Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
], I clarified the important points in the article. Thank you for starting this discussion. ] (]) 20:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
], I clarified the important points in the article. Thank you for starting this discussion. ] (]) 20:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
:We have an ongoing discussion about this here. The edit seemed to disregard this discussion which showed no consensus for part of what was added, created the situation of contradictory statements in the lead and was far too much detail for the lead. I have therefore removed it. I suggest QG, that we try and actually reach an agreement on what should be in the article through this discussion.] (]) 21:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
:We have an ongoing discussion about this here. The edit seemed to disregard this discussion which showed no consensus for part of what was added, created the situation of contradictory statements in the lead and was far too much detail for the lead. I have therefore removed it. I suggest QG, that we try and actually reach an agreement on what should be in the article through this discussion.] (]) 21:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
:By the way for the contradictory statement is that on the one hand we say that the e-liquid contains toxicants and on the other we imply that it doesn't: {{tq|"The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals."|}}] (]) 21:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
:By the way the contradictory statement is that on the one hand we say that the e-liquid contains toxicants and on the other we imply that it doesn't: {{tq|"The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals."|}}] (]) 21:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Electronic cigarette received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Propose wording: "The Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation has stated, "While early studies show some potential benefits, the effectiveness of e-cigarettes with nicotine as a smoking cessation device is not fully conclusive," and expressed concerns about the lack of long term studies with regard to health effects to the user as well as second hand exposure. They also note public health officials' concerns about renormalizing smoking behavior undermining current tobacco control as well as being a gateway for nicotine addiction and tobacco abuse."
I think that what the reader needs to take away from that section is:- (1) Western national medical authorities unanimously agree that we need more studies of e-cigs before we'll know how to regulate them; and (2) Nicotine's addictive, so don't start using them if you don't smoke; and (3) There are a few proven ways to quit smoking but as yet, none of them involve e-cigs; but (4) If you really must inhale clouds of nicotine, then as far as we know vaping is probably a bit safer than smoking. We need to distil that basic message down into a single paragraph that's well-supported by sources, say it, and move on. It's definitely a mistake to repeat the same basic information several times in slightly different language because each separate national medical authority phrases its advice slightly differently. Only add another source if it says something new.—S MarshallT/C05:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with providing a summary of points reflected by all or most organisations and going into more detail only where the positions actually differ from each other.Levelledout (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:SUMMARY doesn't instruct us to repeat the same information several times. All the guidance from the reputable, national-level authorities is fundamentally the same.—S MarshallT/C20:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes it's a pretty awful excuse and flawed logic to say that it's OK to repeat something umpteen times if the sub-article does it. The sub-article shouldn't be repetitive in the first place. And repitition would appear to be the antithesis of a summary.Levelledout (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Different sources say different things. We can't conduct our own review of what we think the medical authorities unanimously agree upon. Each source says many things. If there is an issue with similar text an editor can read the source and add something else instead. QuackGuru (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Quack, where the majority of the sources say the same thing just in slightly different ways with slightly different focal points the job of the encyclopedia editor is to compile that into a form that is easier for the reader to get information from than reading each source. The repetition is harmful to the encyclopedia. SPACKlick (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to streamline
I think that this is important, and I think other editors as well as QuackGuru will find this point difficult. The problem is that in contentious areas, editors are taught to use the very best sources and stick very closely to them. By doing this, a lot of rubbish and nonsense is removed from the encyclopaedia. Editors who are active in contentious areas will have learned this lesson very thoroughly because admins shout it at them while holding big sticks. In contentious areas, this is how Misplaced Pages works.
The problem is that you end up with an article that reads like this:- "According to source X, there has never been an independently-verified sighting of a lesser-spotted sasquatch in Colorado. According to source Y, no lesser-spotted sasquatches have been seen in Alabama by separate people who can confirm each other's stories. According to source Z, no black people from Wisconsin have ever seen a lesser-spotted sasquatch at all..." and goes on, and on, and on. What you really need to do is say something like "Four studies could not find an independently-verified sighting of a lesser-spotted sasquatch in any of the areas they covered", stick all four sources after your sentence, and move on.
