Talk:Felling mine disasters

Untitled
To be between Wallsend and Jarrow, it would mean that the mine would have to be under the River Tyne as Wallsend is on the North bank of the Tyne and Felling is on the South. Does the author mean between Gateshead and Jarrow? (As this is where Felling is situated)

Requested move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 05:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Felling mine disaster → Felling mine disasters – article is about multiple disasters that occurred in the colliery. Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The article concentrates on the 1812 explosion and its importance in the development of safety lighting. 1813 is mentioned briefly and 1821 not at all.  I have included slightly more about 1847 because of the unusual nature of the cause (and the jury's recommendations), but the main description, aftermath and memorial is to the biggest, the 1812 explosion.  On balance therefore I prefer the singular, but as the author of most of the work I am probably not the best placed to decide, therefore I'm not entering either an agree or oppose.  If a move is decided upon I would however strongly suggest that the original title is kept as a link. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Felling mine disasters or List of Felling mine disasters is fine by me, per the discussion at SPLIT SECTION below. I would prefer to split the article at the time of the move instead of being a plain rename. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Seems sensible. Not sure about splitting though. Number   5  7  15:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggested split

 * Split apart the 1812 mining disaster should have its own article, so 1812 Felling mine disaster, and a summary left in this article, which would then move to Felling mine disasters or List of Felling mine disasters -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose split Have a look at WP:SIZERULE. Less than 40 kB is not recomended for splitting on size alone, currently this article is 26,563 bytes.  Splitting the article would require the colliery description to be needlessly triplicated and lead to stubs for the 1813 and 1847 articles.  I would suggest that keeping the three disasters together makes logical sense: one colliery, one article. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Who said we would make articles for 1813 and 1847? I certainly didn't. SIZERULE isn't the only reason to split an article, and isn't the reason why I'm saying it should be split either. The 1812 mining disaster currently unbalances this article, and is the most significant disaster, leading to the safety lamp. And why would we need to duplicate the colliery description? The description of the coal mine should be in the mine article, as we don't have one, it would be in the list article. There's no need to duplicate the description for the individual disaster articles, as most of the description has nothing to do with the individual disasters. We don't give detailed information on cities for city disaster articles, or airlines for airline disasters, or shipping lines for ship disasters. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Once you start splitting it would seem to be the logical conclusion, particularly given your suggested List of Felling mine disasters; however I will accept that you did not explicitly suggest articles for 1813 and 1847. The 1812 disaster only unbalances the article in as much as it the most significant historically and in terms of deaths.  1813 would in itself probably not pass WP:NOTE.  Likewise Felling colliery is just one of many small collieries in the area at that time; the significance is in the 1812 disaster and to a lesser extent the 1847.  I would suggest to you that splitting the colliery description from the disaster would make life harder for readers (they need to cross refer two articles instead of simply scrolling), consider WP:RF. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * One more thing. This discussion is meant to be about the article title, not the article body (see Qxukhgiels' original entry) and the banner.  For that reason I am going to insert an additional heading to keep the two threads seperate.  I hope no-one objects. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose- per reasons discussed above.Qxukhgiels (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There has been no further discussion here, so I'm going to be wp:bold and remove the tags from the article to make it easier on ordinary readers; wp:RF. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Felling mine disasters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.dmm.org.uk/memorial/1812052500.htm moved to http://www.dmm.org.uk/memorial/8125p-00.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140514013237/http://www.cmhrc.co.uk:80/cms/document/Felling_1812.pdf to http://www.cmhrc.co.uk/cms/document/Felling_1812.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)