Talk:Senghenydd colliery disaster

Paragraphs
"Shaw and Thomas moved to the western side, where they found other men, alive but injured, and arranged for them to travel to the surface. Thomas later reported that the view into the western workings "was exactly like looking into a furnace".[54]

Shaw explored what he could of the western workings, before he and some of the survivors began tackling the fire. "

To me it is obvious they had moved to the western side, constant repetition does not make it clearer, it is repetitive, so why not just remove "of the western workings" and join the paragraphs. I don't understand your objection at all. J3Mrs (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Because there is no need: it is fine as it is. Likewise: I do not see the need to change it. - – SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You could also start the paragraph at "Shaw and Thomas moved to the ....." then all the western side material would be together. J3Mrs (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Possibly, although that would leave a rather stubby para in the middle of the section. – SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Better than what's there, but really a single paragraph would do the job. J3Mrs (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Only in your opinion. Not mine. Either way I'll be happy to go with any consensus of comments from a PR. – SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Paragraphs should contain material linked by the same theme, they shouldn't be divided by whether one is short and another is long. That isn't my opinion, it's a fact. J3Mrs (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not sure that one of the slack "rules" that are sometimes applied to English could be described as a "fact", but what we have here is a change of theme. The first paragraph deals with the reconnaissance phase of activity. The second paragraph moves into the action side of the matter. It's all a question of perspective. Again, I'm happy to see if there is a consensus of opinion when we go to PR. – SchroCat (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see much advice at WP:MoS. I'd tend to agree that matters of style, in written composition, are usually regarded as within the realm of opinion rather than of fact. Additionally, to draw a poor analogy, it's a fact that the UK national speed limit is 70 mph, and that's not just a guideline, it's a legal limit. But while disregarding it may have a number of undesirable consequences, it is habitually ignored by thousands of drivers every day, who have other priorities. It just depends on what you're trying to do. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Welsh name in the body
So, we have the name of the colliery Senghenydd glossed in running text to explain that in Welsh it is Senghennydd. It's obviously very important to gloss it like this as has reverted it back twice. My second compromise to footnote it has been rejected. Could SchroCat or someone else explain why this is vital to have in running text? To me it seems completely useless (it's obvious that it's a Welsh name, and it's only one letter different from the English version) and merely serves to clutter the prose of a fairly decent article. --The Huhsz (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's completely pointless. This isn't an article on Senghenydd or even Senghennydd, it's on one event at the colliery – and that is given correctly in Welsh, right in the lead. We don't need to duplicate the Welsh every time it comes up as a sub-phrase of the title. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not pointless, and to claim we "duplicate the Welsh every time it comes up" is just untrue. We mention it in the lead, and at the point in the main text where we introduce Senghenydd. The lead therefore reflects the body of the article, where it is supported by reliable sources. I've also moved one of the "See also"s back into the right section: to claim "a FA should not really have see alsos" is also untrue (there is nothing in MOS:SEEALSO or WP:FAC which suggests anything of the sort). Please be careful when editing and try to avoid leaving behind mark up as you did with "The Senghenydd explosion remains the worst mining disaster in Britain.[87]". - SchroCat (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, editors might want to also have a look at Mardy Colliery. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I was thinking of "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. It is also not mandatory, as many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section..." What was wrong with footnoting the Welsh name? It seemed like a reasonable compromise to me, and it was perhaps rather rude that you reverted it. Do we believe there are many readers interested in reconfirming that a Welsh place name comes from Welsh, or salivating over the one letter of difference with the English version? --The Huhsz (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right: it's not mandatory, but so little on WP is actually mandatory. It is, on ocassion, useful to include such links "to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics" and many high-quality and comprehensive articles do have a "See also" section. I don't know why you found it rude: it's how things work on WP to put an article back to the previous version. I could have gone in to edit it to put it back, but I've been accused of being sneaky and avoiding signalling to others that it was a revert. Either way, I doubt anyone will be salivating (or any other form of bodily hyperbole), but this isn't "reconfirming that a Welsh place name comes from Welsh", but that there is a slight difference between common English use and original Welsh version. It's nicely supported by reliable sources and isn't out of place to have it where it is. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, perfectly happy to salivate over that lovely extra n, thanks. Martynifanns123 (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "I could have gone in to edit it to put it back, but I've been accused of being sneaky and avoiding signalling to others that it was a revert"; well, of course that is exactly what you did do once, then made a second out-and-out revert of my compromise edit. The (repeated) gloss about the trivial placename difference would be fitting in an article about the place, but not in one about the disaster at the place. Hence the idea of putting it into a footnote, so those dedicated placename geeks can see it if they want, and primary schoolers don't need to trawl through it if they don't want. Again, what's wrong with that? --The Huhsz (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well done in showing me the history - I think I may already have known that already, but never mind. Two reasons why the footnote is not as good as the body: 1. There is nothing wrong with where it is. 2. It is supported by a reliable source where it is. In addition, the "...not in one about the disaster at the place" point is a weak one: the Senghenydd colliery goes under a different name in Welsh, as does the name given to the disaster itself. This is dragging on a bit pointlessly now: there is little point in dropping it into a footnote or deleting it entirely, and you have't given me any good reason why you think the footnote or deletion is better than having it in the body: at least I've given an indication as to why I think it's better in the body, whether you agree with it or not. - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. So your reason to keep it is "There is nothing wrong with where it is"? Your second "reason" is spurious as of course footnotes can be referenced. My reasons to footnote it are ease of reading and superfluity for the vast majority of readers. Let's see what others think then. --The Huhsz (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that you are misrepresenting what I have said when you take into account what I have said in several comments, but I'm as unsurprised by that as I am by your description of my opinion as "spurious". SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No strong view, although a footnote sounds slightly more cumbersome that the current layout. In general I think these things ought to be decided on principle, not on a "how-many-letters-differ" basis. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, which is why we are discussing it. The principle I am arguing for is readability. What is the principle of glossing it in full twice in running text? --The Huhsz (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is a non-issue for me. No readability problems, as far as I can see. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

