Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Units of Mass

Maybe the first things we can agree on (or not) are units of mass/weight. I write mostly about US mines, so I usually deal in pounds or troy ounces because I am accustomed to seeing commodity prices in those units. However, I try to include conversions to kg or tonnes. I prefer tonnes, but some editors insist on changing wording to metric tons. What's your pleasure? Plazak 14:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should be similar to the Variation of English standard. I.e. if a company reports its resources in imperial, the article should follow suit. I think most of the world uses metric except for the US, and Vale Inco Limited. Canada is a strange place for mining units of measure, we talk of tonnes of ore, but relate it to a price per pound of nickel, or ounce of gold...For gerneral mining articles that don't deal with a specific company I think that consistancy within the article is more important that consistancy within the project, but we should show conversions if appropriate. And I use tonnes (pronounced the same as tons, not "Tones" or "ton-nees") not metric tons.--Kelapstick 14:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bisbee, Arizona

I'm getting into an argument with another editor over the correct spelling of the open pit at Bisbee: Lavender vs. Lavendar Pit. Anyone who would like to weigh in on this portentious issue, please add your thoughts to the Lavender Pit Talk Page. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mining stubs template proposed for deletion

{{mining stub}} has been proposed for deletion, you can join the debate at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#.7B.7BMining_stub.7D.7D_.2F_Cat:Mining_stubs. DuncanHill (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Project maintenance

Have been testing the categories - to go on the non article pages - in most case categories talk pages - it usually helps to see what categories have been created or linked to the project SatuSuro 14:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Bar (landform) vs Bar (mining)

please see discussion at Talk:Shoal (disambiguation).Skookum1 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

GIGO (Garbage in,garbage out)

The more I read of mining and metals entries in Wikipedia, the more it seems that too many of us contributors are suffering from the GIGO syndrome. I refer mainly to references to politically and environmentally slanted web entries. They all have an axe to grind and often do not let facts or ignorance of the mining industry get in the way. The same goes for non technical journalists. By all means use these sources as a starting point but please try to get back to the original entry or a known reputable report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egoli (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is definately the case. See the above references to the same in the section on Environmental soapboxes. Many of these articles seem to have been started with the sole purpose of being a "platform" for those "axe grinders" to get thier opinions out. It will be up to those of us who are more tolerant, and perhaps more knowledgeable in certain areas, to get the word out. Cleaning up will take time. I feel we can make good use of the {{NPOV}} tag. Turgan (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Assessment

I am starting to put together an assessment guide for rating Mining pages. It is based on WP 1.0 Editorial Team and WikiProject Geology criteria for class and importance ratings. It currently resides in my sandbox, but I will soon make it available for comments, suggestions, and modifications.
Turgan (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mining/Assessment completed and ready for use/comments/modifications. Turgan (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Is there a specific infobox for mines? Right now the mines I have seen, have the settlement template, Snap Lake Diamond Mine for example. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wonking on one, but got side tracked in my non-wiki life, but the template I was working on is here if anyone wants to imporove on it.--Kelapstick (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I like it. There are a few things I would add, however. Such as reserves and resources, etc. I will look at doing that when I get a chance. Turgan (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I would be leary about reserves/resources, as they would have to be constantly updated (i.e. a 20 million tonne resource being depleted by 1 million tonnes per year, that would have to be changed constantly on every article.), also those numbers can be a bit of a thumbsuck guess some times based on available information....but just my opinion.--Kelapstick (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone knows how to finish the template for a mine infobox I started, that would be great, a while ago I was messing around with it and got about as far as I could, I would like to start using it, or a better one if available.--Kelapstick (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale geology

The Oil shale geology article is nominated for the GAN. Comments and improvements are most welcome. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Coal Seams

Why are there no articles on different coal seams? I think this should be somewhat of a priority. Anyone want to help to get this going? I guess I'll start on seams in western PA/northern WV (i.e. Pittsburgh, Kittaning, etc.). If you think I shouldn't bother, let me know. Deigo (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Go at it. Plazak (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Mining

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Open-pit mining & Strip mining

I want to remove strip mining from the Open-pit mining article. My opinion of it is strip mining is a type of surface mining, not a type of open pit (and should probably have an article of its own). Any objections?--Kelapstick (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I think there are enough differences between the two to justify this. Turgan (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Importance Classification

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.

The discussion has been moved to WikiProject Mining/Assessment

---

What importance classification should mines be listed under? Mid?--Kelapstick (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I am new to the project, but my opinion, for what it's worth, is that a very obscure, insignificant mine should be low (such as one that is closed or inactive, etc.), most general mines should be mid, and the most important mines, such as largest mines, historically innovative mines, etc. should be high.Theseeker4 (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

While a noble idea, that defeats the unbiased nature of the ranking system. An important mine in one culture or area could be pretty insignificant when compared to mines elsewhere. And, all mines, whether they are active or not, can shed some very important information on that variation of deposit type being mined there. Turgan (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

When I put together the assessment page for WikiProject_Mining, I put together the following importance scale based on what I was seeing on other projects. Under this system, I have been ranking all mines at the "Mid" level, and deposit types at the "High" level. Turgan (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if that is the standard others have been using, I have no problem with that and will update the importance to "mid" for any mine articles I come across.Theseeker4 (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that, as always, WP:common sense is required. Someone just changed the Grasberg mine, probably the best single mine in the world, to "low" importance. Sigh, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I should have changed it to Mid, however it should not be high (as per the discussion above), also "best single mine in the world" is a pretty big POV statement...I will change it to mid.--Kelapstick (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To expand on the above question regarding importance classifications, how should certain specific mined materials be rated? For example, silver, gold, coal, iron, ore etc. should all be top importance to the project, correct? Or is high importance more appropriate for the more specific items like silver and gold? What are some of the basic guidelines for what classes of topics should be what importance, as in examples, as I don't see any on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Assessment. Thanks.Theseeker4 (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion topic has been copied to the WikiProject Mining/Assessment talk page

Turgan ^Talk 15:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion I have added there. Turgan ^Talk 17:56, 20 November 2008 (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.

Requested move - Gallows Frame - Headframe

Any opposition to moving Gallows Frame to Headframe (right now headframe redirects). I had never heard of a gallows frame until I read this article.--Kelapstick (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Further to that I want to turn Winding tower into a redirect to headframe, the only cited piece on this article is that it is also called a winding tower is also called a headframe. It is also contradicts itself with the pictures, by definition in the article the images are of winding scaffolds...--Kelapstick (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of these make sense Turgan ^Talk 14:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have converted Winding tower to a redirect to headframe, and taken the "Iconic symbol" portion and put it into headframe.--Kelapstick (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hard Rock Miner's Handbook

Not sure if anyone has used it, but there is a free download of the Hard Rock Miner's Handbook at the book's page (I am lucky enough to have one of the rare hardcover copies). It is a pretty good source of information for underground mining, and is a well respected book within the industry.--Kelapstick (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mineral economics

I created Category:Mineral economics without knowing that Category:Economic geology existing, I think that they can be considered the same thing (or can they?) Right now the structure is:

• Economic geology
  • Mining
    • Mineral economics

And should Mining be in Economic geology, or vise versa? Thoughs???--kelapstick (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As economic geology covers more than mining (petroleum for example), I'd say it is the broader category. Mineral econ should probably be a "sister" cat with mining under econ. geol. Vsmith (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Or rename Category:Mineral economics it to Category:Mining economics, keeping geology specific articles to Category:Economic geology?--kelapstick (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that I would agree with VSmith that it would be most fitting as a sister category. The tools of mineral economics are much the same, whether for oil wells or mines. Some mining techniques (borehole mining, Frasch sulfur mining, in-situ leaching) more closely resemble petroleum extraction than conventional mining. I believe that it is usually taught in schools as one subject: "mineral economics". I don't see the advantage of splitting it into two categories of "mining economics" and "petroleum economics". Plazak (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Vsmith on the sister category. Turgan ^Talk 06:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Kiruna

Hi, should Kiruna be in this wikiproject? It's a major mining town (biggest underground mine)? BTW, I want to make it FA. Will take a while, lots of work to do... --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 18:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I would have to say that town definately is within the scope of Wikiproject Mining.The Seeker 4 Talk 18:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• It would fall under for sure, same as Timmins, Greater Sudbury etc. I am surprised that there isn't anything about the Kiruna Truck, I know they use them at Coleman Mine in Sudbury, they must have made the news somewhere.--kelapstick (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• I agree. As that makes three of us, I have tagged it.  :) Turgan ^Talk 00:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Underground mines

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.

The decision was rename Category:Sub-surface mining to Category:Underground mining, discussions about categories for solution and other forms of mining may continue in another discussion

---

I started creating a category for Category:Underground mines, but stopped when I realized that it is in the Category:Sub-surface mining. I have never been a fan of the term "Sub-surface" but that is what we have. To add a twist we have Underground mining (hard rock) and Underground mining (soft rock). While underground and sub-surface can be used interchangeably, consistency would be nice. Here are the three options I propose:

1. Main Category Category:Sub-surface mining → Sub-Category Category:Underground mines
2. Main Category Category:Underground mining → Sub-CategoryCategory:Underground mines
3. Main Category Category:Sub-surface mining→ Sub-Category Category:Sub-surface mines

Open pit/strip mines can be in Category:Surface mines and be broken down further if the population of the category warrants it.--kelapstick (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to take a poll to see what people think.

• Option 2 My preference is using the term "underground" and I don't know of anyone that uses the term "sub-surface" when referring to mining.--kelapstick (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• You are comparing apples and oranges somewhat. What do we mean by the terms you are using? The terms "mines" and "mining" are not interchangeable; one refers to holes in the ground and the other to an industry and everything related to it. Sub-surface covers drill extraction techniques (e.g. bastard brining) as well as shaft/drift/stope techniques, while I would instinctively associate "underground" with the latter only. Pyrope 17:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for being unclear, I want to create a category for mines specifically within the category sub-surface mining, not convert the mining category to a mines category. But first I am looking see if we are open to renaming Category:Sub-surface mining to Category:Underground mining, once consensus is reached on the correct title (sub-surface or underground) the sub-category (Sub-surface mines or Underground mines) can be named accordingly. --kelapstick (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support I support the re-naming of sub-surface mining to underground, but that is just a matter of personal preference. I also support the sub-category underground mines. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Option 4 ? Support

I agree with Pyrope on the differences between Sub-surface and Underground. I would propose this solution:

• Main Category Category:Sub-surface mining as this can cover all non-surface practices. This is a broad category.Category:Underground mining

→ Sub-Category Category:Sub-surface minesCategory:Solution mines to handle Solution mines, ISL/ISR, etc. Mind you, these are small in number compared to true UG mines.

→ Sub-Category Category:Underground mines for underground mines

We should also create a Surface mines category under Surface mining, as you have suggested.

