Talk:Slate industry in Wales

Misc

This is a splendid article! Congratulations on getting it on the Main Page!

I have just one comment: the picture of the three men at work in the quarry didn't scan well. If you try again and check your scanner adjustments, you may find the software can remove the Moire fringes. User: BlairRMartin

Pictures

Added picture of waste truck into the 'Decline' section - assuming Rhion is happy with this, it may be worth reformatting the pictures below so that they are stepped left - right - left? Vanoord - Done, 29/09/06 Vanoord

"Beginnings"

Gwilym ap Griffith records that several of his tenants were paid 10p each for working 5,000 slates. - so did he pay ten pence (10d) or two shillings? (2/-, 24d -- 10p in modern currency) -- Arwel (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Banned why?

There was some increased demand for slates to repair bombed buildings after the end of the war, but the use of slate for new buildings was banned, apart from the smallest sizes. This ban was lifted in 1949.

Why was the use of slate banned? This should be explained here.

By the way, what a cool esoteric article to be a feature article. Congrats. Tempshill 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

protection

the featured article should be protected somebody adds some meaningless things to it.. with the advant of an... se...

It's normal for the featured page ot be frequently vandalised. We just keep an eye on it and hit the "revert" button often. -- Arwel (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

where is the "revert" button? I saw some vandalism but could not figure out how to fix it. Jeepday 15:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's for administrators. Ordinary users can just go to the last good version in the history, hit "edit" then save that version. It's not as quick but works just as well. -- Arwel (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You can also get scripts to add to you user account that give you revert buttons, not logged in now so can't remember the details but there are around if you look for them. -- 86.128.253.74 21:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hydro Power

We've visited one of the quaries which is now part of a Hydro-Electric Scheme - Maybe someone has more info to be added? or a link?

Regards,

Pieter

That's the Dinorwig power station mentioned at the start of "Welsh slate today". -- Arwel (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Quarry versus Mine

From my understanding:

A mine is where you extact precious stone or ore; it can be an open pit or a shaft/tunnel into the earth. A quarry is where you extract rock or building minerals; it too can be an open pit or a shaft.

I originally learned this on a Discovery show episode discussing the mineral extract industry, where they had a shaft quarry to extract aggregate for concrete. Since then I have seen it correctly referenced elsewhere. I doubled checked merriam webster: it has quarry as an open pit for stone, and mine as excavating minerals. It seems the sentence at the top of the article "...where the slate was mined rather than quarried." should be changed. Davandron | Talk 15:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In British English, quarry is an open pit mine for any material, not just specifically for stone and mines are underground workings, for any material. As this article is about a British subject, it is appropriate to use the British terminology. Gwernol 16:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have heard of a colloquial definition from Cornwall that if you can see the sky, you are in a quarry Favouritesnail 17:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

When I was growing up in Vermont (another area renowned for its stone industries), the British English distinction Gwernol cites was standard usage. Slate was almost exclusively quarried; marble could be either quarried or mined.

I'd agree with Favouritesnail that a mine is underground and a quarry is opencast: it certainly seems to be the standard usage for north Wales slate mines / quarries. Vanoord

Great article

Super to see an article about Welsh industry on the main page - a really interesting read. Thanks very much to everyone who's worked on it! --YFB ¿ 20:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Dinorwig?

Surely the quarry should be referred to as Dinorwic? It was known by this name for virtually all its life, and the slate is still referred to in the industry as Dinorwic. Certainly historic references should use this name.--86.31.225.198 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In fact we need a separate article on the quarry as opposed to the village. The quarry has a rich history that should be covered on Wikipedia. At some stage I hope to work on one from Boyd's books. Gwernol 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a new book on the quarry just out, by Reg Chambers Jones. I had a quick glance at it in a bookshop yesterday and it looks good. Rhion 08:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Geological map

I couldn't help noticing, that the map highlighting the major areas of slate mining in the "Beginnings" section is a little sloppy. I'd be willing to produce a neater geological map if anyone thought it was helpful/necessary AuldReekie 12:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Dandy Waggon

Jeepday 13:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Ok, this one got my attention, and there is not a Wikipedia entry and well I want to know more. I am just beginning my research and not sure where it will go. A couple questions

• What spelling of Waggon or Wagon would be most correct to use with Dandy?
• I did a Google search and have found a couple of references to follow up any ideas for further research?