Which brings me to another point: According to a 2015 review, 47.63% of this article consists of precise and narrowly-defined statistical statements. Those belong, in some areas of the encyclopaedia ---- particularly technical areas that are likely to be read by people with a decent scientific education. They're also popular with Wikipedians, because Wikipedians tend to be in the upper quartile of intelligence and educational attainment (read: nerds). But this article is non-technical and our audience is the general reader ---- including people who are seriously considering using e-cigarettes. And, if I can be permitted a statistic of my own, half of those people will be of below average ability... I'm afraid a lot of the people who want or need to read this article will find the statistics impenetrable. We do need to turn mathematical and statistical sentences into accessible ones.
Going through the e-cig article doing this, to remove repetition and turn statistical statements into conclusions, is really the next important stage in its development, but it's also likely to cause friction, so I'd like to pause here, discuss the ramifications and get consensus for the general approach I propose before continuing.—S MarshallT/C23:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I get a lot less time to edit now so I don't think I'll be able to massively contribute but I've been on board with this proposal for months. It really needs doing. Your analogy is perfect. People who read this article will indeed generally not be scientists they will be consumers and most of them won't get beyond the lead because of the way it's currently written. SPACKlick (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I'll just stick a big flag on this right now to make sure editors don't miss the key point.
This proposal does involve removing sourced content from the article.
It also involves rephrasing statistical statements as simple declarative statements, so it needs consensus before I start.—S MarshallT/C11:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Certainly, and I think in fact it'll be better to give several examples.
1) "In the UK user numbers have increased from 700,000 in 2012 to 2.1 million in 2013." ---> "In the UK user numbers tripled in the year to 2013."
2) "E-cigarette use is rapidly growing among teenagers and young adults, and in young people who have never smoked. Among grade 6 to 12 students in the US, those who have tried them rose from 3.3% in 2011 to 6.8% in 2012 and those still vaping rose from 0.6% to 1.1%. Over the same period the percentage of grade 6 to 12 students who regularly smoke tobacco cigarettes fell from 7.5% to 6.7%." ---> "E-cigarette use is rapidly growing among teenagers and young adults, and in young people who have never smoked." (The intention here is to delete statistical sentences because they add nothing to the first sentence, but to keep the sources, placing them directly after the first sentence, which they do support.)
3) "In the UK in 2014, 18% of regular smokers said they used e-cigarettes and 51% said they had used them in the past. Among those who had never smoked, 1.1% said they had tried them and 0.2% still uses them. In 2013, among those under 18, 7% have used e-cigarettes at least once. Among non-smokers' children, 1% reported having tried e-cigarettes "once or twice", and there was no evidence of continued use. Sustained use was mostly confined to children who smoke or have smoked. In 2014 child regular users was at 1.8%, children who have ever used e-cigarettes was at 10%, and occasional or greater use among never-smoking children was at 0.18%. About 60% are smokers and most of the rest are ex-smokers." --> "In the UK, about half of the people who smoke have tried vaping, but only about 1% of the people who do not smoke have tried it. About 7% of smokers' children have tried vaping, but only about 1% of non-smokers' children."
Yes thanks. This "In the UK user numbers have increased from 700,000 in 2012 to 2.1 million in 2013." gives much more information than increased three fold. so I would oppose the change. Three fold could me increase from 5 to 15 or 5 million to 15 million which are very different.
With respect to the second example I would say delete the first sentence as it adds nothing to the second one. Is increasing from 3.3% to 6.8% "growing rapidly"? Some may say yes other may say no. We should not be telling people what to think but giving them the data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that's true of some articles but not others. Some articles should be aimed at people with a good academic education ---- for example, Mayer–Vietoris sequence is quite properly aimed at people with an undergraduate understanding of mathematics; it's not the kind of thing a general reader is likely to look up. So it's reasonable for that article to contain text like:
Because the intended audience will be able to make sense of it. On the other hand, articles on everyday devices and utensils mostly do not assume a high level of education on the reader's part and do not lean heavily on statistics, even when these are associated with medicine. Look how our articles on syringe, nebulizer, eye drop, catheter, or transdermal patch are phrased appropriately for the likely audience, and consider the jump in reading age between those articles and this one. We shouldn't be writing this article for scientists and doctors ---- they are not, or bloody well ought not to be, reading Misplaced Pages to find detailed statistical data about e-cigarettes. We should be writing for schoolchildren who're considering whether to take a puff, who are people who're very likely to turn to Misplaced Pages for information. I feel that there are good ethical reasons to make this article more accessible to them.—S MarshallT/C23:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I have seen way to may people try to bent the truth by converting raw data to percentages.
