Talk:Indoor tanning/Archive 2

Article cleanup
I'm making a series of edits to cleanup the article. Below are the explanations (added as I make the revisions). Discussion is welcome and encouraged. --Darkwaterbuffalo4 (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * : Moved specific passage about tanning lamps from introductory section to Tanning lamps section. Introductory section should summarize article.
 * : I examined the three sources given for the paragraph. Most of the text written was not said in the sources; I deleted that text.
 * : Deleted passage that violated WP:NPOV and did not contain any references. The passage read: "Despite only being invented in the 1970s it's a few billion dollar industry with lobbyists and a Smart Tan Magazine is a trade pseudojournal spouting incorrectly cited pseudoscience about the "benefits" of vitamin D."
 * : Deleted paragraph. First part of paragraph made health/medical statements using three sources. The second source was a bad link. The two other sources did not meet standards set forth in WP:MEDRS guideline. The remainder of the paragraph was unreferenced.
 * : Moved History section to top of article, per request above.
 * Taken as a whole, these edits have the effect of reducing the neutrality of the article by minimising the well documented problems. I notice you have few other contributions to Wikipedia, so perhaps you would be better discussing before making large scale changes to an article wiht a problematic history of promotional editing. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would agree with the edits listed which are not a POV issue at all. Much was stuff I had added, was original research and while true, unsourceable, 10 years ago when we had different standards, so should be pulled out. I will say that we aren't bound to WP:MEDRS except for medical claims, as it isn't a medical device (in spite of the FDA regulating it like one in the US).  I'm not sure we've really had that many problems Guy, it has been busy in the past, but there has never been a bunch of edit warring, and I've been watching it since 2006. It's always been fairly civil here. It is a jumbled mess and if anything, the POV is slanted too much "anti" and the regulations section is way too verbose. Oh, the name "Pharmboy" above is me.  I changed my name in 2008, so you can see this page isn't trafficked much.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an insider, the Mercola thing was always a thorn in the industry. The rest of us didn't look too kindly on his claims.  I've talked to well over 100 of his customers personally.  Some of the conclusions they drew and he claimed were way over the line.  I disagree with the FDA on tanning beds in general, but I can't say what I really think of Mercola's claims due to BLP policy. I can see why that would be included, he wasn't a large player but he had a large impact. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey Guy, I appreciate you taking the time to add your input. I suffer from psoriasis and I use a tanning bed, so that's why I'm interested in this topic. If you guys want me to click on "Random" article and make edits all over the place, so that I'm not a single issue editor, I suppose I can do that. Overall, I believe the article is very slanted against tanning beds. I can't imagine a hard-bound encyclopedia (as I understand it, Wikipedia is for encyclopedic content) talking about a subject in such a one-sided way. Even the header "Claimed" benefits is biased. However, for the purposes of the edits I've listed above, I've documented exactly what was wrong with the text. For several of these edits, there were no references, which violates the Verifiability policy as I understand it. I welcome a response and I appreciate your being civil in this discussion. A Wikipedia administrator named JzG undid all my revisions in a single click anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter. (He didn't contribute to the discussion here; he wrote as his edit summary "whitewashing", which I can't find on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'm pretty surprised that a Wikipedia administrator with 10 years of editing experience would put the following statement that does not have a reference back up: "Despite only being invented in the 1970s it's a few billion dollar industry with lobbyists and a Smart Tan Magazine is a trade pseudojournal spouting incorrectly cited pseudoscience about the "benefits" of vitamin D." "Spouting"? Isn't that editorializing? No reference? Doesn't that violate Verifiability? I feel like just because I'm new that my edits, which reallly do seem to be consistent with the rules (to a T), are being thrown out -- simply because I'm a new editor and those who are deleting them just don't like my edits. I hope I'm wrong in my assumptions. Thanks again. --Darkwaterbuffalo4 (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Guy and JzG are the same person. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Lets stop the reverting, everyone and just discuss. COI or not, I think I'm objective enough to say that while there are risks with the product, the current article is a bit slanted, and even if not that, it is bloated with broken links and cites and full of unsupported claims that are left over from the old days.  That is probably where we can start, preferably with the things we agree on.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The article needs to discuss these things, IMO:
 * Technical description of the devices including history
 * Health claims, including the fraudulent claims by Mercola, and risks
 * As to how exactly those two items and their subtopics should be organised, I have no real opinion right now.
 * There are, I know, valid therapeutic uses of low power UV lamps, but these are not relevant to an article on tanning beds and actually would me misleading in the context of a device where the medical consensus is unambiguously negative. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In principle, I agree. I would add (from experience, not source) that the FTC slammed salon owners in the 1980s, and since then, only Mercola has made health claims, claiming he could as a doctor.  This is why it is important not to overload the criticisms too much, because the only one defending tanning beds is the ITA, whom I personally don't care for. The history is hard to document.  The risks of skin cancer are real, but so are studies showing it is mainly overexposure as a youth, not as an adult, so I'm just saying it is easy to walk into synth here (and unfortunately, many articles themselves do just that, they aren't scientists). The tanning industry was way, way smaller than most people realize.  If it was as big as they exaggerated it to be, I would be rich.  I am not.


