Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining/Archive 2

New project sub-page: resource library
Greetings! I've added a new project subpage (WikiProject Mining/Library) as a place to serve as a repository for freely-accessible digital resources for general use to the project. I've been adding links to full public-domain works hosted at the Internet Archive, mostly of the Mining and Scientific Press ca. 1865-1922. Hope they can be of some use! Morgan Riley (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Polish Coal Mines
Hi!

I found few articles about mines: Jóźwin, Tomisławice, Dęby Szlacheckie (planned), Konin (should be named "Pątnów") and Drzewce. I think, you mistake "open-pit" with "mine" - all these "mines" are in fact pits of Kopalnia Węgla Brunatnego Konin (KWB Konin). BTW, KWB Konin have more pits: Morzysław, Niesłusz, Gosławice, Kazimierz (North [Północ] and South [Południe]) and more are planned: Piaski, Ościsłowo, Morzyczyn, Mąkoszyn Grochowiska, Dęby Szlacheckie. So I suggest to integrate all pits in one article - Kopalnia Węgla Brunatnego Konin. What you think? P.S. Sorry for my english... Greetings form Poland --Flyz1 (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Visual and organization updates to the WikiProject and Portal:Mining
If you've seen some changes around the project, I'm in the midst of trying to refresh and upgrade the organization and visual presentation of the project pages and the associated Portal:Mining. Anyone interested in helping, especially in maintaining the portal, feel free to jump on in! Also, please leave comments on any thoughts or opinions about the changes and any ways I might be able to help improve. Morgan Riley (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Binghamcopperminesmithson.jpg
File:Binghamcopperminesmithson.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Shaft Sinking
First page - any feedback appreciated shaft mining, if someone could start a new page for Shaft (Mining) as in the thing I'll start sorting the mess out. (Jack Nolan88 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC))
 * In my opinion it works as it is, though I could be persuaded otherwise. Right now, its usage is to mean "mining with the usage of shafts" instead of merely "shaft sinking". It covers both the creation of shafts and their subsequent usage. Otherwise, drift mining and slope mining also need to be changed as part of a grand change. As for potential article titles, if we decide to go that route, per the general disambiguation conventions, mine shaft would be preferred to shaft (mining), because natural disambiguation is preferred to parentheticals, and in this case, the modifier is one in very common usage. Likewise, shaft sinking would be the preferred for the activity of digging one. Morgan Riley (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox mine update: embedding enabled
I've updated the Template:Infobox mine, so that it now has sections to enable embedding of National Register or Superfund infoboxes. Let me know of any requests for parameters/fields or other functions.Morgan Riley (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: naming convention for mining by country
Right now, there is no consistent naming convention for the general mining/mineral production in a given country/region.

The three major usages at present are Mining in X (e.g. Mining in the United Kingdom), Mining industry of X (e.g. Mining industry of South Africa), and Mineral industry of X (e.g. Mineral industry of Peru), where X is the given location (usually nations, subnational countries, or states/provinces).

This may or may not be an issue. Reasons for it being problematic: First, when these articles contain different titles for the same body of content, a person searching across them may easily assume that another article exists. Second, it adds to confusion and presents a less-than-organized appearance to a wide and essential topic. The case for a non-issue is that redirects will usually solve most navigational problems, allowing variation and a sort of nuance by location, mining itself being heavily dependent on geography.

"Mining in X" has seems to have the superior claim. "Mining in X" is the universal category usage and analogous to the likewise universal "Agriculture in X". Topics under "Mining" do include primary mineral processing (e.g. smelting, refining), though if this broader meaning is insufficiently clear, "mining industry of X" may add some clarity there. The possible downside of using "Mining industry of X" is that it seemingly narrows the topic to the industrial and economic aspects (or at least play them up), while ignoring historical, cultural, and heritage aspects. In my opinion, "Mineral industry of X" is unnecessarily vague and a less common usage (only a dozen or so use it), and everything that those articles cover is already covered in one of the other two proposals.

Because of the number of articles that need moving in any situation (and inability to move over redirects), I would like some sort of consensus before seeking to move them. Note that this proposal is not intended for sub-topics, since most all use X mining in Y (e.g. Uranium mining in Canada).Morgan Riley (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I assume we have disambiguation pages in place. It doesn't seem like a critical problem.  At the same time, you've convinced me.  I'd go with Mining in X over the alternatives, if there were a vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd either keep everything as it is, or go with "Mining in X". I dream of horses (T) @ 21:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC) (fixed formatting at 21:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC))
 * To me, "mining industry" is a subset of "mining". And "mineral industry" includes mineral processing, which is outside the concept of "mining". --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, when you clarify it that way it makes sense, and having thought about it for several days, I would be willing to support "mineral industry of x" for national-level articles (for clarity and avoiding any technical meaning and nuance), while retaining the more specific sub-topic articles as e.g. "coal mining in X".Morgan Riley (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Mining techniques
While I was reading the importance scale I noticed there isn't an example for specific mining techniques. For example, traditional mining, deep sea mining, asteroid mining and borehole mining. Should there be mention of this?  Volcano guy  18:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good question, and if you think noting it is needed, then it likely should be included. I think most would categorically be "high", if they are fundamental and universal (i.e. not local/regional) techniques, or mid if they are less common or obscure, but no lower (I've been using page-view count to help ballpark some estimates). Basically ranking techniques the same as processes and technology. Or if you think by definition they are all fundamental and a limited number, then I would say high. Thoughts? Morgan Riley (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Hammer and pick
I'm requesting comments on a discussion I just started.  Volcano guy  13:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Photo Concern
Isn't this photo of a pick/adze rather than a pick axe? Shouldn't a pick axe have a pick on one side an an axe on the other? Chugiak (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Which photo are you referring to? Morgan Riley (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Mining in popular culture
Hi there! There was recently a deletion discussion for "Coal Miners in Hindi Fiction", in which there seemed to be a consensus that a broader article topic of "Mining in pop culture" would be notable and worth creating. I've started a draft at User:Atlantima/Mining in popular culture and thought this project might be interested in helping me out. Currently I'm just dumping a bunch of references there but it's a start. Feel free to add to it!-- Atlantima ~ ✿  ~ (talk ) 15:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Bine Mai

