As regards "clay", surely, if they were classified as "Ball Clay", "Fire Clay" etc is, as Simon states the fact that mostly people would only search for "clay" and would thus not be able to find all the others. The only one that might be an exception (there is always one! doh!) is China Clay.

You could apply the same rule to slate. There are some mines/quarries that were exclusively slab mines/quarries, should they be seperated? I think not!

I am not proposing lots of different clay types.

I would like to see "Other Rock" not used in displaying a mine name because it allows mine names to be displayed as they were known, and does not really affect the classification much as they will all be "other rock" with or without the ommission from the name.

I agree that too diverse a list might make the site more prone to duplicates, but honestly I don't think it would affect many sites.

Not knowing the spelling of a name, or the perennial problem of "Wheal Dingbats South", "South Wheal Dingbats", South Wheal Dingbats United" etc etc ad nauseam are more likely reasons for duplicates appearing!

I'd tend to feel that anyone who knows enough about the subject to be interested in the question, will probably be able to work it out from the available information

---

You could apply the same rule to slate. There are some mines/quarries that were exclusively slab mines/quarries, should they be seperated? I think not!

There is a difference though. You are describing the different USES of slate, I am considering the wide variation in TYPES of clay.

I acknowledge that variations in the type of slate lead to it being used for different things, but I don't think anybody would think china clay, fullers earth and fireclay are remotely similar to each other, either in physical characteristics or use.

Oh, and what about Stonesfield "slates"? 🙂

I suspect that to 95% of users of the site, the exact nature of the product extracted (eg what sort of clay) is not going to be any enough significance to have it exactly specified in the mine name.

If it's considered important to know that a certain mine/quarry was used for fireclay rather than Fullers clay, then that's what the description can be used for.

Similarly, if a mine produced a few ounces of silver for every tonne of lead it produced, that can go in the description.

Admittedly something like Parc Slab Slate Mine will sneak in under the radar, but there will be exceptions whichever way it's done.

---

I suspect that to 95% of users of the site, the exact nature of the product extracted (eg what sort of clay) is not going to be any enough significance to have it exactly specified in the mine name.

If it's considered important to know that a certain mine/quarry was used for fireclay rather than Fullers clay, then that's what the description can be used for.

So why not drop the idea of combining the name of the mine and its mineral entirely for ALL mineral types?

Snailbeach Mine is fine. Why does it have to be displayed as Snailbeach Lead mine, or Geevor Tin Mine?

Perhaps (definitely) there are two distinct issues here. How should a mine be categorised, and should the category be included in the displayed name of the mine? For the second issue, I say it shouldn't, unless the specific mine is better known that way, in which case it should be entered as part of the name in the first instance..

I've just had a scan through my mine books shelf and, nearly all of them are called Mine Product Mine/Quarry. Cwmorthin Slate Quarry for example; and, er, Snailbeach Lead Mine published by the SMT :lol:

---

..... and, er, Snailbeach Lead Mine published by the SMT :lol:

.... Published by yours truly..... :lol:

re Hiding "Other Rock"

Yes, I suppose that would have the same effect! In which case, if you wanted to put the rock type in the name, you could do so and it would look good when displayed in composite stylee.

We could have, for example, "Fullers Earth" mines set up as

"Copyhold Fullers Earth"

Mineral type "Other rock" instead of "clay"

which would be displayed as "Copyhold Fullers Earth Mine" which is excellent. :thumbsup:

That's how it's done on ME which hides the 'other mine/quarry' business quite well & allows the user to input a specific mineral as part of the title 🙂

---

If that's a plan people are happy with it would be pretty easy to implement something simple like that.

---

If that's a plan people are happy with it would be pretty easy to implement something simple like that.

You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot please all the people all the time 😉

---

since Geevor has been mentioned, Geevor Tin Mine would be a correct form since it was specifically called by that name

---

So why not drop the idea of combining the name of the mine and its mineral entirely for ALL mineral types?

Yes Peter, I am with you 100% on this, its actually what I was saying if understood with my way of putting things.

It does seen to me that we may have a concensus on one point at least which is a definite step in the right direction.

EDIT
Another thought, lets put it to the vote.....

