Template talk:Cannabis

Cannabis Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article was created or improved during WikiProject Cannabis' "420 Collaboration" in 2022.

This template needs a level which includes Cannabis (drug), hashish and possibly others,

I reverted the tobacco edits because I don't think they belong in this template. Specifically including the health ramifications of smoking tobacco (different from smoking cannabis) in here muddies the waters a bit. Nothing stops someone from creating a tobacco template, and in the same spirit, cannabis issues should be left out of that too. Triddle 21:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

is there a way to add a link to the cultivation article? I think that should be part of this. {Jabencarsey 02:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

Why is 420 under the use section? 420 is not a pipe, bong, or any other smoking device... —User:Christopher Mann McKay 19:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to general section. 420 is a sequence of numbers, not a way to ingest cannabis.

Talk to me? 20:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Shouldn't the Food section be in some kind of subsection under Preparations, as it lists different ways you can prepare marijuana to cook into food? —User:Christopher Mann McKay 20:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A section for food is ok, IMO. Preparation of

Talk to me? 20:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

"Food" sounds strange to me; maybe it's just me, but I think renaming "Food" to "Recipes" would be a better fit and a more accurate description. What do you think? —User:Christopher Mann McKay 20:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think both food or recipe are ok, you can change it if you feel it's really necessary.

Talk to me? 20:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Currently, there are a handful of articles linked from the "General" section that are essentially related (less general) subdivisions of a broader one. Namely: the three different cultivation articles, and the three recreational articles. While these are enclosed in parentheses, I think it would be helpful to visually distinguish them further. Any ideas? —Hiplibrarianship 16:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way it looks right now is the best, IMO. I removed your "Recreational (420 | Culture | Film)" edit and changed it to "Culture (420 | Film)" I also removed "recreational", beacuse it was linked to Cannabis (drug), which is already linked to in the template's title. I also seperated your edit that combined "Medicinal & health" because it is not consistant with the rest of the template. —User:Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there isn't any link to the Cannabis (drug) article; the link in the title bar is to Cannabis. I attempted to make the head words a bit more consistent and parallel -- hence my "industrial" and "medicinal" edits -- so "recreational" seemed a good way to add the link to Cannabis (drug) into the template. Similarly, consistency was also the goal of grouping the Health and Medicinal links together: they are conceptually very closely related, and grouping them together would be consistent with grouping together the three cultivation articles (except there are only two articles to group instead of four). — Hiplibrarianship 22:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these articles are closely related, but they do not have & between them. Cannabis (drug) isn't only for recreational, also medical. Also 420 and Film have to do with culture more than recreational use. My suggestion is to put Cannabis (drug) under General. —User:Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 22:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we delete this section. I don't think it is necessary to list all people/bands who use or talk about using marijuana, or are somehow related to marijuana culture. I could think of a 100 names to add to this 'figures' section, which would make it way too long. I predict this section would become too long in a few months if not deleted. I just don't think it is necessary to list all marijuana related persons/bands, as there are way too many. What do others think? Is there any objection to deleting this section? —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 00:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added it, as I think that there are a few notable cannabis supporters/smokers. It's not people/bands who use the drug, but that are known for smoking it. It's people/bands who are synonymous with the drug. There's not a great deal of those. hmwith 00:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you suggesting we add everyone under Category:Cannabis activists (36 persons), as they are notable cannabis supporters? What about notable cannabis supporters, but not activists, such as Milton Friedman?
• Why is Pink Floyd listed?
• You have listed Kottonmouth Kings, Pink Floyd, Snoop Dogg, and The Beatles. You state you think there are few notable bands that are synonymous with mariijuana, but I can think of over 20 bands off the top of my head, mostly hip-hop/rap. Do you suggest we list all of these bands/groups?

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 00:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should

• group 1 (general) can stay as it is (however some articles may be placed under different groups).
• group 2 (preparations) can stay as it is, but I propose listing the three articles under "oral consumption" in this group and eliminating the "oral consumption" group as all three articles are really just other was to prepare the plant
• group 3 (use) needs be renamed "drug use" or "recreational use". Right now, the template suggests that the only use of cannabis is to smoke it in different forms and ignores the other uses of cannabis.
• new group addition: "
  Cannabinoids, and Cannabis (drug)
  . Adding this group will allow for a more balanced view of cannabis and highlight the scientific understanding of it.

Kpstewart (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created Template:Drug policy a bit ago, which overlaps slightly with this template, particularly in the 'Organizations' section. While there are some non-cannabis-focussing orgs in my template, I also managed to include a few that you guys missed. Maybe this template should drop its org section, and the function could be overtaken by mine? or my template (not yet in any articles could be dissolved and the groups you guys are missing could be incorporated into your template?

Meanwhile, I'm growing a bit tired of this topic, so if anyone wants to adopt the template from me, that's fine. Anxietycello (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dudes I added three strains to the template; Blueberry Yum Yum, Black Ranger, and Sour Diesel. I created the Blueberry Yum Yum and Black Ranger articles myself so let me know what you think. --Anondoesnotforget (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Sour Diesel is a redirect now though it seems. Jmlk17 22:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to do something about Acapulco Gold. It currently leads to a clothing line article. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

open channel) 02:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm happy, if there is consensus, to rename and move back. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

 Done