 * Somebody might be interested: User:Bine Mai/Energy, 1,691 new articles. User:Bine Mai is creating stubs on mines. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

""
The usage of is up for discussion, see talk:Quarry Integrated Communications -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sir Sidney William George Ford MBE.jpg
file:Sir Sidney William George Ford MBE.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Gold mining at Kolar Gold Fields, India.jpg
image:Gold mining at Kolar Gold Fields, India.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sulfide mining
I've redirected Sulfide mining to acid mine drainage as the article was rather poor and the usage is typically in terms of environmental problems/activism and not used in mining. If anyone objects or thinks there is a better target, please discuss on the talk page there. Vsmith (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Plazak (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Native American mica mining
I wanted to write an article about Indians mining mica in western North Carolina but to my surprise found no general article on mica mines. I am not at all sure I'm up to starting one, at least on my own. I can't be the only person who visited old mica mines as a kid. I would have hiked to one recently but my legs said no. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

valid unpatented mining claims
This is a comment on the existing article on mining claims.

The article says an unpatented claim is a property right. That should amended to say a VALID unpatented claim is a property right. The term "valid" has a very specific meaning under the Mining Law. It does not merely mean the claim has been filed and registered correctly. It also means the claim is known to contain a discovery of a valuable deposit, -valuable enough to sustain a paying mine.

When a person registers a claim on public land, the person is registering a declaration that he/she BELIEVES they have found a valuable deposit. The Mining Law only guarantees a property right where the claim contains a deposit reasonably capable of sustaining a paying mine. At least 90% of the claims on public land fail that test. Usually the government has no reason to care about the monetary value or property rights of a claim. The exception is when property rights of a claim come into contact with the property rights of the United States, like when Congress declares a new Wilderness or issues a grant of land. It is one thing for a prospector to believe he has discovered a valuable deposit. It is a very different thing to demonstrate the claim's value as a fact. 19:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)2600:1010:B10D:118:D419:97EF:F347:4FE8 (talk)§2600:1010:B10D:118:D419:97EF:F347:4FE8 (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)randall

An addition to the style guide
The style guide for wikiproject Mining does not seem to have much information. This is my suggestion on what the lead section of an article about a mine or mining company should look.

''The lead section should introduce the mine/mining company and provide a summary of the most important aspects of the mine/mining company from the article body. At minimum, the opening sentence(s) should identify the name of the mine/mining company, the year of it began operation or was established, and the major product of the mine/mining company.''

''Succeeding paragraphs in the lead section should cover important aspects of the mine/mining company detailed in the article body and not mentioned already in the first paragraph. These include milestones or major events for mine/mining company.''

Any opinions welcomed. John Mortimore  Message Me 03:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Usually, the lead section will be written at the end of an article build up. What standard sections will have an article about a mine or a mining company? For example, an article about a mineral could have following sections, which will be summarized (lead/ abstract) before moving it to main space: (1) Special characteristics ("Besondere Eigenschaften"); (2) Etymology and history ("Etymologie und Geschichte"); (3) Classification ("Klassifikation"); (4) Modifications and varieties: allotropy, polymorphism (?) ("Modifikationen und Varietäten"); (5) Geological setting and locations ("Bildung und Fundorte"); (6) Morphology: polytypism, pseudomorphism, twinning, habit ("Morphologie"); (7) Crystall structure ("Kristallstruktur"); (8) Uses ("Verwendung") ; (9) Similar minerals and adulteration ("Manipulationen und Imitationen"); (10) Safety ("Vorsichtsmaßnahmen"); (11) References. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Kinetite
I've just written a stub article at Kinetite, an explosive developed in the 1880s that had some use in mining. It could do with more work, when looking for sources (unfortunately many behind paywalls) the search term "kinetite" -"star wars" -sith is useful as there is a fictional energy ball by this name in the Star Wars universe. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Mining at Wikimania 2014
Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014 For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Aviat diamond mine
Please see Articles for deletion/Aviat diamond mine. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 01:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Felling mine disaster
The naming of the article "Felling mine disaster" is under discussion, see talk:Felling mine disaster -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Mining articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A quick note
I removed a reference in Underground mine ventilation; you may wish to find a new one. What was there was actually a Finnish-language edition of Donald Duck/Mickey Mouse comics. Enoirdi • talk 22:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

