Talk:Tattoo removal

Something
This website suggests that over 50% of people later regret their tatoos. Despite this the website is clearly not impartial and represents the minority of Christians who oppose tatoos. Should it go into the article? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I’m Christian covered in tattoos. Keep your christophobia our of here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.154.68 (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Photo
A before and after photo would be great!  Rob van  vee  16:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

So nice Arosh Tamang (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Photo captioned as showing scarring is a picture of a scabbed injury, not a scar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.73.46 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Narrow focus of this article, and its organization.
The first 106 words in the introductory paragraph include the only mention of other methods of tattoo removal than laser removal.

Aside from the sections "Motives", and "Replacement strategy", the rest of the article is devoted entirely to the subject of laser removal. Despite having a section "Methods" there is only one method described, and described at length and with an excellent attention to detail.

The title of the article is highly misleading; it does not adequately or accurately describe the content. Of course there must be both a desire and an ability for editors to amplify the non-laser methods. If that is not going to happen, a more accurate title would be "Laser Removal Of Tattoos". It would be a good idea to discuss this further.

In the meantime, I am making two changes...
 * Renaming "Replacement strategy" to "Removal by replacement", and relocating it to immediately follow "Motives". Otherwise, it would be hidden at the end of the article after the very much larger section of Laser Removal.
 * Making Laser Removal a main section in its own right, and doing away with "Methods" which is misleading and superfluous.

Twistlethrop (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Motives
This is a somewhat unrelated discussion, isn't it? I came to this page expecting a description of technique, not a philosophical argument based on the end-of-history illusion (But I love philosophy, and it is kind of interesting). My point is simply that some readers will find this frustrating, and perhaps it ought to be deleted. Τηε ΓΟΟΔ (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Needs an update.
Picosecond lasers are not still in the research phase .its now the standard method for tattoo removal via laser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.154.68 (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Evidence Based Practice.
While it is advantageous for tattoo removal lasers to fire as quickly as possible, there is currently no valid data available to suggest that the top performing picosecond lasers are any more effective than their nanosecond counterparts. The difference in speed between some of the fastest picosecond and nanosecond lasers is a mere 5.55 billionths of a second (450 picoseconds vs 6 nanoseconds). As no research exists, the question must be asked: Is the difference in speed not enough to show any significant difference in results? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tattoo Removal Specialists (talk • contribs) 11:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Length of article
The article as currently written is very detailed, but I think may be too long for the average reader. Thoughts? Maybe a longer history section? Metalhead997 (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)