This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health 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.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Retain the status quo (ie: "which killed 439 coal miners and a rescuer") - which is not even an option. There is no breach of overlink or egg, despite the desperate claim above. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Just to add that "439 miners and one rescuer" is a breach of the MOS. If "one" is preferred to "a" by the consensus, it needs to either be "four hundred and thirty-nine miners and one rescuer" or "439 miners and 1 rescuer", but my !vote is still for the status quo of "a".) - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first headline figure for casualties should be the total, i.e. 440, including the rescuer. This is the important figure, this is the figure on the memorials.
@AirshipJungleman29: I am tempted to revert, or at least strike, your comment as pure trolling, something this thread doesn’t need any more of. Either leave a serious response or delete your inflammatory “joke” response. Dronebogus (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d forgotten that your exemplary judgement of the acceptability of other editors’ comments meant the community had appointed you the Talk Page Police. Or something. Do feel free to strike all the inflammatory comments on this page; I think bringing an end to this waste of time would be a great idea. And please have a read of Help:Notifications. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either status quo (which should be preserved barring a good reason to change it) or no links. I wouldn't have linked it because I tend to prefer not to direct readers away from the article in the very first sentence but my personal preferences aren't relevant to an article I didn't write. What is relevant is that there's no MoS problem if the link is on the term "coal miners". I can see the argument that the link on just "miners" is an Easter egg but removing that one word does not improve clarity or flow for the reader. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?18:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Summoned by Featured article alerts. Neither of the A,B,C options, rather what is there now (killed 439 coal miners and a rescuer). It is not an EGG, and I prefer to see the word coal early on, as we can't assume all readers know what a colliery is (that is, I don't consider the lead overlinked). I have no opinion on one versus a. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found this through ANI. My preference is for Dan Leonard's modified status quo, with the actual status quo as a close second, per SandyGeorgia. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for fuck's sake... what a tendentious and petty waste of time. Just because you can't get your own way you're going to waste the time of multiple editors? - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one being petty. You can only tolerate one version— yours —of a single sentence in the lead. A version which violates both content guidelines and common sense. I hope other editors will see how ridiculous this is and give you a reality check. Dronebogus (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More lies. Don't try and tell me what I can and cannot tolerate: you're wrong on all counts, as per usual. Now enough of your stalking (Elli, please notice that once again this is another example of disturbance from the same editor who you have had to block before for stalking me previously); once again I do hope never to have to deal with you again, but you just keep magically appearing and being a disruptive editor every time you do, which is completely intolerable. - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! Anyone who dares to disagree with Drone bogus is ipso facto wrong, a perpetrator of WP:OWN and probably burns down orphanages for a hobby. This fatuous RFC should never have been opened, wasting everyone's time. Here's an idea: why doesn't Bogus write and submit an FAC instead of distracting those who do from their avocations? There's no need to bugger about with this tragic article, written with compassion and care. Tim riley talk13:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have (deliberately) no engagement with either GA or FA because I'm unconvinced that either of them make article content any better. All I've ever seen is gong-collecting for bad, incomplete articles (warships, I mean you) and endless arguments over minutiae about comma placement according to one particular styleguide, usually carried mostly on the very worst of clique behaviours. Once you've seen Malleus gonged as 'editor of the week' for telling the chairman of an obscure car owner's club (and new recruit to WP) to literally "fuck off", despite the article going to FA full of glaring errors, you realise how little point there is in it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, Eric was blocked six years ago and last took an article through FAC ten years ago - and here he is, living rent free in your mind all that time. That really is quite funny... - SchroCat (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten that Malleus Fatuorum was Eric Corbett. He was difficult sometimes, but decidedly a net asset to Wikipedia, and I miss him. I wish later editors who are equally or more difficult were more of an asset. I hope Eric has found fulfilment elsewhere and I wish him well. Tim riley talk18:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