 * I'm open to organization, although it might be easier to trim and clean in place first. I reserve the right to edit although I try to not do heavy lifting due to the (essentially former) COI. Most things we will agree on, I just don't want to see NPOV go out the window, not that you would, but you aren't the only editor. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I saw this disagreement, and I decided to take a look at each of the edits listed by Darkwaterbuffalo4 at the top of this talk section. I've never before looked at this page or topic, and by and large, I'm an editor who is a stickler for mainstream science. I tend to agree with Guy that this edit,, removed content that should be kept, although I can see that better sourcing should be added, which in turn might make some text revisions necessary. But every one of the other edits:, , (and that one in particular: that sentence is awful!), and , seem to me to be good edits. Just good editing, and in no way anything remotely like whitewashing or POV-pushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

History section
Does anyone mind if I move the history section to the top? I think it would improve the flow. SarahSV (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree --Darkwaterbuffalo4 (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to have the history section start an article. I'll make the move. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality
Hello,

I've read this article with great interest. This article does not seem to follow Wikipedia's neutrality principle. For example, most of the statements in the "Health effects" section of the article are negative declarations against tanning beds. Common sense tells me that moderation of a tanning bed is key. Extreme overuse or total avoidance because of fear both seem to be extremes; unfortunately, the article seems as if it is trying to convince readers to be fearful of tanning booths.

A few examples:


 * The header "Claimed benefits". It would be more neutral to write either "Claimed benefits" and "Claimed risks" or "Benefits" and "Risks." Making one seem weaker or less truthful than the other does not seem to be consistent with neutrality.


 * "Most scientists thus question the study's validity and disagree with these conclusions." - The "most scientists" is a weasel phrase, per WP:WEASEL.


 * "There is no evidence that tanning beds have any effect in the treatment of seasonal affective disorder." - I looked at the source and the source did say this. I think a more balanced way of presenting a statement like this would be to add "According to" to the sentence. Also, the statement makes it appear as if there are people or institutions touting that claim, and that the statement on the article is refuting the claim. Evidence showing that X person or institution has made that claim would improve that paragraph.


 * "International cancer experts have moved tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation into the top cancer risk category, deeming them as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas." - Mustard gas is a chemical weapon used in war. This statement seems pretty over the top in this context.


 * Additionally, the revision history shows that many of the negative statements added to the article were added by editors who were not registered with Wikipedia (i.e., just IP addresses are displayed). I'm not sure if there was some organized effort to trash the article from anonymous accounts or if it's just a coincidence.

I was wondering if any other editors who have read the article feel that it is out of balance. The Neutrality template is appropriate, I believe, for these reasons, as well as a positive discussion here on the Talk page.

