Talk:Woodhouse Colliery

	Cumbria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Mining Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

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

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.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Yes, they cover the same topic. The joy of all things (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Maths just don't make sense in this article

This article claims that this proposed mine will produce 3 million tonnes of coal per annum - and contrasts this against a figure of 6 million tonnes of coal that the UK currently imports. The article then goes on to say that of the 3 million tonnes projected to be produced by the new mine, over 80% of that production will be transported to Redcar for export. If I understand this gibberish correctly, it's proposed that the majority (2.4 million tonnes) of the production from the proposed mine will be sold to foreign markets even though we're apparently importing 6 million tonnes at the present time. It makes zero sense, right? For every tonne of coal we send abroad we'll buy back two?

I'm also very dubious about the projected production of 3 million tonnes per annum. The UK's peak coal production was roughly 300 million tonnes per annum, from way over 1,000 mines. Are we to be believe this proposed mine will be as productive as ten former mines? It all sounds thoroughly nebulous and thank goodness the new Labour government have blocked it. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]