placer creeks categories?
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rivers. Suggestions needed; are there any similar category hierarchies any such category should be mindful of?Skookum1 (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Williams Creek (British Columbia) updated and spam removed
I guess it's fairly common around mining-related articles to have content "pushed" by current investors and speculators; this page had a bunch from a current mine in the area; I've moved that content to the talkpage as some of it may be useful for an eventual article on the Cariboo Mining Division, aka "Cariboo Gold Camp", Williams Creek is in the Barkerville-Wells camp of that Mining Division and the most famous and most productive of all creeks in the Cariboo; I've left some lode-exploration associated with the removed material in the article; cites and expansion for it can be found via BC MINFILE. The source I linked for the creek's total value of gold produced has tons of information that can be used to enrichen the creek article and the Cariboo Gold Rush one also. Other than notifying this group of the article's cleanup and to field the general issue of "spammy content" on mining articles, I was wondering if someone here could estimate the modern dollar-value of $19,320,000 1877 dollars; in that year those are likely to have been USD not CAD, as BC had no overland contact with Canada at that point other than via US railways and the USD was the parallel currency to the pound in pre-Confederation British Columbia (pre-1871). I recall a rate in one master's thesis I read, dated from the 1930s or '40s, who posited a 40:1 ratio for "modern" (1930s/1940s) dollar vs mid-19th Century dollar values....which would make the take for Williams Creek reported as of 1877 a whopping $780 billion by that calculation; and much more in 2014 dollars, no?Skookum1 (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a tricky topic, and the answer can vary by a huge amount depending on the assumptions you make and the relationships you want to establish. The comprehensive and scholarly Measuring Worth website has a very good discussion of the topic. As the total value of gold extracted is probably best thought of as an asset in these terms (representing a store of wealth, not as a consumer commodity) then the MW site gives 2013 values of $5.64bn as a measure of the 'prestige value', and $37.7bn as a measure of its proportion of total GDP. A simple CPI-based 'purchasing power' measure gives the much smaller total of $443m, which mostly reflects the fact that the goods and services we buy today represent a much smaller proportion of our income than they did in mid-Victorian times. That help?  Pyrop e  18:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Kinda; the only thing I ever saw on this was in the aforementioned thesis re that 40:1 figure, which I've got the cite data for somewhere in old course work notes. I see in news copy about this or that "so much in modern dollars" and the like but no rate of calculation.  I'll see what that site has on it.  The source linked on Vital Creek from nosracines.ca (the Howay & Scholefield site) addresses the purchasing power by listing prices for staples; and often only grams or ounces are given rather than in dollars; in BC MINFILE it's rarely in dollar-earnings, only in weights whether metric or imperial.Skookum1 (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Vital Creek, Germansen River, Williams Creek placer articles
I've begun to add mining history and data to titles like those one; the first two being part of the Omineca Gold Rush, the latter the most famous of the creeks of the Cariboo Gold Rush. Vital Creek had been just a stub, I added this wikiproject after adding mining information from BC MINFILE entries and the 1914 history in the refs, which has detailed dollar amounts for each season, and for countless creeks and mining camps/areas. A list of such placer strikes/creeks will come about at some point; I have dozens to go; anyone wishing to help please let me know, or just use the cites provided to find more (BC MINFILE is easy just google "BC MINFILE [name]" and there's invariably something, ranging from takings to physical geology and claims histories.Skookum1 (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As Vital (pronounced teh French way, by the way, vih-TAL) turns out to have produced jade, Jade mining in British Columbia is yet another title out there in need of creating someday (Vital's very minor in that capacity, just noting it because of having seen that today).Skookum1 (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for review
You might be be surprised about me asking for comments on Draft:IPCC consensus. The first person giving instructive comments however was affiliated with earth sciences and I would appreciate some comments from interested authors from an active portal, and mining looks like one. Glückauf Serten II (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Shaft construction
Shaft construction is an absolute mess, it combines to some degree shaft sinking (which is partially covered at shaft mining) and raise (mining), which is in need of expansion. I may take this on in the near future (splitting some of it and cleaning it up), but if anyone wants to tackle it before hand, please do. I also have some recent pictures of shaft sinking I am going to add in the near future. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Upon further inspection, it appears to be to some degree a copyright violiation of this and sourced with a masters theses from a student at the University of Alberta... oh my. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Contribution to carbon dioxide in our atmosphere