This "increased from 700,000 in 2012 to 2.1 million in 2013" is not rocket science. Everyone can understand it.
I added "Between 2013 and 2014, vaping among students tripled." I don't think it is duplication after reading the above discussion. The proposal to "streamline" the text will decrease the readability and will make the wording too vague and thus meaningless. I disagree with replacing precisely written text with ambiguous text. QuackGuru (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I am torn, because I really do wish the message underneath the statistics would be made clearer, but as Doc points out, removing all the well-sourced statistics will actually increase doubt instead of decreasing it, and subjective summarization like "rapidly" is asking for trouble. I would support this effort if it could be done in a way where the underlying data isn't removed from the article altogether. Perhaps sections can start off with a summary paragraph that gives simpler, easier-to-read overview of the data upcoming in the following sentences or paragraphs, and then the more data-driven content can follow for those who want to plow through it. Zad6805:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe my favourite quote from this discussion so far is The proposal to "streamline" the text will decrease the readability, which as far as I can tell was not meant as a joke. Fortunately, Zad68's view does offer a workable way forward. We could fission off most of statistical content to a series of footnotes. (I agree that a smaller number of key statistics should remain in the text.) I would recommend using a separate footnotes group, and will knock up an example in a sandbox.—S MarshallT/C17:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
... and I've done this here so you can see how it might look. I've only done a few examples, but the intention is to show most of the statistics in the article in this way.—S MarshallT/C19:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, how would you make this article's impenetrable morass of turgid statistics accessible to a schoolchild who's wondering whether to take a puff?—S MarshallT/C07:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Can't work out where to fit this response in the discussion so dumping it at the bottom. While the example of absolute numbers in the UK is contentious (and I am in favour of keeping them there although a rephrase of "In the UK user numbers tripled to 2.1 million from 2012 to 2013." The other suggestions look good so far.SPACKlick (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
RFC: Images for Motivation sub-section
As the poster, I am withdrawing this RfC since one of the choice of images turned out to be a suspected copyvio and thus needs to be removed. Image D has also been moved to a more relevant place in the article and replaced with another relatively neutral image. I have no objections to a new RFC being started with updated images, particularly if the situation changes.Levelledout (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note (added after 3 !votes): With respect to image captions I suggest using the existing ones that QuackGuru has posted below. The caption for Image C should work fine with Image A or Image B. To prevent repetition, some modifications to the caption text may need to be made depending on the combination of images that is decided on and this will only be possible after the RFC is complete.Levelledout (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Responses
Image A at the top and Image C below. We are told in the article that the main motivation is quitting or cutting down and circumvention of smoke-free policies is therefore a lesser motivation. In accordance with WP:UNDUE we should reflect that with the prominence given to images illustrating these points.Levelledout (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Other: This article contains a number of images which are mainly decorative rather than informative. We should have an image or images showing the various different kinds of e-cigarette, one image of a person using one, and photos or (ideally) line diagrams of an exploded e-cigarette labelling the parts ---- and that's all we really need. I would prefer that other images are removed, although I don't feel massively strongly about it.—S MarshallT/C17:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Note that from the article, we are told "Most users' motivation is related to quitting, but a fair proportion of use is recreational... others use them to circumvent smoke-free laws and policies, or to cut back on normal cigarette smoking".Levelledout (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Image D has almost nothing to do with motivation for using e-cigarettes. I have no idea why it's in the article in that particular place. It's needs to be replaced with something that is relevant. Captions can be sorted out later. Including questions about captions would make the RFC too complex. Saying that you cannot evaluate whether the image should be put into the article in the first place without seeing the caption which is generally written after the decision to put the image into the article is silly.Levelledout (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Image D is related to the popular activity known as cloud-chasing. See "The activity vapers call cloud-chasing to exhale the largest cloud of vapor is growing more popular." Without text for each image I'm afraid this RfC is incomplete (malformed). I recommend you archive this RfC and start over. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary, we've only had three votes and one of those was mine. I've added a brief note to the RFC to address your concerns.Levelledout (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
We have text for image C. Now you are proposing to include image A without any specific text. It is hard to evaluate the proposal without text. Image C currently in the article does explain the common reasons people use e-cigs. So what is the benefit for also including image A in the same section when the commons reasons are already clearly explained? So far I don't see a specific reason for including image A in the motivation section. There is a reason for using image C. Please read "Some surveys found that a small percentage of users' motives were to avoid the bans, but other surveys found that over 40% of users said they used the device for this reason." A significant portion of e-cig use is to get around smoking ban. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
No I am not proposing that, I have just addressed that very concern. If you continue to either not realise or ignore the fact that I have addressed your concerns then I do not intend to enter into an endless futile debate about it. So far as I'm concerned the RFC is now structured as well as it can reasonably be expected to be. The reason for including image A is addressed in my response.Levelledout (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Image A replaced Image C. Image B and C are the related images. You said the caption for Image C should work fine with Image A, yet you want to use both Image A and Image C. If both Image A and C are used then there is no caption for Image A yet. This RfC is confusing. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