• Main Category Category:Surface mining

→ Sub-Category Category:Surface mines

Turgan ^Talk 00:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Question Isn't leaching/solution mining a type of surface mining since you are actually working "above ground". Perhaps if articles were written about specific solution/ISL mines (are any written yet?) it could have be Category:Solution mines or something? (note solution mining redirects to In-situ leach already).--kelapstick (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered that redirect on Solution mining myself. I feel they are separate, but the article does cover both well. I have also noted that Sub-surface mining now redirects to Underground mining (soft rock). This being said, as there was already an apparent consensus to redirect sub-surface mining, it makes sense to rename the category as well, with sub categories Category:Solution mines and Category:Underground mines Turgan ^Talk 00:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sub-surface mining redirects to Underground mining which is a DAB page for Underground mining (hard rock) & Underground mining (soft rock). I agree with the last comment.--kelapstick (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

At least in the US, this is generally called in-situ mining. I'm not sure what the sulfur-miners (Frasch process) call their technique. Definitely not surface-mining, by US terminology anyway.

[brief googling] In-situ sulfur extraction appears to be called "sulfur production by the Frasch process" [1], at least on the US Gulf Coast. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support renaming "traditional" underground mining Underground mining + Underground mines. I've never heard in-situ minig called "sub-surface mining", so we should probably demote that to a redirect, unless this is a common terminology somewhere. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling solution (ISL/ISR) mining sub-surface mining is not common, but I have seen it used on occasions when authors or presentors want to illustrate the differences, as it is not actually underground, nor surface mining. Having solution mining as a sub-directory of Underground mining seems to make the most sense as I dig deeper. This category could then cover anything that is not conventional underground development, as it will be undertaken with some method of fluid introduction for either dissolution (whole rock or specific minerals) or "cutting" (jet boring) Turgan ^Talk 03:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My thought is in Category:Mining techniques (the root category) you have Category:Underground mining, Category:Surface mining and Category:Unconventional mining methods (or something similar). Category:Underwater mining and Category:Future mining methods could go in the unconventional category. I had made those two when I didn't know where else to stick them when I was cleaning up core categories one day.--kelapstick (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• First reactions just looking at the proposed change, I'm wondering if there isn't a point to "mining" vs "mines", with the latter a subcat of any former. I've always heard "underground mining", and I come from mining country (Bralorne, for one place that's a famous underground mine in my parts). Sub-surface mining sounds more like a bureaucratic, legislative term; "Underground mining" is how I've always heard the method, though in my parts it's also necessarily "hard-rock mining" (I'm not from coal country). Mines are a subset of teh larger topic aabout mining articles; the broader "mining" category/ies could include subjects that weren't about mines per se, such as equipment, incidents etc.Skookum1 (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Option 2 Main Category Category:Underground mining → Sub-CategoryCategory:Underground mines. Cheers. Tharikrish  17:09, 17 February 2009 (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.

Infobox

I found Template:Infobox Gold Mine when I was adding Category:Underground mines, I have invited the originator to join (works in mining) as well as asked for some assistance creating an infobox for non-gold mines.--kelapstick (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Turgan ^Talk 01:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Mine is now in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Templates. --kelapstick (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't make the image display at a reasonable size - see [2]. DuncanHill (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean too big, looked fine to me...All kidding aside, I changed image_width to width and it seemed to work fine, I will change that on the mining template page.--kelapstick (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We are looking into getting a map with a locater dot in it, so maybe hold out using the infobox for the time being, it will make for less changes when it gets finished.--kelapstick (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Granby Consolidated Mining & Smelting Company etc

I've come across different name-refs for this company, another is Granby Mining Company Ltd.; they're the namesake of the Granby River and via their subsidiary Granisle Mines of Granisle, British Columbia, also of Granby Bay and Granby Island which are off Anyox, British Columbia, another of their operations in BC...I don't know if this is the right place to make an article request, or WP:Companies. I'd imagine the name comes from Granby, Quebec, but maybe that's named also for the company rather than the other way around.Skookum1 (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I will see what I can find about it, what were you seeing as name references do you have any sources that can be used? Perhaps it is similar to how Inco was called the International Nickel Company, thank abbreviated to INCO, than decapitalzed to Inco, you see different people referring to it different ways (mostly dependent on their age)--kelapstick (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is another twist listed as The Granby Consolidated Mining, Smelting & Power Company in the New York Times. I wonder if this is where the term granby car came from...--kelapstick (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox part II

User:Franamax has made an improvement on the Infobox for mines that User:EA210269‎ created, it allows a map to be placed under the image, and a dot to be added to the mine location by the latitude and longitude (takes the guesswork out of where to add the dot with an X-Y). My discussions between myself and the two of them have been in various locations, Franamax suggested that we have them here, which I agree with, so I open the floor.--kelapstick (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I'm working in my test pages on:

• - moving the locmap to just below the image and renumbering the other fields to make it easier to add fields (done)
• - changing the locmap so that it can take deg/min/sec as well as decimal degrees
• - adding display of the geocoord field
• - adding styles so that, for instance, the Gold Mine template can call Mine and ask for gold-coloured headings, Copper mines can be copper, etc.
• - and getting the locmap to properly fill the space it's in. I'm just having a teeny bit of trouble with the #if:'s :)

What I need is just a defined space to work in, i.e. fields 1 through 10 will be for my work just below the image. There are 40 total fields available, so it should be possible to spread out the various sections a little, in case more fields get added to each.

Also, because of the big regions we're dealing with here, like Northern Ontario or Australian regions, I'm working on ways to use {{location map skew}}, which accomodates big maps where lines of longitude converge noticeably - but that's a separate effort. Franamax (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I will leave the template for now as it is till we have received a final version from Franamax and go with the suggestion that all talk about it should be posted here. EA210269 (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you guys should keep on with your own ideas, just please keep me in the loop and leave a bit of room in the "header1/label2/data2" way that the infobox works. It's you that are defining the usage, I'm just tinkering with the machinery. I'll try to help build the engine, just don't change the bolt sizes midway through. :) Franamax (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I once more implemented your ideas and moved the map to the top. Looks good. I also numbered the headers similar to your system, whereby each new header starts with at a multiple of ten, leaving enough room for future additions without the need to rewritte the whole thing. Thanks for all your work so far, it helped a lot! EA210269 (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added the map feature to the Template:Infobox Gold Mine now as well. I'm hoping to bring the rest of this template in line with the other when I'm back from work. It will require changes in the articles it is used in for that. EA210269 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

These are looking good. Thank you for all the work. I will wait until you guys are happy with the way they work before adding them to any articles. Turgan ^Talk 08:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have change the Template:Infobox Gold Mine, it now allows for the change of state/territory/department according to what a country's subdivisions are called. I have changed all articles the template was used in accordingly. I'm not planning any further changes on either template for now, please feel free to use them. EA210269 (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:25, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

I added this to the page, and put a link to it in the navbox (was a redlink when I added it).--kelapstick (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Catagories

I have gone through all the mines in Category:Mines by country assigned categories based on underground or surface mines by country. The following mines didn't have an indication of weather or not they were surface or underground. Can someone take a look and see if they can find anything and cross them out if you make a change. A good resource is Infomine's property search.

Surface or underground?

• Grand Hornu
• Vieille Montagne
• Siderocausa
• Ballycorus Leadmines
• Ashio Copper Mine
• Besshi copper mine Underground
• Bürentsogt Tungsten Mine
• Tömörtiin Ovoo Zinc Mine
• Skorpion Zinc Open pit
• Popigai crater
• La Camocha, Asturias coal mine
• Kiirunavaara Underground now
• Bastnäs
• Marange diamond fields
• Madziwa Mine
• Anaconda Copper Mine
• Elizabeth Mine

• Nonesuch
• Sulphur Bank Mine
• Cerro Colorado Mountains
• Hercules Mine, Idaho
• Mountain Iron Mine
• Battle Branch Mine
• Camp Bird Mine
• Franklin-Creighton Mine
• Free Jim Mine
• Keane Wonder Mine
• Locarno Mine
• Lost Dutchman's Gold Mine
• Loud Mine
• Mary Murphy Mine
• Vulture Mine
• Gwynfynydd Underground I believe
• Clogau Gold Mine

• Anvil Hill Coal Mine
• Ebenezer Colliery
• Lochend Colliery
• New Oakleigh Mine
• Copper Mines of Tasmania Not realistic as this is a category
• Wheal Hughes
• Timbarra Gold Mine N/A as it is not a mine just a scratching
• Wheal Watkins
• Emily Ann and Maggie Hays nickel mines Underground
• Murrin Murrin Joint Venture Open pit
• Jabiluka
• Mount Fitch, Northern Territory Not a mine, just a prospect

In the United Kingdom

Some mines in the United Kingdom looked like they referred to a shaft as a pit, which was confusing, also I think that anything referred to as a "colliery" is underground, but I am not sure. These ones I wasn't sure of

• Flockton Colliery
• Frickley Colliery
• Kingsbury Colliery
• Treeton Colliery
• Blackhall Colliery
• Rother Vale Collieries
• Llancaiach Colliery

Other

I found two "In situ leaching" mines, not sure if we should create a category for it, or group them into surface or underground.

• Crow Butte - In situ
• Smith Ranch-Highland - In situ

Also in my travels I removed the category "Mines in Country" from mining communities or communities where there happened to be mines nearby, and replaced it with "Mining communities in country. I hope I have been clear, let me know if there is anything I need to explain further.--kelapstick (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Scratched a few off the list. Will do more later. As for the in-situ ones, there will be more added, and I suggest we just put them as surface mines for now. Turgan ^Talk 06:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Environmental soapboxes

I'm very new to the Wikipedia business but I'm rather disturbed by the way several mining entries seem to be nothing more than soapboxes for eco-warriors. Take, for instance. Pascua Lama, Grasbreg and La Oroya. Surely we are in the business of telling people what these operations are and what they do. A comment on the environmental problems must be made as well but within reason and should not dominate the article. Lets keep a senes of proportion Mafestel (talk) 02:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Any article you think doesn't adhere to this page WP:NPOV add the tag {{NPOV}} to the top of the article. Then put why you think it doesn't adhere on the talkpageD-rew (talk) 02:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also worth noting WP:Be bold alongside the NPOV/POV notice. Add material, reword material, just try to do it NPOV and hopefully also not WP:COI or WP:AUTO. Wikipedia should not be for political copy, unless that copy is being cited or quoted as part of a subject-description. Sacred Headwaters and equivalent esections on Tahtlan and Tahtlan First Nation need an apposite Klappan coal-bed methane proposal, for example; just because an article is what it is doesn't mean it has to stay way; but try to integrate and reword information, rather than simply ditching it....Skookum1 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite being a geoogist and a miner, I think that we have to admit that a mine is not a scientifically pure fragile little fairy which lives exclusively within the preserves of Mining. A mine is a social and environmental object as well. It is worth keeping these enviro-rants, but just try to drown them out somewhat by adding more information besides the eco-warrior diatribes. The best way to do this is to edit for NPOV, and make sure environmental complaints are desrcibed as such unless backed up by point of law (eg; in the case of a Superfund site it's pretty clear its an environmental disaster). In many cases, for instance jabiluka uranium mine and other uranium mines, the anti-uranium mining bandwagon has taken control but a lot of what they say in these environmental pieces is restricted to potential problems. As such, make sure that the article talks about how environmental groups claim that something could happen, assert or propose, etc. Rolinator (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions

It has been suggested that some articles need to be renamed, and I believe many will agree. I think we should come to a consensus on naming conventions before we start randomly changing names. Putting "mine" in the name might not be enough. We curently have:

• Multiple mines with the same names.
• Mines with same names as geographic features, regions, or settlements. All of which could and probably should have pages of thier own at some point.

