Talk:Tor (rock formation)

message: Given the huge number of meanings for Tor (see TOR), it's pretty clear to me that the contents of this page should ultimately be moved to Tor (geology) and that Tor should become a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page (see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions).  My apologies to Solipsist if I was too quick on the draw when I "plowed ahead" in a similar direction a while back (he seems to be the only person offended by my previous attempt to Wikipedia:Be bold (see "Disambiguation or not" below).  
Before we do that, though, it would be nice to correct any references to tor in the geologic or geographic context so that they point to tor (geology)
--Nil0lab 04:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support this. --SyntaxError55 talk 00:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed about 40 of them, someone else could continue that work. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? This topic was closed long ago. --Simple Bob (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: > # (cur) (last)  09:15, 1 August 2006 Blisco (Talk | contribs) (Tor (geography) is the most common meaning - look at incoming links)
> # (cur) (last) 11:50, 29 June 2006 213.119.142.192 (Talk) (Redirecting to Tor (disambiguation))
> # (cur) (last) 17:54, 24 May 2006 Blisco (Talk | contribs) (Redirect to primary meaning, Tor (geography))
> # (cur) (last) 17:51, 24 May 2006 Blisco (Talk | contribs) (moved Tor to Tor (disambiguation): The rocky hill is the primary meaning, as evidenced by the links to this page.)
Hi Blisco.
The geographical meaning may be the most common one in your experience, but the piece of software is the most common in mine, and is certainly a lot more famous at this point.  Topic bigotry does not belong in wikipedia.  If multiple definitions are valid, a disambiguation page is in order, even if one is more common or popular than the others (and you haven't really made that case).
As to your point about links to tor: if the links are are mostly from geographical references, then *they* should be fixed'.
--Nil0lab 02:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that's just not the way Wikipedia works. If there are already a large number of links to one meaning of word, in this case Tor as a hill, that's a strong indication that that is the primary meaning.  Please review Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- Solipsist 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, not only are you claiming consensus (not here but on your message on my talk page) that's not documented (Talk:Tor was empty when I got here) but you even changed the quite reasonable redirect to tor (geographical) and moved the whole article here.  Big brass ones you have.  I guess geography must be your end all and other more modern uses are to be shoved aside. Naming conventions are fine, but one discipline cannot just call "dibs" on an archaic word just because they fleshed out the namespace first- archaic usages fall into disuse, perhaps sooner in some places than others- all common usages deserve to be represented. If there really was a discussion that reached a consensus, point me to it.  Given your message on my talk page, it seems clear you are prone to exaggeration, so I suspect you've overstated.--Nil0lab 06:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question. Looking at the page histories, it looks like the various page histories have been bounced around due to prior page moves. Its now a bit of a mess. Some of the prior discussion is at Talk:Tor (geography), but I recall there was also a prior page move request that should have been archived. Not sure where that has gone. -- Solipsist 07:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again.  It's been a while and I don't see anyone else supporting your "there is a consensus" position. Any yes, I looked for the items you referred to. --Nil0lab 04:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has moved several times this past year and it has finally regained its place at Tor, best thing to do is merge all histories into this one. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation or not

message: The picture is a bit dark and lacking detail. There must be a better one, surely? Totnesmartin 13:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried editing the picture, but there really is a sharp contrast between the clear sky and dark ground. I can upload a new version but the stone deposit ont top looses its shade. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Kyorosuke made the "disambiguation statement" above Tor only point to Tor (disambiguation), but Tor as an anonymity network is the other only main definition of Tor, and you have to scroll down quite a bit on the aforementioned disambiguation page to even get to The Onion Router.
If it was up to me, I'd just have this page point to Tor (disambiguation) and this page moved to Tor (geology) (instead of Tor (geology) redirecting here) as mentioned above. :D --SyntaxError55 talk 00:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trust me, the vast majority of people who aren't Wikipedia editors have never heard of Tor (anonymity network). Hell, I'd wager that more people have heard of Tor Johnson. It does not deserve special mention on this page -- the entire reason disambiguation pages exist is to allow people to find things that have similar names to the primary meaning of a word. The only reason it is mentioned here is because, apparently , there is a total lack of perspective on the importance of the subject of the article Tor (anonymity network). It may be the first thing certain people who happen to have a proclivity for editing Wikipedia think of, but it is decidedly not the meaning of the term that most people think of.--72.228.85.3 (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if more people have heard of Tor Johnson than have heard of the geographic term, doesn't that indicate that Tor should be a disambiguation page?  Anyway, the fact that some technologically illiterate and and privacy complacent are unaware of The Onion Network (which is a well known project supported by such disparate groups as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the US Naval Research Laboratory) does not diminish its important, even if you and your peer group consider the geographic term the only worthy term. --Treekids (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whoa, have a regard for Wikipedia:No personal attacks there! As someone who has an interest in geography, geology and software (as a CITP I hope I'm not more than averagely "technologically illiterate and privacy complacent"), I did a bit of digging. It is difficult to tell from the Tor (anonymity network) article or the Tor Official Website how long this acronym has been in use, though it seems to date from 2004. The Wikipedia article about Tors as rock features dates from December 2001! Tor (from Old English) has been the name of many rock features and hills for a minimum of 920 years - one well-documented example is Torre (from which Torquay takes its name) -  recorded in the Domesday Book in 1086. Tors have been objects of geomorphological controversy for at least 50 years (see for example Linton). Outside academic circles, the huge numbers of holiday visitors to areas such as Dartmoor will be well aware of tors such as Haytor. Pterre (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Man what is this? A page about some place I've never heard of? What happened to the tor page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.50.100 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation [again] 

message: Can anyone provide evidence of this one? Pterre (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted it. Can't find it on any maps. Pterre (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boxall Tor? 

