Talk:Coal breaker

A fact from Coal breaker appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 October 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that breaker boys (pictured) were at risk for acid burns, asthma, black lung disease, accidental amputation, and death by smothering or crushing while working in coal breakers?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/October.

Wikipedia

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mining Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Since user Tim1965 provided no explanation whatsoever for reverting my edit, while I can easily explain (and did so, on his talk page, while asking for an explanation) why my edit improved the article, I dare you to explain yourself before you revert my edit again, lest you risk being considered a douchebag in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.197.216.61 (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I provided plenty of explanation on my talk page, where you left a comment. Indeed, I cited a published source as well. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article broken by the use of the "convert" template.[edit]

The native units for small coal sizes (1,2,3,4 etc) were 32ths of an inch. Since the "convert" template doesn't display 32ths, its recent addition to the text here conceals useful and interesting explanatory information.

US-centric[edit]

Interesting article, but VERY US-centric. 86.156.2.208 (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pea and buckwheat[edit]

This makes no sense to me:

...

Pea – 0.5 to 0.625 inches (1.27 to 1.59 cm) in size. There were three subsets of "pea coal":

No. 1 Buckwheat – 8⁄32 to 10⁄32 inch (6.4 to 7.9 mm) in size.

No. 2 Buckwheat – 6⁄32 inch (4.8 mm) in size.

No. 3 Buckwheat – 3⁄32 to 4⁄32 inch (2.4 to 3.2 mm) in size.

For internal consistency, this should read:

...

Pea – 0.5 to 0.625 inches (1.27 to 1.59 cm) in size.

Buckwheat - 3⁄32 to 10⁄32 inch (2.4 to 7.9 mm) in size. There were three subsets of "buckwheat coal":

No. 1 Buckwheat – 8⁄32 to 10⁄32 inch (6.4 to 7.9 mm) in size.

No. 2 Buckwheat – 6⁄32 inch (4.8 mm) in size.

No. 3 Buckwheat – 3⁄32 to 4⁄32 inch (2.4 to 3.2 mm) in size.

Also, this would be consistent with the text above saying there are 6 sizes. But without access to the source, I will not change the article. Nø (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]