User talk:CGX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Red Dog Mine 2 Section break 3 Section break 4 Name of mine 5 Gold Mining in Alaska 6 Anchorage, Alaska 7 February 2008

[edit] Red Dog Mine

You are no doubt right about the 56 mt being ore, not metal.Plazak (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Several things to address — above all else, you make the point that the CDP and the mine are two very very different things, which is true. Is the mine notable? The article as it stands is actually rather irregular; community articles typically discuss the community and the area, and features (including industries and mines) are dealt with separately. If the mine is notable (I've not checked to see), it would make much more sense to make it a separate article altogether, getting rid of the confusion. If we have one article, it has to be about both. If we have two articles, the title Red Dog Mine, Alaska properly belongs to the community; a proper name for the mine would be Red Dog Mine (Alaska) or something like that, with a note at the top of each article pointing the reader to the other one.

I've removed the disclaimer in the census demographics section for one simple reason: the section specifically speaks of the CDP, which is the community. As far as the pollution in the geography: I simply restored the text as it had been some months ago, which included the pollution thing; I wasn't aware that it had been moved elsewhere.

Finally, about the nature of Census data: a CDP is created with consultation with local authorities, according to the Census, and therefore it's not just some oddball idea of a miscellaneous bureaucrat — it's a notable place. I'm not sure what to make of the financial information, but that's the actual Census data — perhaps the definitions differ from what we'd think. For basic Census data, see here, which includes those statistics. If you want to change that, you'll have to find a source disproving the Census. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the Census data notes that nearly half of the population, somehow, are below age 18, and several residents speak something other than English at home. Perhaps this counts a few Alaska Natives? I don't know, but this doesn't seem typical of a community with only miners. Remember that the CDP is nearly 70 square miles. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There was the same dilemma about the article on Climax, Colorado: the town was so tied to the mine that it was difficult to cover one without the other, and in the end it remained as one article. Plazak (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I made some edits to help separate the mine from the CDP. I also did a little known trick to put the settlement type in the infobox's header. I hope this helps you out. It's the best I can do. Good Luck. —MJCdetroit (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

"Can you point me to the instructions on how to do a discussion with several wikipedians at once?" No, not really; it's simply that they read the discussion. I'm going to continue it here, as you appear to be the one wanting to see the article changed significantly, so you're the one everyone else is paying attention to.

Despite what you think, there's consensus that places and communities are notable. I don't understand the census results, but this isn't the only place: Freeport, Kansas and Thurmond, West Virginia are also this way. I don't really care what you yourself think about the place itself, and you shouldn't care what I myself think about the place itself. The thing is that it's a recognised place — whether or not it should be is not what Wikipedia is concerned with — and therefore doesn't deserve to have its article deleted.

On the other hand, you note that the mine itself is notable. As I've looked over the article more, I can't see how you could possibly be wrong — there's source after source after source on it. Please do not attempt to have the CDP article deleted, because that's frankly going to be disruptive. Instead, please do your best to help build the article on the mine. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Go see what the new article looks like. It's obviously not the CDP, and the CDP is obviously not the mine. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

Nyttend - are you there? It seems odd to edit my own talk page to reach you. I will try to learn to be a good Wikipedian. Seriously. As stated earlier, I don't want to try to mess up the work of long time contributors who have contributed far more than I to Wikipedia. I know I'm a beginner.

Thanks for your help with this.

OK - accepted - the Red Dog CDP is of interest. Now the task is to best explain to the Wikipedia reader the facts of and the nature of the Red Dog CDP. Relying on the stats reported by census 2000 will not do a good job of that.

It does not seem that the RedDogCDP has anything in common with the Kansas and West Virginia towns you mentioned. There is no town or settlement in the RedDog CDP and there never was - other than the mine. Please look at the pictures at http://aurresources.com/Generic.aspx?PAGE=Media+Pages%2FImage+Library+Pages%2FRed+Dog+Mine+Images&portalName=tc&categoryId=34176 (don't worry about the listed big file size, a good big thumbnail will pop up instantly before the multi-meg download) In the forefront of picture number 2 you will see the huge PAC where everyone lives. That is where the Red Dog CDP community is - does it look like a 32-person house?

I do wish I could get you to understand that the Red Dog Mine CDP is really just a construct of a statistical data-gathering process - the numbers in it do not reflect the situation on the ground in the real world. Those 32 reported CDP residents really are just a random subset of the approx 500 workers at the mine.

An important, perhaps key, point is that there IS NOT ANY place or community in the Red Dog CDP - other than the mine itself. It is all uninhabited tundra. Before mining activities began in the 80's nobody lived within the RedDog CDP. The Red DogCDP did not even exist before the mine was built. See the tables on page 16 of Alaska 2000 Population and Housing Unit Counts at http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/phc-3-3.pdf for verification of that statement.

I will do a big edit on the Red Dog CDP page, but only once. I will not get into an edit war - if you feel it neccesary to undo the edit - I'll stay out of the way. But please do me the favor of seriously trying to understand my argument that the Red Dog CDP page should be very very brief, should not contain any info on the mine, just have a link to the mine page. Otherwise people will get the idea that the RedDogCDP statistics have some relevence to the Red Dog mine.

