Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining/Assessment

Importance Classification

This section has been copied from the WikiProject Mining discussion page

What importance classification should mines be listed under? Mid?--Kelapstick (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I am new to the project, but my opinion, for what it's worth, is that a very obscure, insignificant mine should be low (such as one that is closed or inactive, etc.), most general mines should be mid, and the most important mines, such as largest mines, historically innovative mines, etc. should be high.Theseeker4 (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

While a noble idea, that defeats the unbiased nature of the ranking system. An important mine in one culture or area could be pretty insignificant when compared to mines elsewhere. And, all mines, whether they are active or not, can shed some very important information on that variation of deposit type being mined there. Turgan (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

When I put together the assessment page for WikiProject_Mining, I put together the following importance scale based on what I was seeing on other projects. Under this system, I have been ranking all mines at the "Mid" level, and deposit types at the "High" level. Turgan (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if that is the standard others have been using, I have no problem with that and will update the importance to "mid" for any mine articles I come across.Theseeker4 (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that, as always, WP:common sense is required. Someone just changed the Grasberg mine, probably the best single mine in the world, to "low" importance. Sigh, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I should have changed it to Mid, however it should not be high (as per the discussion above), also "best single mine in the world" is a pretty big POV statement...I will change it to mid.--Kelapstick (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To expand on the above question regarding importance classifications, how should certain specific mined materials be rated? For example, silver, gold, coal, iron, ore etc. should all be top importance to the project, correct? Or is high importance more appropriate for the more specific items like silver and gold? What are some of the basic guidelines for what classes of topics should be what importance, as in examples, as I don't see any on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Assessment. Thanks.Theseeker4 (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on Importance ratings

Here is a summary of what has been included in various classifications for importance ratings based on the above discussion, and as I have been using. Lets discuss what should be reassessed, or added to specific ratings. We can then incorporate these guidelines on the Assessment page and reassess articles accordingly. Please include your rational as for why that rating should apply, keeping this scale in mind.
Turgan ^Talk 16:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Top: - The article is about one of the core topics of Mining. High quality, complete articles are of utmost importance.
• General mining overviews - Examples, Mining, Gold mining, Uranium mining

• High: - The article is about the most well-known or culturally or historically significant aspects of the Mining industry. Good quality, complete articles are important.

Deposit Types - likely to be researched by both mining and non-mining people.

Comodities - Gold, Silver, Coal, Uranium, etc.

Active Mining Companies - More likely to be searched by people interrested in mines near them.

History of mining in specific areas - very likely to be searched by non-mining people.

Mining Districts - Same reasons as for other "high" ratings.

• Mid: - The article is about a topic within the field that may or may not be commonly known outside the Mining community.

Mines - operating and inactive mines, while important, are not as important as deposit types, or the companies operating them. Still highly likely to be searched by those outside the industry.

• Low: - The article is about a topic that is highly specialized within the field of Mining and is not generally common knowledge outside that community.

Defunct mining companies - not so sure about this one.

• NA - not applicable

All non-article or list pages

I think this looks pretty good. I would add articles that touch on mining without mining being the central theme about the article to the low importance. For example, Columbine Mine massacre would fall under WikiProject Mining, but it is only obliquely related to mining. The main issues behind the incident (or other such strikes) were labor relations, class warfare, etc. The people in this particular dispute happened to be miners, so it falls under the project, but the importance to the project as a whole is low (even though it may be higher importance to say WikiProject Organized Labor).

I am not sure where different extraction techniques should fall, such as Extractive metallurgy, or say Gold extraction, etc. These are important concepts, but I am not sure they would fit in the top importance category. I would think high similarly to the comodities themselves? Just a couple thoughts. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Revival of topic

Greetings. I've been going through and assessing and reassessing quite an number of pages (trying to get through the some 750+ unassessed, and finding ones that surprisingly have never been tagged (e.g. safety lamp). I have been doing this under a scheme I had to engineer from the broad specifications, given that unlike other projects, there is not yet a formal project-specific criteria list on the "importance" page attached. I was about to post the scheme here for discussion when I saw the above. Thankfully, it seems it was fairly close, but not exactly. So here is the scheme I've been working under:

• Top: those things that even a very small encyclopedia would need. Most smaller projects I've looked at tend to keep these between 10 and 25.