This could become a bigger issue as we expand our article base.
Turgan (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a billion "sugarloaf mountain"(s) in the world. People generally name them according to geological/geographical region, like "sugarloaf mountain montana" or whatever. The same should apply here. If there are two mines in the same region with the same name, then we should go to the date, or for preference the company which extracted the ore. eg; "galena bluff (Newmont) or whatever. There's an issue, with the second point, specifically, with broken hill and other towns which are basically mining towns built around a deposit wich take their name from the deposit. This isn't a real issue, i reckon, because you name one page "broken hill ore deposit" and the other "broken hill (town)" or similar. Agree? Rolinator (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Mining communities in Mines Categories

While I was thumbing through Category:Mines by country this last week I came across many mining communities that were categorized as mines. I looked at the page, and added the appropriate mining community category, and removed the mine category, and was on my way. Yesterday Tillman brought up an interesting point on my talk page, for this example I will use Bagdad, Arizona (since that is the example he gave me).

Bagdad, Arizona is listed in both Category:Mining communities in Arizona and Category:Copper mines in the United States. I removed copper mines in the United States, because (as I am sure we can all agree), Bagdad, Arizona is not a mine, it is a community. However the point that Tillman made was that Bagdad mine redirects to Bagdad, Arizona (which at the time I did not realize), so therefore the town should be categorized as a mine. While I disagree with this, I understand the rationale.

In most cases a mine has been considered notable enough to have a stand alone article (I don't think that I have ever seen one go up for deletion), so both Bagdad Mine and Bagdad, Arizona could each have their own article. I would prefer to have Bagdad Mine be a redlink in Bagdad, Arizona to promote the expansion of mining articles within Wikipedia, but since that isn't an option as the redirect already exists my second recommendation is we put Category:Copper mines in the United States in the redirect. This was done for Springhill mine which redirects to Springhill mining disaster, the redirect includes Category:Coal mines in Canada Category:Mines in Nova Scotia but the article does not show it. Also when you look at Category:Coal mines in Canada, Springhill mine (and Hillcrest mine) are listed, showing that while they are coal mines in Canada, they are actually redirects to something else.--kelapstick (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- that seems a reasonable approach, since it may be years before someone gets around to writing (for example) a separate Bagdad mine article. Perhaps a separate list of "mine articles requested" here would be better than a redlink -- as the redirect will at least get the user to some information.

Incidentally, I reset that redirect to Bagdad, Arizona#Bagdad copper mine. If you're going to be moving categories over to redirects, you may want to check that they go to the exact section. Then again, you may think that's getting too specific... [grin] --Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a good idea, I created Requested articles, a good place to put any other (non-mine) redlinks you come across too.--kelapstick (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with this solution. It makes sense. Turgan ^Talk 13:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This concept can also be extended to companies that are categorized as mine (example Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company is categorized as a copper mine).--kelapstick (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

See broken hill ore deposit. its a town built on a mine and both now have a page.Rolinator (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Style guidelines

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Style guide (shortcut WP:MINESTYLE) to house any "Style guidelines" we come up with (naming of mines as above would be an example). Hopefully it will negate the need to search through talk pages to find what the decision actually was.--kelapstick (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- that's helpful. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep this up and I might have to find a second Barnstar to give you. Turgan ^Talk 13:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of Maps in Infoboxes

There is a discussion about what maps to use for as provincial locater maps for Provinces and territories of Canada. User:Skookum1 has commented that the map in the mine infobox should not be a "generic provincial map" such as the ones that we have now, but rather a terrain map or a mining district map. The following is copied from WP:CANTALK

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board

I have put 13 Template:Infobox Mine here to see what happens when you type each province/territory in the "location" field and enter coordinates in the lat/long fields. Also now we have a place to compare the maps side by side and see just how dramatic a difference there is between them (and to see what we don't have, looks like QC/PEI/NWT/YT/NU and Labrador). It looks like the maps that we do have "work" when you enter a latitude/longitude into the lat/long fields (although I don't know how accurate they are).

What I would like to see come out of this is a consistent format for the maps (the AB/SK ones look good to me), and be able to use them with templates that allow you to enter the lat/long and put a locater dot in the correct place.--kelapstick (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

To continue on my theme of "inappropriate maps", this case strikes me as very important; mines are not relevantly located on a regional district-defined map for BC; they belong either on a terrain map, or on a map of mining districts (I'm currently trying to find one, or the basis for one, on BC Government sites, similar to the ones available for Forest regions/districts which can be found on the Ministry of Forests websites). The main issue with any such map is they must be orthographic/rectilinear, they can't be from a conical projection, or the pushpin system won't work; so much easier to simply make a distinct map for each mine, partly because given the scale of terrain/country involved even in the case of a single province, it will be much more illustrative to have a local-region map with a full-province inset, or a full-country inset if people insist on showing the whole country, despite the diminution of relative scale. Otherwise location maps for many mines are going to pretty much resemble each other, especially once the many mines in areas like the Boundary, Elk Valley, Cariboo etc are all eventually made; other than that issue, I must stress again that things not in the jurisdiction of regional districts, and never in any other source mapped according to those boundaries, is of any use or relevance. By continuing to use the RD maps Wikipedia is establishing a standard of its own, at odds with the "public reality"; yes, mirror sites and sites which reference Wikipedia articles are now saying things like "Highland Valley Copper is a mine in the Thompson-Nicola Regional District" when the normative usage would be "on the Thompson Plateau" or "between Ashcroft and Merritt on Highway 8". The TNRD has no role in the mine's operations or governance, none at all; the community of Logan Lake, which is the adjacent ex-company town, is a member municipality of the TNRD but otherwise there's no association, not for water permits, not for permits of any kind; all mines operate under the Mines Act, which more than pre-empts any powers granted under the Municipal Act....Skookum1 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Extending that further, historical issues come to play; a phrase like "the Bullion Pit is an historic hydraulic mine in the Cariboo Regional District" is meaningless; the Bullion closed before the Regional District came into being; "in the Cariboo goldfields" or "In the Cariboo Mines District" is the proper and not anachronistic usage. And for the same reason, placing that mine (if it has an article yet, which it may or will soon/eventually because of its notoriety) on a map of regional districts which did not come into existence until decades after the mine closed is beyond any sort of relevance. RD maps were a bad way to go, other options should have been considered instead of just transposing them onto all kinds of subjects where they do not belong.Skookum1 (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

End of coppied material

Mines should not be on a terrain map or mining district map, they should be on a map that shows the reader (with the assumption that they do not have a detailed knowledge of the local geography) where the mine is with relation to landmarks that they are going to recognize (the shape of a province with map of the country in the inset). The idea of having a locater map in an infobox is to provide a rudimentary location of the subject, if the reader wishes to see a detailed location they are welcome to click on the coordinates at the top of the page. All maps of mines in Elk Valley looking the same is fine, because they are all relatively close to one another, we aren't building a piano here, we just want to give them a general idea of where things are.--kelapstick (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on the issue of "which" map to use as far as RD's or MD's, but I will try to get back on the template horse later today and add capability for "skewed" location maps, ie. ones with circular latitudes and converging longitudes. This will be important for large provinces and states (BC, Western Australia) which happen to be where a lot of mines are - orthographic projection makes these provinces look rather silly. {{Location map skew}} does work with conic projection, it's just a matter of putting the capability into the {{Infobox Mine}} template. Franamax (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with kelapstick on which map to use. An RD map has more meaning for those unfamiliar with a mining district, which will make up the majority of those using this resource. This map makes more sence to be a province/state and should include an inset of the country, as this is a world-wide encyclopedia and the shape of Saskatchewan (an example) is meaningless to most outside North America. A second figure within the article showing the mining district with a mine located relative to that would also be hugely beneficial, but it should not replace the other map. Turgan ^Talk 13:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Company sourced information versus scientific information

In the discussion thread on uranium ore deposits, we have had a discussion where some unsubstantiated East German stuff is quoted, and one POV is that unless information is from a scientific publication it is not kosher. I quote:

• This means we have to veryify facts from respectable institutions, books, and journals. Based on my experience in the mining industry, I would be hard pressed to include mining companies in this list, as they usually don't "publish" thier research, if they do any at all.

My response is as follows:

• If we don't accept private company information as verifiable information, then we can never quote the size, grade, tenor, recoverability, character or indeed the geology of ANY ore deposit save for a special few which get written up in journals.

• The facts are that a lot (99%) of information within the economic geology field is generated by non-University bound scientists working for privately owned companies.

• I believe we can accept company information generated by Publicly listed companies is a matter of legal and public record (especially if it goes for Ni-43 101 or JORC); the numbers used to describe deposit sizes in various economic geology papers are figures quoted under the auspices of these qualification schemes - certainly a university professor isn't going to do his own independent reserve number because if it varied from the company number in any way it would get everyone in unholy stink

• Company scientists who work to accepted norms and QA/QC can produce repeatable results. Namely, when their "research" is proven during the reconciliation of mine performance vs estimated performance during the feasibility study process. The methodology may not be peer reviewed, but it is put to the ultimate acid test, that being the real world mining economy, where errors and omissions come out as losses and disasters, versus politely worded and well argued journal reviews or papers refuting your findings.

So, I throw it over to you: in the context of the modern mining industry, should we demand exclusively peer reviewed journals, or in cases where these are lacking, accept public company information? While Turgan is right that the research done is not often published in a peer reviewed journal, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, cannot be sourced on the intarwebs, and isn't valid. If we accepted ONLY peer reviewed articles, we'd be unable to write about any mining project at all, really. Rolinator (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Rolinator is correct here. Most information on mines and ore deposits ultimately originates from the mining companies themselves in one way or another. For usage guidelines, see WP:SELFPUB, which recognizes that non third-party and non peer-reveiwed material may be used as sources. Plazak (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this too, the primary source is almost always the mining company itself, even if it is published in a secondary source (newspaper or Canadian and American Mines Handbook) the source is going to be the company, and I would suspect the publisher isn't going to do due diligence work to verify. That said you are right, publicly traded companies (especially those that have to produce 43-101 compliant reports) have an obligation to be open with their information. Also 43-101 reports typically are third-party and peer reviewed, so self-publishing results of a 43-101 report is actually publishing third party information.--kelapstick (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I just remembered (and looked at) a Canadian & American Mines Handbook, it shows the remaining reserves for mining operations, although it is information derived from the company no doubt...--kelapstick (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The basic premise of my arguement remains the same, however I can see how it fails in a certain context. Some information, such as resources and reserves, companies are required to report and we accept as such, which I am not arguing. Now under the auspices of NI-43-101 and JORC, companies in certain few juristictions are also required to provide additional geological interpretation and processing information to back this up as well, but this is nowhere near comprehensive. The quality of information out there has definately improved as a result, however these two systems still have issues with regards to inclusion and application (many operations still do not have compliant coverage, if they were in existance prior to implementation, although companies are moving in that direction to ensure compliance). Prior to this, companies only reported what they absolutely had to in an effort to maintain a competitive advantage (yes, this is true, especially for majors who don't need to woo investors), unless they were encouraging employees to publish papers and research, which tends to be the case with anything "new" or potentially "controversial" (and is much more exhaustive in it's coverage and interpretation). The "source media" for the information plays a key role in it's applicability.

