Talk:Tattoo machine

message: I live i America, specifically Minnesota, and I assure you that the phrase "tattoo gun" is the most popular way to refer to this device. In fact, I have never heard of it referred to as a "tattoo machine". I'm going to remove that bit, unless someone can come up with a source.--65.102.109.103 10:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology in parts of the world

message: Samuel O'Reilly's rotary machine is far removed from the electromagnetic tattoo machines used today.
I have edited the article to reflect the history of the electromagnetic coil machine- 
"In fact, modern tattoo machines are very different from the machine O'Reilly invented. O'Reilly's machine was based on the rotary technology of Edison engraving device, the first practical application of an electric motor. Modern tattoo machines use electromagnets, the first use of which was a single coil machine patented by Tom Riley of London, England Dec. 28th 1891 twenty days after Sam O'Reilly filed his U.S. patent for his rotary machine. Tom Riley's machine had a single coil and was a modified door bell assembly contained in a brass box. The modern configuration of two coils was patented by Alfred Charles South of Cockspur St. London (Patented London Jun. 30th 1899)It was heavy and was often used with a spring attached to the top of the machine and to the ceiling to take most of the weight off the operators' hand."
Britishink
Terminology
Suggestion: I haven't actually heard this term used anywhere and wasn't planning to use it in any of my own writing.
The problems this talk page has with the term "tattoo gun" seem to be that it could also relate to either "machine" or "gun", both of which could theoreticslly condone violence.
I have rejected violence, to all forms of life, for my entire life, with the recent exception of moss/lichen/microbial.
I humbly suggest a portmanteu of "liner" and "machine", to be spelled "Linine".  The note that Thomas Edison was thought to have invented the first inspired me in that regard, whether or not that attribution is truly correct.
Do with as you like.
Darion29 (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Reilly's machine was incorrectly credited. 

message: how do i set up my tattoo kit equipment gun  ect.?2
:Wikipedia is not a "how to" or "advice" site.  If you are interested in tattooing, I would suggest seeking out an apprenticeship with a reputable tattooist. Glowimperial 00:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hid the email to prevent spam.--Commander Keane 21:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  help me <email removed to prevent spam> 

message: There is no info in the article on the power source for tattoo guns. Is it just plugged into an ordinary outlet as a lamp or other household electrical device would be? Are there tattoo guns powered by batteries? This is an overlooked part of the topic which needs addressing.
GnatsFriend
Can someone please correct the typo in the title! (Cjason2400 01:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The power supply brand and build may be variant, but all electromagnetic coil machines are powered by regulated DC power supplies. I think it's very much relevant to the article. In fact, the article is pretty scant all around. I wouldn't mind filling it out myself.122.111.188.72 (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power Source Question 

message: The article says the frequency can be adjusted, but what is a common range of frequencies for a typical machine? AxelBoldt 04:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ~100-150HZ is healthy.. lower for shaders, higher for liners. It all really depends on how you work. You really have to have the machine set up for your own hand. Frequency is really one of the most important 'trade secrets' in terms of machine setup. You don't want the machine to just run smoothly, you want it to run smoothly at the right speed for the way you work, with enough power to throw whatever needle group you're using with near perfect consistency.122.111.188.72 (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Frequency?

message: Another tattoo machine was developed in 1970 by the German tattoo artists H.H. "Samy" Streckenbach (1929-2001) and  Manfred Kohrs. --Dr.heintz (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  other tattoo machines 

message: This critique is for University of Maryland course HIST406.
The article begins giving a brief description of the construct of a modern tattoo machine and its application. The accompanying photograph and caption are appropriate, giving a good visual representation of the initial description. The introduction also does well to distinguish between different terms for a tattoo machine: "irons" and "gun", making the distinction that the latter term is seldom used by professional tattoo artists. 
From here the article moves on to a discussion of the history and development of the modern tattoo machine. This section, while informative and concise, generally lacks proper structure and citation. Thomas Edison is credited with the creation of the precursor to the tattoo machine in 1876: the electric pen. An adequate citation to the electric pen's patent is provided, but that is the final competent use of a citation in the article's history section. It goes on to discuss how the electric pen was developed for use in tattooing rather quickly, making references to multiple inventors and patents. However, the only citation given is to a book entitled "Basic Fundamentals of Modern Tattoo" by a one C.R. Jordan. The citation is given in the form of a block quote from the book's own discussion of the tattoo gun's history. This presents several issues for the validity and fluidity of the article. 
First, the block quote repeats much of the information already presented initially in the article's history section. This is repetitive and unnecessary. Second, the block quote itself has multiple citations that have yet to be corroborated or authenticated by anyone in the Wikipedia community. Third, the book itself is a questionable source. Cursory research online revealed that it is a self-published volume and does not seem to have been peer edited or reviewed in any reputable journal or trade publication. Finally, the block quote is simply a lazy effort to fill out the rather sparse information on the history of tattoo machines and should never have been allowed into the article in the first place. At best, the book should have been used as a source and cited as such, allowing for proper review and discussion. Multiple patents are referred to, but only one (Edison's) is actually cited. 
Overall, the rest of the article suffers from the same lack of citations but is generally well-written and concise, with the exception of the unnecessary and repetitive use of the block quote in the history section. The images used throughout the article are relevant, clearly labeled, and used effectively. The article contains all the appropriate pieces, they just need to be arranged and edited correctly. 
HIST403-13CSchulz (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Critique 

message: — Assignment last updated by Benson.beck (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Technical Writing