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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Recently Anthony Appleyard moved this page from China Coal to China Coal Energy, based on the request by Matthew hk. I strongly disagree that this is a technical move. Actually the page was until today about the China Coal Group, which included also information about the subsidiary company China Coal Energy (please see the lat version before today's edits). Today the article about the group was changed to include only information about the subsidiary company and the request to move the page followed immediately. The these edits removed all information about the parent company, they are potentially disputable and the therefore the page move can't be technical. China National Coal Group Corp (abbreviated as ChinaCoal) is still existing, China Coal Energy is its subsidiary, and changing the page by removing information about the parent company is not acceptable. Beagel (talk) 09:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see now that the merger of the parent and subsidiary articles of 2012 was undone in March by creating a new article about the parent company (now: China National Coal Group). However, I am still not sure if there shoudl be two small separate articles instead of one. Beagel (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What the hack on adding information of the parent company China National Coal Group to the subsidiary? Most of the two articles had information unchanged for years back to 2008. And there is certainly no source "ChinaCoal" or "China Coal" is unique common name for the company "China Coal Energy". Matthew_hktc09:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, these articles were merged after merge discussion in 2012 and the very short article about the parent company was recreated without any discussion only in March 2016. So saying it goes back to 2008 is incorrect. Beagel (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen any arguments why we should have two very short and poorly sourced articles instead of one article about the group as a whole. Beagel (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was unmerged this year, and the "discussion" was yourself. They are parent and child company but "China National Coal Group" had many assets not injected to "China Coal Energy", moreover, sometimes "China National Coal Group" was refer to "China Coal Group" in the annual report of "China Coal Energy" as indication basis, no source "China Coal" is the notable common name of "China Coal Energy" ("China Coal" page name currently a dab page) For information, i will expand it asap for the parent. Matthew_hktc09:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was unmerged without any discussion. Saying that "the "discussion" was yourself" is not polite. Both article were tagged with merge templates for about four months, so there was opportunity to everybody to comment. It is not my fault that there was no other comments that time. This is very different how the unmerge was done. Beagel (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you have significantly expanded the China National Coal Group article, I agree that now it is better to have separated articles under their current titles, notwithstanding the process how it was done. However, both articles need better sourcing. Beagel (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove the following part: "It owns 12 coal mines (9 in operation, 3 under development), 13 coal processing plants, 5 coking plants, 4 coal mining equipment manufacturing plants, and 2 mine design institutes." That's because I cannot find sources for this claim, it's been flagged for ages, and the only source I think would provide that sort of info would be the firm's annual reports, which I cannot access either. Anyone, feel free to correct me on any of this. Cheers Aynhet18 (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
