Talk:Tattoo/Archive 1

message: I've taken out two chunks of text that look like they were copied and pasted directly from here and here. They didn't connect flow the text around them, leading me to believe they originated offsite. If someone can confirm that they originated on the Wikipedia, then please revert my edits, but the History section badly needs to be merged together and sorted out. 
Note that the two above links could prove to be good sources of information, but their content needs to be verified, and re-written for the Wikipedia --Kieran 15:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I was going to correct the spelling of "Betty Brodbent," (currently Betty Broadbent) but the text just isn't there in the edit window (or whatever it's called). I checked every "edit" link, but it wasn't in any of them either. I tried Safari 1.2, I was using IE 5.2.3, and discovered that the text didn't even show up in the article. Then, I tried Firefox 1.0, and it is the same as IE. Normally, I would suspect a browser bug, but these are three different browsers and it affects them all.
*It's probably not there because it was in the sections I removed for being copyvio. Please feel free to use the links in the paragraph above as sources to add information to the history section, though. --168.209.97.34 11:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearing Text 

message: I see that a number of months ago in this talk page, there was some concern with using serveral image of the same model (well, two currently; I got the impression it was more before).  I'm afraid I'm not really that impressed with the current images either.  They're not bad, but they're not really the best in photographic quality or in showing range of designs.
If anyone is interested in using them, the images at Mertz/Sushinsky tattoos are all donated to the public domain.  You can see thumbnails of most, but not all, of them at  (I didn't regenerate the proof sheet for the newest images, sorry).  I know this is somewhat vanity, since they're just pix of my partner and I, but I think the photographic quality of most are pretty good. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:48, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
:I'm really dissapointed with the lack of technical details shown in the tattoo pictures (in the article). Honestly, these tattoos wouldn't be a wow factor to anyone. I completely agree with respect for all choices in tattoos, but I think that the current movement would be better shown with better work. These tattoos are all quite simplistic, there at least needs to be some variety instead of people wanting their personal tattoo to be shown. (24.4.244.190 21:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two things: (1) this isn't a contest to show the "best" tattoos.  It's not Tattoo Afficianado magazine, but an encyclopedia.  What we want is to illustrate the concepts. "Wow factor" is a detriment more than an asset for these, being atypical (not that we want needlessly ugly either); (2) Can you propose an uploaded image with proper copyright release that you would suggest using.  Most images found elsewhere are under copyright, and we cannot reporduce them legally.  It wouldn't be bad to illustrate the idea of "body suit", for example, but we need a released image if we are to do so. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More image options 

message: I think it's reached a pretty good point. The two images from the same model bother me slightly, especially since they are stylistically similar also.  But that's minor; they are good photos of well applied tattoos.
I do want to be somewhat conscious of where in the article the various images go, while still keeping an aesthetic balance to the layout.  The images should not crowd out the text at any point.  The initial three in the opening discussion (but below the intro) seem right.  And having the tattoo gun in action next to "Procedure" is absolutely perfect.  The religious tattoo next to "Purpose" seems nice, since religious meanings are part of what is discussed there.  The color chart more-or-less makes sense near procedure and the tattoo gun--the choice of colors is connected with the application process.
The small bear is now next to "Tattoo removal".  I think I did that to balance layout; but I feel bad if it insinuates that that tattoo is particularly a candidate for removal.  In some sense, however, it is one that would be easier to remove than something larger and darker.  So that leaves the second image of the same model, his eagle on the other arm.  I didn't want it by "Infection", which is a yicky insinuation; so I moved it next to "Aftercare"... that tattoo doesn't specifically illustrate care procedures, but I reckon it must have been well cared for to remain sharp, so there is a sliver of connection. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which picture where 

message: A new editor made two edits, the first to upload this image, the second to place it on this page.  My guess is that this tattoo is either on the editor himself or on some friend of his, so this is a vanity thing.  There's nothing specifically objectionable about the image, but it's also not clear to me what it really adds to the article either.  We don't want the article to just be a gallery of "rate my tattoo" or the like.  I guess one could say that the skull illustrates shading more than other images (the religious one has some though); but other than that it's not terribly thematically or technically special.  What new concept is illustrated by this one?
Now I would like to have an example of fine-line work, which isn't in the current article.  Or possibly something less Western, like a traditional Maori design (or maybe Japanese).  Those would round out the examples.  And I'm still not all that thrilled by the same model who has two similar tattoos on each arm.  They're good photographically, but again, this is not a gallery.  There's no real distinct concept represented by each of that model's two arms: they're both figurative but slightly abstracted, they have a similar ink density and color balance, the locations and sizes are the same, etc. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skull on back 

message: I have 3 tattoos, all from the same parlor. My tat guys told me (once for each tattoo) to keep them out of direct sunlight for at least a few hours (after wrapping it in saran wrap). I assume this is to prevent sunburn and thus distortion of the tattoo? Not adding to the article, since I dunno. --Jack (Cuervo) 16:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftercare 

message: My comment about this edit being much better had nothing to do with my edit.
The article has been briefly tidied up by Tricia Allen. Dr Allen is probably the best known academic writing about tattoos and an accomplished tattoo artist herself, having been taught by D.Ed Hardy who you all know is generally accepted as the m,ost influencial living tattoo artist. (unsigned comment by User:MacBride)
:OK.  Though the edit history doesn't show any tidying that might be by Tricia Allen in the last month or so.  There are some anon edits, but not really anything I'd call tidying.  I suspect you're thinking of something else (some other website, maybe?).  But it doesn't matter. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tricia Allen 

