Talk:Bituminous coal

Untitled

It's black rock, what more can I say?

uh, unless you want this page deleted, you can say something about the difference between bituminous coal and anthracite coal, especially concerning the following issues: how did it form, how is it distributed geographically, how is it excavated, how is it used. Slrubenstein

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

needs (minor) cleanup

This article contains some very obscure words: e.g. antamen and orogenies. We have no article on antamen, and I can't find the word at dictionary.com. Spelling error? Orogenies looks like a plural from oro (I think an orodryad is a mountain nymph so it probably means mountain) and genies looks like a plural of genesis meaning formation, so mountain-making, but is there a less technical word we could replace these with? RJFJR 17:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Orogeny is indeed the process of mountain building. Its a real word, and one could say mountain building but we are geologists and if what we said was unerstandable by the vast majority of people we wouldn't appear as smart as we make out. : P Rolinator 14:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I gave this a good effort. It is certainly more representative of the rock, as a whole, and less centred on those poor black-lunged miners in Pennsylvania at the expense of other sources of bituminous coals. For these reasons I've ditched the cleanup notification.Rolinator 13:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Error:

Under Triassic coal, the page states "Coals of this era are rare, and many contain fossils of flowering plants." This cannot be true as angiosperms (flowering plants) did not evolve until the Cretaceous, some 100 million years or so later.

In the Carboniferous Coals section there is a brief mention of black lung. While I do not disagree that this a serious matter that affects many people, is it really appropriate in this context? I tend to think not, but I wanted to check with others before making a potentially contentious edit. 208.66.208.200 04:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of off-topic information here (oil shale and australian exports, black lung disease.) Article needs more focus on Bituminous coal. More along chemical compositions, BTU, history, industrial uses etc. I am not familiar with this subject.220.238.186.222 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I added "(damaging)" after "deleterious". I'd replace it, but perhaps deleterious is specific to steel making or metallurgy in general? If so it would be nice if it could link to an article. It does look more like a word used to gussy up a school paper though. Wiktionary says it's "Often used in contexts of exasperation or ironic dramatization." 65.169.210.66 (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bituminous coal. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201201522/http://geosurvey.state.co.us/pubs/Documents/rtv8n21.pdf to http://geosurvey.state.co.us/pubs/Documents/rtv8n21.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930001329/http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/wcsb_atlas/a_ch33/ch_33.html to http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/wcsb_atlas/a_ch33/ch_33.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

U.S.-centric

I'm finding it difficult to avoid a U.S.-centric discussion of the properties defining bituminous coal and its subranks. The ASTM definition and subranking is widely published, but I cannot dredge up a source for the ISO subrankings that is not behind a paywall and inaccessible to me; only an indirect reference to the vitrinite reflectance limits for bituminous coal as a group. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

"Black coal" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Black coal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 9 § Black coal until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistency regarding timing of Permian and PTME

Currently, under Occurrence and production (4th paragraph), it reads: "Coal deposition was interrupted by the Permian-Triassic extinction event, but resumed later in the Permian." That puts the Permian period after the PTME, and that's a joke of course. The title of the reference added to that statement is "Global coal gap between Permian–Triassic extinctions and middle Triassic recovery of peat forming plants." Thus it seems that instead of 'Permian' it should have read 'later in the Triassic' here. I can only see the first page of the paper, so could someone who has access to the full paper check my suspicion and then change the text in our page accordingly? Thanks.  Wikiklaas  19:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Introduction Quality

There is a severe deficit of references for claims made in the introductory paragraphs of this article. Of particular note the claim that "It is the most abundant rank of coal" is not readily verifiable. A short search indicated to me that it might (barely) be the largest contributor to confirmed reserves, but this is not actually what is claimed. Notably, historical usages of coal may have skewed the current distribution of reserves away from the ratios of natural abundance, and as the demand for lignite falls due to economic and political pressures, it is not economical to fully confirm reserves of coal that are not economical - which excludes them from being counted in many official statistics.

In general, the introduction needs citations, and some claims may be spurious. MasterOfGrey(MoG) (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you actually read the full article? Everything challenged is in the body of the article and cited - or at destination articles (e.g. firedamp). Citations are not required in the lede if covered in the body. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)