I will look forward to trying to improve the article so that it is neutral and represents all valid points of view. Thanks! --Darkwaterbuffalo4 (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, but then, I have a conflict of interest in that I designed and sold them for years. Much of that was added a few years ago, a flood of edits all negative.  We don't need more positive as much as we need to trim the fat.  The article is way too long, and many links are broken, many cites are broken.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Dennis Brown, it looks like you've been here a while, so maybe you can help. And respectfully,, you can get involved in this discussion. JzG - you reverted all the edits I recently made over the past day in one single click. You wrote "whitewashing" in your edit summary and did not write any further explanation on the Talk page. Many of my edits removed content that had no sources. In one edit I removed text because the source material didn't back up what was written (and sourced back to the source material). After reverting all my edits in one click, you then made a series of edits that were negative against tanning beds. You seem to be protecting this page and wanting to add more content that is negative about tanning beds. Obviously they cause a lot of health problems when overused. But the neutrality of this article -- a tag by the way, which I added and you took down -- is really in question here, I believe. And please do not discount my comments simply because I am new here and you have been here for 10 years. I request civil discourse and mutual respect (and, if you have a spare moment, a comment). Thank you. --Darkwaterbuffalo4 (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea how condescending that sounds? You have been here a month and made virtually no edits outside this topic.
 * Tanning beds and other sources of UV radiation are indeed a cancer risk. That is unarguable. The fatuous business of lumping all members of a class of carcinogens together - such as bacon and smoking - is plainly ridiculous. There are two factors involved: the strength of association, and the size of the effect. In the case of UV, the effect size is actually pretty big. Australia, for example, has a serious problem with skin cancers, and the fashion or year-round tans coupled with high intensity stand-up booths has undoubtedly led to excess cancers. This view is not remotely controversial. There are laws in a number of jurisdictions banning sunbed use by children and teens, and I don't know of any serious professional medical body that supports sunbed use. The vitamin D claims are bogus (even if the inflated claims o vitamin D zealots were valid, supplements would be much safer). The few valid therapeutic uses of UV light are basically unrelated. It's not what the devices are made and marketed for. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Re-inserted the tag. Removal didn't follow WP:MTR. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Marty Cordova in the Lede
That is WP:undue. If this was some major case of serious injury it would be different but it isn't. We are putting it in only because we have a source for it, which upsets the neutrality because it is a trivial mention in a book that is being used to amplify a concern that has no better sources. Even the source for it is talking about dumb ways people get hurt, and isn't singularly discussing this one case. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a very odd line. I could see falling asleep being a risk of tanning beds (especially personal ones), but a specific reference in the lede seems out of place. --tronvillain (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Falling asleep is done all the time, it is a feature for most people, the heat relaxes them, they get a nap. That is why all beds have timers, and have since the 80s, and failsafe to off.  Most of the time someone gets burned like this it has nothing to do with sleep.  They are in a hurry and jump in 20 minutes when they should be in for 4 minutes, blame it on falling asleep.  I used to tell people that the most important safety feature is the human using the device.  Even a kitchen knife will hurt you bad if you use it wrong.  This is why it is misleading in the lede, and really a singular mention is wrong anywhere.  If he wasn't a ball player, it wouldn't be here, so inclusion is for the wrong reasons. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

