Talk:List of mines in Australia by status

Split
I have split the article so that the technical issues can be better addressed - List of mines in Australia by commodity and List of mines in Australia by state. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * without any disrespect to any editor named or otherwise, what is going on? For an interested observer, who would appreciate some explanation - it would be very useful if possible to have a sense of a conversation rather than allusions to the edit history as source of all knowledge, thanks...  JarrahTree 04:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears that an IP editor has downloaded a lot of information and uploaded it into an article. Each entry appeared twice - once by commodity and once by state - and I have split the two tables into separate articles. The main technical issue is that each entry uses a coordinates template, and the articles reach the limit of how many templates can be used in one article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that - I appreciate the explanation, and understand that it is not just the technical issue - but where the hell it all came from, and whether there any issues with sources etc JarrahTree 07:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for splitting it but both articles still exceed the size limit - meaning that template:coord doesn't work for the lower half of the list. They may need to be split further but I'm not sure how.&mdash; Rod talk 08:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The next reasonable splits would be the gold mines from the commodity list and Western Australia from the state list. There may be other ways to condense or remove content from the lists though. Mines which produce more than one commodity are listed more than once in the commodity list, once for each type of commodity mine. These lists also include mines which no longer operate, perhaps every mine that has ever existed in Australia. There also may be a more appropriate term than "commodity", such as mineral.
 * I assume this content was created by a script which took information from the source, in this case a government database of mine sites, and uploaded it into these lists. This is not uncommon for large articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Almost - that sort of scraping is so close to WP:NOT as far as I estimate the experience of dealing with such items...   The desire to create such mega lists is really misunderstanding WP:ABOUT.

I would suggest the commodity list is close to redundant if it has repeats left in, and should have duplicates removed. There could be also removal of no longer operating mines into a separate list.

The state by state list doesnt need WA separated - if repeats and no longer operating are removed.

Just a suggestion - what I have considered is 4 separate (I thought we already had these)


 * List of active mines in oz
 * List of inactive mines in oz
 * List of minerals mined in active mines in oz
 * List of minerals mined in former mines (inactive?) in oz

The more removal of duplication or redundancies the better JarrahTree 10:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * For the list by states, I think each state could be split off separately, perhaps with a navbox like Template:Lists of mines in the United States or some other means of cross-referencing. For the list by commodities, how about splitting the major commodities (coal, gold, etc.) off singly and this title could be replaced by something akin to Lists of mines in the United States, with "Main article" links to the individual articles and the tables retained for the more minor commodities? Deor (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion
I think this article should be deleted. It provides very little information, is not a list, and can easily be done by another, larger article. Cowinatree (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)