Talk:Pipe smoking

message: Just read this article and it sucked. Nowhere near up to wikipedia's standards. I might get to work on it sometime but until then, just letting everyone know, it sucks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.222.246 (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is crap 

message: It's bad enough that people are insisting on POV-forking any reference to non-tobacco smoking from what was once smoking pipe without these kinds of splits. The usage of an object should be explained in the article about that object, especially if that article isn't full to begin with. And I dread the very real possibility of us soon having separate "pipe smoking"-articles for tobacco and non-tobacco...
Peter Isotalo 13:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough with the forking 

message: This page, previously a redirect, has been creating by copying the page Smoking pipe which was inaccurately titled, and a tpoic duplication of the page smoking pipe (tobacco).Obscurasky (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page 

message: I hate to open a can of worms but the only reference to the health effects of smoking a tobacco pipe is from a relatively unknown Brazilian journal that itself does not give any information as to how the data was obtained. The are no references to the 10% number in the text of the cited material at all (edit: what I mean is while the paper does say there is a 10% higher mortality rate it does not give any indication of how the authors came up with that number, nor does it reference any other prior research paper where the number came from). Considering the vast amount of attention given to tobacco use over the last twenty years I would think we could come up with better sources. I'm a wiki-sloth so I won't make any promises but if I find anything in PubMed I'll try to get it in here. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference quality

message: The article's become overloaded by photos, the most recent of which seem to have been added without any real thought. A large photo of Meliton Balanchivadze was added, for example, but the editor responsible didn't add any associated text to the 'Famous pipe smoker' section (would he even qualify anyway?). And now we have a second Native American pipe photo which, for some reason, has been placed top right. The article is about the 'practice' of pipe smoking. At the very least the top right photo should feature someone actually smoking a pipe. Obscurasky (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved some of the photos (including one which was previously removed) down to a Gallery section. If any one really hates this, it can be reverted, but let's discuss it first please. Obscurasky (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many photo's 

message: The recently added (unidentified) Bearded man smoking a pipe pic is striking but not very representative. Considering all the famous pipe smokers there have been, couldn't something more typical be used as the lead photo in the article? Here for example is a 2004 shot of Nobel Laureate Günter Grass, an inveterate pipe smoker. Sca (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: New photo

message: Where this article lists notable pipe smokers and has a list sub-titled "Men", should it include Carl Gustav Jung?There used to be a photograph of him in the Encyclopedia Brittanica smoking a pipe. Vorbee (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Carl Gustav Jung

message: suggesting merging Smoking pipes with this one--Robert Treat (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose on the grounds that the pipes themselves are independently notable. Smoking pipe is a Broad-concept article, with its most notable subtopic being the Tobacco pipe. The current structure is worth keeping, if only as the pipes themselves are of interest to collectors and for their artistic value. Klbrain (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed page merger 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* Dionís Baixeras i Verdaguer- Retrat d'un boter de la Barceloneta- 229.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The claim that pipe smoking's overall health risks are only 10% higher than non-smokers? I am aware that smoking pipes and cigars may have slightly lower health risks; especially if in moderation, than cigarettes, but that seems very low to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Courtesy ping  -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this accurate? 

message: This article needs more details on the history of pipes. Different cultures pipes from around the world, how western pipes have different types and naming them, naming famous brands etc. It's very heavy on health risks and drug use. I'll see if I can add some to it but I feel this page is a shame for anyone wanting to learn anything about pipes and pipe smoking Thekickingmule (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the history of pipes