US Regulation
Everything I'm finding (as of 22 July 2016) seems to say that tanning under 18 isn't currently prohibited: "the FDA already requires indoor tanning devices to be labeled with a visible, black-box warning stating that they should not be used by people under age 18" but that they're proposing a rule to protect youth from the risks of these devices by restricting use only to adults age 18 and older." Is there anything to support the rule actually having been put into force, as seen here? --tronvillain (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me dig that up. It was an FDA ruling, Congress didn't actually pass a law, and the FDA didn't even bother telling equipment manufacturers, which was really odd.  They do require a 510k now, it is a huge pain worth of new regulations as the reclassified tanning beds to be like xray machines.  Again, it was a unilateral decision by them, not Congress.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * is the black box and other tidbits. Primary link, but that is fine for regulations.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Which is exactly what I linked to and quoted above. It would be fine for a sentence about the requirement for a black box warning label saying they should not be used by people under eighteen, but not for the claim that "new federal regulations ban salon owners from allowing anyone under 18 to use a tanning bed." An actual ban is what they're currently talking about implementing, as quoted above: proposing a rule to protect youth from the risks of these devices by restricting use only to adults age 18 and older." Language like should does not constitute a ban. --tronvillain (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of busy tonight. That link was the "consumer" link, I need to find the official announcement.  Been slammed at work all day.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the reclassification to Class II and 510k certification link. . The ramifications aren't obvious from a read, but in short, it means that any tanning bed model must get premarket approval from the FDA, who will inspect it for safety.  This actually isn't about ultraviolet at all, as the rules for session times (maximum of 4 MEDS) haven't changed, but they are doing something similar to what ETL or UL would do.  It isn't sourced here, but they are allowing existing manufacturers to continue production while they have their 510k pending.  This is a very expensive process and does exactly zero in regards to UV radiation safety, it is unrelated.  It did put the majority of companies out of business.  Ergoline didn't mind as bad, they are the largest, deepest pockets. I wish I could get a real source on the number of tanning salons, as these 18,000 numbers are pure fantasy. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, nothing there constitutes a ban. A warning label that says "Attention: This sunlamp product should not be used on persons under the age of 18 years" is only a recommendation... which is why they are currently talking about enacting a rule that bans use by those under eighteen. - - tronvillain (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of that has been left to the states, many of which have enacted bans. I need to dig up more, its been a really busy day so that is all I could find.  I have some links in email I need to search through.  I can't see how the FDA has the authority to do an outright ban anyway, now that I think about it, that is encroaching on Congress quite a bit.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 07:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * State level is another matter, but as I said at the beginning, nothing I (or apparently you) can find suggests a ban, and they are only now proposing a rule to protect youth from the risks of these devices by restricting use only to adults age 18 and older." --tronvillain (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a secondary source for that from the Washington Post, might be good to shore up the primary source with it.  I agree with the link to state regs, as we don't want to list individual state regs here, way out of scope.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good - I'll try to add it today if you don't, and perhaps something about them currently attempting to implement new rules that do ban those under eighteen, etc. --tronvillain (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ultraviolet radiation
I reworked this with sources from the US Dept of Health and Human services and Harvard Medical School. It is about 1/2 the size and the fluff is gone. The old section was way out of scope. Now we are sourced and have a comparison to the sun that works. I'm going to find an intensity comparison as well, just haven't yet. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Check and see what you think.  We have a skin cancer expert from a major university making a direct comparison in a major newspaper.  I think this portion is done.  The references in this section may be worth looking at for other sections.  Mainly, we establish that most beds are 5% UVB, the intensity, the lack of UVC, and how the sun stacks up compared to it, so all in scope with no neutrality issues.  This isn't the section to talk risks, just science. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good start. It might even still have too much explanation of UV radiation. --tronvillain (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is so much misinformation about tanning beds being 100x the sun, or 15x the sun, I think this is helpful for the reader to have a direct perspective The section is much smaller now, and information dense.  Dropping the line about 315 or 320 wouldn't bother me, although most in the US have always used 320nm, which mean erring on the safe side as far as handling is concerned.  I think 315 is more more common as the crossover in Europe.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, most of that applies to the EU, I need to dig up a source for the rest of the world. I think I can keep that down to one sentence, two tops. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Slip Slop Slap
Interesting article: and thankfully, it too has sources. Need to be careful how the information is presented, but it would balanced the risk section with actual science. Seems to be a rock solid source as well, by an award winning journalist. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's about sunlight rather than tanning beds, and I don't know that I'd describe it as "rock solid." The Australian Cancer Council does recommend some sun exposure when the UV index is under three, but they absolutely do not recommend solariums. --tronvillain (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant the source itself is rock solid, not a blog or questionable source. And you are correct, it is about sunlight not tanning beds, so I'm not suggesting we synth here, they don't equate.  I'm mainly just gathering sources that show the hard stance about UV in general has softened a bit compared to 10 years ago, and science is catching up.  Or perhaps it won't be of use at all.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Determining MED (minimal erythemal dose)  Not tanning bed specific, but in the US the max session time for a tanning bed is based on a maximum of 4 MEDs.
 * A review of the use of tanning beds as dermatological treatment: Conclusion- "Unsupervised sun exposure is a standard recommendation for some patients to obtain phototherapy. Selected use of commercial tanning beds in the treatment of dermatologic conditions may be another useful and effective treatment for those patients with an inability to access office-based or home-based phototherapy."

