Talk:Mining in Wales

we need more information !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.241.76 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Much of the history section is taken up with Blaenavon rather than mining in Wales in general - it needs some attention yet. Maybe others will get there before me?! cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mining in Wales. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819072012/http://www.gtj.org.uk/en/item10/28955 to http://www.gtj.org.uk/en/item10/28955
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211210420/http://www.norbiton.com/blaenavon/mining.htm to http://www.norbiton.com/blaenavon/mining.htm

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) 20:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

List of mines

I wonder if this should be moved to its own page or removed altogether? My reasoning is it currently falls far far short of reflecting the true number of mines (either coal or metal) in Wales. A definitive list would be difficult, but also so long as to make this article less readable. The list as it is misses many important mines and gives a 'lesser' impression of just how important/prevalent mining was. (Incidentally a good source for coal mines is this page: http://www.welshcoalmines.co.uk/Photo.htm, as you can see the list in the left pane is rather lengthy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.139.188 (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge of Metal mining in Wales

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Metal mining in Wales into Mining in Wales as the former is a subset of the latter and both articles are short. Without prejudice for a split should the sections develop. Klbrain (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Reverted undiscussed merge.

• Oppose No case made for merging. Mining in Wales has been a substantial industry throughout recorded history. Coal and slate are two of the best known aspects of this, but metals are the oldest and pass any criteria for notability as a stand-alone article. Nor is merging to an article that's itself been tagged as undersourced for over a decade any sort of quality improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not intend to downplay the substantial history of metal mining in Wales. The metal mining article should be merged with this one and each ore should get its own article in due course. I don't want to sound bitter but I now have very little interest in the topic... perhaps I should revert to meekness instead of being bold. No hard feelings, may consensus reign :) Edit-pi (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support merge I don't want to downplay the importance of metal mining in Wales either, but bearing in mind that neither article is unduly long, it would be more helpful for the user to be able to read all the information in a single article.----Ehrenkater (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2018 (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.