That is ridiculous and unreasonable. There are many possible combinations of images and as you have correctly identified, the choice could potentially affect the caption texts. Therefore it isn't practically possible to provide the exact text before a choice has been decided on. It's not necessary to clear up every little tiny detail with an initial RfC statement, that's partially what this discussion section is for.Levelledout (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You proposed A and C but you since you have not proposed a caption for A then I don't know if image A will improve the section. It may not be necessary to include image A in the section since we currently have an image with common reasons people use e-cigs. I can't think of another caption that would benefit that particular section. Can anyone else think of a another caption specifically about motivations? There is another issue about image A however. After thinking about it overnight, it seems a bit provocative to add an image with someone breaking apart a cigarette into two pieces. I noticed the e-cig device for Image A is out of focus. QuackGuru (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I am sure other editors can see through this nonsense and filibustering. You know perfectly well that's its perfectly easy to split the existing caption into two or otherwise modify it slightly so it doesn't repeat itself. And yes it's very provocative to have an image of somebody splitting a cigarette in half, so provocative it took you two days (the image was first introduced here) just to realise it's provocative. Quite who it's going to provoke and in what way is anyone's guess. The UK NHS must also allegedly be provocative then for using the same type of imagery?Levelledout (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
As a compromise I added the image but to another section.
So according to you the image is "provocative" and "out of focus" but you decided to insert it anyway in a place and manner that you and only you deemed appropriate right in the middle of an ongoing RfC that has the purpose of gathering the opinions of all editors on whether or not it should be included? You also did more or less exactly the same thing yesterday. QG, I am not the first person to tell you and I probably won't be the last: You do not own the article.Levelledout (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
And by the way the image has been removed since the obvious result of inserting it was to render both this RfC and the consensus process redundant.Levelledout (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Are we even allowed to show Image C. Its a copy of an Arriva poster. I suspect that the original poster is protected by copyright so this becomes a copyvio. We cannot claim fairuse as alternative images are available. I've nominated the commons:File:Bangor bilingual station no smoking sign.jpg for deletion. I'm also suspicious of the copyright status of the other images Images A and D both look like professionally taken advertising copy. Tracing the source back they come from flicker page of the-best-electronic-cigarette-review.com a website which uses a lot of stock advertising copy without proper attribution although they claim to use only use CC images from flickr I'm suspicious and suspect they are copyvio as well. That leaves image B, which looks OK from a copyright status. As an alternative I would suggest File:Breaking cigarette.jpg which File:Breaking cigarette.jpg which has a traceable source going back to a public domain US military source.--Salix alba (talk): 06:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Now you mention it Salix alba, I'd say we should exclude Image C. With respect to Images A and D, I think that they may be OK. The flickr link you have provided for Image D shows the camera that has been used to take the photo and specifications such as the camera's focal length. From clicking the left and right arrows, there are several slightly different shots of the image. Therefore it would appear that the photo has been taken by the owner of that flickr account, which is TBEC review. Likewise for Image A. So basically Images A and D would seem OK to me, but Image C would quite possibly not. However I see that you say that TBEC is known for using copyrighted photos without proper attribution, perhaps you could elaborate on that and provide more details?Levelledout (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes good point about the alternative images for image D, unlikely to have lifted the whole image set. I'll withdraw my compaint about image A as well.--Salix alba (talk): 16:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
So uninvolved commentators will know what text and images is currently in the article rather than assume it is a new proposal with new images or new text. You haven't proposed in the RfC what the caption would be for any new images. How are editors going to evaluate the proposal for this RfC? Currently you are not proposing any text for the images. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request image for Harm reduction section
There is no image for the Harm reduction section, yet I have a good idea for the text. Here is well written text for the caption: In an effort to decrease tobacco related death and disease, e-cigarettes have a potential to be part of the harm reduction strategy, and are likely to be less harmful than tobacco.<ref name=Cahn2011/> See Electronic cigarette#Harm reduction. QuackGuru (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Captions are used to describe images, not the other way around. How can you write a caption without knowing what the image is?Levelledout (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Another Pointless Image Added
This image was added to the top of the Harm Reduction section . There was no edit summary so we have no idea as to why it was added other than the fact that QuackGuru requested an image in the section above and provided the caption that has been used. How does this image "increase readers' understanding" of the concept of harm reduction in line with WP:IUP? It doesn't would appear to be the simple answer so could we remove it please?Levelledout (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I propose that Cloud-chasing is merged, partially with this article and partially with the sub-article Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes. There is substantial overlap between the Cloud-chasing article and this article - in fact we already mention cloud chasing in Society and culture and Motivation. The concept of cloud chasing does not merit it's own article anymore than the concept of sub-ohm vaping or rebuildable atomizers warrant their own article. Cloud-chasing is an activity that requires specialist equipment, skill and knowledge and only a very small minority of e-cigarette users actually partake in it.