The Ffestiniog Railway was the major user of dandy waggons. Traditionally all goods stock on the Ffestiniog has been spelled "waggon" rather than the more usual "wagon", so "Dandy waggon" is the correct spelling. The best source for material on the history of the Ffestiniog is James Boyd's two volume history of the railway, though there has been a lot written on this famous railway. See the Ffestiniog Railway article for a more complete bibliography. You can also visit the railway itself which still operates, and you can join the society that supports it. The society has a group involved in Ffestiniog Railway historical research who can answer any questions you have about the Dandy waggons. Further details available at the railway's website [1]. Gwernol 14:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Dandy waggon it is, thanks it has been a very educational few hours. Jeepday 04:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I'm pretty sure this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Porno.jpg ) is not a drumhouse, but that's the picture up there... Can someone who knows more about this fix this? - Kevingarcia 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/wales/

  Triggered by \bdesignbuild-network\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Slate industry 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/20071009221730/http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/wales/ to http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/wales/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002232559/http://screenandsound.llgc.org.uk/cronfa/title.php?titleno=165 to http://screenandsound.llgc.org.uk/cronfa/title.php?titleno=165

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slate industry 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/20070113001026/http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/409/ to http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/409/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Quarry‎ or quarry‎?

Oakeley quarry‎ or Oakeley Quarry‎ ?

Would these not count as proper names, as the complete phrase, thus should be capitalised? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

A move of Bryn Eglwys quarry was recently discussed and the consensus on the talk page - such as it was - was to use lower-case for "quarry". Contemporary sources are inconsistent about Oakeley, giving "Oakeley Quarry", "Oakeley quarry" "Oakeley quarries" and "Oakeley Quarries" in roughly equal measure. The returns to the Board of Trade mostly call it just "Oakeley" (eg [2]) which suggests that is the formal name and that the article title is correct to use the lower-case "q". The Mirror Cracked (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hmmm..... That should have had a broader scope to the discussion page if it's then to be applied as a global policy. Nor do I see why WP:Naming conventions (UK stations) has any relevance - these aren't railway stations. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy to see this have a broader discussion. Where would be the appropriate place? Here? And yes, obviously a quarry isn't a railway station. I was using that as an analogue. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Mirror Cracked:I feel that the analogy made here is a bit too broad. The station naming convention essentially says: Don't put 'railway station' capitalised, because it's a descriptive clause, not part of the actual name. However I think one can take this too far; there are a very wide number of things for which the last word of the name is the same as the generic noun used to describe the type of entity which it is an instance of. A few examples off the top of my head are:

• Great Manson Farm
• Talyllyn Railway
• Talybont Reservoir
• Irish Sea
• English Channel
• Channel Tunnel
• London Bridge
• etcetera...

There are thousands of these, and most of them are frequently referred to without their final noun.

There is of course a scale here; the Irish [Sea] or the English [Channel] are always given in full; the Talyllyn [Railway] or Great Manson [Farm] are in-between, and of course the other end of the scale would be railway stations, where Abergynolwyn [Railway Station], would be the commonplace method of referring to it, including in official parlance.

There must be a cut-off point as to how far along this scale we have to go before we first decapitalise (Abergynolwyn railway station, A493 road), and then remove (Abergynolwyn, not Abergynolwyn village), the trailing noun. I feel that quarries should be definitely the capitalised side of this, being on similar footing with railways.

I agree that it could do with wider discussion, but there isn't any really good talk page to do this on; maybe WT:WikiProject Mining? WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 12:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of wider discussion, I have placed a notice on all pages in Category:Slate mines in Wales. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 14:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Another thing that sways me in favour of capitalising the 'Q' in quarry titles is their frequent rail connections. The problem posed by this is typified by the following example: The article on Cedryn quarry (if one is made) should use a lowercase 'q'. However, it is typical convention with railway and tramway articles to have an uppercase 'R' or 'T', so we would end up with Cedryn quarry Tramway. This is clearly inconsistent in itself, so instead we have Cedryn Quarry Tramway. But this is inconsistent with the name of the quarry it is clearly named after. So to solve this inconsistency, we either have to make a (probably very controversial) renaming of every railway article, in whatever scope we want to apply these quarry naming conventions;, or we have to change the current conventions for quarries. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 07:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that follows, personally. That train stations etc are (rightly) normally capitalized doesn't have any bearing on the treatment of the things they are named after. Personally I'd lean to not capitalizing quarries unless there is clear evidence (case by case) that this is/was usual. There's no need to be consistent. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod:The only rationale of the original change was to ensure consistency of titling. If we don't care about consistency, we should revert them all to the random state of assorted '...Quarry', '...Slate Quarry', or, in one case, nothing at all (Bryn Eglwys). The only argument behind the lowercasing was to ensure consistency. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 16:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Consistency of titling is often given far too much emphasis on WP, imo. We should first of all follow WP:COMMONNAME in titles, with anything else a very long way behind. If they all have different styles of name, so be it. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

All are equally valid names (as far as WP:COMMONNAME is concerned), apart from the capitalisation, as explained above. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 17:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC based on the above

A brief introduction:

After a move discussion in early January (2020) on Talk:Bryn Eglwys, a mass-move of all slate quarries in Wales was performed, by The Mirror Cracked, who was a major editor of these pages but has unfortunately recently gone missing. This move retitled the pages from assorted '...Quarry's, '...Slate Quarry's, and '...quarry's, to a standard '...quarry'.

