Talk:Saltpetre works

Arguments against the fusion

• I think saltpeter making it's important enough to have its own article]]
• There are differenciated pages in 3 more wikipediae, (see iwiki)

1. ca: Salnitrera
2. es: Salitrería
3. fr: nitrière

• I imagine the reason for the fusion was because the article niter had only 5.899 bytes
• It can be expanded with additional info..and once niter has been expanded to 15K bytes will be no reason for the fusion because *Otherwise for the same reason the article paper it would have to be merged with the article paper making and many others with a similar situation.

--Mcapdevila (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Article rename

I observed that while "saltpeter works" get 171.000 hits, the word "nitraries" gets only 276 hits in google. Hence I propose to rename the article to the more common name "Saltpeter works". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course salt petre is more common than nitre - but we have a classic WP:ENGVAR problem of "salt peter" versus "salt petre". Plus "works" implies an industrial-scale factory, whereas for much of history nitrate was produced at a much smaller scale.Le Deluge (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We agree that the name can be "saltpeter", "salt peter" or "salt petre" but not "nitraries".

• "salt petre" 581.000 hits [1]
• "salt peter" 1.470.000 hits [2]
• "saltpeter" 6.280.000 hits [3]

Saltpeter is simply the most used name. Since there are railways built only for the transport of the Saltpeter production, we use the term "works". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As I keep suggesting, please read WP:ENGVAR and you will see that regardless of Google hits, this article will never, ever use the word "salt peter". Just to be clear - you do appreciate that "peter" is American English and "petre" is British/Commonwealth English? Aside from the fact that the Wikipedia convention is that in 50:50 cases we go with whichever variant of English was first used in an article (here British English, so "petre"), you could probably make a case that with the British industry's long history going back to before Columbus, and the fact that Bengal was the world centre of production for most of the last millennium (qv the reference I gave in the discussion on category rename, then there's a sufficient connection to justify British/Indian English for this article in any case. The railways thing is irrelevant - this is about production going back way, way before Chile was even a country, let alone a nitrate producer. Having said that I'm coming round to the idea of this being renamed to Nitrate production or History of the nitrate industry which avoids the ENGVAR problem as well as using more modern terminology.Le Deluge (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

As the page has used "saltpetre" since day one (with the exception of the image caption, which I just fixed) any page move/renaming should honor that. So the "re" ending should be used whatever name is decided on. A simple google search returns an abundance of trivialities and means little here. If saltpetre works is problematic, then "saltpetre production" might be better. The current article is focused on historical production - anyone have plans for expansion? Vsmith (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Geographic error

Please ! Aragon is not "near the sea", there is no mountain near the sea, in Aragon. Where there was saltpetre it was in Catalonia, which did not always belong to the "crown of Aragon".

The phrase "found in Spain in Aragon in a certain mountain near the sea." is a mistake, a gross error  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan Ruiz Solanes (talk • contribs) 08:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC) 

No hi puc fer res.. Michael Scott says in De Alchymia: "in Aragoniam invenitur in quodam Monte juxta mari" => wich must be Collbató..Mcapdevila (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)