Template talk:Tobacco
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Dividing Impact
[edit]Perhaps a better scheme would be to divide impact into articles discussing the health effects and articles discussing commerce oriented topics. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Content of infobox
[edit]I'm wondering why Passive smoking isn't in the infobox, nor is Cigarette, Cigar, Smokeless tobacco, Smoking cessation or Tobacco smoking. These seem of more relevance than some the stuff currently in there, like List of tobacco diseases and Curing of tobacco, but maybe there's a logic here that I'm just not seeing. Yilloslime (t) 06:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- The list you provided are methods of consumption, which is organized and summerized in Tobacco products. The tobacco series is designed to provide a full overview of the entire topic "Tobacco" and not just common methods of consumption. The links in the template are largely direct spinoffs of the main topic. There are also enough links holding to two sets of articles together that adding the list to the template would be unncessary. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see what you mean about tobacco products, but what about passive smoking or tobacco smoking. Still seems really odd to me that List of tobacco diseases and Curing of tobacco make the cut, but these ones don't.Yilloslime (t) 21:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Passive smoking can be encompassed by Tobacco smoking, however you've brought up an interesting point. Although it may appear logical at first to place it within the infobox, I decided that another route would be more effective. The infobox supposedly contains a general overview of the entire topic, however you have to remember that certain parts of the series are better developed than others. Tobacco smoking is a specific method of consumption, and rather than placing emphasis in the infobox I placed a "see also" in the specific articles that it would be relevant in (currently the main article Tobacco has that tie, however Tobacco products and several others may be applicable). The biology section of the tobacco series is underdeveloped, and List of tobacco diseases earned its merits by being potentially relevant to those who would be interested in the plant than to the agricultural product. As the section begins to mature, this link may become displaced by others. Curing of tobacco gained its merits by being a significant part of production; after the plant is cultivated, it is often cured. Now, there is a possibility of having a "consumption" section, however it is currently considered a subsection of Production (after the agricultural product is cultivated and cured the next logical step would to have it consumed). I understand that the two articles you provided are extremely well developed, however part of the logic behind this series was to be free of systematic bias. It's not a culmination of what people like talking about, but potentially a view of the topic as a whole. Nonetheless, my question regardless, what are the justifications that passive smoking and tobacco smoking meet the cut, and where would they go? Is the "see also" enough? ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I added Tobacco smoking into the sidebar because it is a very important article and because smoking is the #1 form of consumption of tobacco in the world. --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Passive smoking can be encompassed by Tobacco smoking, however you've brought up an interesting point. Although it may appear logical at first to place it within the infobox, I decided that another route would be more effective. The infobox supposedly contains a general overview of the entire topic, however you have to remember that certain parts of the series are better developed than others. Tobacco smoking is a specific method of consumption, and rather than placing emphasis in the infobox I placed a "see also" in the specific articles that it would be relevant in (currently the main article Tobacco has that tie, however Tobacco products and several others may be applicable). The biology section of the tobacco series is underdeveloped, and List of tobacco diseases earned its merits by being potentially relevant to those who would be interested in the plant than to the agricultural product. As the section begins to mature, this link may become displaced by others. Curing of tobacco gained its merits by being a significant part of production; after the plant is cultivated, it is often cured. Now, there is a possibility of having a "consumption" section, however it is currently considered a subsection of Production (after the agricultural product is cultivated and cured the next logical step would to have it consumed). I understand that the two articles you provided are extremely well developed, however part of the logic behind this series was to be free of systematic bias. It's not a culmination of what people like talking about, but potentially a view of the topic as a whole. Nonetheless, my question regardless, what are the justifications that passive smoking and tobacco smoking meet the cut, and where would they go? Is the "see also" enough? ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see what you mean about tobacco products, but what about passive smoking or tobacco smoking. Still seems really odd to me that List of tobacco diseases and Curing of tobacco make the cut, but these ones don't.Yilloslime (t) 21:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)