The article was only created a month ago, has only ever been edited by one user and is very short on content. Some of the sources used are not particularly high quality either.
Oppose. How to make an e-cig produce a large cloud of vapor is not about construction. The society and culture section does have enough information about cloud chasing. The extra details about cloud-chasing merits its own article, as more sources continue to become available. If the Cloud-chasing page was AFDed I am sure more editors will look for sources and that could result in expanding the page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Clearly you know very little about cloud chasing then, which would probably explain why the article describes cloud chasing as a "competition". WP:COATRACK springs to mind. In any case cloud chasing is achieved by customizing the design or overall construction of the device as set out in the usage section of the cloud chasing article. Traditionally mechanical mods and rebuildable atomizers (RDAs) were used to achieve this, but high powered regulated mods are becoming more popular. Either way the RDA is constructed by the user themselves in a way that provides the least possible resistance across the atomizer, whilst needing to take into account the fact that low resistances pose potential electrical hazards. If that isn't related to construction then I don't know what is. With regards to sources, there doesn't appear to be many, if any high quality ones on the subject that are required to meet the notability criteria.Levelledout (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Partial Support merge cloudchasing into construction where the coil and wick aspects can be described. Keep it limited under social aspects, and remove the competitive part - which (afaict) is primarily a marketing aspect, where a certain company does a tour where they demonstrate this and hold "competitions". There is the local "see how well i made my RDA, and how big of a cloud i can make" but that isn't competition. -- Unsigned comment added by Kim D. Petersen 17:42, 8 June 2015
Oppose If that content is moved here then it would be deleted as WP:UNDUE. This seems to be a minority cultural practice which is not a part of typical e-cigarette usage, so I doubt that its coverage is appropriate for this article. Why not nominate the article for AfD if there is a question about it passing WP:GNG? Blue Rasberry (talk)18:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per others. I think the other article could usefully be broadened to include more on non-competitive cloud-chasing, probably more typical. With the explosive growth of e-cigs it seems an odd time to suggest mergers. I don't see why "the concept of sub-ohm vaping or rebuildable atomizers" don't warrant their own articles myself. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Please actually read what I said in the proposal... and then you will know the answer to that question, which is fairly obvious anyway.Levelledout (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Cloud-chasing e-cigs are customized designs that is more related to the society and culture section than the general construction of an e-cig. It could be considered a WP:COATRACK to include it in the construction page. The cloud-chasing customized designed aspect is already in the the society and culture section. The details such as the history of cloud-chasing and competitions is too much detail for this article. There are numerous sources about cloud-chasing. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You really have no idea what "customized" means in this case, do you? It is a speacial type of customization that is just a variant on the customization that under all circumstances is needed on an RDA. I think you should read a bit on what an RDA is first, before you make statements like the above. Cloudchasing as a competition is almost non-existing. But the way of constructing the coil, and designing the wicks, for cloud-chasing, is mainstream - and belongs in the construction article if anywhere. --Kim D. Petersen17:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any policy based objections, backed up with justifications, as to why the article should not be merged? Perhaps you can demonstrate that the article passes the notability test?Levelledout (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." See WP:GNG. Cloud-chasing has received enough coverage for a separate article IMO. I think it would a WP:weight violation to merge it into this article. What is the specific proposal for the construction article? QuackGuru (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
An assertion that it has received enough coverage proves nothing. A search on Google News for "cloud chasing" produces results that are mostly unrelated to cloud chasing, indicating that it hasn't received significant coverage. The reliability of a good deal of the sources in the article is unclear since most of them appear to be from WP:NEWSBLOGs. At least one is not independent, Vape News Magazine. And are any of them secondary sources? You missed this out from WP:GNG: '"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.' and "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.". With regards to the construction proposal, once again please read my original merger proposal, it precisely describes what I would like to do. If you think it's a WP:WEIGHT violation we could always delete it instead, I think some of the material could be salvaged though.Levelledout (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Levelledout (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Going