Talk:Monolith

message: I have removed these as they are not monoliths, rather they are the visible parts of a much larger undeground rock formation along with Mount Olga. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uluṟu is back now, right above the hidden comment that warns editors to take note that it is not a monolith.  I do not know why.  Since it was there, I fixed the link to be blue instead of red.  -- Dominus 00:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Uluru]] and [[Mount Conner]]

message: I would have thought Ayers Rock, Uluru would be a Monolith. Mono lith,   One-Rock.  And I can think of at least one human produced item that is a "monolith", ..The Great Pyramed, Great Pyramid of Giza.  One could even make the "strung out wall" the Great Wall of China into a "mono-lith".  Just doing some musings, with comments. (I also wouldn't have thought a multiple rock(2,3,4, etc group), couldn't fit into a large "monolith" definition).In other words, could a "monolith" have exceptions?  The 2001 'Monolith' certainly has its traits to make it, but only with its "deviations from a Normal definition."  MichaelMcAnnisYumaAZMmcannis 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Uluru doesn't meet the definition because it is not one rock but instead is a bit of a large range sticking out of the ground. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So should the definition in the article say that to be a monolith, the rock must not be connected to the rock of the earth's crust? Is this the true definition? Either way we need a cited source for this, and also one that says Uluru is not a monolith - I'm adding fact templates --Ozhiker 09:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really should be removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schema_Kata_Tjuta_Uluru.png  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggoudswaard (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Uluru should remain. That image is original research. Secret Squïrrel 07:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question ?

message: I am seeking permission from a number of sources for a replacement photo of Mount Augustus with appropriate copyright status. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got permission to use a very nice photo showing the whole rock. Garglebutt / (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Very Nice. --Colin Faulkingham 20:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: North America: Haystack rock is listed twice. Once says Haystack Rock, Clatsop County, the other says, what Haystack Rock, Cannon Beach, or something? They both link to the same article on haystack rock. Is this redundancy really necessary? I live in Oregon. And as nice as Haystack rock is (I've been to see it a few times), it probably isn't iportant enough to be double-listed. Mgmirkin 00:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicated entry 

message: Does this article really need this? Surely the issue of the word 'monolith' in relation to games  could populate some other article rather than this one?  SatuSuro 15:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IN fact the disambiguation page deals with this - and there really is no need for the 'popular culture' issue within a geomorphology based article! SatuSuro 15:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular culture?

message: I've just tried to initiate debate at Talk:Mount Augustus National Park about the Mount Augustus "biggest monolith" claim, which those watching of this page may be interested in. The main problem to all of the monolith debates is not applying a suitable referenced and agreed definition, not helped by the diversity of definitions in dictionaries. If you strictly apply the current definition at the start of this article, almost all, or perhaps all of the examples need to be deleted, except the "Monumental monoliths". None of the larger are single rocks but all are surfaces expressions of much larger subsurface bed rock, Uluru being a classic example. --Zamphuor 15:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a monolith?

message: Is a tepui a monolith? (Antonio.sierra 13:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tepui 

message: There is no mention of 2001 or 2010 in the article? Why is it biased against extraterrestrial monolith? Are wikipedians Moon and Jupiter haters or they have a grudge against famous SF writers? 82.131.210.162 (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A. C. C. 

message: According to the link to a glossary on the page, a monolith is "A structure, such as a shrine or temple, which has been excavated as a unit from a surrounding matrix or outcropping of rock."   Note that it does not say "A part of a structure" it says "A structure", as in the whole thing.  Therefor, despite the top stone of the Mausoleum being one piece, since the entire structure is not one piece, it would not constitute a "Monolith".  I will be keeping the Mausoleum out of the article unless someone can provide a reason why it should belong given the definition provided.  Hell Hawk (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sigh*. And according to this definition, and any other in fact, a monolith is "A large block of stone, especially one used in architecture or sculpture." Since the roof slab of the mausoleum is a large single block of stone, the inclusion is perfectly okay and has never been contested by anyone else except you (note that you are inconsistent even by your own criteria in that you keep Stonehenge which does not consist of a single monolith, either). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with your vague definition is every single large stone in a building is a monolith.  Every single stone used in the production of the Pyramids of Giza would be a "monolith" by that definition, it's too vague.  Also, I'm not being inconsistent at all,  I was removing one inaccurate item, not checking every entry on the list.Hell Hawk (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mausoleum of Theodoric 

message: * Ayu-Dag, Crimea, Ukraine  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.173.65.86 (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidates 

message: Marshall Field & Company Building portico columns, 111 North State Street, Chicago, Illinois, USA - Architect: Daniel Burnham
"The Columns flanking Marshall Field & Company's State Street Entrance are 50 foot tall granite monoliths rivaled in size only by the columns at Egypt's Temple of Karnak."
http://architectureintheloop.blogspot.com/2009/02/marshall-field-company-columns.html
IMAGE: "The monoliths at night"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hollywoodplace/8016678760/
Totus*tutu (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidate 2 (MF&C) 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Håja
I believe this monolith deserve mention in the main article.
Having limited knowledge about geology, I will not object if Håja is ruled out.
Now you know of it's existence. Drain the surrounding water, and it supposedly dwarfs most others...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rettetasten (talk • contribs) 02:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Rettetasten, I fail to see what is special about that "monolith". Islands and hills made enterily of rock are extremely common. Lappspira (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK Rettetasten (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Håja? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Monolith. 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/20150313212946/http://www.mexicodesconocido.com.mx/bernal-pueblos-magicos-de-mexico.html to http://www.mexicodesconocido.com.mx/contenidos/home.html?p=nota&idNota=8897
*Added  tag to http://www.de-paseo.com/Bernal/Bernal.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100101092351/http://art-and-archaeology.com/india/glossary1.html to http://www.art-and-archaeology.com/india/glossary1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206021953/http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/landforms/uluru.htm to http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/landforms/uluru.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205024718/http://www.wayoutback.com.au/uluru-geology.php to http://www.wayoutback.com.au/uluru-geology.php
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) 07:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)