Talk:Wet Earth Colliery

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.

Greater Manchester Mid‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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.

MB&B canal[edit]

I noticed that the original text mentioned the Bolton & Bury canal. Now my history knowledge isn't precise, so I've changed it to the MB&B canal, which has a wiki page people can read. My question is, at the time Fletcher built his short canal, was the MB&B canal known by a different name? Is it correct to call it the MB&B canal at this time? Parrot of Doom 12:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of yes and no..... the actual Bury Bolton Canal ran at top level and then approx half way between Bolton and Bury at Nob End, Farnworth, there was a flight of locks (the remains are still there) which dropped into a basin which was the start of the arm leading into Manchester via Agecroft and Salford. The Wet Earth did in fact join the Manchester Arm, so its half and dozen of one, which you call it. I suppose MB&B is more strictly correct.Geotek 23:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Geotek for that clarification. I am in the process of getting pictures for this page, specifically images of the tunnels and excavations, I'll probably upload them tonight. Parrot of Doom 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Plenty of images for this article located here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wet_Earth_Colliery Parrot of Doom 17:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal[edit]

I have proposed Merging Clifton, Greater Manchester with Wet Earth Colliery as they share a lot of the same information. Any thoughts? Richerman 16:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea IMO. There is much more to Clifton than just the WEC. Where would you stop? Parrot of Doom 17:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Parrot, the two relate to separate things. Whilst the pit is in Clifton the people involved were not from Clifton and the politics of the pit were controlled well away from Clifton, so including them in a Clifton article would confuse. As I have mentioned on the talk:clifton page, the info there has been copied across from my article here and really needs to be removed and left as a paragraph like the other pits mentioned. linking to this article which rightly deseves it's own page as an industrial historical site in the UK. Geotek 11:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wet Earth Colliery is a worthy subject in it own right independent of Clifton. I do not agree with the proposal to merge. Martin Cordon 12:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on reflection I'd agree that Geotek's suggestion would be the way forward. It just seems daft to me to have large chunks of text duplicated in two articles. Sorry, I cocked up the "talk" bit and got two discussions going Richerman 18:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

references[edit]

There are several references that are not linked to paragraphs or sections. I have added reflist to the references section, does anyone know to which parts of the article those references are relevant so that they may be correctly linked? Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]