Talk:Psychoactive cactus

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles

It would probably be best to avoid categorising Lophophora vs Echinopsis genera for this article. A more useful article would entail a thorough, scientific walk-through psychoactive cacti and their properties; adding the appropriate sections and again, avoiding a category-oriented article.FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teotzlcoatl[edit]

This was taken from Teotzlcoatl's work! You should give him credit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2690:2AA0:86A:864B:2E5E:1468 (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy is to cite reliable and verifiable sources (for details, see this: Reliable sources). Blogs and/or forums are not considered to be in that category and are disallowed as sources. It is true that very well informed individuals may post useful information on those kinds of sources, such as Teotzlcoatl who identifies as an ethnobotanist and posts on ethnobotany forums, but if his work can't be found in acceptable sources it can't be cited. Lapabc (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move this article to something like "List of psychoactive cacti?"[edit]

As the title says, it's probably be more fitting. Aven13 14:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It seems to me that rather than being encyclopedic more and more pages on Wikipedia are just lists -- and many of these simply link to other lists. Yes, this page is very thin, but it would be much better to add useful content to improve the page. Turning any page into a list inhibits contributors in the future from adding useful content because lists are a restrictive form and because it would require extra effort to revert back to an article. This page suffers from other problems that wouldn't be solved by turning it into a list and there already is a list (List of psychoactive plants) that contains several of the cacti on the current page. Unfortunately, it's not a priority for me to work on this page, so I believe the appropriate action is to encourage others to improve it, or at least leave it alone. Lapabc (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]