Talk:Carbondale mine fire

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carbondale mine fire article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Carbondale mine fire appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 June 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that The Saturday Evening Post claimed that efforts to extinguish the Carbondale mine fire would move more earth than the construction of the Panama Canal?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carbondale mine fire.

Wikipedia

Disaster management Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's 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.

Occupational Safety and Health

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Uncertainty of start and end years[edit]

I'm puzzled as to why we have two possible years given for both the start and the containment of the fire. This wasn't an event in a remote region, this was in Pennsylvania. One would think contemporary media coverage exists that would provide a more definitive year at either end rather than a two- or three-year spread. 136.159.160.5 (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PPM[edit]

PPM stands for "parts per million" not "parts per millionth." When I tried correcting this, the editor who made the change claimed I was being a "pedant" and reverted it. Unless reliable sources are brought here to support changing the phrase to "parts per millionth", I am going to revert it back again. If that happens, please do not change it back without first discussing here, per WP:EW. Thank you. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No response, I'm going to undo the edit for now. Do not revert this without responding first. Thank you. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 00:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to replace parts per million with PPM. This is only done when the phrase is mentioned multiple times, in which case "parts per million (PPM)" is used the first time and just "PPM" is used all subsequent times. In this article, it is only used once, so there is no reason to switch "parts per million" to "ppm (parts per million)", especially when there is no precedent for putting the abbreviation before the phrase itself. Please do not revert without responding here first. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 19:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC) Edit: Please note the relevant material in the manual of style. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 19:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: I was surprised to find nearly 400 Google hits for "parts per millionth". (There are 23,000 times as many for "parts per million".) The article Parts-per notation makes no mention of the ordinal parts per millionth, and the only hit for it on en.wikipedia is this talk page. Per the principle of least astonishment, I would strongly recommend using the more common "parts per million". I'll also note that PPM (or ppm) is not one of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations § Abbreviations widely used in Wikipedia which can be given without an expanded form, so best to write it out in full. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response goes here. 100.6.117.80 (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]