Talk:Upper Big Branch Mine disaster/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested page move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to a different title. Just closing the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Massey Energy Disaster → 2010 Massey Energy disaster — Disaster should not be capitalised in the article name, as it's not a proper name in this case. See WP:LOWERCASE Schwede66 23:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. --candle•wicke 00:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer a move to Upper Big Branch Mine disaster to be more inline with other mining disasters (such as Sago Mine disaster), but I certainly agree that the "d" should not be capitalized. youngamerican (wtf?) 02:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That warrants the copy and removal of this page? Nice. What about just rename the page and maintain the history? Someone earlier today did that (cut and pasted) to the page without discussion. The page was so young that it lead one to wonder whether he wanted to claim it. Please don't do that in this case, I don't care if you call it "dfghjiusyfgds" just as long as my first article is credited to me. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, GnarlyLikeWhoa. Nobody is suggesting to 'copy or remove' this page. WP:MOVE outlines the procedure for renaming a page, and the act of doing so is called moving. The page history and its talk page will move with it when a move goes ahead. Schwede66 03:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's move it, it's a young page with only a few visitors. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with de-capitalising the last word in the title via WP:MOVE. Also, you might want to put some redirects up for terms others might use to find the article. Xtzou (Talk) 12:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What was the rationale for moving this page to "2010 Massey Energy Disaster" in the first place? Most all mining disasters are named after the mine or its location. I don't recall seeing a discussion on this initial move. Bms4880 (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This page was created after Upper Big Branch mine explosion. Having seen this, I copied and pasted the text from this page into the earlier one, because I thought it was a better name and because I was not aware of any easy way to move it while keeping the edit history. That page has since been turned into a redirect into this one. I don't really care much, but personally I think "Upper Big Branch Mine explosion" is a better title. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It is wrong to copy/paste. The correct way is through a {{merge}}. If you copy/paste, the editors of the other article loose all credit for their edits and the credit goes to you instead. That is the way I understand it. Xtzou (Talk) 13:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that could be done. Sure, by all means - I don't object to it. All I was trying to do was beef up one article with information from the other. I don't care who gets credit for it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This article was created, then copied and pasted to another article, and I moved it back to its original state because it wasn't properly moved in the first place. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge with Upper Big Branch mine explosion, using "Upper Big Branch mine explosion" or "Upper Big Branch mine disaster" as the title. Bms4880 (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• My bad Sorry, should have came here first. However, the move was uncontroversial, and didn't require an administrator, so all is well. Grsz¹¹ 15:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• While no one objects to a move fixing the capitalization issue, there is no consensus yet on the proper title for this article. youngamerican (wtf?) 15:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge with Upper Big Branch Mine explosion or Upper Big Branch Mine disaster (the mine is surely part of the proper name?). Skinsmoke (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Going by the news articles, it would be Upper Big Branch mine explosion or Upper Big Branch mine disaster. Apparently a formal name for the mine has not been identified in the reference sources. Xtzou (Talk) 15:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• If I recall the Sago Mine disaster naming discussion correctly, the US gov't defines a "disaster" as having more than 5 deaths. Also, I'm getting the impression that "Mine" is part of the proper title, but nothing fully verifiable yet. youngamerican (wtf?) 15:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the official name of the mine is "Upper Big Branch Mine-South."[1] and [2]

However they refer to it by the current article name. "We are providing you with this single source page of information and resources regarding the Upper Big Branch Mine explosion which occurred on April 5, 2010." It may be better to stick with general wording that to call it something obscure that hasn't been pick up by the news media. Xtzou (Talk) 16:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Upper Big Branch Mine explosion or disaster is fine. Bms4880 (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The original name is both incorrect in that this incident may not be known as such and in that the capitalized "d" doesn't belong. Move the article + history. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A proper {{move}} would include moving the history. Xtzou (Talk) 18:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support move to Upper Big Branch Mine disaster per precedents and comments above. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support move to Upper Big Branch Mine disaster per precedents and comments above. The current naming is the equivalent of calling an airplane crash 2010 United Airlines disaster.Americasroof (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I think it should stay as is because it names the mine not the company that owns it which has been suggested Iamcool234 22:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Numbers

Editors: Let's make sure we abide by MOS:NUM and write out numbers from 0-9 and not 10-infinity. For example, stuff like this is written throughout the article: "25 people died" "thirty-one people were in the mine." Let's keep it consistent :) GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

map

Is this map in the public domain (i.e., did an MSHA employee create it)? If it is, it might be a useful upload for this article. Two other maps on the MSHA page were provided by the company. Bms4880 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Memorial??

Hey Folks, I will be heading out to that area soon. Would a pic of the memorial for UBB contribute to this article? I believe it would, HOWEVER, I would like to hear from other voicesCoal town guy (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Bms4880 (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

MOST excellentCoal town guy (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a memorial pic, I also have a close up of the sculpture, should I add it here as well??Coal town guy (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice picture of the memorial, Coal town guy! The written description did not do it justice. I think a closeup of the sculpture couldn't hurt, you could add it.

BTW, the "Faces of the Mine" web page disappeared sometime late in 2013. Since the memorial is up and running (and with its own web page) it unclear to me that "there once was a web page called faces of the mine" is encyclopedia-worthy. I'll clean it out, but feel free to revert (or add back a sentence or two) if you think otherwise. M.boli (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that should be done. YTes, the memorial is up at full steam, its very difficult to get to, but worth the drive.Coal town guy (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I have been informed that the image is possibly unfree, although its a public memorial...So its gone. I will not in a snow balls chance in hell ever ever contribute a memorial pic or data on this project ever again. This is the 4th bs, goat rope diatribe I have been through. I do however appreciate the kind words, and while I would love to contribute, I am of course not allowed.Coal town guy (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear you had to pull the picture. It was quite nice in terms of showing readers what the memorial was about, as well as thematically fitting the article about the disaster. In addition to which, it was a nicer picture than the ones on the UBB Memorial web site. M.boli (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I am very certain the sculpture would be a taboo as well. I very much enjoy coal culture and their places and yes, their memorials. A shame indeedCoal town guy (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Upper Big Branch Mine disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120407053125/http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120404-715783.html to http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120404-715783.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Editorial with court info

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a43712/don-blankenship-sentenced-bp-trial/?mag=esq&list=nl_enl_news&src=nl&date=04071664.53.191.77 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Upper Big Branch Mine disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110308003436/http://www.facesofthemine.com:80/ to http://www.facesofthemine.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)