by WP:PRIMARYNEWS it would appear that the sources are probably all primary since they are all from contemporary news media and are mainly reporting on events or conducting interviews. There are no examples of the type of secondary sources noted in WP:PRIMARYNEWS such as "a week-long series... a major work that collects, compares, and analyzes information".Levelledout (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Most editors disagree with the merge proposal. Cloud-chasing is a relatively new activity. In the coming years it will likely receive more press coverage because it is growing more popular. QuackGuru (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:GNG applies to the sources available right now, not an inferred partially crystal ball prediction of what sources might be available at some point in the future. Most editors so far disagree with it but it isn't a vote. Ultimately if it can't be demonstrated that it passes WP:GNG at the very least, then it can't be kept in it's current form and will need to be merged or deleted.Levelledout (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Allow the consensus process to run it's course, give all editors a chance to have their say and wait for a decision to be made instead of trying to disrupt it by inserting things and proposing to remove tags that shouldn't be removed until this discussion is closed by an uninvolved editor.Levelledout (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Image was removed
The image was removed. So I replaced it with another image. The text about cloud-chasing was removed from the motivation section. So I moved the image to another section where it is relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I have removed three images that are basically clip art. The images need to be more than just decoration. We all know what someone smoking looks like. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment don't know which images these are in relation to (haven't followed the page that much) but I made a montage in the efforts to try and show users in a range of poses in a range of locations - cloud chasing is opposed in public if it offends people around. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Electronic Cigarette Cloud Chasing.jpg for a deletion discussion about an image I uploaded to commons - it may be more useful to use the montage I uploaded. It would be good to have a montage to show a range of different types of devices, and ideally a mix of male and female users using them. -- Aronzak (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Currently there is no image for the Motivation section, yet I have a wonderful idea for the text. Here is well written text for the caption: Common reasons people use the e-cigarette is a desire to quit smoking cigarettes, cut down on their smoking habit or for use where smoking is prohibited by law.<ref name=Grana2014/> See Electronic cigarette#Motivation. QuackGuru (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
You Cannot caption an image without the image to caption. If you just want a little summary of the section then post that as a header sentence to the section. Although "the e-cigarette" should be replaced with e-cigarettes and the word cigarettes should be removed. Common reasons people use e-cigarettes are a desire to quit or cut down on smoking or for use where smoking is prohibited.<ref name=Grana2014/>SPACKlick (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I would like a little summary in an image but I have not found the right image yet. Adding the text again to the same section would be repetitive. QuackGuru (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
2011 review
"A 2011 review found in an effort to decrease tobacco related death and disease, e-cigarettes have a potential to be part of the harm reduction strategy." I restored some of the text without the image. It is sourced to a 2011 review. Was there a reason to delete the text too? QuackGuru (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This image is quite a good one for showing a range of devices. Wide variation of first gen on the left, 5 second gen and a couple of simple ish third gen on the right. SPACKlick (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It has too many brand logos. The image does not differentiate which devices are which generations. The image would be better to have space between the different generations. QuackGuru (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This looks like advertising not information. If the intent is to show just wide variation, don't need all the models. If the intent is to show generations, this image doesn't break that out. Cloudjpk (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I re-uploaded a version without logos. The intent of the image was to show a variety of the more common forms of the devices. so that a reader not familiar with them can visualise the types of device being discussed in the article. SPACKlick (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Without the logos is better! However it's still the case: if the intent is to show just wide variation, don't need all the models. If the intent is to show generations, this new image doesn't break that out either. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
