 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
lots of pages link here, anyone care for some mass disambigging? Matthewmayer 01:17, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Shouldn't we have cites? ( Buscus 3 ( talk) 15:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC))
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: withdrawn. This is clearly not going to happen. ( non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Mine →
Mine (disambiguation) –
Mine should become a
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to
Mining, as a {{
R from common noun}}.
Mining is the long-term significant
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Mine".
SST
flyer
01:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose explosives/military mines are also very common, and frequently used in text. Indeed, Princess Di was for the outlawing of anti-personnel mines, while the hazard of mines is a common topic in former war zones, and affect the common people more than the resource extraction type. Loose mines at sea are also hazards to shipping, as evidenced in the Persian Gulf from the 1980s, or after WWI and WWII; and hazards to divers for sunken mines from prior eras. -- 70.51.46.39 ( talk) 03:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Mining is the primary topic for the digging aspect, so I don't see Mine as being so overwhelmingly primary otherwise. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose: two main uses, digging and explosive, neither of which is clear primary topic. Pam D 12:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, I agree with others that there's no basis to say the digging sense is primary over the explosives sense. older ≠ wiser 12:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per PamD. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
|
| This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
lots of pages link here, anyone care for some mass disambigging? Matthewmayer 01:17, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Shouldn't we have cites? ( Buscus 3 ( talk) 15:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC))
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: withdrawn. This is clearly not going to happen. ( non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Mine →
Mine (disambiguation) –
Mine should become a
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to
Mining, as a {{
R from common noun}}.
Mining is the long-term significant
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Mine".
SST
flyer
01:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose explosives/military mines are also very common, and frequently used in text. Indeed, Princess Di was for the outlawing of anti-personnel mines, while the hazard of mines is a common topic in former war zones, and affect the common people more than the resource extraction type. Loose mines at sea are also hazards to shipping, as evidenced in the Persian Gulf from the 1980s, or after WWI and WWII; and hazards to divers for sunken mines from prior eras. -- 70.51.46.39 ( talk) 03:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Mining is the primary topic for the digging aspect, so I don't see Mine as being so overwhelmingly primary otherwise. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose: two main uses, digging and explosive, neither of which is clear primary topic. Pam D 12:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, I agree with others that there's no basis to say the digging sense is primary over the explosives sense. older ≠ wiser 12:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per PamD. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.