Category talk:Mining disasters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Mining This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining,
a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to Mining.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the assessment scale.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Category:Mining disasters page.

Contents

[edit] earlier unsigned comment

The Quecreek Mining incident in Somerset, PA in July 2002 should be added to this index. And the 2005 Sago Mine article should note the superficial comparison between the two (efforts to rescue trapped miners)

[edit] rename?

Should this cat now be renamed Mining accidents and disasters

that was my comment, I forgot to sign. Youngamerican 19:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] organise

since there is already a mining disasters in the united states category, it would be tidier to link that here and move all US mining disasters into it. So I did.--Jackyd101 09:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions

I notice that 14 of the disasters here and in the subcat are capitalised (i.e. Blantyre Mining Disaster) whereas the others are not. Is there a standard convention for which is better? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) seems to suggest that 'disaster' or 'explosion' shouldn't be capitalised, but seeing as there are quite a few pages involved I though it would be best to reach a consensus here first. Ziggurat 21:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ziggurat changing it to follow MoS is fine by me. FloNight talk 21:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree. The Gresford Disaster was a specific event and therefore needs capitals. It should be treated for syntax in the same way as Independence Day, Menin Gate, Burma Railway, Manhattan Project, ...
--maelor 22:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Menin Gate, the Burma Railway, and the Manhattan Project are capitalised as things rather than events, and holidays generally have capitals as they're proper nouns. I don't personally think that the Gresford disaster fits in the same category at all; consider the BBC's naming (in which the event is uncapitalised), or the fact that most of the disasters at Wikipedia are uncapitalised already. Ziggurat 23:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I must also disagree. The description of the event itself (XYZ Disaster) becomes a name for the event. You don't talk about the Gresford Explosion or the Gresford Accident, but rather the Gresford Disaster. It's a name and should be capitalized.
Other events: American Revolution, Formosa Incident, Great Chicago Fire, Ice Storm of 1998, Boxer Rebellion, Halifax Explosion, and Johnstown Flood.
I guess I don't see any argument not to capitalize it. --MrHarman 02:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of events that don't capitalise (Courrières mine disaster, Sago Mine disaster, Holland Tunnel fire, 1906 San Francisco earthquake, Flixborough disaster, La Coubre explosion are a few examples), and there doesn't appear to be a standard rule on which is more appropriate (which is why I'm asking here). If there is in fact no good standard, it seems best to go by how they are described in other sources, and I don't see much evidence that Gresford Disaster is described with the capital over without the capital. Ziggurat 03:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The National Library of Wales in Aberystwth and the National Archives in London both capitalise "Gresford Disaster" and those are good enough precedents for me. --maelor 10:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It would certainly be a good precedent for me too. Are there some online sources? I notice that the parliamentary Hansard, ANW, Gwynedd Council, and the BBC don't capitalise, although those are all in-passing mentions. Ziggurat 02:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)