However, this is controversial, given that most sources give the titles as '...Quarry'. The purpose of this RfC is to attempt to gain a consencus on what title capitalisation should be used for quarries.

For further details please see above. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 20:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comments: A few thoughts here. First, I really do think the span of reasonable perspectives on this issue was well covered by The Mirror Crack and WT79 above, and I can see why all were pulled in several different directions on this question. I also think it was sensible to choose RfC as the approach to resolving this issue. But as Andy Dingley pointed out, neither the discussion here nor the previous one at the Bryn Eglwys quarry can results in a consensus which covers all relevant arguments here; it may only generate a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS covering the articles on which they take place. The Mirror Cracked reasonably inquired where the discussion should take place and never received a response, so I will address that point now: for a discussion on a style/naming convention like this, there are really two options: you can attempt to create a stand-alone guideline via the WP:PROPOSAL process (in which case probably the best forum for the discussion itself is WP:VPP), or you can attempt to add language addressing the matter under some relevant portion of the WP:Manual of Style, in which case the discussion would take place on the talk page of some portion the MoS--although if this latter approach is taken, it would definitely not hurt to advertise the discussion on VPP anyway to boost the amount of feedback and strengthen the ultimate consensus.

As to my take on the content issue itself, I'm afraid I have to admit to being as torn as you good folks by the several reasonable arguments: essentially this boils down to a question of whether 1) consistency between our article titles withing a thematic set, or 2) consistency with WP:RS in regard to the topic of any given article ought to be the guiding principle. It must be said that, as a general rule, the WP:RS/WP:WEIGHT argument tends to guide. And yet, if there is one area where cross-project uniformity tends to bend that standard as a matter community consensus, it often is with regard to naming conventions. And then of course WT97 has a good ancillary argument in that sometimes the RS are themselves very split and it might still be worthwhile to have a standard solution for those cases (or even just a standard solution across all articles in the class for simplicity's sake. I'm sorry--I know this paragraph is not very helpful, and that I am just re-treading the arguments you have all already correctly read into the discussion above, in an accurate breakdown of existing policy. I can only say that I think the issue is a close enough that neither approach will really be too problematic ultimately. But if you do want a firmer consensus, at least the first part of this post will tell you where to seek it.

On a side note, good on all of you for treating this minor point of style for what it is: something that probably should be figured out but which is not worth staking out entrenched positions on. I respond to a lot of RfCs and it sometimes seems that the more minor the technical distinction is, the more people are eager to die on that insignificant hill. It is, in a way, refreshing to find a group of editors collectively recognizing the grey area of an issue, and scratching their heads together as they try to puzzle out the close call. If nothing else, I love arriving at an RfC and finding every one civil and collaborative (and again, that's a rarity for this process), so thank you for that. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 23:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Lowercase quarry except in cases where sources are pretty consistent about capping it as part of the name, per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  I was previously misled by what looked like apostrophe and s after Quarry, which was probably actually an attempt to make plurals of quoted names. Sheesh. Dicklyon (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Varies. If the quarry isn't a proper name but just was a quarry at some location, then lowercase. If the proper name of the place was "ABCD Quarry", then upper case. A blanket rule is not appropriate.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

The nominator of this Featured article has not edited in over a decade, and it appears that the Welsh slate today has not been maintained. Could anyone update this article so that a Featured article review is not needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

No response, no update, listing at WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: - I watch this page and saw your original message, then forgot about it. I don't think this article needs a lot of work as it's very stable. There's a sentence that needs a reference (about 30 tons of waste produced for every ton of slate), and some references need Wayback archive links. I'll do whhat I can, but very busy IRL at present so it may not be for a couple of months. — Voice of Clam 08:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Great! I will put a note at WP:URFA/2020A so it won't be sent to FAR prematurely. My bigger concern is whether any of the data/statements are outdated. Thanks for taking this on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Voice of Clam: Were changes made to the article to update the information, so that this article is ready for a re-review? Pinging @SandyGeorgia: if they have any concerns they want to add. Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for reminding me. I'll see what I can do. — Voice of Clam 21:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720 and SandyGeorgia: I think I've fixed all dead links now, and removed the only significant sentence I couldn't find a reference for. I'd be happy for someone else to review independently though. — Voice of Clam 17:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The article looks great! One comment: Do we have a reliable source for the information displayed on File:SlateDeposits.PNG? (this map would benefit from an SVG update as well...) A455bcd9 (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Voice of Clam did you see the query above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:I did, but it slipped my mind. I don't know of a source for it. Is it a deal breaker between FA/non-FA? If so, it may be better to remove it completely. — Voice of Clam 01:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd remove it ... A455bcd9? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes it's ugly and unsourced so should be removed. Could we replace it by this one? (sourced but not as readable) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the existing one. even though not cited, as it's clearer then the geological map. If it's not an FA deal breaker, I'd say leave it as is. — Voice of Clam 06:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Voice of Clam But it is a deal breaker: you can't have ugly original research in a featured article. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)