There's no intent to show generational information in this image. but I'm not sure I can parse your if the intent is to show just wide variation, don't need all the models could you elaborateSPACKlick (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure; if the intent is merely to show variation, then a display of 14 models, most of which vary little from their neighbors, does not add value. The picture seems like a parade verging on advertising. Cloudjpk (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it's the best we have at the moment in terms of showing variation even if there's a few more in there than is neccesary to show that variation. I don't see how it can be considered advertising anymore than any other picture that we have of a vaporizer can be considered advertising. In fact since there are likely multiple different brands I'd say its less of an advert than a picture of a single vapourizer.Levelledout (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Well with respect so what? We don't have a team of paid professional photographers and a wide collection of equipment for them to capture. We have to rely on freely licensed images, often ones that are already available and these are somewhat limited in number and range. So we can't exactly retake the photograph or easily obtain another one that isn't so "cluttered" or doesn't look so neat and tidy which in my opinion, is a poor complaint anyway. This is the best we have so unless anyone else can come up with something better we should use it on that basis.Levelledout (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: Disagree on both points. The individual items are spaced out and presented with neutral space around them. This also looks nothing like the display in any vaping shop I have seen or frequented. What it looks like is a range of different types and sizes of e-cigarette. If I had access to the productes I would probably reproduce it with fewer cig-a-likes but I don't. This is the best image I can find to show the variety of appearances of e-cigarettes which is worth doing. Currently we show very few visual appearances in the article. If I could find one with a box such as the VTR or MVP or maybe a REO that would also work but I am not aware of one such image with the right copyrights and form. this one, for example is too cluttered. If we have a user who has a couple of cig-a-likes a couplr of ego's some 3rd gen tubes, some 3rd gen boxes, some dripfeds and some mods then we could create an image but I don't have that kind of range of supplies. SPACKlick (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
If the purpose of the article is to show shiny objects, or advertise product, the image is fine and we should use it. If the purpose is to convey information, it's a poor choice. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
How do "toxicants and heavy metals" magically appear in vapor that were not in the e-liquid to start with? Gigs (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
"If propylene glycol is heated and aerosolized, it may produce propylene oxide, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) states is probably carcinogenic to humans."
"When heated at hotter temperatures glycerol may generate harmful acrolein."
"Some artificial flavors have been demonstrated as being cytotoxic."
"Many toxic chemical compounds have been produced from e-cigarettes, especially carbonyl compounds like formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and glyoxal, which are frequently identified in e-cigarette aerosols. The propylene glycol-containing liquids produced the most amounts of carbonyls in e-cigarette aerosols."
"Dripping", where the liquid is dripped directly onto the atomizer, can create carbonyl compounds including formaldehyde."
"The device itself could contribute to the toxicity from the tiny amounts of silicate and heavy metals found in the liquid and vapor."
The liquid can contain small amounts contaminants. The liquid contains chemicals that when heated creates more chemicals. Is there anything you want clarified in this article? QuackGuru (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
It might be good to summarize these things somehow so that the article doesn't sound like they come from nowhere. Gigs (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
How do "toxicants and heavy metals" appear in vapor? I think it would improve the article to clarify this. Based on the above conversation there is an issue with the lede. Rather than delete it could of been moved to another paragraph IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The full sentence is "The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals." In other words we are saying that the e-liquid contains PG, VG, flavourings and nicotine whilst the vapour contains these substances and toxicants and heavy metals. That is where I believe Gigs's confusion arose from. But if it is not true, if the e-liquid contains toxicants as well then we should adjust this text instead of adding further confusion to other parts of the article that have nothing to do with safety. However it isn't quite as simple as that, e-liquid may contain very low levels of toxicants depending on what flavour is used and that partly explains how the vapour acquires toxicants. But some of the other toxicants end up in the vapour through chemical breakdowns and also in the case of heavy metals, from the atomizer supposedly. It may be too complex to explain all of this in the lead, we could just say something like, "Both e-liquid and vapour contain very low levels of toxicants. Due to phenomena such as chemical breakdown the composition of e-liquid and vapour tends to differ".Levelledout (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
"Both e-liquid and vapour contain very low levels of toxicants." I can't verify this claim.
"Due to phenomena such as chemical breakdown the composition of e-liquid and vapour tends to differ". I can't verify this claim either.
