Jump to content

Talk:Indoor tanning lotion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-

Subjectivity

[edit]

I dont know about the facts of this article, but it seems to be written very subjectively. My salespitch sense is tingling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.102 (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article takes a skeptical attitude toward "tingle", stating it is more theory than proof, doesn't advocate anything, and explains all the "marketing" terms without bias. No naming brands, instead focusing on the common chemicals found in them, such as melanin, hempseed oil, etc. and even explains why some ingredients (mineral oil or "baby oil") isn't used. The article is about a class of products and their general use, not sure what you think it is "selling". PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article IS subjective IMO because it unfairly advocates the use of indoor tanning lotion by making claims about the benefits of using indoor tanning lotion without offering any evidence to suggest that these benefits are real. A quick check of the first citation reveals no mention of the information attributed to that source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.79.139 (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the content seems atypical of the usual Wikipedia nature of "these easily verifiable facts [link1,2,3] show that x,y,z". After reading the article, I still don't know why tanning lotion is any better than snake oil. With the exception of the first source...EXCEPT that one source itself reads very salesy - literally bragging about the increase in lotion sales. Not a neutral / unbiased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustball (talk • contribs) 01:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needlessness of comment?

[edit]

In the first sentence somebody wrote "like tanning oil, indoor tanning lotion is..." The problem is that indoor tanning lotion IS tanning oil in some circumstances, so it seems unnecessary to state it. Yes? No? --Coching (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the statemant is true any way, it doesn't amplify the suns rays.69.226.106.122 (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Against merge or delete

[edit]

Wouldn't make sense to merge with Sunless tanning since they are two completely different things. Indoor tanning lotion is designed to be used with an ultraviolet device (sun, tanning bed/booth/other device), sunless tanning products are designed specifically to avoid all ultraviolet, from either devices or the natural sun. People who use one, do not use the other. (ie: either they avoid all UV, or they embrace it) They are as different as a fish and a bicycle. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sunless is not the same as UV-free, and both this article and Sunless tanning discuss lotions for use with UV and lotions for use without UV, making this article redundant. Also, how can an indoor tanning lotion be designed for use with the sun? -- 202.124.72.74 (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources that talk about this subject. It should either be merged or deleted. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indoortanninglotion.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Indoortanninglotion.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Indoor tanning lotion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indoor tanning lotion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does only indoor tanning lotion get an article?

[edit]

Tanning lotion redirects here, but clearly indoor tanning lotion is a subset of tanning lotion, and quite probably a derivative of the original outdoor tanning lotion (which does not appear to have an article). This doesn't make sense. It would be like if the Sun tanning article were just a redirect to Indoor tanning. --Jtle515 (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jtle515, you got a valid point. -AlHamdi786 (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indoor_tanning_lotion&oldid=1207713223"