Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Mining and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
| This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
| ||||||||
More for The Doe Run Company
Hello! I'm an employee of The Doe Run Company and I'm here as a representative of the company, per my last message at this WikiProject. Continuing my work to update the company's Wikipedia article, I have saved an expanded and updated draft here, and posted an edit request on the article's talk page. My goals are to correct factual inaccuracies, source all content, and provide a more thorough overview of the company's operations, among others outlined in more detail in the edit request. Would someone from this page be able to give this a look over? TS at Doe Run (talk)
Mining/refining article structure discussion on WT:CHEM
I have noticed that there are a few articles on similar mining and refining-related topics with different names and somewhat similar scopes (e.g. nickel mine vs iron mine redirecting to iron ore vs copper mine redirecting to copper extraction), and wonder if a bit more uniformity would be a useful cleanup. I put the discussion on WT:CHEM but I suspect it's worth linking it here: WT:CHEM#Uniform approach to extraction and refining of industrial metals. Thank you! Fishsicles (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
New stub template
Hi all - I've just created and added a new template for articles on people heavily connected with mining who wouldn't qualify as geologists. {{Mining-bio-stub}} will place articles in Category:Mining people stubs a subcategory of Category:Mining stubs, and can be used for miners, mining engineers, mine owners, and the like. Grutness...wha? 06:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894
Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)