You deleted the sentence that did explain the e-liquid contains "some" toxic ingredients. There is no information in the lede that explains this. The sentence you cited says the e-liquid contains PG, VG and so on but it does not explain anything about the toxicity for the liquid or how the metals got in the vapor. You suggests that we could adjust the existing sentence but the existing sentence does not verify the proposed text you suggests to adjust or anything else useful for specific information about the liquid. QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course it is. Well if you are going to take that confrontational attitude then I suggest we leave the text as, don't add anything back in, as its probably less confusing to do so.Levelledout (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Your proposal to not clarify the issue with the wording in the lede will not make it less confusing. We can leave the current sentences as is and still clarify the wording about the toxicants and heavy metals. If we don't add anything to the first paragraph then a better placement is the 3rd paragraph. The reader still does not understand how the toxicants and heavy metals got in the vapor. It will remain unclear unless this is explained somewhere in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I completely disagree with you that my elaborately explained proposal will not help to clarify the matter, you have correctly identified from my proposal that we need to insert something in the 3rd paragraph and not into a random position. But I do not support the insertion of random material whose content factually conflicts with the sentence that we already have. That would most definitely add to the confusion. That's my position, as I said.Levelledout (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The onus is on you as the one seeking to add text to justify and gain consensus for your proposal. You have failed to convince me that adding text from a low impact journal that factually conflicts with another sentence in the lead and only tells half the story will improve the situation. Perhaps other editors will disagree.Levelledout (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: "Both e-liquid and vapour contain very low levels of toxicants." I can't verify this claim. How about the source you recently used? Did you read section "Toxicity of Fluid Additives"?--TMCk (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I could not verify the exact claim with that source and it does not clarify the wording in the lede.
The lede says "The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals."
Including "Both e-liquid and vapour contain very low levels of toxicants." is repeating what is stated about the vapour in the lede. We can focus on adding specific information about the liquid and how the toxicants and heavy metals got into the liquid and vapour. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Then "the exact claim" in your edit I pointed out can't be verified either. You can't have it both ways, so which one is it?--TMCk (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh poor me. Getting myself into another "banana discussion". Should've known. Anyway, read your source and compare it to your edits and see if the "exact claim(s)" can be verified. Probably you do since you believed so in the first place, yet you're quite more picky when scrutinizing other editor's edits/suggestions/etc. I'm off for a break to recover for now (yeah, that was reaaal quick this time).--TMCk (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
If you change you mind I am more than happy to provide verification for any sentence I added to mainspace or sandbox space. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Not to revive what turned into a somewhat heated discussion, but I think the origin of the claimed toxicants is important, and stripping the claim down for the lede turns it into something that leaves out necessary detail. Gigs (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The origin is important but the origin is a combination of multiple factors. To avoid the lead ending up too long we are required to summarise only the most important points for the lead and put the full details in the body.Levelledout (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree it is a combination of factors and that can easily be explained in the lede. The critical points for the lede is to explain how the toxicants and metals got in the vapour. The lede (and the body) does not tell the reader theses things. QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
We have an ongoing discussion about this here. The edit seemed to disregard this discussion which showed no consensus for part of what was added, created the situation of contradictory statements in the lead and was far too much detail for the lead. I have therefore removed it. I suggest QG, that we try and actually reach an agreement on what should be in the article through this discussion.Levelledout (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
By the way the contradictory statement is that on the one hand we say that the e-liquid contains toxicants and on the other we imply that it doesn't: "The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals."Levelledout (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's any flavor that even approximates smoking an actual cigarette. Mostly because smoking an actual cigarette approximates licking an ashtray, and without the instantly absorbed nic to hotwire our brains to accept that, it wouldn't work. Gigs (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I would also avoid the "generation" nomenclature. The evolution of designs didn't have such clear demarcations, and there was plenty of overlap. Gigs (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Generation nomenclature is pretty standard within community/industry/adovocates/users and each step was generational in that the "next big thing" became standard and then nothing changed for a while and then the "next big thing" happened and became standard. I expect that's less likely to happen with what some have dubbed the 4th gen due to the divergence of the leading and trailing edges of the wave but that part is pure speculation. SPACKlick (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
. There was no edit summary so we have no idea as to why it was added other than the fact that QuackGuru requested an image in the section above and provided the caption that has been used. How does this image "increase readers' understanding" of the concept of harm reduction in line with WP:IUP? It doesn't would appear to be the simple answer so could we remove it please?Levelledout (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
