Talk:420 (cannabis culture)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

archiving

I have archived this rather large talk page. HighInBC 19:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
And I have archived it again. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I have archived it a third time. ↔ Dennywuh 12:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

^^^ This is unnecessary. Just archive the stuff. xenocidic (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Eddy Pop

Who is Eddy Pop? Geneusutwerk 20:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References: please add items related to cannabis culture, not just to 420

Hi. I'm finding additions to the cultural references section that have no relation whatsoever to cannabis, for instance:

  • Boards of Canada's track 1969, from the album Geogaddi, has a duration of four minutes and twenty seconds.
  • On the homepage of the Fairmont Royal York hotel in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, the time on the clock shown in the photo of the hotel lobby reads 4:20.
  • The odds to win a prize in the British Columbia Lottery Corporation Sports Funder scratch lottery tickets that offer a chance of winning a pair of tickets to the opening ceremony for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, British Columbia. The BCLC lists the "Overall approximate odds to win are 1 in 4.20".
  • In Fluxx, a card game made by Looney Labs, the card "time" shows a clock at 4:20.
  • On the cover of his Easy Tiger album, the watch that Ryan Adams is wearing shows the time being 4:20.

On the basis of having no relation to the subject of this article, the number 420 in cannabis culture, I'm deleting them. ↔ Dennywuh 13:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, people see that number everywhere. That does not mean it has anything to do with the 420 at hand. س (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
What you're all failing to realize is that all these artists / events are stoners or caused by such, it's not at all likely that most of these are a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.58.126 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 4 February 2008
What you fail to realize is that we base our articles on verifiable sources, not the gut feeling of some stoner. س (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dylan

I don't get why Bob Dylan is in the cultural references; his song was written 1966, but the origin of the term was coined 1971. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.9.114 (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I noted the discrepancy when I was editing the text someone had posted, but left it in due to its anecdotal value. Is there a consensus that it should go? ↔ Dennywuh 15:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I say remove, its such a tenuous connection anyways Geneusutwerk 17:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed it. س (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

BDSM

I don't see the relevance of the 420/406 comments, and think they should go. ↔ Dennywuh 17:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No objections in a week so I'm going ahead. ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture section

An excerpt from the Wikipedia guideline on trivia sections:

This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.

This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. - Some information is better presented in a list format.

Not all embedded lists are trivia sections

In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list. These disorganized items are in need of cleanup, either by incorporating them into the prose of another section, or by filtering the list to be more selective. A selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information within the article.

On this basis, and considering all the current entries are relevant, I think the section could stay. Any comments? ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


Pop culture

Much of the "Pop culture" section has nothing to do with with cannabis culture, I have removed some, and I think more needs to be removed. Some is on topic and cited, I think it should stay. س (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed more, more needs to be done. س (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Other than one entry that I find rather believable that lacks a citation I would say the pop culture section has been cleared of cruft. Lets keep an eye on it to keep it up to standards. س (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.