Talk:Coal mining Information & Talk:Coal mining Links at HealthHaven.com

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Coal mining article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Energy

(Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)

Energy portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

B

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Mining

(Rated B-Class, High-importance)

	v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to Mining.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
2006 – 2007

[edit] Merge proposal

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've stumbled upon the article sub-surface mining and thought it could be incorporated into the section on underground mining, as the topic is the same. Opinions, please! Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 08:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: this is my first merge proposal, so if I had done something wrong, please tell me. Naturally, the merge should be followed by an appropriate redirect. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost two weeks, nothing. I will wait a few more days before performing the merge. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Although coal mining has the biggest share of sub-surface mining activites, there are also oil shale, uranium etc sub-surface mining, so it can't to be merged into coal mining. To improve the articles and to avoid duplication, I propose to move the text concerning underground mining methods from the Coal mining#Underground mining into Sub-surface mining.Beagel 09:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree with Beagel. If sub-surface mining was only for coal mining, then the merge would make sense. I think the underground mining section should be removed except for a stub-like "teaser" and leave a link to the Sub-surface mining article. --Mukk 17:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Because Subsurface mining also deals with mining for other than coal, I would keep it as a separate article. However, I believe that it should be renamed Underground mining (soft rock) as a counterpart to the article Underground mining (hard rock).Plazak 22:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I agree woth Plazak, when I moved Underground mining (hard rock) from Hard rock mining the intention was to create a Underground mining (soft rock) article to cover coal, salt and similar mining methods, but I never got around to it. --Kelapstick 03:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Further to that not all coal mining is underground (I don't beleive there are very many if any any operating undergound coal mines in Canada anymore, but there are still quite a few open pit coal mins in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. Even the first two pictures on the coal mining article are of surface operations.--Kelapstick 12:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will try to get around to appropriate action as soon as I can, I am a little busy in meatspace right now. Thank you all for your input! Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 11:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Its been a while so I've removed the tag in the article Sansumaria (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Globalise tag

This article now seems reasonably balanced, to me, of a worldwide view. Is anyone unhappy if I remove the tag? Sansumaria (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dangers to miners

May I point out that comparing numbers of fatalities between countries during a year (or any period) does not imply anything about differences in safety conditions because the countries don't necessarily produce the same amount of coal or have the same number of people working in the coal mining industry. To draw inferences about safety conditions, a different statistic (such as fatalities per million tons of coal production or fatalities per million coal mining workers) would be needed. 196.41.124.8 (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point, do you know where there are any of those available. They would be quite helpful.--Kelapstick (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree - someone do it! Sansumaria (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Hi, is there a concern that this page is too long? I'm happy to help archive it. --El on ka 00:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Old, old old. So yesterday... Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) --El on ka 02:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Production figures

Updated figures with new reference. Old reference, World Coal Institute understated production in some countries such as U.S., where WCI figures were 200 million tons less than official U.S. production figures. This is a significant difference. Other WCI data needs verification with other sources, but haven't gotten there yet. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United States

Removed data on production by state because it is dated and duplicated exactly in article Coal in the United States. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Impoundment

Removed section because it was a one-line promo for a nonprofit org in West Virginia, not appropriate for a global article, and not a significant issue in coal mining. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] historical coal mining technology

Can anyone suggest an appropriate location or article structure for historical coal mining technology? I'm thinking of tipple, breakers, etc.

There is this: Tipple, which in my view is not at all satisfactory.

And there was this: [1], which has since been removed. Perhaps a Historical coal mining technology article could be created, but this information might be more appropriate in a subsection of another article. Just looking for suggestions here... Richard Myers (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The definition in breakers didn't belong because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, having said I would suggest that you create articles such as Coal tipple and Breakers (coal mining), keeping in mind citing sources (if available, I know finding sources for mining articles is difficult), as even if you add the content to an existing article without sources it is likely to be deleted. Personally I know nothing about either subject (or coal mining in general).--kelapstick (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 16 Ton

My grandfather used a term and I would like it included in the coal minning article under history. The term was not understood by anyone at his death but I happened to be flying with an old coal minner from Kentucky and he told me its meaning. I can't find a citation anywhere in literature or on the web but believe it to be worthy of your system.

In the early days of minning miners in shafts were expected to cut 16 ton of coal a day. The miners worked in teams of 5. When the miners were working very hard they could cut 100 ton of coal. When an old miner is asked "How are you doing" a response of "Cutting a hundred" meaning they were doing great.

Please find a way of including this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.54.26 (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unless that information can be referenced, it would fail the policies on reliable sources and verifiability. If you can provide a published source the information can possibly be included. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, as stated by Theseeker4 though, would would need to have a "reliable source". :) Good idea!

Sniper120 (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Methods of Extraction, fix?

Noticed "Coals occurring below 300 feet (91 m) are usually deep mined.", I think it should be "Coal occurring below 300 feet (91 m) is usually deep mined.". I think it would sound better. Sniper120 (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Contents