"about ​5 1⁄2 pence at the time"
This looks a bit odd to me since, in 1913, there were no new pence, only old pounds, shillings and pence. Surely in 1913 a shilling was worth 12 pennies. But that was worth much more that 12p is worth today? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right: it's bloody awful since my last tweak. I'll add in an automated equation. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to see penny spelled with two n's, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I nearly put in three, just because it seems to be the day to complain about the number of Ns we use. Is there an n drought I didn't know about? - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Reversion
You've twice reverted my edits without offering any substantive explanation other than that "they were poor". Could you please justify, separately for each of the three edits, why you consider them such? Two are just minor grammatical fixes that really don't seem at all controversial, but since you're fighting them, here we are. Sdkb (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure:
 * "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom's history". The additional "'s history" adds nothing, means nothing. There's no need for the additional words.
 * "In 1981," Although not an error, the addition of the comma is slightly more American than British. Nothing wrong with that, but the article doesn't use the format unless there is a sub-clause after the initial date, so the introduction brought in an inconsistency.
 * Sub-sections. The "Aftermath" section is not a long one, and the sub-division into two sub-sections just seems sub-par and unnecessary, particularly with the floating paragraph above either sub section. Although there is a sort of division by theme in the section, it is more a chronological one, so again, forcing it towards thematic sub-sections feels wrong.
 * - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that about the comma; leaving that out sounds fine. Regarding the "worst disaster in UK history" vs. "worst disaster in the UK", the severity of a disaster is in relation to other disasters throughout history, not in relation to a geographic place, so while the former is slightly longer, it's necessary for grammatical accuracy. The latter sounds weird, as though there are multiple mining accidents currently happening in the UK. Regarding the sub-sectioning, I don't agree — the section is long enough for the divisions to be useful for readers seeking a particular piece of info, and I see the organization as chronological rather than thematic. Sdkb (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the "grammatical accuracy". The status quo version reads fine to my British eye - the "'s history" is implicit in the sentence, making the addition superfluous. It is, as it stands, grammatically and factually correct. Again, we will have to agree to disagree on the sub-sections. The "aftermath" is a clear enough title, and the sub-division makes it all rather bitty and overly structured. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I weakly agree with Sdkb about the "'s history" addition; I think it justifies its presence by clarifying. I agree with SchroCat about the comma and the sub-sections. I also agree with Sdkb's implicit point about the merit of discussing via edit summaries on reversions. What would be so terrible about discussing it here rather than reverting? --The Huhsz (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if Sdkb had come here after being reverted (per BRD), then all would have been well. They didn't, however, but decided to edit war their version back. Still, we're all here discussing it and nothing is broken. - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)