Jump to content

Talk:Cloud-chasing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Not a Sport

Cloud chasing isn't a sport. Cloud chasing is an activity which some people compete in. It's like beermat flipping or beer glass stacking, some people do it for fun and then it becomes competetive, as all the sources say. I tried re-wwriting but it became quite clunky. Suggestions needed. SPACKlick (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Technically it's not a sport but a "sport" or vaping game. I'm positive that the SportAccord would never classify it as a sport and sources vary in presenting the term with or w/o scare quotes. Would need to dig into more sources tho there aren't that many yet.--TMCk (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Image in lede

Same issue as on the main e-cig page. This image shows what appears to be general use. One of them may be someone cloud chasing but from context it's hard to tell. To give the impression that this is what cloud chasing looks like is misleading and we should try to find or have someone create a verifiable or at least non-controversial image. SPACKlick (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The montage image was tastefully done and appropriate for this article. Not everyone is a "professional vaper". The main image shows a very large plume of vapor. This is good. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we should keep the current montage image unless a better montage image is created. An image of a professional vaper can be added to the Cloud-chasing (electronic cigarette)#Competitions section. The lede should not have an image of a professional vaper since most cloud-chasers are not professionals. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

For God's Sake Quack! Nobody but you brought professional cloud chasing into this. Cloud chasing is a way of vaping. It is a way of vaping that has certain distinctive visual features. Most of the images depicted in the montage do NOT have those distinctive visual features and are not verifiably cloud chasing so 1) If they aren't cloud chasing they're inappropriate. 2) If they don't clearly illustrate what cloud chasing looks like then they're misleading and inappropriate. None of them are uncontroversially images of cloud chasing. Take a look on google image at some of the not free images of cloud chasing, by amateurs and you'll see a massive difference. It's not professional against not professional. It's illustrates cloud chasing vs illustrates simply vaping. SPACKlick (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Edit to add. If we look at the four images individually.
  • The bottom right is of a smoke fall. This isn't at all to do with making as much vapour as possible but is a trick, much like the french inhale about controlling the vapour produced. It's not tagged as cloud chasing and looks nothing like cloud chasing.
  • The middle left image "vapor from an E Cig User" is just normal everyday vaping. The cloud isn't as big as the device. It's a small stream of general use. The photographer doesn't imply that any cloud chasing is going on. It isn't tagged as cloud chasing. There's no visual similarity to cloud chasing.
  • The top image "smoke screen". Arguable looks a bit more like cloud chasing as the cloud is bigger and projected. It isn't tagged as cloud chasing by the author but because of the visual features may be an appropriate image with the paucity of pre-existing images of cloud chasing. Gentle clouds are a thing.
  • The bottom left image is called "E-Cigarette/Electronic Cigarette/E-Cigs/E-Liquid/Vaping/Cloud Chasing" and is tagged in basically every e-cig tag that exists on flickr. So does every image that user has taken of someone vaping. It's clickbait. Visually you have a small gentle exhalation. That guy does have a slightly better image to illustrate cloud chasing although again it's not massively dissimilar from normal vaping.
The real question Quack is what criterion have you used to determine that those 4 images DO illustrate cloud chasing. SPACKlick (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration committee discussion

(Notice cross posted to: Electronic cigarette, Safety of electronic cigarettes, Legal status of electronic cigarettes, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes, Electronic cigarette aerosol, Cloud-chasing & vape shop. Please focus any discussion on the main page

There is an ArbCom case pending related to this family of topics. SPACKlick (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Longest Cloud as Competitive Objective

Just today I was in a Vaping Store and talked to a guy that does these clouds competitively. They had a section of the wall marked off in 1 foot increments and he was practicing making the longest cloud he could (distance from person vaping to end of cloud). Lede says the competitive objective is "largest" cloud, and this person I talked to practiced making the longest. I don't know if the article is wrong, or if there are two different ways to compete (largest and longest being two separate categories). Thought I'd mention it here in case the article needs to be updated.Jonny Quick (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes

