|WikiProject Body Modification||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
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)
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.
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)