Recently, The Guardian produced a report on the contribution each of the major operators has made to the CO2 in our atmosphere. As global warming, sea level rise and ocean acidification come to dominate our possible future scenarios, it seems the contribution these creatures are making to destroying our habitable environments should be emphasized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.72.243 (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation
Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the article Coal in South Africa  (of interest to this wikiproject) was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review (please see the article's talk page for details). Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on the article's talk page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Kudz Ze Kayah mine article
Kudz Ze Kayah mine is not a mine and is not in Alaska. It is a fairly small deposit in the Yukon and is not being mined (yet).It should either be deleted or fixed. 207.189.234.30 (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that the editor responsible for creating this article has a long and ignominious record of leaving huge piles of steaming encyclo-turds scattered throughout the natural resource extraction pages here. They basically seem to grab a review paper or government report and then systematically go through it and write "articles" on each and every deposit, field, prospect or showing mentioned as though they were all operating mines, with no regard for true notability. They get just enough worthwhile content in there so as to avoid a speedy (see the attempt made a few months ago, documented on their talk page) but there are many fundamental flaws and straight up errors meaning that either the article has to be edited to a good standard by another, more diligent contributor, or else same diligent contributor has to go through the tedium and hassle of an AfD. I tried to clean up a couple myself, but based on their edit history the task is a huge one, and now that they have moved on from mineral deposits to oil and gas fields it doesn't look like stopping soon.  Pyrop e  16:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised the creator of those "articles" has not been blocked for their disturbing editing.  Volcano guy  01:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This one was created back in 2013, I don't know when his last binge of creating articles was, but really each one needs to be gone through, checked, and sent to AfD where appropriate.--kelapstick(bainuu) 13:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking at the user's contributions it seems the latest article this user created was the Pelican South gas field on 19 February 2015.  Volcano guy  04:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, follows their usual pattern. One shady source, stretched to breaking point, entirely failing to demonstrate notability. And the 'facts' in the source have since been disowned by the explorers...  Pyrop e  06:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems to have switched to gas fields from mining. There is frequently a claim to be "one of the largest mines in X", as well. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a whole lot of very bad and frequently demonstrably incorrect content associated with this user. I'm not sure what the best venue is for raising the issue, perhaps report them on the administrators' noticeboard.  Volcano guy  11:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion most of these should be mass deleted, for example Pine Nut mine has one source that (probably by virtue of it having moved) doesn't mention the "mine" at all. Not sure where to have the discussion, a mass AfD would fail I think. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As a watcher and occasional talk page project tagger, and looking at this, I support pyrope, volcanoguy and kelapstick's concerns - my suggestion is take it to admin noticeboard. satusuro 14:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As a start, I have removed the Autopatrolled flag from his (or her) account. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Also - Articles for deletion/Iskinskoe mine includes about 10 or so nominations. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Mining in Africa
Some of us have started working on African mining articles: Mining in Foo country. The goal is to create 16 such articles, in sandbox, bring them to at least Start class, move them to mainspace, and then nom them as a 16-way hook at WP:DYK. Here's what we have so far. Please join in! And remember... please work in sandbox!
 * 1) Mining industry of Guinea - WikiProject Intertranswiki/Sandbox/Mining industry of Guinea
 * 2) Mining industry of Lesotho - WikiProject Intertranswiki/Sandbox/Mining industry of Lesotho
 * 3) Mining industry of Liberia - WikiProject Intertranswiki/Sandbox/Mining industry of Liberia
 * 4) Mining industry of Libya - WikiProject Intertranswiki/Sandbox/Mining industry of Libya
 * 5) Mining industry of Madagascar - WikiProject Intertranswiki/Sandbox/Mining industry of Madagascar
 * 6) Mining industry of Malawi - WikiProject Intertranswiki/Sandbox/Mining industry of Malawi
 * 7) Mining industry of Mali - WikiProject Intertranswiki/Sandbox/Mining industry of Mali
 * 8) Mining industry of Morocco - WikiProject Intertranswiki/Sandbox/Mining industry of Morocco
 * 9) Mining industry of Senegal - WikiProject Intertranswiki/Sandbox/Mining industry of Senegal
 * 10) Mining industry of South Sudan - WikiProject Intertranswiki/Sandbox/Mining industry of South Sudan
 * 11) Mining industry of Sudan - WikiProject Intertranswiki/Sandbox/Mining industry of Sudan
 * 12) Mining industry of Swaziland - WikiProject Intertranswiki/Sandbox/Mining industry of Swaziland
 * 13) Mining industry of Tanzania - WikiProject Intertranswiki/Sandbox/Mining industry of Tanzania
 * 14) Mining industry of Togo - WikiProject Intertranswiki/Sandbox/Mining industry of Togo
 * 15) Mining industry of Tunisia - WikiProject Intertranswiki/Sandbox/Mining industry of Tunisia
 * 16) Mining industry of Uganda - WikiProject Intertranswiki/Sandbox/Mining industry of Uganda