Can anyone verify the claims in accordance with WP:V? QuackGuru (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic Tone

This article is confusing and does not reflect an encyclopedic tone. Referring to sentences like "New cloud-chasers should remember to always build safely and do the proper research before jumping into this hobby" (from the first paragraph). --Dr.scott.96 (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You could've just removed the how-to spam yourself.--TMCk (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead is a summary of the body

These edits did not summarise the body. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sudden Page Blanking

Quack, there is no need to archive old discussions unless the page is large enough to warrant it. To avoid duplication of discussions I have unarchived. SPACKlick (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Quack, stop being a dick, you don't need to empty the talk page just because discussions are old. Only when it gets unweildy to use. It is more useful to have the talk page history at the talk page than in the archive. SPACKlick (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Spam added to image

The image does not need attribution. The attribution is given at Wikimedia Commons. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't even attribution, it was advertising. SPACKlick (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
One of the images was originally from vaping cheap. This could of been a misunderstanding a citation is not needed. QuackGuru (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of ecigarettereviewed.com as a source

The source ecigarettereviewed is unreliable.[1][2][3][4] QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is. It's an e-cigarette focused news outlet with an editorial team. It's perfect for this sort of article. Haven't looked at the content to be added from it, which may be spam.SPACKlick (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
None of the sources added mentioned cloud-chasing. I disagree with "It's perfect for this sort of article." because there are many other sources covering the topic. QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I didn't look at content just at whether or not it's a reliable source and it is. It does have a half dozen articles with content on cloud chasing [5][6][7][8][9]. I agree that the teen vapers not using nicotine article isn't relevant in the places here cited. SPACKlick (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
If there is no other source available for the content then we can use it. QuackGuru (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Original research?

The edit summary was "Restoring removed modifier inkeeping with source". Please provide verification for this change. The source used for the content is here. QuackGuru (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

From the source a handful of increasingly popular, high-end models, which look a lot more like clarinets than cigarettes, are designed to produce as much vapor as possible. Quack, you really must learn how to understand whether from context a sentence designates All, Many, Most, Some, A few, a handful, or specific cases. SPACKlick (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
The source says "handful". It now says "A handful of later-generation e-cigarettes are designed to create large plumes of vapor." QuackGuru (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Failed verification

The article states, "The competitions are becoming a routine event at some local vape shops."

See "The contests, in which adult vapers, as they call themsleves, compete to perform the best tricks and create the biggest and densest vapor clouds, are becoming a regular feature at local vape shops. Some regional competitions offer thousands of dollars in prize money."[10] The word some failed verification." The word "some" later in the paragraph is referring to some regional competitions offer the prize money. The word "some" is about the prize money, but the article claims it is about the local vape shops. QuackGuru (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You're still struggling to understand how changing the context of a sentence affects which modifiers are appropriate. There may be a better phrasing here to specify which some, although the source is unclear as to whether it's region specific or not. Nobody is claiming the "Some regional competitions" is the justification for this some, merely that the source isn't saying any given local vape shop. SPACKlick (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"Teens"...

To explain this revert[11]. While the news may be focusing on teens - because its headline grabbing, cloudchasing isn't specific to teens. It is in fact buried within the article as well - where it notes that "The competitors – mostly men in their 20s and 30s" are the ones that compete in this thing. We need to be careful about this, since it is a not unknown advocacy strategy to use the "Think of the children" appeal to emotion. --Kim D. Petersen 09:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed that someone appears to have used original research to change a line.

Namely, the replacement of the production of vapor being dependent on the skill of the user with being dependent on the device's capabilities. I'm asking for evidence or citations that is the case, or the original statement was incorrect.--Rainythunderstorm (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted. Device is important, but skill and lungcapacity are important factors as well. --Kim D. Petersen 12:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cloud-chasing (electronic cigarette). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cloud-chasing/Archive_1&oldid=1149826547"