Anybody against?

---

So why not drop the idea of combining the name of the mine and its mineral entirely for ALL mineral types?

Yes Peter, I am with you 100% on this, its actually what I was saying if understood with my way of putting things.

It does seen to me that we may have a concensus on one point at least which is a definite step in the right direction.

EDIT
Another thought, lets put it to the vote.....

Anybody against?

I really dislike the idea

I'd far rather see

Cwmorthin Slate Mine
Rhosydd Slate Mine
Llanberis Copper Mine
Boulby Potash Mine
Geevor Tin Mine

Than

Cwmorthin Mine
Rhosydd Mine
Llanberis Mine
Boulby Mine
Geevor Mine

For people who don't a mine well having the main product in the full descriptive name is, I suspect, rather handy.

---

I vote for the first option. The second option just does not "sound" right. I realise it will show up a view oddities now and again but I am certain they will be a very small minority.

I similarly think that mines need to be identified with the mineral type included (wherever possible).

For one, there are a few cases where there are mines with the same name located near to each other, mining different minerals.

Plus, as Simon points out, it's also handy for people who aren't sure what they're looking for.

The problem with the nomenclature is one of deciding which was the primary mineral extracted.

If there is some doubt about it, it makes some sense to have a 'various'/'leave blank'/'other' option (possibly both) which doesn't show.

The minerals extracted can be put into the description, unless at some point in the future it was possible to select more than one mineral type (which I suspect would require a big re-write).

The way I see it...

Choosing:

Mine name: {Cwmorthin}
Mineral type: {Slate}
Site: {Quarry}

Would generate: {Cwmorthin Slate Quarry}

Whereas:

Mine name: {Snailbeach}
Mineral type: {Various}
Site: {Mine}

Would generate: {Snailbeach Mine}

And:

Mine name: {Betchworth Hearthstone}
Mineral type: {Other} or {Blank}
Site: {Mine}

Would generate: {Betchworth Hearthstone Mine}


That does give some possibility for people to enter weird and wonderful mineral types (as part of the name), so the drop-down list can be kept shorter.

Makes sense to me, although there may still be some possibility for some problems to be caused: people can be very inventive when it comes to filling forms out!
:lol:

---

I similarly think that mines need to be identified with the mineral type included (wherever possible).

For one, there are a few cases where there are mines with the same name located near to each other, mining different minerals.

Plus, as Simon points out, it's also handy for people who aren't sure what they're looking for.

The problem with the nomenclature is one of deciding which was the primary mineral extracted.

If there is some doubt about it, it makes some sense to have a 'various'/'leave blank'/'other' option (possibly both) which doesn't show.

The minerals extracted can be put into the description, unless at some point in the future it was possible to select more than one mineral type (which I suspect would require a big re-write).

The way I see it...

Choosing:

Mine name: {Cwmorthin}
Mineral type: {Slate}
Site: {Quarry}

Would generate: {Cwmorthin Slate Quarry}

Whereas:

Mine name: {Snailbeach}
Mineral type: {Various}
Site: {Mine}

Would generate: {Snailbeach Mine}

And:

Mine name: {Betchworth Hearthstone}
Mineral type: {Other} or {Blank}
Site: {Mine}

Would generate: {Betchworth Hearthstone Mine}


That does give some possibility for people to enter weird and wonderful mineral types (as part of the name), so the drop-down list can be kept shorter.

Makes sense to me, although there may still be some possibility for some problems to be caused: people can be very inventive when it comes to filling forms out!
:lol:

Bingo!
I think that you have cracked it
:thumbsup:

What say the rest?

Afterthought

"Weird and wonderful" can be corrected by regional editors, I would think that is what they are for.

---

That sounds like the best option to me :thumbup:

---

That seems reasonable other than the fact that "searching by mineral" will be less efficient.

Indeed, but given that this would apply to mines which are generally currently "Mixed" and "Other Rock", they're not really searchable for at the moment anyway ;)

I might put the cat amongst the pigeons at this stage and suggest that this could coincide with the removal of a couple of the least-used options in the database ('Talc' springs to mind as an example, there being only the one) and those mines then being renamed using the new format.

---