Talk:Mount Augustus National Park

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Western Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Mount Augustus National Park is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Western Australia Gascoyne

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Western Australia Gascoyne, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Gascoyne 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.Western Australia GascoyneWikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia GascoyneTemplate:WikiProject Western Australia GascoyneWestern Australia Gascoyne articles

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mount Augustus National Park article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Uluru[edit]

In case you are thinking this article should say more about Uluru being a monolith - it isn't. Have a look at the Uluru article for more info. Garglebutt / (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monocline v Monolith[edit]

I am under the impression that Mount Augustus is actually a monocline, not a monolith like Ayers Rock (Uluru). I will change the article in one week to reflect this unless substantial references are quoted to suggest otherwise. Equinox 10:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally accepted that it is the largest monolith in the world so you probably need to substantiate why it should be changed. I'm no expert in geology, but what stops it being a monolith that formed as a monocline? Uluru is specifically not considered a monolith because it is a small part that protrudes above the surface of a much larger underground formation. Garglebutt / (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the dept Calm website on Mt Augustus

The rocks of Mount Augustus are from the upper Proterozoic age; they were deposited on an ancient sea floor as sand and boulders some 1,000 million years ago. These deposits consolidated to form sandstone and conglomerate strata, which eventually, with movement in the Earth's crust, folded and uplifted. Sandstone and conglomerate cover a wide area, including Mt Phillip, 35 kilometres to the west-south-west. The granite rock that lies beneath Mount Augustus is 1,650 million years old. Making it not only twice the size of Uluru, but considerably older.

I would say from this that Mt Augustus is a monolith, and given its source you would need to provide substancial referrences before considering changing this article, you would also need to change a lot of non-wiki referrences before wikipedia should be changed. Suggest that you provide source material and then add a section detailing the disputed formation. Once official records change then wikipedia should also be changed. Gnangarra 15:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will withhold any changes as I have no substantiated references to dispute. I think that the topic though, will reappear at a later epoch. Equinox1 12:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monocline and monolith are unrelated terms, and could simultaneously be applied to the same rock formation. Monocline is a geological term for a type of fold; the rocks at Mount Augustus are folded in an asymmetric way, that if you used the term very loosely, could be considered a monocline (most geologists would say it is an asymmetric anticline). Monolith on the other hand, is not really a geological term, attested by the fact that you won't find it in most geological dictionaries. It has a range of meanings and therefore one needs to specify the selected meaning before calling Mount Augustus one - as I discuss further below. --Zamphuor 05:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

I am seeking permission from a number of sources for a replacement photo of Mount Augustus with appropriate copyright status. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got permission to use a very nice photo showing the whole rock. Garglebutt / (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature[edit]

I have slightly altered the wording of this article to try to better reflect the name-usage of Aboriginal peoples without 'white-washing' European usage. --Brideshead 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1000 million vs 1 billion[edit]

To prevent confusion I have reverted to 1000 million as the unit of measure billion can be confusing in that Uk version is 1000 million where US version is 100 million. Gnangarra 00:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er...no. --dllu 21:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... Gnangarra, in the UK and most of Europe, 1 billion is 1 million million, or 1x10^12. The Europeans call the malnourished and anemic US billion the milliard (1x10^9). The best way of avoiding confusion is to use powers of 10 exclusively. But we live in hope that Americans can one day be trained to use global preferences in numbers and date formats -- however I'm not holding my breath. 122.200.166.127 (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying ‘biggest monolith’[edit]

Because the term ‘monolith’ always seems to create such hot debate, see talk:Uluru and talk:monolith, I’ll initially post this suggestion here rather than invite a revert war through just going ahead and doing it. Basically I’d like to remove the ‘biggest monolith’ claim from the first sentence, and put a second sentence something like:

Mount Augustus is widely claimed in tourist promotional and information literature as the “worlds largest monolith”,<insert refs> but the claim does not originate from the geological literature, nor is substantiated by any other scholarly research.

If anyone can point me to the existence of such scholarly research, I’d love to see it and will change as appropriate. The blurb comparing Uluru to Mount Augustus also needs to change – if you call Mt Augustus a monolith you certainly have to do the same for Uluru. If you find cause to throw out Uluru, you have to throw out just about every other listed example on the monolith page. One of the problems is that there are several different definitions of monolith, usually listed as alternatives in a good dictionary — but it would appear, not in all, and people don't read them anyway. Also, if you latch on to one definition loose enough to accommodate Mount Augustus, you’ll open the floodgates to so many other possibilities that the ‘biggest’ claim will be left behind in the dust. Basically, all I want to say is that this is a claim more about attracting tourism that a fact of science and Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic. Happy to discuss further --Zamphuor 14:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zamphuor. I think someone needs to make the edit you propose. We have the stupid situation "It has a central ridge which is almost 8 km long, and is the world's largest monolith.... Unlike Uluru, which is a monolith and devoid of plant growth..." So what is it? A loose unattached boulder, or part of a tilted rock stratum? This illustrates why I cannot under any circumstances recommend Wiki as anything more than an unauthoritative source of reference literature. 122.200.166.127 (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)... Never mind, done it. 122.200.166.127 (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever travelled in a car? Do things sometimes go wrong with cars? Has that ever caused you to say "I cannot under any circumstances recommend cars as forms of transport"? That's the level of over-reaction going on here. Also, there are thousands of Wikis, but there's only one Wikipedia, so please don't call it "Wiki". Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mount Augustus National Park. 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) 16:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]