P.S. This is also cross-posted at WikiProject Intertranswiki. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Former mines
This category lacks a definition for what a "former mine" is. According to a dictionary definition, a mine is "an excavation made in the earth for the purpose of extracting ores, coal, precious stones, etc." Most if not all of the articles in this category are not about former mines at all but rather abandoned mine sites. They are obviously not "former mines" because the excavations are still present. Category:Abandoned mines would probably be a better title for this category.  Volcano guy  12:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe closed mines is better, because not all closed mines are "abandoned". --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes that is true. Perhaps Category:Abandoned mines could be a subcategory. Could bring Category:Former mines and its subcategories to WP:CfD for renaming.  Volcano guy  19:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

"Mine"
The usage and primary topic of is under discussion, see talk:Mine (disambiguation) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

rock drilling
The article on drilling doesn't even mention top-hammer and DTH drilling, and the article drifter drill confuses vertical and horizontal drilling. --Espoo (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Canadian Mining Hall of Fame has been nominated for discussion
Category:Canadian Mining Hall of Fame, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Artisanal Mining
The "Artisanal Mining" Page is primarily related to Artisanal GOLD Mining, not artisanal mining, which can include gemstones and other metals other than gold and does not involve the issues or mercury etc mentioned in the Artisanal Mining page.

Could someone either change the title to "Artisanal Gold Mining" or remove all ASGM related material and put it into a new page about ASGM so there are 2 pages?

I am nowhere near a wikipedia expert but I work in the industry and would like to see this differentiation made clearer.

lmcgrew@artisanalgold.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.41.17 (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Kinross Gold
Could someone please have a look at Kinross Gold, specifically the March version compared to the current article. There have been some massive changes, and it's basically been turned into single line paragraphs, with a dominant focus on posting financial results. While some of the recent changes do have merit, I think that this has recently turned the page into a regurgitation of accounting numbers. I have done a bunch of reverts in the past, but would like someone else to have a second look. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Bering Sea Gold: Under The Ice
An article that sports this project's banner – Bering Sea Gold: Under The Ice – has been proposed for merging with Bering Sea Gold. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you.  Paine  u/ c  03:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Coniston copper mines
New, feel free to help Victuallers (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list
My list of missing topics about resources is updated - Skysmith (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The Doe Run Company
Hello! I'm an employee of the Doe Run Company, which mines in Missouri. The company's article here on Wikipedia is out-of-date by quite a few years, so I've put together a list of simple changes that can help improve it. Would someone here be willing to help me work on it? You can find my message on the talk page here. TS at Doe Run (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Move request at Talk:UK miners' strike (1984–85)
Please comment on the requested move at Talk:UK miners' strike (1984–85).--Nev&eacute;–selbert 13:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Disaster template
Is there a suitable template for an infobox describing mining disasters? One which gave the colliery, pits, cause and statistics for instance? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Infobox event has been used for many such circumstances. The field names should cover most eventualities. Pyrop  e  00:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. I've edited a number of 19thC mine disasters in (principally) the NE of England.  Have a look at Blantyre mining disaster or Hartley Colliery disaster to see how I'm using the boxes.  I would add an image, but I have no appropriate ones.  Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Dundas Island (Nunavut)
Could somebody take a look at the question on Talk:Dundas Island (Nunavut). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox mine
I'm not sure how many users watch this template so I will raise the problem here. I have wrote many articles about mines and ore deposits over the years and have noticed the template parameters are not accurate for all mines/ore deposits. This is especially true when the "products" parameter is filled because it shows up as part of the "production" section even though not all mines/ore deposits enter production. Is there a better way to organize this template so it's more accurate for non-productive mines?  Volcano guy  16:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

UK miners' strike 1984-85
Hello. The post below is a replication of the one on WikiProject Organized Labour. I see that the article for the 1984-5 miners' strike in Britain is mid-importance for this WikiProject, so I am posting it here as well.

I would like to do a thorough re-organisation of the article, but I thought that I should consult before doing this. The article is currently long and has changed much over the years.

If you look on the talk page, there have occasionally been concerns raised about bias, usually to the political left. I fear that it is hard to get a NPOV on this topic, as the majority of papers/books on the subject are clearly on one side or the other. I personally don't think that the current reading of the article is strongly biased, but some might disagree.

I think that the main problem is the messy structure. There is a fairly brief description of the main sequence of events, and then several sections on the various issues in the strike. I think that the sections "Issues" and "Response to the strike" could be incorporated into the sequence of events. The "Analysis of the situation in Nottinghamshire" might be better in the "Historical assessments" section.

This might be a matter of personal style, but I find the prose in the article very awkward. Some sentences seem to be written with as few words as possible.

Please let me know your thoughts. Epa101 (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata and mines
Hi, we’ve found on Wikidata stuffs on the Wikiverse stuffs related to mining that might be relevant for this project. Please feel free to join the discussion on d:Wikidata:Project_chat about how to organize in Wikidata informations on mines and minerals. TomT0m (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  07:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Kibali Gold Mine in the DRC
I would like to request the article called Durba Mine, be renamed to Kibali Gold Mine, as this is what the minesite is far more commonly known as. Some more details at here at the article's Talk Page. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

New articles which have already established ones
A bunch of students from Earth Science at The University of Hong Kong donated a few articles and dumped them here. It is like most of the student work here. It is done to get credit points with no inner love for wikipedia.


 * Hydrothermal mineral deposit is new but the Porphyry copper deposit, Volcanogenic massive sulfide ore deposit, Sedimentary exhalative deposits cover a similar field.
 * Archean felsic volcanic rocks by User:Ivancyyip
 * Northeast Syrtis by User:Justinbl
 * Tonalite-trondhjemite-granodiorite by User:Adayding
 * Regolith-hosted rare earth element deposits by User:Kevnmh
 * Geology of Hong Kong by User:HarrietHKUGeology
 * Earth's crustal evolution by User:Georgealee
 * Optically stimulated luminescence thermochronometry by User:BlessingAdeoti

User:Jupmira104 is the head of the group He already has dumped Geology of Myanmar Qinling orogenic belt ‎Eoarchean geology Geology of Sicily Remote sensing (geology) Geology of Hainan Island Hadean zircon ‎ Lutetium–hafnium dating ‎ Gravity of Mars ‎Pressure-temperature-time path ‎North China Craton Divergent double subduction Dinosaur tooth into wikipedia.