Tanning booth
The tanning booth article is just begging to be merged with this one - essentially all that it would require is adding a "Tanning Booths vs. Tanning Beds" to this article. --tronvillain (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That is probably worth doing. I started that article, but in hindsight, it should have been a two paragraph section here, but leaving a redirect there.  We might clean up here a little, merge and just do that boldly.  I doubt a larger discussion would be needed, outside of this page, and a link from that talk page pointing here.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I boldly added a stub of a section and redirected the other article here. Feel free to change anything, I just wanted to get it started without padding it.  Thanks for the help, it is starting to look much better now, fixing sources, etc. I think it is coming across as more neutral, less hype and scare tactics, more science and acknowledgement.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I merged to the above "tanning booths" section with this one. --tronvillain (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Tanorexia
One thing I noticed and would ask someone else to change due to my COI, is the tanorexia part. Tanning addiction is not exclusive to tanning beds, it existed before they were common. aka: George Harrison. It is addiction to exposure to UV of any kind, natural or artificial. To be honest, it is more common with natural sun, from my experience. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * What exactly did you think needed changing? --tronvillain (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Although now that I look at it closely, we can probably cut a lot of it, and perhaps move some over to tanning dependence if it isn't all there already. --tronvillain (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * True, the problem is that we are claiming that tanorexia is ONLY with indoor tanning. That isn't true.  Tanorexia, or really tanning dependence, is actually more about the sun.  People do use tanning beds to fill that need, but the majority use the sun, so it isn't exclusive to tanning beds. We are narrowing the definition beyond the sources by claiming it is only indoor tanning that feeds it.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And yes, about one short paragraph is all that is needed here, the rest should go in the tanning addiction article. I started that one as well, back in 07. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Date formats
It would be helpful not to use 2016-11-03, because that can mean 11 March or 3 November. I'm slowly changing them to dmy, written as 3 November 2016, though if people prefer mdy, I don't have a strong preference. SarahSV (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2016-11-03 always means 3 November 2016 - it's the unambiguous ISO date format. As per MOS:DATEFORMAT, I only use it in refs, tables, or infoboxes but if you want to change them, I'll remember to use "3 November 2016" in this article. --tronvillain (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Citation formats

 * Copied from SV talk with Tronvillain's permission

Just wanted to say that you're doing amazing work over on tanning bed, but I'd really like to keep the preemptive archive URLs, as per WP:PLRT (though I see now I shouldn't be using that and access date). Granted, it's only a how-to guide and not a policy or guideline, but I think it's reasonable if one wants to take the time. --tronvillain (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for saying that. The article is hard to read and edit because of wordiness and repetition in the text, and hard to edit because of citation clutter such as unnecessary access dates, unnecessary quotes, etc. Re: archive URLs, I can see the point where there's reason to believe the URL is unstable, but with agencies such as the FDA, we can trust them to maintain the websites. I take the same approach with quotations in references: they might be needed for an offline source, or where a point has been disputed (or where we anticipate that it might be disputed or cause surprise), but otherwise not.


 * Do you mind if I move this to article talk? If we continue there, others can join in. SarahSV (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. --tronvillain (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I just make it a policy to preemptively archive for every ref, unless it has a permanent identifier like a DOI or a PMID - even government websites change or get rearranged. I don't find it affects readability or ability to edit any more than a marginally shorter citation. --tronvillain (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's the difference in edit mode between manual, template without archive dates, and template with archive dates:


 * "The Risks of Tanning", U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 14 October 2015.





The third option produces a lot of extra words. When you have citation after citation like this—some with added quotations too—the article becomes hard to copy edit. That's one of the reasons there is (or was) so much repetition in it: in edit mode people can't see what is already there, so they're just adding more willy nilly.

Archive URLs are helpful when it's an unstable site (and, obviously, when the link is dead), but I can't see the benefit otherwise. SarahSV (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that was why there was repetition - I only just started editing the page, and as far as I can tell I was the only one using archive URLs. It's essentially a subjective disagreement when it comes to "ease of editing" - those three are only marginally different as far as I'm concerned. I really dislike the manual style, especially when the article already established as using templates. --tronvillain (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You could be right about the reasons for the repetition, and I'm not going to push for manual cites (though I'm using them myself, while copying the style used by the templates). But I'm finding it difficult to edit the article with the long templates and quotes. For example, here's one paragraph of the Canada section as I found it.



