Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining

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)

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)

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)

Proposed moves and naming convention

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)

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)

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

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)

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)