Talk:Woodhouse Colliery
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Chidgk1 in topic Merger proposal
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help! | ![]() |
Merger proposal
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Comment Whilst this has been proposed by another editor, the discussion was not instigated, so I am putting it in here. Pinging those involved; Leon II, John Cummings, Kind Tennis Fan, Ehrenkater, Horse Eye's Back Dr Greg. The joy of all things (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to this article, although I could be biased as I created the Woodhouse Colliery article in July 2018 (nearly three years ago). However, the article Woodhouse colliery does have more in terms of political reaction, but also has some CN tags applied, so I feel it would be easier to merge into this one. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Question Why is this merge being proposed? Are these two articles for the same proposed coalmine? John Cummings (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, they cover the same topic. The joy of all things (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like a simple merger, whether we merge to the one with an uppercase or lowercase C is not my area of expertise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I support the merger proposal and agree with The joy of all things that merging to this article, with the uppercase C, would be better.
- A separate point is that in the "Reactions" section to the lowercase C article, Woodhouse colliery, it does seem to be dominated currently by negative reactions and negative quotes regarding the coal mine. For greater balance, WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE, to supplement the negative quotes, I feel it would be beneficial to include one or two quotes by politicians etc supporting the coal mine, such as the colliery providing jobs and supporting the local economy etc, so that the "Reactions" section has more diversity in terms of positive and negative reactions. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I want to make a distinction here between NPOV and equal weight. E.g it is factually accurate to say the coal mine will release a large amount of carbon into the atmosphere which will contribute to climate change. Where as the company's claims around jobs are projections the company is using in their PR campaign to get permission to build the mine, their claims are not fact. The first two point of guidance on NPOV are 'Avoid stating opinions as facts' and 'Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts', I think it is reasonable to classify the claims of number of jobs as opinion. I think that is completely reasonable to include quotes by politicians who support the coalmine, but if we are going to quote the company on things like job numbers we need to make very clear these are PR messages from the company trying to sell the project.
- Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.