• "mining", "miner", etc.
• "___ mining": articles focused on mining a specific mineral (e.g. silver mining, tin mining)
• the major major techniques that together encompass all forms of mining (e.g.surface mining)

• High: (I interpret this as those that if you had a single semester to teach a course about mining for non-miners, what would be included)

• major minerals/ores (e.g. bauxite, iron ore, galena), commodities (e.g. iron,lead) or mineralogical aspects (e.g. placer deposit, lode)
• major mining techniques (e.g.stoping, rock blasting, hydraulic mining)
• major technologies (past and present), esp. those that are iconic of mining to the general public (e.g. head frame, safety lamp, dragline excavator, minecart, pickaxe) ("iconic" being defined in its basic sense: what sorts of objects are put on coats of arms, crests, logos, etc. of mining related places and things to convey the idea "mining!". Think also what sorts of things are put in children's picture books on mining.)
• general extraction methods (e.g. gold extraction, stamping mill)
• a very select few mines that are either:

• among the top engineering record-holders across ALL mines (i.e. depth or pit volume)(e.g. Mir mine) but NOT production volume or just for one mineral.
• UNESCO World Heritage Sites specifically for their importance to mining (e.g. Las Médulas, Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape, Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex) It may be imperfect, but it would make inclusion of some "mines of international historic importance across the millenia" a very objective test - it either is or is not on the list.

• any other iconic mining topics that are of general popular interest (e.g. black lung, canary in a coal mine, Klondike Gold Rush). This is rather subjective, but I feel some except must be made as Wikipedia needs to also written for a popular audience, as opposed to ranking these with, say, List of molybdenum mines.

• Mid:

• major deposits or fields and mining regions that consist or consisted of multiple mining operations (e.g. individual coalfields).
• most instances of precious metal strikes, primarily of more national interest (e.g. Georgia Gold Rush)
• the geographical articles: "mining in_________" or "_______mining in______".
• major mining accidents
• specialized technologies that are subsidiaries of those assessed as "High" (e.g. blasting machine) or record-holding instances (e.g. Big Muskie), or of significant interest to mining but often associated with their aspects outside of mining (e.g. atmospheric engine)
• most individual mines (per talk above due to the problem of objectively comparing mines without regional biasindividual mines of strong national-level interest (e.g. a significant part of that countries' output; if they are National Historic Landmarks in the USA; equivalent in other countries)

• Low: this doesn't mean it's not worthwhile or should be ignored—it's still notable enough to be on Wikipedia and have its own article—but rather a lower priority in the overall project (i.e. not as much as the "mid" content. The way I reason it, the "mining community" includes "mining communities": if the mine is one that its local folks will know, sure; the question is whether people with no connection to mining 1,000 miles (1,600 km) away will (or at least should) know of it. Part of the issue in assessing "low" by a more restricted definition of the mining community is that the really obscure technical stuff which only a mining engineer or miner would know is already covered under wikiprojects on geology, chemistry, and engineering; thus a broader definition.

• very minor deposits and fields for the mineral in question, esp. ones that were more hope than actuality: (e.g. Kent Coalfield)
• extant or former companies of primarily sub-national interest (e.g. Central Ohio Coal Company)
• many individual mines (note: need some standard to distinguish mid from low)
• towns built around mining, where a separate article exists for the mining itself (e.g. if mining isn't in the lead or its claim to fame, it probably should be low, e.g. Nome, Alaska should, if tagged for the project, be low, because there is already a page for Nome Gold Rush covering everything mining related to it)
• most individual miners or people, e.g. Francis Marion Smith
• most anything else with a largely regional or local interest (e.g. something specific to the local miners of Cornwall: Toll tin, Farm tin)

My knowledge is primarily on the history/historical technology side, so I don't know enough about the modern mining business climate to properly assess where the modern companies or conglomerates may fall. Please let me know of any thoughts or flaws in this scheme, otherwise, I will keep using it. Morgan Riley (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarification so as to prevent panic:I am not *reassessing* most mines as low, and probably will be doing most as *mid* per rereading the earlier talk page stuff, unless it can shown otherwise (e.g. an unsuccessful failed mine, a showing of mere local interest, etc.). The long-term question and issue though is whether there should be more "mid" grade articles than low, or vice-versa.Morgan Riley (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

addendum: revised the above scheme reflecting evolving ideas for it. Morgan Riley (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Assessments requests

I wish Dolgoch quarry, Gwynedd to be assessed, but cannot see any section for requesting this on the project page. Can anyone help me please? WT79 The Engineer (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Also Frongoch quarry, Aberdyfi is in need of assessment. I created both these articles, so feel I have too much personal affiliation with them to do it myself. WT79 ^{(Speak to me | account info)} 10:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no formal place to request a rating on the project pages. The best way to get the articles rated is to add the Wikproject Mining banner to the talk page, and leave the ratings blank. this way it gets added to the report lists as an "unassessed" page. Turgan ^Talk 19:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. On many other wikiprojects (such as WP:Rail/A#Requesting an assessment, Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom/Assessment#Requesting an assessment) include this, is it something we need to add here? WT79 ^{(Speak to me | account info)} 07:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)