Talk:Centrex Metals

Merge proposal

The Fusion Magnetite Project seems to have stalled with the joint venture being wound up, so I propose that the stub get merged back to this article with the other failed South Australia iron ore projects. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I notice the other partner (Wuhan Iron and Steel Corporation) also has an article, so I'm not sure about merging to one of them. Otherwise makes sense though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The Fusion Magnetite project was big for Centrex, but a pimple on the balance sheet for Wuhan, who were essentially a customer with an equity interest. I think Centrex did the exploration and would have done the mining, too. That's my reason for putting it in Centrex (which already mentions the project) and not Wuhan (which doesn't). Koppio is the other possible merge target in my mind. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No objections here, just thought I'd point it out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Very good idea, Scott. However, I don't think Centrex/Fusion would be well placed as a component of the Koppio article; OK for a linked one-sentence mention though. (Hope I haven't misinterpreted you.) SCHolar44 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You interpreted me correctly then went further, and I agree that a failed/not really started proposal is out of place on the locality article. I think Fusion could fit in the Koppio article if it was part of a section on four or more not-followed-through proposals that led to the one that had gone ahead, but I can't find any sources online to support that line of reasoning either. I didn't intend to suggest merging Centrex to the Koppio article, as Centrex has other businesses. I still think merging Fusion to Centrex is the right solution, and will do it sometime. Thanks for the support. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Merge completed. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Concerned about recent deletion of aspects of company history

I'm concerned that this article no longer makes any mention of the Port Spencer project, which was one of the company's projects. It was approved to be constructed, then the project was sold to another would-be port developer, so the project is still live. I don't think the deletion of the information about the company's exploration activity and ambitions in South Australia are constructive either. All this information is part of the company's history and as I understand it, the WP principle is to keep referenced reliable content whenever possible. --Danimations (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, to a point. It is no longer the best place for all the information about the Port Spencer project, but it warrants more attention that it now gets given its importance to the company's history. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

G'day @Danimations and The Drover's Wife:

My thinking in deleting was that the company has transformed itself entirely from iron ore to phosphate production, and since it had sold off all its South Australian assets and dissolved its joint ventures, its past activities in iron ore projects were of historical interest only – and that interest, I believed, didn't clear the bar for inclusion. I had thought that the Port Spencer project, if it ever moves on, could be worthy of future mention as part of the new company’s activities. I didn't believe it was noteworthy in the history of a resource development company, since those companies frequently change their spots. Also I was mindful that Port Spencer has its own article (which needs to be updated, especially for example concerning the unnamed company that may by now have developed grain export; see last sentence of the article).

That said, the port could be mentioned by modifying the first Centrex Metals sentence to read "... with the aim of developing several iron ore projects on Eyre Peninsula, South Australia, including port facilities at Port Spencer." If you decide to develop some other text, my only recommendation would be not to return significant amounts of the previous text, given that the company has walked away from Eyre Peninsula and iron ore. And updating the Port Spencer article could be considered a better use of time (which I don't have right now – but go for it!).

I hope this explanation helps. Over to you.  :-)  Cheers, Simon  — SCHolar44 (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@SCHolar44: Wikipedia articles about organisations generally don't just cover the current state of things, but the entire history of the organisation. The historical interest is the point - it's not an article about what they're doing right now, it's an encyclopedia article about the organisation in its entirety. I think where companies change their spots, it's all the more important that we document those changes (not least because it makes references to the article from earlier contexts confusing as heck if we don't). The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Port Spencer is back... and a case for further (re)expansion of SA activity in History section

I've reinstated a concise summary of the status of Port Spencer. My general criticism of this article is that it doesn't present information in chronological order and no longer has any subsections to guide the reader. In my opinion, a company's history is notable if it's reported in newspapers. For many years, the company's sole interests were exploration in South Australia during which the company's flagship Fusion project was various reported on, despite ultimately not proceeding. This company has also existed for over a decade, so in my view, an article with at least a subsection on Exploration in South Australia would be justified as an early chapter of the company's history. --Danimations (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Danimations. I think you've got the right idea and it would be good to see that fleshed out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Seconded! A good outcome.  :-)  SCHolar44 (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)