Talk:Mineral processing

message: SX-EW should not be in a mineral processing article.  That's hydrometallurgy and electrometallurgy!  Can someone make sure that material is covered properly under another article and/or move the information please?  BSMet94 05:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No hydrometallurgy here please

message: I am currently writing an addition to the history of mineral processing. I intend to include a gold processing section, including a reference to the hydrometallurgy of gold. In the gold recovery process, gravity recovery and hydrometallurgy are often combined in the same plant, designed by the same engineer. In some plants, some of the leaching occurs in and is integral to the grinding circuit. The leaching of gold is a very specialized field, not well covered in most metallurgical engineering programs, if at all. As a reliable source that gold metallurgy is closely associated with mineral processing, in Canada, there is a fairly active and large organization called the Canadian Mineral Processors. It was originally the Canadian Gold Metallurgists. The greatest challenge in this excersise is finding reliable sources! Lots of hard cover, not too much internet.John G Eggert (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Gold?

message: The addition by Wipware on 15 May 1009, while it may be true, is not appropriate in that section.  Photographic online size analysis, while useful to size reduction operations, is not in itself a sizing technique, i.e. separation of materials by their size.  It's not a mineral processing operation, it's an analylitical method.  That text would be more appropriate in a different article.BSMet94 (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sizing vs Size Analysis 

message: Ore dressing merged: See old talk-page here —Preceding unsigned comment added by BSMet94, 5 August 2010
:I've reorganised the article into what I trust is a more logical layout, and added back (and expanded) some of the historical info from the merged article, which I think is important to include. My interest is in the historical aspects of mining and I know little about current practice, so I hope you or someone else will check, expand and/or correct the relevant sections.  —SMALLJIM  08:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good start, thanks for your input.   I'll get to work on cleaning up, adding to, and getting some citations lined out for the meat of the article.  I also have a lot of good historical mineral processing references on my bookshelf, and I should be able to help you out there too (or at least to help verify and provide citations for the historical stuff).BSMet94 (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger of Ore dressing

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mineral processing. 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/20101029170449/http://www.maden.hacettepe.edu.tr/dmmrt/dmmrt1017.html to http://www.maden.hacettepe.edu.tr/dmmrt/dmmrt1017.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This article and [Jig concentrators]] and Mineral jig overlap, with this article providing more information. Someone who knows mining processes should study the situation and consolidate the other two articles with this one.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidate articles 

message: Expose 154.235.136.43 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mineral extraction process 

message: The fact that these two articles, Mineral processing and Beneficiation, have been two separate articles with zero links between them until now (March 2023), is clearly nothing more than an artifact via WP:Content forking. The article scope overlap is so substantially coterminous that one article ought to contain all the content of both earlier articles, with WP:Summary style as appropriate for each facet. I expect to get around to doing this soon unless some cogent argument against it is adduced here. The period for discussion will be the next two weeks. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, mate; sounds beaut. Klbrain (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Returning to normality ...  Klbrain (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge beneficiation article into mineral processing article