Talk:Tattoo machine

Terminology in parts of the world

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)

No too late there was a whole thing on boingboing about how it is called a tattoo machine by enlightened souls, that arent hacks and scratchers. No one I know in Australia, or anywhere else for that matter has ever heard it called a machine either. But a word a day something something. Gun has become a dirty word, though Wikipedia reckons it comes from Gundhild, a womans name meaning/which came to mean warsword. I commonly refer to someone that is quick and precise at a task as a gun also. Oh well.

Not a wiki editor here, but I work in the tattoo industry, I can assure you we refer to them as machines (or even "irons"), not guns. -L.t.O.

Also a tattoo artist here, and I can assure you, the tattoo-educated view the term "gun" as a way of distinguishing those unfamiliar with tattooing. No self-respecting artist ever refers to a machine as a gun. "Irons," as stated above, is also acceptible (more commonly heard in old school reference, also commonly used in Europe). - godlovesninjas

http://www.tattoonow.com/facemaster.cfm?task=message_list&thread_index=5423&generate=1

I have at least five reliable sources to quote stating that it is only called a "gun" by people who are amateurs, or otherwise outside the tattoo industry. I'm going to be bold and put it up there. As my teacher told me "guns shoot people and mutilate them. machines are tools that you use to make stuff."

Resonanteye 08:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a friend who is currently in Sydney. He tattoos all over the world. he reassured me that it's the same down under- people who aretrained professionals say machine, iron or sometimes "toy"(? i think it is an aussie thing. weird.) and hackers, scratchers, scar merchants, want-to-bes, scab vendors, and plain old regular folks who may have met one of the above but don't know a tattoo artist, all say "gun". I could put up thirty more references from print sources, or about a million from reliable online publications, but I think I may have already overdone it. I was about to move that we re-name the entire article and do a disambiguation page for "tattoo gun" that points to "tattoo machine". We don't want wikipedia to sound uneducated about any profession, least of all mine!@ big smiles.

Resonanteye 08:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like a consensus to change the reference to "tattoo gun" to "slang used outside the profession". If anyone has any professional and reliable references to cite that are sourced within the field, now's the time to put them here. I will change it in a few days back to one mention of the phrase "tattoo gun" and not as the main referent of the article, unless it becomes a major bone of contention. I'd rather see some sources than start a revert war. Resonanteye 02:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

O'Reilly's machine was incorrectly credited.

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)darion29

help me <email removed to prevent spam>

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)

I hid the email to prevent spam.--Commander Keane 21:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Power Source Question

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))

The power supply is so variant as to make a reference to it absurd. Every single one of the means you list, among others, are used. The machine itself works better or worse, of course, depending on the electrical input and its "steadiness", but I think it's a bit irrelevant here in this article.\ I'm going to try to fix the title, but I'm not sure how, so it'll be off to the Help page to find out...wish me luck Resonanteye 09:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

There is a problem, so I asked someone who can move,shift, and delete at will to come in and fix it for us. Hopefully it happens soon. Resonanteye 17:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A tattoo machine is connected to a power adapter (power source or power supply), which is plugged into a normal outlet and regulates the amount of electricity going to the machine to a lower amount than what would normally come out of a wall socket. The power supply allows the tattooist to adjust the voltage running to the machine, which in turn affects the speed of the tattoo needle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.47.228 (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Frequency?

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)

~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)

other tattoo machines

Streckenbach / Kohrs tattoo machine at work 1976

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)

Reliable Sources

I'm having difficulty finding reliable sources to cite. What i'm trying to do is remove the warnings at the top of the page, and between the sections. Basically clean the page up. I've been in the industry for 20+ years. As i'm sure you know wiki frowns on general knowledge being written in an article without reliable sources to back up the work. I've just revised the "classification" section. Also I revised the "summary." Just from my knowledge of being in the industry. That isn't good enough to make the article look professional. Personally I believe there is enough "unprofessional" work in the industry, which in turn gives it one more black eye. The article on the tools of our trade should NOT look half assed! It should be as complete as an article describing, for example, what a pool is. Can someone help me with this issue?

Thanks, --Mike6432 (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

With apologies, I've deleted[1] a site to "Tattoo Inksider". This looks awfully like a search-optimised marketing site, full of poorly-written text that I suspect is computer-generated, and all the links seem to end up funneling readers through to buy through their Amazon affiliate links. To give an idea, here's the bio of their only listed contributor, "Steven Martin":

"Steven loved art since his early adulthood especially tattoo art. Therefore, he picked up tattooing when he was researching it on the internet. Having experience of around 3 years in the tattoo industry, Steven has a great command over bold, bright, classic, grayscale, and tribal pieces. His passion for tattoo products drove him to do tons of research, etc. so that Tattoo Inksider can offer you the best tattoo products reviews."

No mention of where Steven works, and just a small headshot photo which also looks suspiciously like it might be AI-generated (indistinct backgrounds are a common giveaway). I suspect this site doesn't meet requirements for a reliable source. 110.23.152.248 (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Page Critique

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)