message: An IP editor got into a bit of an edit war (and breached 3RR) in the past 24 hours by editing the  template at the start of the page. I know this was discussed previously seeing the rest of this talk page but I don't see that any consensus was truly reached. So, under WP:BOLD, I changed the template to  which points straight to the disambig page. It would be nice if interested editors could chip in and see if some consensus can be reached on what (if any) other link the "other uses" template should point to. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you on this edit - there are plenty of other meanings, there doesn't seem to be much point singling out just one for a direct link.  ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig/other uses yet again 

message: The article claims that the word "tor" originated in the South West of England.  Where is the evidence for this?  Checking the online etymological dictionary doesn't reveal any evidence for this (noting it may not even be a Celtic word, but borrowed from Anglo Saxon).  Given the large number of hills described as tors in the Peak District, Yorkshire Dales and even up into Cumbria (c.f. torpenhow, literally "hill hill hill"), how can we claim the word originated in the South West? DPMulligan (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the assertion - it can go back if a reputable source to back it up is found but that seems unlikely given the antiquity of the names given to similar features in parts of the Peak and Pennines for example. cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

text: The OED says "Occurs as an element in topographical names in early West Saxon charters; also, as a local term for a topographical feature from Old English onward. Generally held to be Celtic; but, though frequent in place-names in Cornwall, Devon, etc., not recorded as a ‘common noun’ in Cornish or Breton. In Welsh the nearest word is apparently tẁr (= /tur/), Old Welsh twrr ‘heap, pile’ (rare in place-names, but compare Mynydd Twrr , old name of Holyhead Mountain, Rhŷs). Probably cognate with Gaelic tòrr ‘hill of an abrupt or conical form, lofty hill, eminence, mound, grave, heap of ruins’ (Macleod and Dewar), primarily ‘heap, pile’, compare tòrr verb ‘to heap up, pile up, bury’, Irish torraim ‘I heap up’, and the derivative Gaelic torran ‘little hill, knoll, hillock’, Irish torrán ‘heap, pile, hillock’". DuncanHill (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: "Tor (Geoography)" redirects to Tor. I suggestion that redirect be deleted because 1) Geoography is typo of geography 2) "No pages link to Tor (Geoography)" and 3) another page { "Tor (geography)" } also redirects to Tor. --EarthFurst (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geoography 

message: I've divided the examples given into geographical divisions: Britain and its regions and other countries, partly in an attempt to address the current Dartmoor bias. This approach can be added to/amended as time goes by. Dubious about Low Tor and Tor Heard - can anyone add anything or do we delete them? cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Low Tor in the Peak District to the east of Derwent Reservoir, NE of Back Tor and Howshaw Tor (SK 201918). I get the impression that Tor Heard (Long Whatton) is a wind up - actually a show jumper - and should be summarily deleted. Pterre (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical sections 

message: Talk:Tor (disambiguation). Please see Talk:Tor#Requested_move_10_December_2015 In ictu oculi (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Article related RM

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
----
* :Tor (rock formation) → 
* :Outcrop → ?
* :List of geographical tors → 
– I fail to find sources which distinguish outcrops and tors. In checking some linked articles in that "list of geographical tors" article, I see that Wikipedia editors are calling some rock formations as "tors" without cited sources to verify the use of that term. In the "Tor (rock formation)" article itself I am unable to verify many of the cited sources, but at least by titles, I can see that most of the cited sources are about geology in general and not talking about tors specifically. Because of this, I question whether the concept of "tor" even passes WP:GNG. Also though "outcrop" does not have sources to pass GNG which I find strange, because I expect some geological concept must be fundamental and well described here. I propose to merge because I think that sources which apply to one apply to both. I think "outcrop" is the better term because is easier to understand English, whereas "tor" is a Welsh origin word.
In checking non-English language Wikipedia articles for "tor" I again see discussion of British rock formations with few references.
I support a subsection in the "outcrop" article for "tors", but think that general geological concepts like "formation" should be shared.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Since this is not a MERGE discussion and is a MOVE request, and since Outcrop titles a page with significant content and so is ineligible as a target "new" title unless it is also proposed to be renamed, this request has been altered to fix the malformity. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The nom is proposing a merge of Tor (rock formation) into Outcrop and then a rename of the list article. Your edit to his nomination makes it seem as though he's also proposing a move of Outcrop, which is not the case. – Uanfala (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

text:  Thanks. I do discount Britannica because it is 3 sentences. The other one starts by saying that tor is a Welsh word for an outcrop of a certain size, then does have a good description going 3 pages. It is a good source but I do not think it distinguishes tors and outcrops.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It says tor derives from an Old Welsh word, not that it is a Welsh word. Many English words derive from words in other languages, and doing so has no relevance whatsoever to a discussion about notability. It then defines them as "large, free-standing, residual masses of rock", with locations and shapes controlled by jointing, while I think it's obvious that "outcrop" can refer to may different formations of widely varying origins. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 31 May 2021