This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Lancashire and
Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative
project to organize and improve articles related to
mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the
project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the
discussion, or
join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge.
Chidgk1 (
talk) 08:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge to this article, although I could be biased as I created the Woodhouse Colliery article in July 2018 (nearly three years ago). However, the article
Woodhouse colliery does have more in terms of political reaction, but also has some CN tags applied, so I feel it would be easier to merge into this one. Regards.
The joy of all things (
talk) 07:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Question Why is this merge being proposed? Are these two articles for the same proposed coalmine?
John Cummings (
talk) 09:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Looks like a simple merger, whether we merge to the one with an uppercase or lowercase C is not my area of expertise.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 15:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: I support the merger proposal and agree with
The joy of all things that merging to this article, with the uppercase C, would be better.
A separate point is that in the "Reactions" section to the lowercase C article,
Woodhouse colliery, it does seem to be dominated currently by negative reactions and negative quotes regarding the coal mine. For greater balance,
WP:NPOV and
WP:BALANCE, to supplement the negative quotes, I feel it would be beneficial to include one or two quotes by politicians etc supporting the coal mine, such as the colliery providing jobs and supporting the local economy etc, so that the "Reactions" section has more diversity in terms of positive and negative reactions. Regards,
Kind Tennis Fan (
talk) 22:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I want to make a distinction here between NPOV and equal weight. E.g it is factually accurate to say the coal mine will release a large amount of carbon into the atmosphere which will contribute to climate change. Where as the company's claims around jobs are projections the company is using in their PR campaign to get permission to build the mine, their claims are not fact. The first two point of guidance on NPOV are 'Avoid stating opinions as facts' and 'Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts', I think it is reasonable to classify the claims of number of jobs as opinion. I think that is completely reasonable to include quotes by politicians who support the coalmine, but if we are going to quote the company on things like job numbers we need to make very clear these are PR messages from the company trying to sell the project.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Lancashire and
Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative
project to organize and improve articles related to
mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the
project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the
discussion, or
join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge.
Chidgk1 (
talk) 08:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge to this article, although I could be biased as I created the Woodhouse Colliery article in July 2018 (nearly three years ago). However, the article
Woodhouse colliery does have more in terms of political reaction, but also has some CN tags applied, so I feel it would be easier to merge into this one. Regards.
The joy of all things (
talk) 07:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Question Why is this merge being proposed? Are these two articles for the same proposed coalmine?
John Cummings (
talk) 09:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Looks like a simple merger, whether we merge to the one with an uppercase or lowercase C is not my area of expertise.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 15:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: I support the merger proposal and agree with
The joy of all things that merging to this article, with the uppercase C, would be better.
A separate point is that in the "Reactions" section to the lowercase C article,
Woodhouse colliery, it does seem to be dominated currently by negative reactions and negative quotes regarding the coal mine. For greater balance,
WP:NPOV and
WP:BALANCE, to supplement the negative quotes, I feel it would be beneficial to include one or two quotes by politicians etc supporting the coal mine, such as the colliery providing jobs and supporting the local economy etc, so that the "Reactions" section has more diversity in terms of positive and negative reactions. Regards,
Kind Tennis Fan (
talk) 22:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I want to make a distinction here between NPOV and equal weight. E.g it is factually accurate to say the coal mine will release a large amount of carbon into the atmosphere which will contribute to climate change. Where as the company's claims around jobs are projections the company is using in their PR campaign to get permission to build the mine, their claims are not fact. The first two point of guidance on NPOV are 'Avoid stating opinions as facts' and 'Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts', I think it is reasonable to classify the claims of number of jobs as opinion. I think that is completely reasonable to include quotes by politicians who support the coalmine, but if we are going to quote the company on things like job numbers we need to make very clear these are PR messages from the company trying to sell the project.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.svg){kind=small}