The point I was trying to make is that we need to see the "why", not just the "what". Company released information must be viewed carefully and not just taken as "the standard", especially if it has been superceeded by accepted independant research, or disputes accepted independant research. I hope I explained my reasoning a bit better this time, with not so broad a brush stroke. Turgan ^Talk 22:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed moves and naming convention

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.

The decision was to adopt the proposed naming convention listed below, this has been moved to WP:MINESTYLE, discussions about changes should take place in a new discussion.

---

We don't really have a convention for mines of the same name (example McArthur River mine, Northern Territory vs McArthur River mine in Canada I don't think either one would qualify under WP:PRIMARYUSAGE)

I propose ABC Mine (Province) since using ABC Mine, Province follows the same convention as a city/town, plus in places where a mine is in a town of the same name there would be some ambiguity (for example Creighton Mine and Creighton Mine, Ontario would be a problem if there were another Creighton Mine somewhere else.--kelapstick (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hercules Mine, Idaho→Hercules Mine (Idaho) (like Homestake Mine (Nevada))
• McArthur River mine, Northern Territory → McArther River mine (Norther Territory)
• McArthur River mine → McArther River mine (Saskatchewan)
• McArthur River mine → DAB page
• Mount Fitch, Northern Territory → Mount Fitch (Northern Territory)

I agree with the proposal to put the state/province/etc. in parentheses. It makes sense and avoids the confusion issue with cities/towns. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I question state/Province references, as these are meaningless to many in the international or non-mining communities. Will country be more apropriate. Putting comodities in the name might also be a very good idea. This is a topic that was brought up a year ago, by Rolinator and then myself (See here), and is still not resolved, however it has already got more attention this time around.

The Disambiguation page will have to include more than just the mines, and thus should have a shorter name. I will use "McArthur River" as an example as it is the one I am most familiar with.

• McArthur River mine, Northern Territory
• McArthur River mine
• McArthur River, Saskatchewan
• McArthur River - NT, Australia

Not to mention that the mine and river in Australia are also in the McArthur Basin.

All i am asking is lets think this through and get it right the first time. Turgan ^Talk 03:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The commodity would be a good idea, less odds there are two mines with the same name mining the same commodity. I think that using the commodity as the modifier first (McArthur river is uranium in Canada and Zinc in Australia) and then whatever regional breakdown we decide on. The state/province seems to be the precedent for cities/towns so I don't see an issue with using it for mines too, but I can understand lack of knowledge of state/provincial breakdown, by using the commodity first there will be less instances of this, but look at Homestake Mine (and I think there is one in British Columbia), how many of them do you think are gold mines? I like that system using the commodity (before the word mine) and county and state/territory in parentheses when necessary.--kelapstick (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Also note that WP:CANSTYLE would dictate that a river in Saskatchewan named McArthur River would be located at McArthur River (Saskatchewan) not McArthur River, Saskatchwan, I don't know what the Australian standard would be though if we had to move the article about the river in Australia to make way for a DAB page.--kelapstick (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have any strong feelings about these proposals, but would remind editors that, whatever convention we settle on, the simplest name (eg, McArthur River mine ) should always be set to a redirect or dab page. I always try to set redirects for all the common names, to be user-friendly. Not to mention setting up a disambig header, as was done for the example.

Incidentally, I seem to remember a McArthur River uranium deposit in Australia -- near Rum Jungle?? So probably Northern Territory as well. Don't recall if it ever made a mine. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any references to this deposit, or anyone who recalls such a deposit. If you have more info, I would be happy to search further. Turgan ^Talk 00:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This is just a dim memory from my days as a uranium-prospector, [mumble] years ago. Maybe I have confused it somehow with the McArthur River mine, Northern Territory. I've never been there, or to N.T. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution immediately below.--kelapstick (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution

Note that I may use either an upper or lowercase "M" in the word mine, a discussion as to this use is initiated below.

As with all articles, the preferred name is the shortest possible, so therefore if a mine typically is referred to with out the commodity mined it should not be included (example McArthur River mine).

In cases where there are two mines with the same name, the commodity will be inserted. In this case the mine in Saskatchewan would be moved to McArthur River Unranuim Mine and the mine in Northern Territory would be moved to McArthur River Zinc Mine with McArthur River Mine becoming a disambiguation page for the two articles.

If we have to disambiguate between two mines of the same name that mine the same commodity we will use the province/state/territory in parentheses because province/state/territory as is the current standard for disambiguating between two places/things (not cities/towns) of the same name, and cities/towns are disambiguated by commas, and there are towns that have the word "mine" at the end of it (example Creighton Mine and Creighton Mine, Ontario). To use the McArthur River example, if there were another McArthur River Uranium Mine somewhere, the mine in Saskatchewan would be moved to McArthur River Uranium Mine (Saskatchewan). In order to keep the naming as simple as possible and to avoid unnecessary use of pipelinks, the state/province/territory in parentheses will only be used if the mines can not be disambiguated by adding the commodity.

In the case of two mines of the same name, within the same province/state/territory, we will use the city/county (or the geographic region that is used in that state/province/territory), a comma, than the province/state/territory, (example Homestake Mine (Lander County, Nevada)), see Homestake Mine for the full extent of this.

Order

In summary the articles will be named with the following priority:

1. Name Mine (unless the commodity is normally used in the name)
2. Name Commodity Mine
3. Name Commodity Mine (State)
4. Name Commodity Mine (County, State)

For the most part I think we will seldom get beyond #2, and the Homestake mine example is the only example of #4 that I can think of.

Outcome with existing articles

McArthur River

• McArthur River mine → McArthur River Uranium Mine
• McArthur River mine, Northern Territory → McArthur River Zinc Mine
  • McArthur River mine becomes DAB page

Homestake mine

Remains the same until another Homestake mine in Nevada is written, than it may move to Homestake mine (Clark County, Nevada)

I am open to suggestions for changes to improve but I think this is a pretty robust option which will cover every scenario that will come about. --kelapstick (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Anaconda Copper Mine

• Anaconda Copper Mine→Anaconda Copper Mine (Montana)
• Anaconda Copper Mine becomes DAB page for Anaconda Copper Mine (Montana) & Anaconda Copper Mine (Nevada)

---

This sounds like a workable solution, based on the discussion. Turgan ^Talk 06:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If there are no more comments (against the recommendation, or suggested changes) by 13 April 2009, I will close the discussion as adopted and move the content to WP:MINESTYLE.--kelapstick (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2009 (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.

Infobox update

I've added a section to our mining infobox where we can list in the Company section what stock exchange a company is listed at and what its stock code is. An example can be seen at Browns polymetallic ore deposit. The side effect of doing so was, that I had to update all articles the template was used in. I think, while changes are possible to the infobox template, we will have to limit ourselfs in the future to essentials and make it a group effort as the template gets more used. If I've missed I mine, please let me know and I will fix it! EA210269 (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Capitalizing of "mine" in page names

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.

There has been no consensus to standardize the capitalization (or non-capitalization) of the word "mine", nor the mineral mined in article titles. It has been over a week since the last comment, it doesn't look like anybody will be raising any new points, or anyone is changing their position.

---

Any thoughts of the capitalizing of the word "mine" in article names? They are hit and miss depending on who wrote the article. McArthur River example, McArthur River mine is Saskatchewan, McArthur River Mine redirects to McArthur River mine, Northern Territory.--kelapstick (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been going with capitalizing, for example, Wiluna Gold Mine, but I' mhappy to adapt to what ever common format we can agree on. Whats the common practice on wikipedia on other subjects? Anybody knows? EA210269 (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You are aware I hope that there are several discint mines within the Wilina gold field? :P Rolinator (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at WP:NC suggests not to capatalize, unless its a proper noun. Does Gold Mine qualify? EA210269 (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just "gold mine" (as in I used to work at a gold mine.) is not a proper noun, but I would think that "Sunrise Dam Gold Mine" is. If we went with using lowercase, I would think it would have to move to Sunrise Dam gold mine.--kelapstick (talk) 06:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think if it is actually part of the name it should be capitalized. I have held off making any changes like that until we have a consensus on naming so we only have to move once. Turgan ^Talk 12:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a good one for making a choice here, in German, nouns are always capatalized and non-capitalization therefore looks a bit wrong to me, even when I write in English. Its genetic! EA210269 (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's "genetic" in English, too, to see such names capitalized: don't like the Wikipedia standard of no-capitalization on a lot of things, it looks down right odd, and the argument is always "what is a proper noun". Well, a name is a proper noun, whether it's official in common usage; I'll leave off from citing countless examples of "regular English" v. "Wikipedia English". In this case though I'm pretty solid on capitalizing "Mine", whether it's the name of the physical mine or in the company name; Bralorne Mine, e.g. or Giant Mascot Mine or Sullivan Mine. "the mine at Bralorne" is a diferent phrase, and btw doesn't have to mean the main mine (a later name btw was Bridge River Mines Co.). The company name was Bralorne-Pioneer Mines Inc. (or Ltd?) but it was and remains convention to write "Bralorne Mine(s)" for the physical mine (sometimes pluralized because it was a "twin mine" after amalgamation with Pioneer); "Pioneer Mine" also happens to be the town/townsite name for the sister-mine a few miles away; this would be the case in either the local paper, or in the city papers (in the days when theose mines were functioning). Mis-application of the WP:NC "rule" has created lots of weird-looking usages, and silly disputes as to what's a proper name and what's not. In the mining industry, SFAIK, it's standard to capitalize "Mine" in mine-names. I see no reason for Wikipedia to invent its own usage by the imposition of an artbitrary rule here, or on any other topic; re-inventing English is not supposed to be Wikipedia's job....Skookum1 (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If the name of a mine is "X River Gold Mine" then the entire thing is a proper noun, and should be capitalized. There is no reason to use lower case "gold mine" as it is the mine's proper name, not a description. Just my 2 centsThe Seeker 4 Talk 16:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. On most geological maps within Australia, at least, all mines have their name capitalised for each word. Its like saying we should only have Kakadue national park instead of Kakadu National Park. Think about it like that and its eminently more sensible to capitalise.Rolinator (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The convention seems split in the professional journals -- plurality for "Carlin mine" over "Carlin Mine" -- and general usage, with a weaker Google plurality for "Carlin Mine". So whatever we do would have support. Personally, I lean towards initial caps for the title, but I've usually used "Example mine" here, thinking that was MOS policy. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use google as a resource for deciding whether to capitalise or not. Google is populated as much by ignorants using bad grammar as those who know the proper way of doing things and use good grammar.Rolinator (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at the actual search pages before generalizing. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Being a Yank, I've followed the US Geological Survey convention of keeping "mine" lowercase. What is the convention of geological surveys in other English-speaking countries? Plazak (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I happen to have handy a copy of "Geology and Economic Minerals of Canada" (Economic Geology Series No. 1) by the Geological Survey of Canada, and I note that the Canadian Survey also keeps "mine" lowercase. Thus on page 89, they refer to the "Eldorado mine" on Great Bear Lake. Plazak (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Scanning the website of Geoscience Australia, they too keep "mine" in lower case. Plazak (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at Barrick and Newmont's sites show they use lowercase, also Barrick calls the Cortez Gold Mine the Cortez gold mine. Goldcorp, Inco and Xstrata didn't actually list the name of their mines.--kelapstick (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I also happen to have a copy of CIM Magazine at my desk, which is using lowercase "m"s.--kelapstick (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the British Geological Survey website: they, too, keep "mine" in lower case. It is becoming clear that if wiki mining articles are to conform with professional practice worldwide, we should keep "mine" in lower case. Plazak (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Since "Example mine" also follows normal Wikipedia title practice, that would seem to be the one for us to standardize on. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification, will it be, for example, be Wiluna gold mine or Wiluna Gold mine then? I think, once thats decided, we can just move all relevant articles without discussing each move separatly. EA210269 (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is mixing generic with specific, so people seem to be getting confused. Where a mine includes the term "mine" in it's official name (e.g. Kidd Mine) then the term should be capitalised here. Where the mine is discussed in general, or the term is used simply to describe, then it is not. Therefore, the official operation name is Kidd Mine, but can also talk about the Kidd mine. As you can see Kidd Mine can stand alone as it is a proper noun. If you use a lowercase m for the word mine then it is a common noun and you will need to use the definite article (the) before the location name. Horses for courses. Please let's not try to define some dogmatic "standardization"; use each method as and when it is appropriate. As for Wiluna. From what I see of Apex's official documentation it's official name is the Wiluna Gold Project, but as we use a common names policy on Wikipedia (and most people just refer to it as a "mine") the Wikipedia page ought to be Wiluna gold mine, using common nouns. Pyrope 07:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought that I had debunked your Kidd Mine example, but upon further inspection of the CIM Magazine I had mentioned earlier, the refer to it as the Kidd mine like you had mentioned. There are quite a few more examples of the same nomenclature, and that would explain why a lot of references would come up with the lower case "m" since they usually refer to it as "the Name mine" as that is the way it is used in conversation, but Wikipedia article names for mines should never start with "the". I honestly don't know which way we should go with this, but whatever way we do go but we have to be consistent for all article names so that when wikilinking to an article there is never any question as to what the text should be (uppercase or lower case). As if we didn't have enough trouble coming to agreement USGS example of "the Anaconda Mine". So I am proposing a solution, it may not be the best one but at least it is one, you can put support or oppose so we can at least see where everyone stands, if anyone has an alternative, feel free to propose it in a new section.--kelapstick (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution - capitalization

