Talk:Glossary of cannabis terms

Glossary or outline?
This might actually be better constructed as an WP:OUTLINE since it has been expanded from the initial glossary-like version. It may need a bit more levels created first. A possible hierarchy: etc. For consideration - Bri (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agriculture and manufacturing
 * Hemp (products)
 * Society
 * Drugs
 * Terminology/paraphernalia
 * Law
 * Religion
 * I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia glossaries or outlines, but I think this list is looking pretty good. Know of any good places to ask for feedback before this is moved into the main space? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Outlines? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I helped do this one, for comparison: Outline of motorcycling - Bri (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, cool! I was picturing something more like a project page or Portal. I guess I don't run into Outlines very often on here. I'd still consider dropping WP Outlines a request for help, if you'd like some feedback from folks who are more familiar. Thanks for creating this draft. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hasn't been an active discussion here since July, but I posted WT:WikiProject Outlines just in case. - Bri (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where this is eventually going, but currently it's a list of cannabis terms and brief descriptions. At this point, the article seems to me to have more in common with Glossary of football terms than it does with Outline of motorcycling. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Should this be moved into the main space? Should there be both a glossary and an outline for cannabis? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think eventually we could have both. This is a bit odd for a glossary, as it has two levels not one, but it is currently closer to that than to a outline, and should be kept as a glossary when it's moved to mainspace. has been doing most of the work so perhaps he should make the call whether or not it's ready to go. - Bri (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's ready anytime, as far as I'm concerned. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Format
If no one here objects, I think this article is ready for re-formatting to look like Glossary of American football. It might take some time, and I might temporarily move sections while I work on other parts, so please be patient. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

✅ -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Out of place items
Overall I'm very happy with how this turned out. One or two items don't seem to fit in with a glossary though. Eager to discuss options. - Bri (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Cannabis and religion is not a commonly used term or idiom, so I'd urge it not to be included. We have it in the navbox (now), so it's not really a loss if it's not in the vocabulary terms. Individual churches/belief systems should be carefully included IMO; Rastafarianism yes; specific American new religious movements, probably not.
 * 2) Cannabis consumption likewise is not an English idiom. This could be moved to "edibles" without loss of context.
 * 3) Effects of cannabis doesn't seem to fit into the table at all. Maybe "munchies" retained only?


 * In general, I agree with your assessment. But I wouldn't hastily remove the three sections, just yet, while the article is quickly growing. I myself am unsure about the individual churches, they probably don't belong. But I do very strongly insist that all three of the phrases above are commonly used English idioms. effects of cannabis and cannabis consumption are two of the most commonly used terms, so far, in the entire glossary! (The phrase cannabis consumption is used in the glossary itself, in the definition of 420.) The entry for cannabis and religion might need to be changed, if we end up agreeing that the church names don't belong. I prefer the phrase cannabis an spirituality. Somehow the Tree of Life underground spiritual movement must be included as well Rastafari. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Will not make any unilateral changes right away. Time will tell what works best for this. - Bri (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Notes and sources
Thank you for adding citations, Bri. I want to go through and make sure it all has good references, particularly the black (unlinked) terms. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing items
CBD oil and Charlotte's Web are missing. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Tons of paraphernalia terms found here missing. Dabbing, dab rig. Bubbler. Oil bubbler, oil rig. Nail, dab stick, dab tool. Water pipe, recycler, shower head. Small 2016 p. 392 has information on "technologies for smoking and vaping" that would be a good RS. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I added water pipe. My working list has about 45 terms remaining to be loaded. I will add dab, and some of the others, very soon. The book you cited is indeed an excellent source for many.


 * I have been unable to locate a reference for head. We have head shop, hophead, pothead, and tea head. But I cannot find a citation defining the root part of the word meaning "stoner." Any ideas? Thanks again. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * More missing terms
 * On-premises consumption
 * Seed to sale
 * Vape oil
 * Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No Camberwell Carrot? Mr Larrington (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Notable changes in law
Regarding recent addition of California Proposition 215: I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea, but maybe there should be some text to justify its inclusion as an exceptional case? I.e. the first medical marijuana law in the U.S. Otherwise we may end up with a lot of incremental changes clogging this glossary. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing
Any entry with no article or source will be removed shortly. We need one or the other to verify the entry. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Cato economist blog post as drug culture expert?
Why is a blog post from a Cato economist, one whose usage here was entirely redundant with better sources, a sufficiently Reliable Source to use here? Being notable doesn't mean your every blog post is a good source - David Gerard (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement sourced is about drug policy, not drug culture, and the economics of the war on drugs: These bans are criticized because they create a black market and because enforcement is disproportionate in communities of color. I feel a university economics department head is more than qualified to be referenced for this. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Volcano Vaporizer.jpg