Talk:Mount Conner

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mount Conner 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

Australia: Northern Territory Low‑importance

	Australia portal Mount Conner 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 Northern Territory (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the Northern Territory Library.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Mountains Low‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not a monolith[edit]

Mount Connor is not a monolith, rather is part of a larger, mostly underground structure that includes The Olgas and Uluru. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, then?[edit]

Could it be a mesa? I seem to remember my guide using that word, but the word mesa does not appear in the article. And it does look like one. Kelisi (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

geology[edit]

shouldn't there be something on geology?

59.167.55.90 (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mt Connor's nickname - Fooluru[edit]

I have recently got back from visiting Mt Conner, and when i was there it was referred to as "Fooluru". However, when I searched for that title on Wikipedia, nothing came up. I have never really done any Wikipedia editing before, but I thought I'd add it to the article. However I have noticed that it has been removed as a source is needed. I don't really understand what I need to do for this as it is just a colloquial name rather than any official title. If you do a google search for Fooluru there are lots of photos of Mt Conner, so it wasn't just our tour guide's naming. If someone could let me know the best way of finding a source I'd be very grateful. 86.182.173.88 (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a common name then I'd think a Google search could turn up a link to a reliable source. Coversely, if a Google search doesn't turn up a reliable source, then there might be a problem. You could also try hitting up the library to track down a source that uses the name. Hope this helps! Doniago (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google Search and it looks like finding a reliable source will take quite an extensive search. By the way, one Flickr web page, Mount Connor (Fooluru), stated that it "earned" the name "Fooluru" because many a tourist, tired out by rough roads, mistook Mt Conner for Uluru and turned around and back to Alice Springs before reaching Uluru. Of course, a person also needs a reliable source for this explanation of this nickname. Paul H. (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neat anecdote, but yeah, not quite encyclopedic. Sounds like we may have hit a bit of a snag on this one. Doniago (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is there anything that can be done? Or does it just have to be left out? 86.176.93.90 (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a reliable source and citing it would solve the problem nicely. Without verification, though, we can't include it. Doniago (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's not really possible since it is just an anecdotal name. So I will leave it. Thank you for the help though. 86.176.43.175 (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, sorry I couldn't come up with a better answer! Maybe at some point the name will be brought up in a RS and we can update the article accordingly. Doniago (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]