Names of mines are considered proper nouns, all words in the title of the article should be capitalized, including the mineral and the word "Mine". Example Cortez Gold Mine not Cortez gold mine. In prose of an article when the name of a mine is preceded by the definitive article (the), the mineral and the word "mine" may be lower case (example "the Cortez gold mine") provided it is consistent within the article.--kelapstick (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• support my own proposal--kelapstick (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support I support this as it makes more sense to me. It seems useage of the capitalization of mineral and mine is mixed, so no clear guiding principle. The mine name is a proper noun so the entire title of the Wikipedia article should be capitalized. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: this proposal appears to conflict with the WP:MOS naming convention: "Convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is almost always capitalized in English (for example, as in proper names and book titles). Thus, capitalize the second word in John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Video game.[3] (Emphasis added)--Pete Tillman (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that it is not conflicting because it is a proper noun. When you have sources calling a certain mine "the Deleware copper mine" it would be as written, not capitalized, but if you are referring to the mine as a title, such as for a WP article, it would be "Deleware Copper Mine", capitalized because it is a proper noun. A search on Google may give a mix of results, but when some of those results are from "the Deleware copper mine" the fact it is a mix only means the word series "deleware copper mine" is sometimes used as a proper noun (when all caps) and sometimes descriptively, as in "the Deleware copper mine". Unlike Video game, Deleware Copper Mine is a proper noun, and should be capitalized, the same as John Wayne. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

But the chances are that it's real name isn't Delaware Gold Mine, and you are therefore inventing your own proper noun. Pyrope 21:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Against Use lowercase as these are common nouns (not proper nouns!), unless they are a part of the mine's official name in which case they should be capitalized. Pyrope 21:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support: The name should be capitalized in the title, for example, Sunrise Dam Gold Mine is capitalized on the AngloGold website. Keep all the titles capitalized for conformities sake. EA210269 (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Another bad example. In that case the official name (hence a proper noun) is indeed Sunrise Dam Gold Mine. And why are people always so obsessed with nailing things into a mould of "conformity"? Use the most appropriate form for each case, or is that just too difficult? Pyrope 02:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It’s not conformity, it’s consistency. Making it easy for editors to to link to a mine without having to know the "official" name of the mine is a good idea, especially when it has no adverse effect. --kelapstick (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we are just after a common way to name all articles rather then have a bit of everything. I think, other wikiprojects do the same. Whats then used within the article can vary, according to whats proper but, I think, the titles should all use the same system. EA210269 (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, why? For what reason? Some mines are best known by their official name, while others are better known by some general name, especially if the mine has changed hands a number of times or the official title is complex or cryptic. Other Wikiprojects follow the common names policy whereby a page is titled as a majority of people are likely to understand the subject. With your proposal we would either be capitalizing common nouns or using lowercase for proper nouns, which goes against the rules of English syntax, Wikipedia policy, and common sense. For what? Because it looks prettier? That's not really a good enough answer. And as for editors needing to know what to link to, that's why this site is equipped with a search engine. There are a small set of editors who just wikilink terms without actually checking that they are linking to something, but this is small and to make policy for the minority is daft. Pyrope 00:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is just a discussion & vote to find out what the general opinion on the subject is, no point getting to irrate about it! We are just exchanging ideas here to see whether the is a way to name articles we can all agree on. If there is not, it won't be such a big deal, we just continue as we have so far. EA210269 (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not irate about it, I'm just challenging poorly-supported opinions. Discussions are just that: interaction. If we all just paste up opinions without testing them then where would we be? ;-) Pyrope 04:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Against. We should only capitalize them if it is in fact the proper name. We can't invent names, and as we all know, once something gets put here (on the internet), it generally becomes the "correct" form for those not in the know. I would have to say we stick with the MOS on this one. We can still ensure that the proper name is clearly identified in the first line of the article as well. Turgan ^Talk 06:25, 26 March 2009 (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.

Suggested mining bio

While there are hundreds of worthy mining bios out there ready to be written, somebody in the naming conventions thread above mentioned uranium prospecting and it brought to mind Vernon J. Pick - here is a google for "Vernon Pick" - who is one of the more, um, intriguing and sometimes controversial characters out there. I'm not good with bios; in a netscape inbox filed away somewhere in stored hard drives Iv'e got a communication from one of this old colleagues/collaborators/competitors which opened my yes about him; I'd mostly only known about Walden North and Walden South, his post-nuclear war bunkers in Arizona (or Nevada?) and British Columbia; turns out he was also rather like N. Tesla in some ways.....anyway for those of you interested in the eclectic and prospectorial side of mining history, suggest you look into him. Similarly, though from an earlier era and not an inventor/tecnologist like Pick was, currently Volcanic Brown is only a stub, sort of.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent source

Underground mining methods is a great source I found today when working on El Teniente.--kelapstick (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Stoping (mining method)

Stoping (mining method) was recently created as a merge of Shrinkage stope mining and stull stoping. The lead of the article was taken from stoping (which is about the geology term), and doesn't really cover the topic as a whole (in my opinion), also some of the other types of stoping need to be added (cut and fill, long hole stoping etc.)--kelapstick (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you're fast! I hope you agree the change was a step in the right direction, at least. I agree the article needs more work; I was planning on tidying it up a bit over the next few days.  —SMALLJIM  21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't decided if I agree or disagree with the move/merge...The two stoping articles were both pretty small, so might be better grouped into one article, but there are quite a few stoping method articles that haven't been created, so the merged article becomes more incomplete than the split articles are as stubs. Room and pillar could be called a type of stoping, depending on your definition, but it would overtake the entire article, so a summary included with a hat note would be more appropriate (and if the other two are expanded that would be appropriate too). I have never seen an actual definition of "stoping" written down, might be something to look for.--kelapstick (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be sensible to treat all types of stoping in one article because it's more convenient for the general reader that way. The usual procedure of creating sub-articles can apply if it gets too large. But I wouldn't complain if you decide that a different approach is more appropriate, as long as something remains for general links to point to, e.g. "Work started at the mine in 1903, but stoping did not start until 1905."

A quick look at a couple of online glossaries suggests that "stoping" simply refers to the removal of the wanted ore - the productive phase of mining - as opposed to the necessary processes of exploration, maintenance, driving shafts and adits etc. I must admit that that is a wider definition than I understood the term to mean, and it suggests that stoping is really the only mining method there is, so perhaps Stoping (mining) would be a more accurate title. Expert needed!  —SMALLJIM  23:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, because in my mind, all mining is stoping in some form, as (again in my mind) all mining takes place in a stope, and the intro (from the merged article) says stoping is done in steep ore bodies, which I disagree with. --kelapstick (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've rewritten the article. I'm sure it's more accurate now, but further work is needed.  —SMALLJIM  10:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Mining Portal

I have started to create a Mining Portal. All contributions and ideas are welcome. Turgan ^Talk 11:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Suitable category name for ISR/ISL mines

Time to slightly reopen a previous discussion on categories with regards to in-situ leach operations ...

