Talk:Tobacco pipe/Archive 1

message: How could the pipe have been invented in Ireland in the Dark Ages when America (and therefore tobacco) had not been discovered by Europeans yet?Furby100 00:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invention 

message: *famous pipes and/or smokers in fact and fiction (Sherlock Holmes)
*slang (pipe dream, etc) 
*ritual uses (peace pipe)
*varieties (briar (bruyere), clay, corn cob, Meerschaum, hookah, bong)
*similar devices (cigarette holder)
*some social context (historical use, acceptibility)
*expand on the "similar substances"...
*expand on the different types of tobacco used
Moved here to clean up look of main page. Dogface 22:35, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas for content expansion 

message: when reading through this page it seems that it was written by a pothead. metal and glass pipes have the most detailed descriptions, and cannabis is mentioned quite a bit. Seems like a nonsmoker reading this would then associate all pipes with pot.
\
I wrote the metal portion and I'll tell you what, it's true. Whip out a metal pipe in front of a cop and try to convince him right there it's used for tobbaco, he'll sniff it, he'll open it up and look for loose bits of marijuana. You will hardly ever EVER have this problem with a "leisure" pipe like wood or corn-cob.
I'm sorry I don't have a source in writing, merely life experience.
* This is true, but it doesn't mean that, by looking at this article, it doesn't screams marijuana use and belittles tobacco. Just goes to show that the population of pipe tobacco smokers is on the all-to known decline. Take a look at the German version of this article, they'll be able to teach you something about the art of pipe smoking. TheExile 04:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  just a thought 

message: Please sign off whenever you guys leave a message on the talk pages. It lets the other users know you who are and your comments will gain more credibility. Thank You! --Siva1979Talk to me 01:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have a signature for your comments! 

message: *Just like a beer stein would have a separate page from a beaker, shouldn’t drug pipes and tobacco pipes have separate pages? Thebriarsage 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating a tobacco pipe section 

message: Pyrolytic graphite (ie The Pipe by Venturi) is certainly worth mention here given how often it pops up on alt.smokers.pipes and other forums.  The site http://thepipe.info/ is not commercial, but is clearly by a collector of The Pipe.  Note that The Pipe hasn't been manufactured since 1975.  In this context, it doesn't matter if a pipe is lined with graphite or is entirely graphite. Frotz661 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyrolytic graphite pipes 

message: How did the pictures in this article get placed so oddly?  Rather than being part of their section, the pictures are at the end of the section before it.  I'll go ahead and fix this.  Frotz661 06:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird placement of pictures 

message: The entire "Use" section is a how-to guide on packing, lighting, cleaning, etc., which is a clear violation of WP:NOT. If nobody objects this section should be removed. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it was taken directly from smokingpipes.com (see above on this page), the information will still be available there if we remove it from our article.  Which seems like a good idea, since we aren't a how-to guide.  Not sure if transwiki would be acceptable copyright-wise, since it we only got permission to reuse the material here (and I kind of doubt that that unsigned comment is legally kosher, anyhow).  128.163.112.121 19:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just now emailed the owner of smokingpipes.com about this concern.  Frotz661 22:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Use" section 

message: There is no section on the negative health effects of smoking pipe.  Both first hand and second hand smoke impact negatively on health.  And yet Hookah smokers do inhale! sometimes deeply.  Before I add a section, I want to see a discussion here. --- Skapur 02:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about hookahs.  There is already an article on Health effects of tobacco smoking which covers your concerns.  There is already a discussion above at Talk:Smoking pipe#Health_effects.  Frotz661 03:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Hookahs are mentioned in the article.  Also, no article on smoking anything is complete without mentioning the negative health affects of smoking.  The discussion above in Talk:Smoking pipe#Health_effects was a general question and not about changing text in the article.  Discussion on a talk page is not the same as including text in an article.  What I would like to propose is to include summary information in a section in the article and then provide a link at the top of the section using the main template as in main article: Health effects of tobacco smoking --- Skapur 06:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think the hookah section should be removed because of irrelevance.  I pointed out the discussion already in progress because the issue is... already in progress.  Why is Health effects of tobacco smoking insufficient?  Frotz661 08:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think anyone who has access to wikipedia already knows the health effects of smoking. Numerous articles are already dedicated to the topic of discussing the health effects. It is clutter, there is a link at the bottom of the article.
Is there a reason narghille is used in the section on hookahs as another name for it? Why is this important? I understand it is the Hebrew word for it, but we aren't listing it's name in every known language. Does any English speaking person outside of Israel or Jews who've vsited Israel call hookahs narghillot?  Shia1 16:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The word "narghile" is used frequently in English literature. --S Roper 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative Health effects of smoking pipe

