced with the current image, (the old was objectifying). Same with the male image. Nudes don't bother me. Nude images that are in questionable taste in an article for a field that I have written extensively for 14 years, DO bother me and many others. The image needs to be replaced with a less objectionable male nude image if one is going to be used. Pharmboy 01:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see what's objectionable about it. It's here, we have it, and we don't have a replacement. We should use it. Powers T 16:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But others DO, which is why it has a long history of being removed. It adds nothing but poor taste. Pharmboy 13:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  People object to the image on Human feces, too, but that doesn't mean it should be removed. I still don't see what's objectionable about the image. It's the best image we have of a male sunbather; until there's a better image available, why not use it? Powers T 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed nude male 

message: I have to echo the sentiments of those that disagree with the use of the nudes in this article. I wouldn't object in an article where it made any kind of sense, but it really just doesn't fit in here. The claim (made by what seems to be a very vocal and willful minority) and rallying cry has been that nude sunbathing is popular and so it should be represented visually. 
First off, it doesn't follow that just because something exists and is popular (what the hell is the basis for that determination anyway?) that it should also be seen in an encyclopedic article. The fact is that this photo adds nothing to the article. 
Second, if the subject of nude sunbathing was so important as to warrant the use of a potentially inappropriate photo, I'd think that someone (like, maybe any one of the transparent handful who have pushed so hard here) would have had any interest in having that subject mentioned in any meaningful way in the main body of the article. No one has made a peep about adding other information on the subject, and yet the photo is so important? Please... 
The nude photo is unnecessary and gratuitious and wouldn't reasonably be expected by someone looking for information on the subject (unlike with a sex related article). And, to be honest, it isn't even a good/representative sunbathing picture! There is nothing in the current picture to indicate that that woman is even sunbathing! If she were using a sun reflector or any other typical tanning equipment then you could make an argument, but as it stands, there's nothing to indicate anything going on other than posing nude on the beach. As a matter of fact, if you'll look at the other photos in the series, it's obvious that she is definitely NOT sunbathing. It's a series of shots designed to be provocative. Is being naked and on a beach all that it takes to qualify in your mind? Including shots of breasts just for the sake of having them is not enough reason to include them in the article. THESE PICTURES DO NOT MAKE THE ARTICLE BETTER. So, why include them?
70.94.32.98 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not to beat a dead horse, but... 

message: Formal Mediation is currently taking place here. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediation is not over yet as far as I'm concerned. Please be patient. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 01:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What point of mediation hasn't been met?  PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:MEDCOM|Mediation request]] 

message: Dandelion, thank you very much for the content you provided over at RfM: Sun Tanning. That looks great! Nicely Wikified and well written all we need now are a couple of sources and we're set. I hope you don't mind me posting the content, after reading it I really felt my posting it would be a step toward "healing the gap". That really looks good, thanks for the effort. Padillah (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heck, I like that content so much I'll add it myself. 

message: Um what's the big idea of putting this huge "Nudity" template at the bottom of this page? This is not a nude-centric topic and I don't feel there is any reason to try and hijack it into being one. I can't tell the project what articles it contains and which it doesn't but I can insist that this article is not about a nude-centric choice - Nude sunbathing is a subset of sunbathing in general. Articles like nude bike-riding are nude-centric by their very nature but this article is not and should not be overwhelmed by the addition of a template that's almost as big as the article itself. This gives undue weight and skews the articles content. Padillah (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with the HUGE nudity template on this page? 

message: Do non-Caucasians tan in the sunlight too? Is tanning popular e.g. in Asia? Please add info if you have it. -- 212.63.43.180 (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanning and non-Caucasians 

message: Some people have sex while suntanning, why don't we have an image of that? It's important to show both points of view: those who have sex while tanning and those who don't.
On a more serious note, why don't we just get a picture of the back of someone tanning topless? That way we see that people do tan topless but don't have to show unneeded nudity. It seems so obvious yet I can't imagine that nobody mentionned it in the enormous discussion above...
p.s. apologies for going on about an argument that's already been solved. -M.nelson (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fine idea and I wish I would have thought of it earlier. We could have used a picture of a topless guy too, but that would defeat the intent of the picture. I suppose we could argue that a picture isn't needed to understand the concept of not having clothes on - if someone doesn't get it just tell them to go take their clothes off... there, you've got your example. All that is well and good but let's be fair.  As it stands I don't see the harm in such a small, almost obscure, picture. There's no titillation, it's just some lady laying there, topless. It could be more extreme, I think Dandelion1 showed great restraint in choosing that particular picture. Padillah (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmm, am I sensing sarcasm? Please, unless you have something more constructive (or sarcasm that's more immaginative) refrain from using this as a message board. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image Idea 

message: This page says UVB doesn't cause melanoma, but UVA does, do any of reliable citations repeat this, as it does not seem true.  24.65.42.159 (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: one study that deals with the subject: []  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.142.144.126 (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Another study that suggests that UVA is of greater relative importance than UVB for melanoma formation: Setlow RB, Grist E, Thompson K, Woodhead AD (1993) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:6666-6670. 217.142.144.126 (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Melanoma

message: The aforementioned section of the page is really badly organized and reads like a high schooler essay.  Someone really needs to rewrite it. Glandrid (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural History 

message: There is a slow-moving revert war under way over inclusion of an image apparently depicting a man in shorts lying on the sand at Coney Island. The image has been added by User:Rasputinfa who is its creator, and then by a couple of IP addresses. It has been removed by three other editors including myself.
I'd ask that a consensus be established on whether we want this image or not. I'd argue no because it is comparatively low quality, adds nothing to the udnerstanding of the topic and does not particularly illustrate the act or any effect of suntanning, or any other special point in the text.
As the image placement guideline makes clear, if an article is to have a number of images they shiould each illustrate some pertinent point. In the example used on that page: "Three uniformed portraits would be redundant for a biography of a famous general." Equally, multiple low-quality pictures of someone lying on sand are redundant in the context of this article.
Obviously there are opposing views, and I'd urge them to have their say. Anyone have a view one way or the other? Euryalus (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I could gather (from edit summaries, since the editors have not decided to abide by WP:BRD) is that this is an attempt to gender balance the article. With the exception of one picture all the pics are of females. This pic appears to have been added in an effort to change that. However, since it contains both a male and a female (neither of whom are tanning) it doesn't really help. I have to agree with you quality is poor and nothing is being depicted that's not in any of the other pics. If the editors want to address the apparent gender bias then they can find a quality pic of guys tanning and replace one of the "girl" pics. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note I just reverted the image back off the page.  Simply put, the image just isn't up the quality of what we already have.  The fact that the original author tries to keep adding it under his IP instead of his name doesn't help his case, and demonstrates his goal is to publish his picture, regardless of quality or concensus.  PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Coney island" image 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "Parrish1982" :
**  
**  
DumZiBoT (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: I think the big problem I have with this section is it's only supported by links to a single company. That smacks of spam to me. You've got two refs but they are for the same company. Can a reference be found that does not mention a company? Or maybe a paper from a epidemiologist. Something that doesn't have a for-profit company all over it. padillaH (review me)(help me) 19:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some alternatives to Suntanning section