I am proposing to create a category tree:

• Main Category Category:Solution mining → Sub-Category Category:Solution mines

This group of mines is growing. There are currently five uranium mine articles that will fit in this category, with another in the works (in my user space). Any comments or concerns before I go ahead and implement this category tree? Turgan ^Talk 23:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The in-situ leach article claims the technique is not used in the Gold mining. However, a similar one is used at Wiluna Gold Mine, where water is pumped onto waste dumps and gold leached out that way. From memory, at least one other mine in WA uses the same system. Would that qualify the mine for your category? Calistemon (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Waste dump material is not in-situ, and so the examples you offer are apparently not in-situ leaching. If you can cite examples of gold leaching of rock still in the ground, then the article should certainly be changed to reflect that fact. Plazak (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not in the ground. I see what you are getting at, thanks for the hint, that answers my question. I had a look, the article for the above mentioned process in gold mining is Heap leaching. Calistemon (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Created tree Category:Solution mining → Category:Solution mines → Category:Solution mines by country ... Turgan ^Talk 12:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Horse

While trying to expand the Horse (geology) article, I came across reference to usage of the term to describe a slice or lens shaped piece of country rock within a mineral vein. It seems very likely that structural geologists took over the term to describe fault bounded slices of rock. Does anybody here know if the term 'horse' is till in use in mining, or anything about its origin? If it's still used in mining the article needs modifying to reflect that. Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Cornish Miners Association at http://www.cornishminers.com/wordsh.htm have the following for "horse" - "A substantial piece of country rock, i.e. granite, that is totally surrounded by a lode, the lode having isolated it when infilling. " DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Duncan, I've found a few others glossaries with the same definition and some strong indications that the term is in current use. I'm going to try to rewrite the horse article to reflect both the mining and structural usages, rather than splitting into two articles. Mikenorton (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've found a few more usages at the Hacettepe University Department of Mining Engineering Dictionary of Mining, Mineral, and Related Terms, homepage at http://www.maden.hacettepe.edu.tr/dmmrt/ and the entry for horse at http://www.maden.hacettepe.edu.tr/dmmrt/dmmrt564.html#d11835 DuncanHill (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Lists of mines by jurisdiction

I just happened to find List of mines in the Northwest Territories this morning while seeing what sort of mine lists there might be; I've been pondering starting a List of mines in British Columbia and clearly similar lists for Montana, Colorado, Utah, Washington, Idaho, Ontario, Quebec etc etc make a lot of sense; but to avoid thousands of entries, i.e. every claim and every stope, what sort of parameters can be used to limit notability, other than discretion? I'm thinking of a sortable table, with mine name, latlong, location and/or any associated company town, primary ore, secondary ore, years of operation, original/current ownership, etc. Notable ones are many, so I won't clutter this page with a "short" list (off the top of my head I can probably think of a few dozen). Another consideration is to separate coal mines from other types.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the general rule for such lists is include mines that merit their own aritcle (based on normal notability standards). Even if the mine doesn't have an article yet it should be red-linked in the list, which would in turn encourage creation of the article. What are the notability guidelines specific to mines? That I have no clue, probably haven't been enough mine articles brought to AFD to determine any accurate feel for consensus on the matter. Is there a discussion in the past which established a guideline for mine notability? The Seeker 4 Talk 13:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mines themselves have not been declared "inherantly notable", but in my experience there is usually enough coverage to pass the gng. I have never seen a mine article be deleted as a result of a deletion discussion.-kelapstick (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

suggested rough guidelines:

• size/scale/economic importance
• historical importance (i.e. otherwise minor economically but which may have started a rush, or where the owners were notable, or some important event may have happened, e.g. a major strike, explosion, collapse etc...)
• geologically/mineralogically unusual
• politically significant or controversial; this would apply also to proposed mines, such as the Hat Creek lignite deposit in BC; although undeveloped it's technically already a mine because of exploration pits. Another that got nixed but was a political hot potato was the Windy Craggy Mine proposed for the Tatshenshini-Alsek
• anything else?Skookum1 (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You also may want to check out List of active gold mines in Nevada and List of active gold mines in Western Australia for some formatting ideas. --kelapstick (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, but just now I started List of mines in British Columbia using the concept you started and I expanded re the NWT....gotta run now, will expand that list significantly later on tonight/tomorrow (meeting might be a drinking meeting....).Skookum1 (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[undent]Some mines I'm not sure what to call them, without a lot of digging, e.g. the iron interest on Texada that Amor de Cosmos had his fingers dirtied with, the name of the coal mine at Fort Rupert etc...the mines for Anyox, Kincolith and so on.....we have lots of mining communities articles, but few on the actual mines, e.g. the iron dig at Tasu, the asbestos mine at Cassiar.....it's also an issue that the mines change names with different eras/stock options/ownerships, and the prospect is often different-named than the production stope; I know that's the case with Giant Mascot, for instance....this is the MINFILE Inventory Report for Craigmont, a formerly copper and now magnetite dig just W of Merritt; MINFILE would have data on each of your Nanaimo mines....and I'm wondering whether {{MINFILE}} might not be a bad idea as a way to abbreviate/format refs by MINFILE number......similar to {{BCGNIS}}, {{gnis}}, {{CGNDB}} but maybe also with a parser built in that would strip/excerpt the latlongs in the MINFILE records...For expediency, and also because mines were/are often referred to by the town that they owned/created, even if the DBA name of the mine itself might be different, maybe just town+mine would suffice, e.g. Cassiar Mine, or Hendrix Lake Mine, with the target articles winding up with their names changed when "the truth is found" (and again, because mine-names could change, but the town and most-common-name didn't, the town+name might make most sense in many cases, e.g. Sparwood Mine). Sometimes there'll be agglomerations, as with Bralorne (which combined hte Lorne Mine with the Bralco Mine, then added the Bre-X Mine - at Brexton - and ultimately incorporated Pioneer Mine as well. I think a lot of the Slocan silver mines fall in teh same category, but I don't know the silver rush history well enough to say much more. NOT included would be gold-bearing bars and prospects, though major placer operations like the Bullion Pit in the Cariboo are notable enough to be included and were mines, as opposed to agglomerations of claims like Hill's Bar or Emory Bar. All that being said, thoughts welcome....one reason I've proposed this is not just because of BC mines but because when viewing/searching GNIS records I'm always seeing mines listed in Alaska, Washington, Idaho etc....and mining is such an important part of regional history it's a big blank spot that there's no more coverage/organization of these so far....as for making a "list of active mines in British Columbia", the dynamic of mining in BC is in constant flux depending on world markets and government policy; I don't think it would be practical...and many once-dead/dormant mines are often in re-exploratory or tailing-recycling phases, like Bralorne and Craigmont respectively, so the line between active, dormant, dead and "in exploration" or "in redevelopment" is very vague at times.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've created Category:Mining-related lists to have a common place for all these lists. I think, an inclusion criteria for those lists is essential, after all, the history of mining goes back a long way and a List of mines in Irak could very well include mines in Babylonian times! When I created List of active gold mines in Western Australia, the idea was to only include active mines, I've later expanded it to contain mines that are closed but planned to reopen in the near future, too. Another inclusion criteria I set for myself was, that the mine had to be either listed in the annual Western Australian Mineral and Petroleum Statistics or at least produce 10,000 ounces of Gold a year. I think, for non-Gold mines, similar production requirements can be set, too, to keep the lists to a resonable size. One other thing, to me a mine is only a mine if it has production facilities too, not just an open pit or underground operation, but thats only a personal standard. Calistemon (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

List of mines in British Columbia expanded

I've done quite a bit of work on it today; please have a look; I'm thinking maybe the Comments section could just be alt-names and leave the extraneous to the articles themselves, once created; all lat-longs are from [List of mines in British Columbia BC MINFILE] - that's the search page, that link, and very useful. In some cases of multipla mines like Highland Valley Copper, which is actually one company in the Highland Valley area, the others being Lornex, Bethlehem and others, I've cnosolidated their entries as one, also with the mines at Premier, British Columbia and Copper Mountain, British Columbia, likewise Bralorne though for now I've listed Pioneer Mine separately. The refs I'll add the name-specifics to later, some for now just say "MINFILE Mineral Inventory". Many of those I've added are extremely notable mines - Cariboo-Amelia, Cariboo Gold Quartz, Bralorne, Premier....and I've barely scratched the surface re coal mines, so to speak.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Good work so far Skookum, I did remove the "magnetite" from the commodity list as iron is the commodity, magnetite is the mineral (they were both listed). I am slightly uncomfortable with italicizing "controversy" and "under development" together, since they aren't really the same thing as an operating mine can have controversy too. Perhaps listing notable controversy in the comments is a better approach?--kelapstick (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

such nicties can be worked out; of course. The magnetite/iron thing is a distinction made in the source (MINFILE, but also in Craigmont's webpage); magnetite is a certain substance, I think it should be listed separately. Highland Valley/Craigmont is not an iron mine....magnetite is a commodity in its own right; just as imestone and marble are ostensibly the same thing, but for different purposes. BTW would you say things like the Klappan Coalbed Methane Project are mines too, or just energy developments?Skookum1 (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My point is we are not listing the mineral that the metal comes from (i.e. we are not listing chalcopyrite as a commodity we are listing copper), we are listing the metal itself. Even if they are shipping unprocessed magnetite they are shipping it for the iron, and nothing else. I understand where you are coming from, I just disagree. I wouldn't consider anything that is not undertaking excavation a mine, i.e. oil/natural gas drilling wouldn't be included. I also would not include proposed mines that never got built, as they are not actually mines, they are projects. If there are enough notable projects that did not fly, it might be a good idea to include them in a separate table in the same article. --kelapstick (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"We" are listing what the sources say, not what we want to interpret the sources as saying.. It doesn't sound to me like you've read Craigmont's page, or the attached MINFILE ref either. Magnetite there was being recovered as magnetite for some purpose associated with coal mining/productino; it was not being mined for its iron; Craigmont, unlike Tasu, is not an "iron mine". Metals are not the only kind of commodity; asbestos and jade come to mind immediately in that regard there are also clay mines (Clayburn and Kilgard....and a gravel or stone or lime quarry is also a mine (by law and also by nature of the operation)). Camp McKinney/Cariboo Amelia, primarily a gold mine, also produced pyrophyllite (Al₂Si₄O₁₀OH₂) and silica - not aluminum and silicon. as such. Cassiar is listed in MINFILE as producing Chyrsotile Mg₃(Si₂O₅)(OH)₄ in addition wo whatever other kind of asbestos MINFILE means by dint of listing it separately; composed of Magnesium and Silicon it as not mined for those metals, but as itself. In Montana there's a mine that produced vermiculite (aka zonolite), by way of an example of another kind of substance mine not for its metallic component but for its own properties. MINFILE also distinguishes, or usually does, between anthracite, bituminous or lignite coal - "carbon" is not the commodity.Skookum1 (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And re projected/proposed mines, the only one of import that I can think of is Windy Craggy, and it's important because the controversy led to the creation of the World Heritage Site in that region...or rather the addition of the "BC Panhandle" into taht WHS; and proposals do get articles e.g. Rampart Dam and the aforementioned Klappan project.Skookum1 (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the interruption, but should mines be listed by country? I know it would be quite lengthy, but it seems like British Columbia, Northwest Territories are the only regions that have mine lists. Canada is more than British Columbia and Northwest Territories sorry to say. BT (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

