Talk:Health effects of tattoos

See also ?

 * Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE, Hixson LJ, Garewal HS. (1992) Effectiveness of India ink as a long-term colonic mucosal marker ; Am J Gastroenterol. 1992 Jan;87(1):79-81. abstract --Lamiot (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Iacobelli L, Ferraro M, Vairo F, Ianniciello L, Venneri A. (1988), [Amalgam gingival tatoo] ; Stomatol Mediterr. 1988 Jul-Sep;8(3):213-5. Italian. PMID:3274159 --Lamiot (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should this page be renamed to "Medical issues of tattooing" or "Health effects of tattoos"?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this page be renamed from "Tattoo medical issues" to "Medical issues of tattooing" or "Health effects of tattoos"?

The name as it stands seems to be "off" to me. It's hard to explain, but I guess I would say it violates wiki convention and doesn't make much grammatical/style sense. In one aspect, it's quick and to the point but in another it seems somehow undignified and simplistic. I would also say that the current title is not exactly NPOV, given that no substantial health effects have ever been discovered from sterile and safe tattooing practices in modern tattoo parlors. (This is also a problem the article itself has as a whole, with focus on esoteric and rare complications as if they are common. I'm interested in revamping the article to reflect that, and will be doing so over the next few weeks.) Perhaps "Health effects of tattoos" would be more neutral and aesthetically pleasing. But what does everyone else think? Please add your votes and discussion below in bold like so:

Done! I wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one. But perhaps a RfC was a bit excessive. Sorry for the wasted time...-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 07:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Health effects of tattoos - Commentary goes here. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 16:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All three are equivalent. Other than some minor differences involving near perfect synonyms (health vs. medical) and passive vs. active voice type constructions, they're all basically the same.  The RFC isn't worth the time to change between one of a menu of basically identical options.  If it is changed, it's fine too, but a waste of time more than anything else.  -- Jayron 32 16:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Health effects of tattoos – to match the convention used by Health effects of wine, Health effects of tobacco, and many more. I agree with Shibbolethink that "Medical issues" implies negative outcomes and is essentially editorializing. This change could probably have been made without coming to RFC though. signed,Rosguill talk 18:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incidence
The article will greatly benefit from adding some stats. The possible effects are listed but how often they manifest themselves is unknown. It would be better to know how frequent the consiquences are.

August 2022 article
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/whats-in-that-tattoo-ink-labels-are-often-inaccurate-study-finds/ -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)