Talk:coal mine

RFD discussion: June–October 2009
Defined as "A mine from which coal is mined." Classic sum-of-parts entry. --EncycloPetey 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and move definition to coalmine:, I suppose. Unlike gold mine: and (apparently) salt mine:, this has no figurative sense. Equinox ◑ 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Improve the definition and keep. Not all coal mines are mines. Good dictionaries (including as the Random House) have it and so should we. My Random House has coal mine, but not coalmine. I don’t think coalmine is a common American spelling. —Stephen 15:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Which coal mines aren't mines? --EncycloPetey 22:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * coal mine is 50 times more common than coalmine on COCA, but the 5 appearances of "coalmine" would make it attestable in the US.


 * Move to RfV. I'd be interested to find any attestable figurative use of "coal mine".
 * There's an extra complication in the word "mine". When most people say "mine", they mean an underground mine. An open-pit mine requires the extra qualification (except where there is a specific referent individual or class). DCDuring TALK 16:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that relevant here? All coal mines I've ever seen (even in film) are underground mines.  Both the Welsh and Appalachian coal mines are subterranean.  Even if some of them are above ground, wouldn't it still be a mine for coal, and thus sum of parts? --EncycloPetey 22:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many (most?) of the big coal mines in Australia are open cut, which means that the synonyms colliery, meaning only an underground mine, is incorrect in this instance. --Dmol 00:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That just means the synonym is wrong. An open-cut mine is still a mine. It's not a reason to keep, is it? Equinox ◑ 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I didn't mean to introduce a red herring. I have added an "especially" clause at mine: "especially underground" that addresses the complication at the appropriate place, I think.
 * The reason to move this to RfV is to allow for the possibility that there is a sense of "coal mine" that is analogous to the figurative senses of gold mine and salt mine that justify their inclusion. It seems to me that it might exist even though I can't recollect it now and may never have been exposed to it. It might be worth 30+ days in RfV to determine it. DCDuring TALK 01:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The first line of WT:CFI says "all words in all languages]], and coalmine: is definitely a word, but since it's the alternative spelling of coal mine: then that would become a red link, rendering coalmine useless. Also, it seems silly to delete the one that's 50 times more common the the other one just because it has a space in the middle. Weird logic, I know, but I can't seem to pick a hole in the argument. Mglovesfun 21:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The entry for [[coalmine]] could say "Alternative spelling of [[coal]] [[mine]]". DCDuring TALK 00:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't current practice, but I could definitely support it. DAVilla 16:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I think that's a fine idea. Equinox ◑ 15:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That little thing is now done. I'd been doing similar things on Ullman's "Missing" pages, to prevent entries that probably wouldn't meet CFI. Non-English entries often have wikilinks for terms the translators wish were entries in English to support translation back into their language. Some seem to me to be non-starters under WT:CFI, some more debatable. I try to leave the debatable ones alone.
 * Do such things benefit from a "+" or similar indication that the components are separate wikilinks? I think so. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Kept, majority or no consensus. Take your pick. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)