BT, the only reason there's only a BC list and a NWT list is because I saw the NWT list and decided to make the BC one; YT, AB, SK, MB, ON, PQ, NS nd NL (and NU) clearly all need their own lists. I just happened to know bout MINFILE, I'm not familiar with web resources on mining in other provinces, I'm sure they're out there, or industry sites such as InfoMine; it's not like I wanted to spend all week making up lists of coal mines in Nova Scotia and Alberta.... Some US states will need their own lists; others maybe can be done by region, some may not appear at all (e.g. Louisiana).Skookum1 (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think, listing by state, or territory, will keep the lists within a resonable size, at least for big mining countries like Canada, Australia or Russia. For small countries thats propably not necessary. A List of mines in Canada would be very long! Personally, I've gone even further, splitting it into commodities as well. Calistemon (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Commodities won't work, other than maybe coal as a separate grouping. Gold, copper, silver often occur together, and silver can occur with lead and tin etc (see galena, which was teh central mineral of the Slocan silver rush). See above about metals v. commodities also.Skookum1 (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright that is fine with me. I would make mine lists for the other Canadian territories and provinces, but I doubt I would be able to make them like the BC and NWT lists. I know there is abandoned mines lying around that are either not very noticable or they have been forgotten from long-term abandonment. This includes old mines that have been heavily wooded by trees and other plants. Some do not even appear on the internet, so it would likely be hard to find out what mineral/metal they mined. BT (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Abandoned mines would propably have to be a list of its own. In the early days (pre 1900), mines were small and plentyful, to list them all would be impossible. Even the Western Australian government departments don't have complete lists of WA, to my knowledege and the same propably goes for Canada. Calistemon (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno about that; MINFILE is pretty thorough, although some entries are fairly cursory; I'd imagine at least the Yukon, Ontario and Quebec governments have similar databases; in early BC the main agency of government in most regions was the gold commissioner, i.e. the mines commissioner; if records are not transferred into MINFILE they're defintely in the BC Archives, unless destroyed by fire or accident; these are probably more throughly documeneted than timber cutting licenses or land titles, in fact; the whole point of MINFILE's Mineral Inventories is to summarize for investors/developers what there is in the ground in BC, and how/where to find it; so every tidbit of information about who mined what where is online. "Abandoned" notable mines (Bralorne, Cassiar, Highland Valley, Cariboo Amelia, Cariboo Gold Quartz etc) are typically being redeveloped/re-explored so aren't really abandoned and often are still attached to active stock portfolios. This is also true of the hundreds of placer claims in the Klondike, to this day, even though many are inactive...(physically inactive, yet still active on paper, that is)Skookum1 (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

BC, Ontario, Quebec, and NWT could all easily fill up their own list, NS maybe but I am not sure how many coal mines operated there. Saskatchewan, likely as there are a lot of potash and quite a few uranium and at least one gold mine that I know of. A List of mines in Canada (which I have started) would likely have headings for each province with a {{main}} link under the provinces that have their own pages. The reason I stuck with operating gold mines in Nevada was three fold, I had a list of all operating mines in Nevada (all commodities) from the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, gold is the most mined commodity in Nevada currently (and NV is the largest producer in the US, clearly a notable status), and there have been so many mines in NV that including all defunct mines two would be a very long list, and likely impossible to complete (at least by me :D). I am thinking that as the provincial lists expand they may be split into sub tables by major commodity, i.e. what is the primary focus of the mine.--kelapstick (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Maps

I've added a "Maps" section to the project page, as mapping is an important part of mining, I think. New mining maps can be listed there, too. Calistemon (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Offline resources

I have made a list (hopefully I will keep it current) of all the off-line resources that I have at my disposal (i.e. they are within arms reach, or at the most I have to walk to the other side of my desk). I listed them User:Kelapstick/Resources, if there is anything that anyone needs sourced (like they find the date of an article in The Northern Miner but can't access it because of a paywall, I may have a hard copy here provided it is within the last two years).--kelapstick (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Gunnar mine

I found this image of the Gunnar mine (is that the name) headframe, anyone know anything about it to make an article about it?--kelapstick (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Article now exists at Gunnar Mine. Feel free to contribute and expand. Turgan ^Talk 02:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

silver valley Idaho

Hello, I am kind of new to wiki, for the last couple of months i have been doing random research on the mines in the Couer D Alene mining district in Idaho. I have been doing this kind of lost in the ways of the wiki community.

To me its not about the mines, but about the communities that were built around the mines. I have added several towns and serveral mines to the list in Shoshone County Idaho. I am running into problems I posted in my Independence artical a refrance that can be found online, but the document is over 314 pages of techincal and historical information on several mines.

My main problem is that i am not that good with wikis writing rules but I know what I am talking about. I have a geology back ground and understand the techicals of the geology, but i have issues with editors that take down or eliminate my post even when they are cited.

I am hoping that someone in this group or that see this might be able to help.

Currently I am working on getting information on these mines:

• Morning Mine Mullan, Idaho
• Star Mine Wallace, Idaho
• Gelena Mine Silverton, Idaho currently an active mine
• Cresent Mine Big Creek, Idaho

Polaris mine :this one i am not sure if its the correct spelling, its located on the western edge of Osburn, Idaho

There are many more Major mines in the area, but finding citeable history on them is harder then I thought it would be.

any help would be great Lostpl8 (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the problems with people removing edits you make that are sourced, do you have specific examples? Often a post is removed by someone because it is in the wrong place, is unclear as far as the relevancy to the article it is added into, or the post itself violates one of the miriad of Wikipedia rules and guidelines, even though the information contained is valuable and should be included. Let us know if there are specific areas where information you think should be included is being challenged. Even if the information does not belong where you placed it by Wikipedia norms, editors here may be able to suggest other articles where it is more appropriate. Thanks, and glad to have you here. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You might want to consider creating the articles in userspace first, and posting a note here asking for someone to look at it, then move it over to the main article space. So for the mines listed above I would suggest:

• User:Lostpl8/Morning Mine
• User:Lostpl8/Star Mine
• User:Lostpl8/Gelena Mine
• User:Lostpl8/Cresent Mine

Also US Silver has a pretty large (unsourced) section on the Galena mine. What did they mine at the Polaris mine? Because that will change how it is named (currently Polaris Mine is about the zinc mine in Canada, it would be moved to Polaris zinc mine, if one about the mine in Idaho were created).

If you create them in userspace and post a note here, I am sure someone (myself included) would be happy to go through them to make sure they are to a standard that will prevent them from being deleted. Also you may want to do a Google News search for references too, most mines have a lot of news sources about them, even older ones. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

the Polaris mine is a lead/zinc/silver mine located in osburn (I believe), I am still tracking things down on it, I believe that the polaris mine in idaho, is one of the mines listed in a law suit that created many of the mining laws in Idaho, I am still working on finding that law suit, its an odd one about cows and horses and tailing ponds, i hope i can find it, its a pretty quarky and odd lawsuit that help create the super fund site in the silver valley about 60 year later.

I hope that i can post a few more mines after christmas when i have more timeLostpl8 (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Large expansion of Sulphur Bank Mine article

Four or five months later, a husband/wife team of writers have finished this expansion of Sulphur Bank Mine. If anyone is interested in doing a peer review and/or good article nom, we would be grateful for your time and effort. My biggest concern is the length, but if you have ever worked with a spouse, editing is even harder.

Best wishes and happy reading. Marcia Wright (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mine or mine?

I've noticed that some article are named XXX mine and others XXX Mine. Is there any consensus as to which is the best to use? Smartse (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion, but no consensus was reached. There may be a link to the discussion at WP:MINESTYLE. If not it's in this page's archives. kelapstick (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

After looking, I see there is no comment about that at minestyle...I mustn't have added it when I closed the discussion. It should be added. kelapstick (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's a bit confusing there not to be one ideal way to do it either way but I can see that it isn't a clear cut decision. Thanks anyway. Smartse (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow the standard rules of English grammar and syntax. If the mine's formal name is XXX Mine, then use it capitalised as it is a proper noun. If you are simply describing what XXX is then it is not a proper noun and so should not be capitalised. This is not a topic suitable for "consensus" adjudication. Pyrope 13:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was there is no consensus to standardize titles, either as capital "M" or lowercase "m". --kelapstick (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What made me ask was that Xikuangshan mine was renamed to Xikuangshan Mine. I would say it should be mine, since the sources used in the article use it rather than Mine. I can understand why someone renamed it though when most of the articles on this project's page seem to be Mine. Smartse (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And my point was that attempts at standardization of such titles are simply wrong. Usage varies. A drive to standardize titles often ends up with our pages being wrong. Take Boliden's Tara mine as an example. Boliden and much of the industry press (e.g. InfoMine refers to it as "Tara", "Tara mine", or the "Tara zinc mine". However, our page uses Tara Mine. Obviously the Wikipedia page needs to be disambiguated from Tara, but that should be done using the principals of WP:COMMONNAME. If someone has renamed a mine page to a form not actually in use then they are wrong to have done so. Just because some pages are wrong doesn't mean thay others should be too. Pyrope 17:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fly-in fly-out

Should there be a Category:Fly-in fly-out mine to destinguish mines that primarily rely on local employees from the ones, usually in remote locations, that rely on a Fly-in fly-out work force? What are everyones thoughts? Calistemon (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ring of fire?

Greetings all. I've received an email from Ontario Nature about environmental risks associated with the "Ring of Fire" mining area northeast of Thunder Bay, Ontario. The term seems at least locally used, for instance this or anything returned by a google.ca search for "ring of fire mining district". But I don't see a description on this 'cyclo. Is this a valid geological formation? Is it article-worthy? Regards! Franamax (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

This will definitely be a good list to have. Turgan ^Talk 04:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

please let me know if you have any questions at all. I hope this helps your project :) Okip 04:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 22:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Tri-State district

Can someone from this wikiproject look at Tri-State district? I was wondering if the name should be changed to "Tri-State Mining District." I am also not sure if every word in the name should be capitalized or not. Of course any addition to the substance of the article is appreciated too. Thanks, Cmcnicoll (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mining company templates

I've reworked the two templates Template:AngloGold Ashanti and Template:Barrick Gold as well as creating categories for both companies. I would like to do the same for the other gold mining giants. What I would like to know is whether to break the mines down into continents and countries like in the Anglo template or just continents like in the Barrick one? Whats better? Calistemon (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made up my own mind and went with the Barrick option. Calistemon (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Panzós massacre

I just removed a section about the Panzos massacre from Vale Inco land disputes, as I was unable to find a reliable source linking the two. I found lots of unreliable sources, but nothing that could be used to link the death of several dozen people to an operating company. I did find reference to a book that says that the massacre was cause by abuse by plantaion owners here. I will keep looking, and maybe start an article on the massacre, (currently it redirects to Panzós), but if anyone can find something usable that can directly link (or directly unlink) the two, that would be great. Cheers, --kelapstick (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Roman total iron output

You are invited to take part in a discussion on a scholarly estimate of total Roman iron production here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mining articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Mining articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

An 8x-DYK for WikiProject Mining

User:Bine Mai got an 8x-DYK consisting of mining articles on the main page today! That surely is quite special! Calistemon (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

See Talk:Ravensthorpe Nickel Mine#Merger_proposal. Proposed merger would combine Ravensthorpe Nickel Mine and BHP Billiton Ravensthorpe Nickel Project. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

An alternative to the merger that I could see would be to move the article to BHP Billiton Nickel West, the branch of BHP dealing with all Nickel operations in Australia. I think it would be a good home for all this information. It's similar to Barrick, I guess, where we have a Barrick Gold and an African Barrick Gold article. Calistemon (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Copiapó mining accident Informal review request

I am one of the principal editors working on the 2010 Copiapó mining accident.

