Talk:South Wales Coalfield

Article title

Since South Wales Coalfield is a proper name relating to a specific area, I'd suggest the page is moved to 'South Wales Coalfield' ie with a capital 'C', with appropriate re-directs. By way of support this is the form used by the British Geological Survey in references to the area in its literature. Geopersona (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got no objection.--Pondle (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cap C sounded reasonable to me, so I tried moving it. It is, after all, the form used by the Rhondda Heritage Park on the plaque of its Davey lamp memorial. Aha, it won't work because 'South Wales Coalfield' was the original version and was moved to 'South Wales coalfield' in Dec 2007 on purported MoS grounds. I now suggest it's not worth making a fuss over this. A google search shows that both styles of capitalisation are in roughly equal use. And, of course, the common-noun form 'coalfield' recurs about six times in the article's body. An MoS principle to apply here is that of consistency, so I'm venturing to lowercase coalfield where the cap still occurs. Btw, I came to this page seeking past discussion on the total lack of citations in the article. Can we expend some energy on that more important issue, please? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of continuity it should be moved. It's the only coalfield not capitalised on all of Wikipedia; List of coalfields. Did you try just cutting and pasting it? It's not strictly correct; WP:HM, but if the page already existed as the original I can't see that it will be a problem. Obscurasky (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

hmm

I've been doing a bit of tidying up here, but it occurs to me that there is a danger of repeating a lot of content from other pages such as Rhondda, Mining in Wales, South Wales, South Wales Valleys and so on.

Does anyone have a vision for how this page can be more than just repeating stuff from other pages? It seems like the Coalfield is an important geographical/sociological concept so we should be working to improve, but I don't really see how we're going to do that. Or maybe just slightly rearranging other content is what we need to do here. Thoughts? JMWt (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see duplication as a problem. Collation is valuable, just as writing or editing is.

We should place material here that fits the scope of "South Wales coalfield". This can span several articles. It can even be lifted verbatim from other articles (we don't even know which articles our readers will and won't read at the time). If we have the chance, then we can edit, trim or expand to make it even better. But for starters, just using content we already have to build something matching the scope is still a useful start. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a definite and important geological, historical and industrial feature with a substantial literature, so its notability is not in question. As always, there are other topics that include it (Coal industry in Wales spanning North and South coalfields, for instance), and in turn it touches on further topics like those mentioned above. That's true of most articles, and it's why we have Main links and other wikilinks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)