--Stone (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Stone, don't be concerned about the student work here. The writings will all be good for Wikipedia to have, whatever the motivations of the writers. This is on of the best Class-Wikipedia collaborations going. Jupmira104 is not the head, instead User:Aagwebb is the instructor involved, and has a list of all the pages involved over the years on the user page. I am assisting online, and will be fixing up grammar etc. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Clifton Hall Colliery
I think this page is overdue for a reassessment. Would a project member care to look at it please? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Origin of phosphate rock?
Hi, I just posted this at the article page, but am reposting here, in hope of finding someone more knowladgeable about these deps than I am (which shouldn't be hard ;-)


 * I just saw a new-to-me (and uncited) theory for the origin of sub-commercial Phosphate deposits in California's Monterey shale. Those authors assign the source to the Columbia River flood basalts, which are the right age (17-15 my), and go on to say that "most of the world's mineable phosphate deps were deposited during times of major flood-basalt eruptions." Source: p. 222, Roadside Geology of Northern & Central Calif, ISBN 9780878424092

Anyone? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Groom mine
Would like to get some eyes of experts in the field of mining to look at the article Groom Mine before submitting the article to WP:FAC (at present there are 8 articles tagged to belong to this WikiProject considered FA quality). If the FAC is successful, we can elevate that number to 9.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 00:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Location of Climax mine in Colorado
Wikipedia incorrectly lists the location of the climax molybdenum mine as Climax Colorado. Wrong. The village of Climax ceased to exist in any form decades ago. There is no such place as Climax Colorado. The only address for the mine and mill is 11230 CO-91, Leadville, CO 80461. Grtroes (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern. Climax still exists as an unincorporated region where the mine is located, so technically the article is correct. Turgan Talk 21:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

How do I request an article to be assessed?
I wish Bryn Eglwys quarry to be assessed, but do not know how to get it done. Can anyone help please? WT79 The Engineer (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I added an assessment. If you complete the "description" section, and further cite the history section it could be rated "B". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * History has been cited. I do not know enough about the quarry to expand the description section, but hopfully someone more knowledgeable than me will noitice the expand section template and add to the section. Thank you for your help. WT79 The Engineer (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Fresno Crossing, California
hi all, just a heads up that the above mining camp is up for deletion, see Articles for deletion/Fresno Crossing, California. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Fort Ann, California
hi all, just a heads up that Fort Ann, California, a former gold mining camp, is up for deletion. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Priargunsky mine
hi all, the above article is up for deletion, see Articles for deletion/Priargunsky mine. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Mine vs. Mine owner
Hi all. Is there any standard for separate articles for a mine and the mining company operating it? I feel like they're separate 'things', as you can't use geology to describe a company, but they can both earn notability through the same sources. On the other hand, if a mine has only ever been worked on by one company, it's more logical for readers to want all relevant info in one place.

My concerns are regarding mines in Guyana:
 * Where Aurora gold mine redirects to Guyana Goldfields. (Should it be split?)
 * And I'm working on a draft for [Karouni Mine], owned by Troy Resources. (Or should I add to the existing Troy page?)

Opinions welcome. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no existing standard, nor do I think one is justified. As ever, I'd much rather people looked at things on a case-by-case basis. For some companies it is obvious. There is no way that you are going to try and tell the story of one of the majors if you only talk about their operations, but some of those operations are significant enough to have their own article. For others, the split between company and operation may be fine and you'll have to see how best it works. For example, there are some companies (e.g. Taseko Mines) that operate one mine (in this case, Gibraltar) but that have a lot of advanced projects and a distinct existence separate from their mine. Others (e.g. Copper Mountain Mining) really are tied to just one hole in the ground. Although, even CuMtn have other operations that they are trying to get off the ground, and the Copper Mountain Mine itself has a history that predates the current company. Judgement call. Does Turquoise Hill Resources really justify an article separate from Oyu Tolgoi mine? Probably not, and the fact that the TH article is now hopelessly out of date ("OT will go into production in 2013"...) shows the problems with obscure subject matter. Fundamentally, as long as an article subject meets WP:GNG in its own right (and not through minor mentions in other sources on the better known mine or company) then an article can be written. Pyrop  e  14:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You've given me more question than answers, u|Pyrope! (haha) Your point about obscurity/outdatedness is a worthwhile approach. I think my main concern is that if someone comes along doing clean up on company articles, they could inadvertently remove detail about the mine that doesn't exist elsewhere (especially in cases of multi-national foreign companies and mines in developing countries). It's no good trying to predict future edits, but maybe I'll just make sure the structure of the article is clearly sectioned between the company and the site they're working on. That way perhaps I can strike a balance by making it easier to split or for new ownership. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox organiser
Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The Metals Company
I recently created an article for The Metals Company, formerly DeepGreen Metals, a deep sea mining company. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

GAR
Denver, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 05:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Escondida mine
Escondida is the world's largest copper mine and emblematic of a key societal need in a future low-carbon economy. The data cited in its Wiki page is all ~ 15 years old. Could someone who knows something bring it up to date? Charles Clark (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Bancroft Mines
Hi everyone, this is my first time writing on a project page. Forgive any protocol errors please. I've been spending a lot of time working on the following mining pages.

