Talk:Stoping

Merge with stull stoping

The stull stoping article does not present sufficient information to stand on its own. It should be merged into this article. Neelix (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. The two meanings of the term "stoping" should have separate articles. I think the "Mining method" section of this article should be moved to a new article Stoping (mining method) into which the content of Stull stoping (and Shrinkage stope mining) should also be merged. There's plenty more that could be said about the topic too (overhand and underhand stoping, for instance). I think that it's important that a direct link to the term should be available for those reading about mining, where the words "stope" and "stoping" occur frequently. I'll do this in a few days if there are no objections.  —SMALLJIM  19:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Done.  —SMALLJIM  21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Stopping (geology) Mike Cline (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

---

• Stoping → Stoping (geology)
• Stoping (mining) → Stoping

– The usage in the mining context is the Primary Topic, rather than the geological usage. Rationale: 1.) Lexical/chronological: the geological term is recent (a bit over a century), and was derived from the mining term (see the chronology of when the process was discovered), whereas the mining process has existed since the beginning of mining itself 2.) at present at least, WikiProject Geology tag has it marked as low priority, whereas in mining it is an essential concept, being the primary activity of underground mining (stoping = the process of the removal of minerals in an underground mine); further, the topic of mining is a major topic (thus not a small or insular usage), alongside geology 3.) at present, the geological usage is a mere stub with no indication that it is a primary topic. 4.) the number of incoming article-space links to the geological usage is merely 10, the mining usage several times that 5.) when the page was first split, there was no prior discussion as to which was the primary topic, and thus the issue has not been raised before. Disclosure: nominator is part of WikiProject Mining by interest and not occupation, and thus may have some bias, but feels this is a fairly neutral proposal. Morgan Riley (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Morgan Riley (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me: the mining usage does appear to predominate, though I've notified the Geology WikiProject in case they want to comment. Should something be done to stope too?  —SMALLJIM  22:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• I do support the proposed moves. Volcanoguy 12:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.