As of 2016, indoor tanning by anyone under the age of eighteen was prohibited in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island; while indoor tanning by anyone under the age of nineteen was prohibited in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Labrador


 * And all it said was:


 * "As of 2016, indoor tanning by anyone under the age of eighteen was prohibited in British Columbia,[71] Alberta,[72] Manitoba,[73] Saskatchewan,[74] Ontario,[75] Quebec,[76][77] and Prince Edward Island;[78] while indoor tanning by anyone under the age of nineteen was prohibited in New Brunswick,[79] Nova Scotia,[80] Newfoundland, and Labrador"[81]


 * I don't mind wading through difficult wikitext when there are contentious issues, but for something this straightforward there's no need. Anyway, I'll leave it there. SarahSV (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll try to cut down on the archive links, and now know not to use both archive-date and access-date, but I'll point out that WP:CITEVAR says that "removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently" is to be avoided. Granted, it wasn't completely consistent, but the vast majority were using templates, with a handful of manual citations and a couple of bare links. --tronvillain (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited 13:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that would help. I'm not talking about removing templates, just those extra details. SarahSV (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, as per WP:CITEVAR changing the style of an article, including switching from templates to manual, is to be avoided. Just because you don't like templates doesn't mean you shouldn't use them on an article that already uses them consistently, and massive rewrites (granted, improvements) that remove template citation and adds manual citations is  clearly switching. Using manual citations at all in an established template article is removing consistency. tronvillain (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I never use templates, but I'm quite happy to copy the style for consistency.


 * As for adding more details, if you want to expand your own, I will try to work around them, but please don't expand the citations I add. The book you expanded recently was already cited, so you left it cited twice, with different publishers and ISBNs. (As a matter of interest, what made you think I had used that edition?) SarahSV (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Just copying the output style is still switching from templates to manual. Whether you normally use templates or not, it's still going against WP:CITEVAR - if I go to a page that that is established as using manual, I don't get to start using templates on my edits just because "I never use manual" and the output is the same.


 * And the citation I added is literally a example of how to cite a chapter in a book with editors and multiple chapter authors. Your way has  no way to tell what book you're citing (without searching every citation), because the only connection to the book is the editors, and the other citation starts with the chapter authors, not the editors.


 * I mean, you're clearly the vastly more experienced editor here and an admin to boot, but I don't think I'm wrong here. - - 03:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Being an admin has nothing to do with this. Would you mind waiting until we have a first draft up? Then we can look at what kinds of citations make sense. I'd like to get a brief prevalence section in place and expand the reasons section. If you don't like the way I cite books, I'm willing to look at that later; the templates are very inflexible when it comes to book parts. SarahSV (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I suppose it doesn't - I was just using it as another indicator of experience. We can look at it later if you like, as long as you aren't going to use having added a large number of manual citations added in the meantime as evidence that the page doesn't have an established style. But you see what I mean about not being able to find the other citation with that one because you've initially listed it by author of a chapter? Better to just list the book twice, one for each chapter.


 * Also, the publisher is Springer Netherlands - you're using the copyright holder. And where does it say 2011 instead of 2012? - - 03:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC) tronvillain (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC); edited 03:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I took the information about the Springer books from the first pages of the Google Books versions that I used. I've changed it to 2012. It was published in September 2011, but it's the 2012 edition. SarahSV (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

High-pressure beds
It would be good to devote a section to the differences between regular and high-pressure beds, if anyone knows enough to write one. I've been looking for high-quality sources but haven't found much. Some information about indoor-tanning lotions would be helpful too. SarahSV (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is late, but I will provide some info tomorrow. The technical aspects I know fairly well, sourcing might be tricky.  Btw, you and tronvillain have done an excellent job turning this article from a UV bashing joke into an informative and neutral article.  It isn't complete, but is already much better than it has ever been.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, I appreciate that. I'm looking for more images too. It would be nice to show a selection of tanning lotions, some goggles, and a high-pressure bed. SarahSV (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't have access to a high-pressure bed to photograph, not even sure who is making them anymore. 95% of all manufacturers are out of business (or focused on different products now) compared to 10 years ago. I can shoot a photo with some different goggles and some lotion, I'm at SunMaster a couple times a week doing some contract work. They have their own photography tent and lighting there, I just have to bring the Nikon along.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks, that would be great. I may email one of the companies that makes high-pressure beds to ask for a photograph. SarahSV (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm probably not going to be around for a while, family health thing, so please don't think I've blown you off, this just comes first. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * that's fine, there's no rush. I hope things are okay with you. SarahSV (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Density of tanning salons
This article, Twilight of the Tanning Salons may be worth incorporating, reporting that salons have gone from 18 200 in 2008, 18 000 in 2009, 12 200 in 2015, and 9 500 in 2016. --tronvillain (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , good find, thank you. SarahSV (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)