Creating


 * Bicroft_Mine
 * Dyno_Mine
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Greyhawk_Mine
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Arthur_H._Shore (prospector, miner who discovered Madawaska_Mine
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Uranium_mining_in_the_Bancroft_area (big article covering most of the above)
 * I also created the page about the community leader who lead the push to reopen the mines. Found some unexpected stuff in the process, check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Henry_Maloney

Improving
 * Pronto_Mine
 * Madawaska_Mine
 * Cluff_Lake_mine
 * Agnew_Lake_Mine
 * Faraday,_Ontario town next to some of the above mines
 * Also did some work on Bancroft,_Ontario
 * And I re-organised and partially re-wrote Ovintiv who are the parent company that own three of the above former mines

Hopefully this is helpful

I was alerted to this project due to helpful edits by user User:Johnsoniensis or maybe user User:Julius177 Thanks, CT55555 (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Shaft sinking
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Shaft sinking that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Kubi gold mine up for deletion
A question of notability and sourcing. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox mine - "amount" value
Could the infobox mine template be changed thus: and I have an ongoing disagreement about the use of the "amount" field - see - and I think the above changes would probably resolve the matter. Mitch Ames (talk)
 * The "amount" field should display with the title text "Amount", rather than "Production".
 * Add a "status" or "current_status" field, one possible value of which could be "inactive".
 * Change the documentation for "financial year" from "year of above the production figure" to "year of the production figure above", if that is the intent.
 * Much may have changed since I created this template back in 2009, more then 13 years ago, I haven't always watched this template, but it was never intended to be used like a Tax return or Passport application, with strict answers and only one possible option. If the information in the template makes sense then there is no reason it can't be there. The template needs to be somewhat flexible because mines, historic or current, are so diverse and not "one size fits all". Some mines only produce(d) one product (like the Emily Ann and Maggie Hays nickel mines), while others produce multiple (Golden Grove Mine for example), just as one example. As to your above suggestions, I fully support suggestions number 2 and 3. As to number 1, I rather think the "Amount" should be changed to "Production figure". I would also suggest the addition of a "Historical production" parameter, as this might make more sense and add more value for mines that have been closed and don't have an ongoing production figure anymore, which is very common. Calistemon (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
This AfD discussion may be of interest to the project CT55555 (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Slate industry in Wales
Slate industry in Wales could do with some expert eyes to ensure it keeps it's FA status. It's in a pretty good state, but could do with a few more citations, especially at the end of paragraphs. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. — Voice of Clam 21:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Peak uranium
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Peak uranium&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation discussion
There is a discussion at WP:NCCAPS relevant to this project. Larataguera (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In particular: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization). Mitch Ames (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Bias in mine infobox
I have pointed out an issue with systemic bias in the mine infobox on my user page. In short, the infobox provides information about the benefits of the mine for the mine owners (tons of production, etc), but does not provide information about the burdens of the mine for impacted communities. To achieve WP:NPOV, the infobox should provide information that is important to all stakeholders. This would include fields for data such as: numbers of people displaced or impacted by the mine; Pollutants released from the mine (eg, mercury, arsenic, etc); Names of notable rivers or other geographical features impacted or destroyed by the mine. I imagine there would need to be some discussion on precisely which fields should be included, but I am initially just pointing out that POVs belonging to impacted frontline communities are not represented in the infobox, which contributes to systemic bias and violates NPOV. encouraged me to bring this discussion here, so I am tagging them. Thank you. Larataguera (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising this, I think you make a good point. I would support making changes. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem like a systemic bias issue, and I believe it will introduce more POV issues than it will correct. Production quantity is inherently critical information about a mine; it's the whole purpose of the mine. These other things are factors that we would be using to implicate the mine in our view of right and wrong. As an analogy, currently has information about how much a movie made at the box office. This isn't a POV issue, this is just basic information about the movie. But if we added another spot to it that was something like "number of lives ruined by the production", that would clearly be tacked on to make a point. That's the sort of impression this proposal gives. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , It isn't a value judgement of 'right and wrong' to report the amount of arsenic or mercury a mine produces. It's just a fact. The analogy with films doesn't seem apt, because films aren't widely reported to 'ruin lives'. Pollution from mines, on the other hand, is commonplace. It's not uncommon for the notability of a mine to arise more from conflicts about it than from production. I don't think that's the case with most films. Larataguera (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would argue that your preference for prioritizing basic information about the purpose of the mine is just as influenced by your view of right and wrong. We shouldn't censor information just because it can be used to make a point.     &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 02:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to suggest that it's subjective whether a mine is created with the purpose of extracting material? Because that's what a mine is by definition. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying it's subjective to view the mine's purpose as more basic than its consequences.     &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 10:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you wish to put the negatives about a mine into the infobox then you would also have to put all the positives in there, too, e.g., how many electric cars are powered by the Lithium produced in a certain mine, to keep the balance. The infobox would be huge, to say nothing on how difficult to reliably source such information from third party sources. I think, you are better off keeping the infobox to simple facts and leave the more detailed stuff about a mine to prose. Calistemon (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you wouldn't, because as you just pointed out these 'positive' effects are vague and hard to attribute, while pollution is quite simple to attribute. So again this isn't an apt comparison. Larataguera (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Info box comlexity and bloat is a very serious issue across subjects, topics and prijects -

the suggestions above are at a divergence from the simple nature of most of the current mining project entries. I would suggest that in view of the environmental and human cost issues raised should actually be in a separate inf box - as this project has very low involvement and viewing - it would not take much to create a environmental/human cost separate box, and would allow for those mining operations that have had serious impact to have the extra box. To mix subject areas in info boxes is fraught and likely to end in angst tears and a vast amount of unnecessary issues.