message: Lulu, I have a  large tat done in the Maori style by Curly at Intoyou in London and others in Marquesan style. I'm sensitive about 'vanity' posts/pics but feel it would be good to have some non western ink illustrated. Might post a pic and see what people think.... (unsigned comment by User:MacBride)
:If you have a photo(s) that you'll release as PD or GFDL, would you upload it and show us here on the talk page? Something Maori-ish would be helpful, I think.  And I think it would be useful as a replacement for one of the two similar images from the same model.  I'd like to avoid having too many images, since WP articles use images to illustrate discussed concepts—galleries as such are prohibited.  Of course, what's probably really most distinctive about the Maori style is the "face masks", my guess is that's not what you mean you've done :-) (I could be wrong). 
:P.S. When you write comments on talk pages, please end with four tildes (~~~~) so we can see who wrote what, and when. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maori ink 

message: I've read before that tattoos originated when the fishermen of the western coast of India started marking them on their kids. Recently a global denim company has been adverising the Indian origins of tattoos and bandannas. However, I'm unable to find a mention of the Indian context in this article. Interested editors may look at this fact(??) and include it at an appropriate place. --Gurubrahma 19:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tattoos have roots going back so far in so many countries that it's probably impossible to say where they "originated" if there even exists such a single beginning.  As for the history of tattoos in India I am rather ignorant, but without a source I don't think this bit really has a place in the article. Fightindaman 00:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins from India? 

message: I recently saw a program on Discovery about a tribe of snake catchers somewhere in Asia that use tatoos as a mode of protection against venom. This may sound mystical or magical but it was revealed that they use special formulas for the inks that contain venom so by slowly poisoning themselves they gain a resistance to the venom and since the tattoos are renewed (monthly or every 6 months depending on the tattoo) constant doses are administered. Anybody have any more precise information about these type of tattoos?
The current issue of Skin & Ink Magazine, December 2005 has an article by Amy Gold on "Mystical Burmese Charm Tattoos" that covers that very subject. Well worth reading.  Tattoos as amulets and talismans for protection are common in both Burma and Thailand.  In addition to specific protection against snake bites, people believe it is possible to get tattoos that offer protection from knife wounds and bullets.  
VinceH 03:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Functional tatoos? 

message: Wondering why the term "ink" isn't referred to in the sentence "Most tattoo enthusiasts refer to tattoos as tats, art or work, and to tattooists as artists."  As far as I'm aware, the use of the word "ink" as slang for tattoo work is pretty common.  A pretty minor thing, but still worth mentioning, if you ask me.
Perfect13thStep 22:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slang 

message: Is the amount of text here actually needed? There is a whole separate article devoted to this subject which could be linked to, as opposed to the paragraph which essentially just repeats it. I suggest a sentence or two before the link. Lady_Contradiction 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.  Sounds like a good idea. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a link to the article in the Temporary Tattoos section. Opinions? Lady_Contradiction 00:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henna Tattoos 

message: I'd like to remove the koi tattoo image he added to the entry.  Even though it contains no links, it is part of his attempt to use Wikipedia to promote himself and he should not be induged in any way.  He's been linkspamming in several body modification related articles, and I'd rather not use his image in the entry. Glowimperial 13:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, please take it out.  I felt ambivalent about an image that was pretty clearly added out of a vanity interest, but didn't automatically find it was bad for the article itself.  But if the same user has been linkspamming elsewhere, that's probably good reason to "shoot on sight". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Image has been removed.  It wasn't a bad image, but I felt that to have it here further promoted someone who has abused Wikipedia, specifically to promote himself & his businesses. Glowimperial 21:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits and image from [[User:Lemaire]]

message: This suggested addition:
# Duplicates discussion elsewhere in article;
# Is unreferenced;
# Is not important enough for a section header.
I removed it.  Possibly a sentence in "negative associations" might be usable, but let's not introduce anti-tattoo POV language (nor pro- of course, but it is the subject of the article). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided a reference. The section is logically placed after the section "purpose". It is more than only negative associations, it sometimes even restricts dressing choices.--Patrick 06:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A major section for a single sentence that is barely worth including at all!? C'mon, this borders on vandalism.  However, I do see that the prior sentence about work dress codes had been deleted at some point (probably because it wasn't worth having), so I added your sentence back into a more appropriate place. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dress code 

message: The 'Tattooing in the Ancient World' section included information on current religious views, so after having expanded on the Islamic viewpoint, I created a section for religious attitudes altogether. 
By the way, while Muslims respect the Bible, they specifically believe that it has been tampered with and do not use it as a guide through which they live their lives. Thus, it is wrong to suggest that Muslims give similar weight to Leviticus, and wrong to suggest that Leviticus is the reason for their aversion of tattooing. 
If anyone has any queries, let me know. :) (And yes, I'll be making an account very soon).
:I think I read the diffs incorrectly, and thought you had deleted material rather than just moved it.  The additional Islamic material is helpful (but needed slight NPOV modification). I changed paragraph order since Leviticus predates the Koran, and chronological makes sense (not because one religion is more important than another).
:Btw, yes please register a username.  It's a lot easier to follow edits by a name than by a (possibly changing) IP address. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Attitudes