Talk:Gold prospecting

Mining Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia part

I added the Australia part. It doesn't have any sources as I am unable to locate it with my capped bandwidth. I learned this in school, and it does sound write. I doubt that there will be any errors in what I've written, so yeah. If anyone is able to link it to a source with the legislation, please do. It's on [www.auslii.edu.au] somewhere, can't locate well enough (I didn't learn that in school). Daily Rubbings 11:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources for Weekend Hobby Prospecting

For gold prospecting as a fun weekend hobby and small scale, I would cite two reliable sources: The Gold Prospectors Association of America and The Midwest Prospector website (midwestprospector.com) but I am not sure how to list these sources in the article itself because Chuckiesdad keeps deleting my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eighthcreek (talk • contribs) 04:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Recreational" Gold Prospecting

I spent many hours of research to edit this page and included accurate information about gold prospecting as a weekend oriented fun hobby. I even discussed my sources. In a flash, an editor, Chuckiesdad, deleted all my work in the manner of a bully. The rules say substantive edits like he did are supposed to be discussed first and a consensus should be reached between editors. He did not follow these rules. How can get all my work back and keep it on this page? Eighthcreek (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your additions were mainly promotional and not written in encyclopedic style - in addition to being unsourced. The Midwest prospector website is not a WP:RS - rather it is a poorly laid out promotional/commercial site. Vsmith (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some of the club websites are less promotional, and would make better sources to cite. I'll see if I can find some info on the BLM website. I added a link in the article to Gold mining in Alaska#Recreational gold mining in Alaska. Plazak (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat unfair to pick on Eighthcreek for unsourced edits and unencyclopedic style when the whole article is entirely unsourced and much of it poorly written. As someone who has done some prospecting, some of this article makes little sense to me. I would organize it into three parts: placer prospecting, hardrock prospecting, and recreational prospecting. The statement that modern prospecting is mostly recreational is a US point of view that does not hold true for most of the world. That said, recreational prospecting certainly deserves a prominent place in the article. I'll try to get around to working on it after the New Year. Don't give up, Eighthcreek. Plazak (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Vsmith is incorrect about the Midwest Prospector website. It is a spirited informational source about a hobby. If you discuss a hobby with enthusiasm and excitement that only makes it seem promotional in one sense of the word. It offers tools that assist in the hobby but is a great source of information and should be listed as a source, reference, or link. I will work on making my editing a more encylcopedic style but that in itself is a matter of opinion. So far we all agree the recreational prospecting section needs expansion and improvement. Eighthcreek (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]