Cheers, CGXCGX (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope I'm doing my best not to bite you. I'll get back to you later, as I have a big final exam at 1300 UTC, but nothing the rest of the day. I suppose it likely won't matter if you're on Alaska time, it's still ridiculously early in the morning :-) I'll just say this: the way articles are done on places, whether CDP or anything else, generally includes some data to summarise the local œconomy in some way, even if (like here) it's something notable by itself. If you're awake really early for some reason, please leave the article alone until I get a response to you later in the morning. Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, test went well :-) As I said above, the basic reason for why I added the bits that you deleted is that having them is typical: CDP and other related articles generally include information about the area. The Northwest Arctic Borough article could (but doesn't) include information about the area; for an example, see the Aleutians East Borough. Therefore, it's relevant to include information in the CDP article. I'm well aware that the CDP is a construct of statisticians, and that the designation of CDP is made to make statistical collection easier; in fact, all CDPs are this way, as you can see if you read this Census Bureau page. The difference is that this is a recognised area with specific boundaries, although without governmental existence — to me, it seems like the census areas of the Unorganised Borough. Even if it doesn't include much more than mine, mine facilities, and tundra, it's notable enough to keep as its own article, and because it's a specific area, we can logically and sensibly write about the features (and problems, including pollution) of that specific area. Overall, we go by the sources that we find, including the Census statistics for the community, as doing otherwise is original research.

By the way, the reason I mentioned those two little towns is that they, too, have odd income statistics, like the Red Dog Mine CDP does.

Finally, please don't think that you're doing ill by editing. You're a new editor, and therefore aren't as accustomed to editing geography articles as Plazak and MJCdetriot are. We expect you to do the best you can and be bold. Thanks for doing your best! Nyttend (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'd like your opinion: should the mine article be entitled "Red Dog mine" instead of "Red Dog Mine"? Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The USGS uses lower case for "mine," as in "Red Dog mine." Plazak (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lunchtime December 12, all's good, I appreciate the communication. Red Dog mine will be correct, as noted by Plazak.

I reject your premise that the reddogcdp is notable. Can you support the premise(citing verifiable sources)? Smile.

I also reject the premise that the rdmcdp makes a good vehicle for discussing, "features and problems," of the area. The rdmcdp is a small chunk of land and its boundaries do not define or coincide with any natural biological or human cultural boundaries. There is virtually no meaningfull discussion of "features and problems," of the area that can reasonably be limited to the rdmcdp. For instance, the rdmcdp contains just a random scrap, a little portion, of the mining activities current infrastructure footprint and potential pollution footprint. Also, 100% of the human beings that are economically and socially affected by the mine have their homes outside of the rdmcdp (OK, 99.9% if we accept that 32-person census). The Northwest Arctic Borough is a far better context for such discussions.

Now, all that said, I'll yield to you and leave the CDP demographics alone, even though any reader will leave the page well informed on numbers reported by the census, but wildly misinformed about the human population of the rdmcdp.

Oh, and BTW, 1)the land areas in the unorganized Borough actually have remote homesteads, fishcamps, villages, families living there. It is not a useful analog of the rdmcdp. and 2)median means to the census just what it means to the rest of the world, you can check on the census glossary page. CGX (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the mining activity is the center of the pollution controversy, it would not make sense to put the pollution controversy under the CDP article. People will look for info on the pollution controversy under Red Dog Mine (Alaska), so that is where it should be. Plazak (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

When a notable locality is located within a recognised place, and when something happens relative to the notable locality, at least a short note is generally included in the place article. Compare the pollution section in the CDP article (two sentences) with the section in the mine article (thirteen sections, three paragraphs) and you'll see that the point is that the area in the CDP has been considered a rather polluted area, but that's all that's directly relevant to the area in the CDP. For example, if a notable, record-breaking quarry were to be developed in Lewis, Vermont, we'd include a small bit about it in the article, even though it would deserve an article of its own. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of mine

I'm busy for much of the rest of the day, but I'll try to get the mine article moved to the proper capitalisation. Since it will be capitalised differently, I'll move it to "Red Dog mine", leaving off the Alaska that was essential for separating it from the CDP. Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's late at night in the East, but I've taken care of it today. I suppose the darkness doesn't matter right now, since this time of year it's not that light at high noon in the Northwest Arctic Borough :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Mining in Alaska

Thanks for the assistance. I'll be adding more stuff to the page, and will cite more references.

Also, you probably meant '1898' not '1989' for Nome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlaskaMining (talk • contribs) 03:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anchorage, Alaska

Thanks for your comments. I think my biggest issue with your edits was the unnecessary detail about Alaska's railroad system in the main article. It sounds like you're pretty knowledgeable on the subject - maybe start an article for ARRC? Keep in mind, this is an article about the city of Anchorage and most of your added commentary relates directly to the railroad, not the city. I also didn't think it was practical to state that the line starts in Eielson (which you spelled incorrectly). You also said "One spur lines terminates at Whittier" not proper (should be "line"). "Passenger terminals are located in;" use a colon, not semi-colon. A few other minor items. I know this sounds nit-picky, but we want this article to be as informative, factual, and well-written as possible. Also, in a later edit, you used km as the standard of measurement. Because this article is about a city in the U.S., it only makes sense to use miles, right? I encourage you to preview and proof your changes before saving them, it makes for much smoother editing! Thanks for your contributions. Thedjb (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Red Dog mine has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm so sorry for the delay in reply. It seems to have been lost when I archived my talk page. That was definitely a mis-revert, I likely intended to revert someone else, not you. I'm really sorry for the warning, I've stricken it. Thanks for your patience, and I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Regards, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)