The idea of an info box that incorporates the costs - human and environmental - is long overdue and I am sure that editors at disaster management project might have a clue. JarrahTree 13:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting, are you suggesting that the articles should have two infoboxes? I don't feel like that's common, but maybe it is and I haven't noticed? Is it?Larataguera (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not every mining operation on the planet has the serious issues that are tantamount to disaster management - and to play with the mining info box is inviting bloat and disaster - (sorry) I havent checked whether it is feasible - but it would definitely separate the issues sufficiently - and narrow the scope of the two boxes so as to not create mayhem (if you have any idea how much time/space/bad faith has been created by info box wars in the last ten years - you wouldnt even touch let alone talk about the mining info box) The social and evironmental issues from very bad operations are far too immense and consequential to have in the mining info box JarrahTree 13:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * thanks for the historical context. Are you basically saying that even if the box were biased, the topic is so fraught that we should not try to fix it—or at least not directly? (Side note, the sentence The social and evironmental issues from very bad operations are far too immense and consequential to have in the mining info box appears to contradict itself: it seems immense and consequential things are precisely what should be noted in an infobox?) Larataguera (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I agree with and, this is just a "solution" looking for a problem. Separate section is more then enough for all of eventual issues. If there is "negative" stuff listed than all positive must to be noted also, especially for infobox, all positives and all of use. If no about some particular mine then for material in general, all of uses and where. If it is about lithium then all where it is used and for what. All must to be npov here and listing negative stuff only can be pov pushing and misleading readers. 178.222.111.194 (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

One possibility?
Could we have a template designed to be placed inside the mine infobox that summarises data related to pollution and community impacts? Then we're not 'playing' with the mine infobox, but on pages where the impact is clearly salient for the mine's notability we could use that template? This is basically JarrahTree's suggestion, but instead of two infoboxes we have nested infoboxes or something like that. Larataguera (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand 's rationale, but I'm not opposed to a "Local impact" section (or something similar) if that would make it easier to navigate.     &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 17:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be best to have a separate infobox entirely. An environmental impact box could also be used on other articles that could have well defined and referenced info on the topic, not just mining. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Which other articles were you thinking? Aren't there some impacts that are more mining-specific?     &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 12:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A separate "environmental impact" infobox (nested or not) makes sense - as points out, it could be used on other articles as well where appropriate. But then independently of "environmental impact" we also have "social impact" that could equally apply to other articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose any of this, if there is some issue put in section about it. This is a "solution" looking for a problem. There is no any bias and if there is "negative" stuff listed than all positive must to be noted also especially for infobox, all positives and all use. Otherwise it can just mislead readers. This is not a soapbox for promotion or advocacy no matter how some activists wish to make it.178.222.111.194 (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What notable positive statistics are you thinking about? We're talking about balanced coverage of reliable sources, not balance between positive and negative. How would it mislead readers to mention environmental pollutants in the infobox?     &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 12:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I support the use of these pieces of information in the main infobox: the dominant element of most of the literature about these mines outside of mining-industry publications is environmental, health and community impacts. It makes a lot of sense for the infoboxes to allow coverage of these topics. Sadads (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed template
I have created Template:Local impacts as an infobox extension, and modeled it at Mirador mine. It does include some "positive" impacts that can be directly attributed to the mine. Generally these would be jobs and development. (Use of the copper to build items that benefit society aren't easy to attribute to a particular mine, and the copper could equally be used for missiles and warfare, so this type of benefit that some editors have suggested above isn't usually discussed in academic literature).I have used Mirador as a case study, because a review of scholarly literature demonstrates that the weight of the scholarly interest in the topic relates to social, health, and legal implications of the mine. Conflicts around this particular mine are notable and already have their own Wikipedia articles. (2012 Ecuadorian protests and 2022 Ecuadorian protests) I hope this addresses other editors' concerns about keeping impact-related issues out of the main infobox, properly attributing "positive" impacts where possible (ie, jobs and development), while also accurately representing the weight of local impacts in scholarly literature and news coverage. Thanks. Larataguera (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * So I am concerned about making this a sub-template, in that the Visual Editor template tool doesn't support it well-- and mines are increasingly a space where new editors will be contributing because of the press and scholarly attention associated with the climate crises, etc. -- I think these fields should be included in the main Infobox Mine template for simplification of user experience, and consistency of representation. We should include a high standard for citation or coverage in the article in the documentation, but splitting it out into a subtemplate feels prone for introducing error. Sadads (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)