Talk:Indoor tanning

message: Does anyone mind if this is moved to Indoor tanning? SarahSV (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes more sense that "tanning bed." It's presumably only that because both "tanning bed" and "tanning booth" existed before. --tronvillain (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll probably go ahead and move it, in that case. If someone objects, we can move it back and open an RM. SarahSV (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Short on time: a few years ago, I might have argued, but the sources now seem to generalise it this way and even within the industry we now do.  While it might seem a little odd at first (to me), it does make sense as the common name.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Thank you for your help recently.
I have another proposal - I think the following text should be deleted because the content is too old. The study being cited is from 10 years ago. Because it is biomedical information, the WP:MEDRS criteria (WP:MEDDATE) of five years or earlier should be applied.
Section: 6.1 Risks > Cancer risk
"A 2007 analysis of epidemiological studies found a modest increase in the risk of melanoma (a relative risk of 1.15) among those who had ever used a tanning device compared to those who had not, but a 75 percent increase (a relative risk of 1.75) among those who had used one before age 30."
What do you think of this? I wanted to run the idea past you.
--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It was because of the 2007 paper that the IARC raised the classification of tanning devices to group 1, so it needs to be included. SarahSV (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand the need to keep the information about IARC raising the classification of tanning devices to group 1. I propose we keep the citation for that, but we delete the old statistics because we I found and posted (with your help) more updated statistics, per WP:MEDDATE: "In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We say "Following that study, the IARC placed UV-emitting tanning devices on its highest cancer-risk category, 'carcinogenic to humans'." Are you suggesting we say "following that study" without telling the reader what the study said? SarahSV (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

text: WP:MEDDATE doesn't imply the wholesale deletions of anything older than five years. In this case expert opinion doesn't appear to have changed, and the older review isn't necessarily "superseded", especially when it's the current IARC review. --tronvillain (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait... it's not the most recent IARC review, this 2012 review is. And while it mentions the review that mentions the numbers already in this article, it also says  Why not switch to this one? --tronvillain (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion of text in 6.1 Risks > Cancer risk 

message: Caption of the photo from  - I added this earlier but somebody removed it for whatever reason. I think it's a great historical picture.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Palosirkka (talk • contribs) 
:I believe user Palosirkka is asking to have the image added back to the page although formatted kind of strange so forgive me for moving some of their talk page comment without permission. I removed the picture a while ago as I don't see the "great historical" benefit of having it in the article. When removed, I asked what it had to do with indoor tanning and never received a response. I still don't see how it serves the reader of the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the removal. BD2412 T 18:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it would be sensational to have a picture of indoor tanning in an article about indoor tanning. I don't understand why you object it. --Palosirkka (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do you say, "sensational"? BD2412 T 16:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image I'd like to add to the article