Talk:Big Hole

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.

South Africa Mid‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa 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.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article substantially vandalised; much of the information unreliable[edit]

Apart from patently wrong information in the current version (20 July 2022), it is clear, after viewing the history of the article, that there are individuals deliberately vandalising the text in ways inconsistent with the spirit of Wikipedia. Blarcrean (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest?[edit]

Is this really the biggest? Possibly the deepest open hole dug, but Mirny seems pretty bloomin' massive as well. Beerathon 13:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is reportedly the largest excavated by hand. I would assume that Mirny, having been in operation from the 1950s to recently would have been excavated using machinery. Booshank 02:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirny is probably not hand-excavated. Anyway, the distances claimed confuse me. In the Big Hole article, it says it's 765 m deep, but the third reference says it's 720 *feet*, yet the Jagersfontain article says it's the deepest with a mere 660 feet. I'm..at a loss. Anyone knows any actual facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egregius (talk • contribs) 02:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stats were changed in November by an anon IP (82.175.67.122). I've reverted to the original figures as cited in the reference. --DeLarge (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to merge Not a whole lot of discussion took place, but that isn't surprising for an article that is on less than 30 people's watchlist. The subject seems to be supporting a stand alone article, if someone wants to bring up a merger again, by all means, it would be nice to notify those at WikiProject Mining

I suggest this article be merged into Kimberley, Northern Cape as I don't see any merit in having a separate article for this particular sub-section of Kimberley's history. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose: the Big Hole is a famous old mine (and tourist attraction), so it seems worthwhile to keep this article. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose, more strongly. I've reverted, and put a hatnote at the top of this article to the more comprehensive dab page now at Big Hole (disambiguation). --DeLarge (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Before the last vote, there was 1 vote for and 1 weak oppose, so I went ahead with the merge. If folks are so strongly opposed, it would have been helpful to respond to the request for discussion that was placed on both articles. In any event, I'm not going to pursue this further, except to re-add the info that was deleted from the Kimberley article, as its integral to the bigger picture of the history of the city. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(belated reply...) I did not participate because this page was not on my watchlist at the time, and I only noticed after you edited a wikilink post-merge. It would have been helpful to research the move/merge before proposing it, as any move would have been seen to be a bad idea and would have negated the need for a discussion.

For the record, the number one Google hit for "Big Hole" is to this mine's official page (even ahead of its WP page).[1] It gets 8x more traffic than the second most popular page at Big Hole (disambiguation) (and 2.5x more than all the other articles on the dab page combined).[2] It has interwiki links to articles on seven non-English Wikipedias, while no other alternative has more than one, and most have none. All these demonstrate the much greater, more global notability of the mine, and hence why it should receive primacy. --DeLarge (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Big Hole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]