I would like to invite experienced project members to visit our article and offer their views on how were are doing for an "A" class before we request an actual assessment.

A good portion of the article involves discussion of mining procedures, equipment and technology. We've worked to address some of the technical aspects and terminology but could use some expert eyes to make sure we've presented the information factually and explained it adequately.

We also need an opinion on the article's importance rating within the scope of the mining project.

Thanks, Veriss (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Input required: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio Tinto Mines

Could the members of the project please provide some input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio Tinto Mines. Thanks, Calistemon (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

This article was created on 31 Jan. 11, and a discussion from 5-13 Feb. led to the recommendation that it be merged into a parent article, Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, based on issues of encyclopaedic value, neutral point of view, etc.

On 15 Feb, I re-opened the merger discussion, on the original article's talk page, based on advice made 14 Feb. by the administrator who closed the previous discussion. Briefly, the reasons for re-opening discussion are that new information was added to the article on 8, 10 and 15 Feb., after most of the previous discussion's contributions had already been made. New material in the introduction section, coupled with added statistics on Canadian mining assets from Natural Resources Canada, assert that Canadian extractive activities, differentiated from other countries' activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, constitute a unique case that warrants a separate Wikipedia article. The more general article then requires only a summary entry on Canada, I argue, directing readers to the sub-article for full coverage. My detailed argument and summary of the previous discussion appears as the first entry on the talk page.

I therefore encourage members of the WikiProject Mining group, with their cumulative subject expertise, to review and assess the article, and if possible, to contribute to the discussion. This appears to be the first article in a class (Country X) mining in (Country Y), so perhaps deserves some attention. Thank you, IVX8O8XVI (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD - Beowulf Mining

I opened an AfD on Beowulf Mining because it was sourced mostly to press releases. If someone can add info from reliable sources that demonstrates Notability, it would be much appreciated.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Members

I just cleaned up the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Members page, sorted it out between active members and inactive members based on an arbitrary threshold of no edits to Wikipedia within the last 6 months. Threshold can be adjusted, or the idea can be scrapped, just thought it would be easier to keep track of who will respond if someone asks for information.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Turgan ^Talk 09:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Chester Emery Mines

The former emery mines in the town of Chester, Massachusetts may deserve an article. It seems like an interesting subject, but it is a bit outside my areas of expertise. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Update to infobox

Please see Template talk:Infobox mine#Update to infobox. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

New article

Your attention is called to a new article on metallurgist James M. Hyde. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

hello miners !

can you add/rate asteroid mining in your pages ?--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Mining is mining, also you probably won't find to many people working it that field, yet. I wonder what the roster would be? As to the rating, anyone can rate an article, even yourself as the other, providing its realistic (can't rate a stub as GA). Interesting article. Calistemon (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

New feature in infoboxes

The Infoboxes mine and gold mine have received some interesting upgrades through User:CambridgeBayWeather. Apart from the coordinates now being displayed below the map and the mine name on the map there is also a new line in the infobox named Active. When adding the line active years = between opened and closed, one can list the years a mine was active as mines, especially Australian gold mines, frequently open, close and reopen. Previous to this, the infobox did not really allow for this information to be displayed proberly. Calistemon (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council has been nominated as a good article.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Passed. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance

If any WikiProject Mining members wish to contribute to the Edward J. Wasp (the pioneer of coal slurry pipelines) article, please feel free. I am not familiar enough with the technical aspects of his contributions to get this article to Good status. I have posted a few links on the article's talk page, and I am certain other articles exist so more research is needed. Any assistance would be much appreciated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mining in the Lower Harz

Hi. Having translated a set of articles on historic mining in the Upper Harz in the Harz Mountains of Germany, I'm currently working on mining in the Lower Harz, but have some terminology questions:

• Can the the word "pit" be used to refer to underground mine workings that are extracting metals or minerals other than coal? E.g. could an underground silver mine ever be referred to as a pit? I'm aware the word pit is commonly used for "coal mine".
• I've referred to the artificial channels that divert water from streams etc to the mines for driving water wheels as "ditches". Is that an accepted term? I've also seen the word "leat" used for this type of structure.
• I've used "water tunnel" for the sections of these ditches that are driven through mountains. Is that an acceptable term?
• Is there a good glossary for historic European mining terms that I could refer to? --Bermicourt (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, late, but

• no, and I think it is only coal in Europe or UK (not sure which).
• yes
• yes
• i don't know

No garuntees on advice. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Somerset Coalfield & infobox

I have been trying to cleanup and improve the article about the Somerset Coalfield. Is there a suitable infobox which covers a collection of mines over several hundred years which I could use on the article? Any other advice/edits also welcome.— Rod ^talk 12:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Big Dan Mine

Moved discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mining/Peer_Review#Big_Dan_Mine. Turgan ^Talk 03:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Surface mining

Surface mining is very confused as to its subject. It is far too coal/North american biased. Actually coal in North America biased. I might be able to get to it (rewrite it) in a week or two, but if someone has time to look at it before then it would be appreciated. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Canadian mining in the DRC

Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been nominated for deletion, the discussion is taking place at ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (2nd nomination)‎. Feel free to weigh in on the discussion.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Help ID a northern NV gold mine?

See File:Northern NV gold mine, near Valmy??.jpg -- I first thought it was one of the Newmont Lone Tree complex, see Google satphoto, but no, and the little town next to the mine doesn't figure. Didn't seem to be one of the Crescent Valley mines, either. Help? Aerial courtesy of Doc Searles. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, never mind: it'sRuth, Nevada and the North Pit at the big copper mine there, whose BHP name escapes me: Google satfoto. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Robinson mine?--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hydraulic fracturing

There is a request for comment concerning the Hydraulic fracturing article. Beagel (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Crosscutting

I recreated a mine article months ago and noticed there is no article or redirect for this term. According to the dictionary, a crosscut in mining is "an underground passageway, usually from a shaft to a vein of ore or crosswise of a vein of ore". I am uncertain if this is the same as drift mining because from doing a quick Google search crosscutting and drifting are both present in some texts. Can someone help with this issue? Thanks. Volcanoguy 05:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say that it is a drift that runs perpendicular to another drift, or possibly the ore deposit, I would usually say it is a type of drift. Your mileage may vary, and different countries and sub industries (i.e. coal) frequently have different terms for this sort of thing (i.e. they would call a drift a drive in Australia). If the drift mining article were not such a disaster, I would suggest redirecting it there, although there may be a geology use for it too. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I just piped "crosscutting" to the drift mining article for now. Note I was referring to the Big Dan Mine article you reviewed in February. Volcanoguy 06:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably the most sensible link in that context. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Mines and mining stub

I have proposed a {{Mines-mining-stub}} at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2012/July#Mines and mining. It would seem to be helpful. --Bejnar (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

See Template:Mining-stub which is already available. Vsmith (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that Template:Mining-stub has been around since January 2008. Funny, that stub type is not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types which supposedly lists all stub types. Category:Stub categories is useless for looking up a stub, although I see, in retrospect, that Template:Mining-stub is listed under Category:Geology stubs and Category:Industry stubs. --Bejnar (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

New article on miner's tools

Hi, I've just translated the article on miner's tools, known in German as Gezähe from German Wiki. I'm not sure whether to rename this as "miner's tools" and delete most, if not all, the German terminology. Is it generic enough to convert fully to English, or should the article be left as it is, because it only refers to mining in German-speaking central Europe?

And is it worth creating an article on German mining terminology? Some of it is historical and/or appears to be unique to German-speaking Europe. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bermicourt, just read the article and I personally find it fascinating and can see no reason why the subject should not be covered in English. Keep it up! Thanks OscarK878 (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Powder magazine

Would anyone care to make an article for this? Gunpowder magazine and magazine (artillery) exist, but from looking through them they have nothing to do with mining. Here it states a powder magazine was a building used to store explosives at gold mines in the 1890s. I came across "powder magazine" while I was doing some research to expand and rewrite the Beanland Mine article, which I finished today. Volcanoguy 02:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how Gunpowder magazine isn't able to cover this adequately. Mining is just a specialized form of civil engineering, after all. The article, as it stands, is ridiculously over-specific with all of its discussion of individual magazines in different parts of the world (what are we, a tour guide?) but that's all a mining powder magazine is. Pyrope 03:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Is gunpowder the only explosive powder ever used in mining? Volcanoguy 03:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

List of mines in Quebec

I start a new list about mines in Quebec. I'd like to know what are the most important column to put in the wikitable.--Charitybernhard (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to give some ideas I created List of mines in Temagami in March with a table. Volcanoguy 06:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by Titanium production

hi guys people flagged my List of countries by Titanium production article they say its useless information and so on can you review it too and decide if it should stay or be deleted??--Venajaguardian (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Bering Sea Gold

There is a suggestion to merge Bering Sea Gold and Bering Sea Gold: Under The Ice; for the discussion, please see Talk:Bering Sea Gold -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Any requests for diagrams and line drawings?

Greetings. I'm going through a bunch of old Public Domain books looking for images as part of my general work at the Commons, and I've found quite a few illustrations from mining periodicals and books (including Herbert Hoover's treatise). Many have rather good and simplified line drawings, sections, maps, etc. of various mining and refining techniques and specific mines and ore refineries (albeit as of ca. 1920 and before), and I see that a lot of the various articles have minimal usage of such drawings. Is there anything folks in this project feel there is a strong need for? Or just whatever and whenever I get to it? Trying to find out what folks feel is the priority. Cheers. Morgan Riley (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

COI/SPAM problems on Williams Creek (Cariboo)

this historically important creek in BC mining history is the namesake of a current company promotion who have expanded the article considerably, in their own image; needs mining project intercession, as this is one of the most important gold-bearing creeks in Canadian mining history "richer than California during its palmiest year" as the cite I put on that talkpage says. Not an ad for one company; no time to fix it further; I'll let WP:CANADA know too....needs attention and TLC. see Talk:Williams_Creek_(British_Columbia)Skookum1 (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Revamp the project userbox?

So this is rather trivial, but I noticed when preparing to ad the official project userbox to my page that the image is so small that it isn't really recognizeable. I don't feel altering the template without discussion is proper, so I propose this as a replacement (simply subing out the image):

This user is a member of the WikiProject Mining.

And while I was at it, I thought up this one as well as an second one/less-official one:

This user digs WikiProject Mining.

The extant userbox didn't exist on the master list until just now, and I honestly thing a good userbox there should help increase visibility that this project exists and is active. Thoughts? Should I go through with it? Morgan Riley (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Morgan, and welcome to WP:Mining! I would suggest not changing the template, but rather making the two new ones, choice isn't a bad thing. There is also {{User Miner}} for those who work in mining, which also uses the same symbol. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! That works for me. I admittedly do not work in the field of mining, rather live on top of a former one and regularly watch the trains in their endless cycle hauling down the coal and returning with the empties; I've merely been fascinated since a kid, so my ability to contribute is more on the history side of things. Morgan Riley (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)