Talk:Nape piercing

Previous versions of this page report a high rejection rate, while the 11 December 2006 edit changes this to a low rejection rate. Anyone have actual numbers for this, or a credible source to sight?

The APP did a study on rejection of surface piercings - I'll dig it up and cite it. Might take a day or so, though. Glowimperial 00:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The study was published in issue #33 Fall 2005 of The Point, the APP's journal. It shows over a period of three years, of a total 233 people that had the piercing done, 9 had to have the the bar removed. None of these removals were for migration, but tearing and non-health related reasons. With a successful healing rate of about 97% I'd say that warrants the low rate description. Graphia 04:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I just found the study (forgot I was supposed to be looking for it!) and I agree. Properly pierced napes have some of the highest success rates of all surface piercings. I'll cite it in the article. Glowimperial 05:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nape piercing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060518140536/http://www.safepiercing.org/PDFs/Point33.pdf to http://www.safepiercing.org/PDFs/Point33.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)