message: Why is there two separate articles? Tobacco is a drug like cannabis or opium. There is no reason to have a separate article for tobacco unless we have a separate article for cannabis pipe smoking, opium pipe smoking, ect. Tobacco being a legal drug doesn't make any difference. Wikipedia isn't meant to show things from a government's perspective but rather through the perspective of what is considered in the general scientific community as correct (whether or not we agree is regardless of the point). Tobacco has no special status in the scientific community.
Therefore, these articles should be merged, it doesn't make much sense to keep them separate. Zachorious 18:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Into One Smoking Pipe Article 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation. Frotz661 06:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support per nomination.  "Smoking pipe (non-tobacco)" seems to be an unnecessary content fork and its information should be merged into smoking pipe or other relevant articles... —  AjaxSmack    19:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: # Below in the Discussion section, we've agreed to do something of an overhaul of all the pipe smoking articles.  Frotz661 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: I've reverted the changed top picture because it IMHO is not a good fit.  The color is washed out, subject poorly-centered, and parts of the frame are visible.  I somewhat agree with changing the picture since the the pipe in "Youth with Pipe" is very tiny.  Whatever goes there, however, I feel needs to be well-composed.  Frotz 23:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the current picture does not make a good example.  I think the other picture would be good if it were touched up a bit.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I liked the new picture more.  The old guy was clearly smoking a conventional and recognizable Smoking pipe (tobacco).  It's tough to tell what the youth is doing.  Yellowking 12:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've re-added the picture. Itseems to be the best one (B.T.W., not parts of the frame, but the boat itself where the old captain is standing on is visible),
-)-(-Haggawaga (|-|) Oegawagga-)-(- 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get that picture anyhow?  If it's okay for use on Wikipedia, there's got to be a better shot of it somewhere.  Frotz 19:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's clearly part of the frame...unless this print has cropped part of the painting. Not that it really matters. I still think this is a suitable image for the article. --OnoremDil 16:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new picture for the top 

message: Hello. I am from Poland and I am very interested in history of smoking pipes. I wrote to some people from polish Wikipedia and they said that I should find informations here.
I am in  Viking re-enactment organisation and I ma very interested in story of pipes, because i smoke one. Many people believe that nobody smoked before XV century, because there was no tabacco in Europe. I found information that slavians and vikings could smoke such things as Arctostaphylos uva-ursi or Cornus sericea L. syn. Cornus stolonifera Michx. I read on english Wikipedia that Germans and Greeks got the idea of smoking from Scythians. Where these information are from? Are there any archaeological founds of pipes before the XV century in Europe? Please help me. This is my e-mail: tabordarkwind@poczta.fm.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.22.210.127 (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: Could we leave the top picture as-is unless and until we're sure that Dorus's picture won't be deleted again?  I've been following what's been going on and it seems that it's not clear if it's okay to put that picture on Wikipedia in the first place.  Frotz 17:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearing Dorus 

message: There are small sections of this article that written as a How To and therefore need to be revised per Wikipedia standards.  68.113.47.180 20:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How To 

message: The location of Douglas MacArthur's picture is a bit awkward in that it appears in a section describing various pipes.  I'd like to move it to the right of the index, but I'm not sure how to do this without committing the change and potentially making a mess.  Does someone here know how to do it right?  Frotz (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.  I forgot about the Sandbox.  Frotz (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving MacArthur to the right of the index 

message: Okay, who has a good candidate for a leading picture?  Anyone feeling photogenic?  In the meantime, I'm moving the MacArthur picture to that slot.  Frotz (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a new leading pic 

message: I noticed the words "Some people argue that this method is not effective" in the Prevent Burning section. These maybe need to be cleaned up, removed, and possibly citations added. I'd do it, but I've no clue what to change it to, and I don't trust my judgement when this sleepy. 24.254.163.150 (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While addressing this problem, I've fixed some awkward wording in that section.  It seemed a bit too verbose.  Frotz (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasle Words in Prevent Burning section 

message: I don't know why the pic was changed in the first place, but I'd like to propose changing it now to a plain-finished billiard.  Frotz (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  briar pipe image