Talk:Inselberg

message: I think that this article should be merged with inselberg, with the exception of the origin of the name, the material covered is nearly identical --Leonsimms 18:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...There's a redirect from Inselberg to Monadnock. --YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 16:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the title of the page is monadnock, I presumed this would be the preferred term on English WP, and changed "inselberg" to "monadnock" where the former was being used as a generic term. "Examples of monadnocks" being immediately followed by "Notable inselbergs include..." was rather jarring. --Jnik 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Are Tepuis a type of Monadnock? If so, should the be added to the list? --NoahElhardt 02:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And is the Devils Tower in Wyoming? Dricherby (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tepuis

message: Several references here were url-code only (no other information provided) and fell on deadlinks; I removed these and some of the information they supposedly supported. I also removed the section on flora, as it pertained specifically to flora in Australia, not to inselbergs/monadnocks in general. Perhaps this material could be reintroduced in a more limited and less narrowly-aimed fashion. I also removed some information that was not supported by references, and left citation tags in front of others. 
I proveded references that demonstrate the use of the term monadnock, although I have no problem with this article being called inselberg instead. One term is as good as another. I also added information showing subtle distinctions between the two terms. However, the general non-consenus among geologists indicated by the material and references provided should caution any absolute definition here in this article. 
I don't object to the reintroduction of some of the material I cut out, but please do provide good references and do make sure that the material is germaine to the entire topic, i.e. it should not be phrased in such a way as to favor one geologic opinion over another. 
Finally, I removed the long list of examples to List of inselbergs, (favoring the broader, non-USA specific term), per WP:NOT and I reworked the image formatting and over-clustering. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup, January 2008 (including comments about the controversy, above)

message: Surely two of the most impressive examples must be Ayer's rock or The Olgas in Australia. Could they be included or am I mistaken that they are not monadnocks?Brinerustle (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayer's Rock and the Olgas 

message: According to Whittow's Physical Geography, the terms "monadnock" and "inselberg" are not synonymous. Under "inselberg" we read "Although it may appear to bear a morphological resemblance to a monadnock [an inselberg] is thought to be derived by the process of parallel retreat of slopes in which pediments encroach into residual uplands during the process of pediplanation. The inselberg is the end product of this encroachment and may occur as an isolated hill or in a residual group of hills." It then goes on to distinguish between a "bornhordt" and other formations. By contrast the "monadnock" is "an isolated hill or type of residual due to denudation which has left it rising conspicuously above a gently rolling plain ... usually but not necessarily related to an outcrop of more resistant rocks...". I therefore suggest we create a separate article on "inselberg", highlighting the difference and providing cross-references.  --Bermicourt (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bermicourt's description is closer to my recollection than the article, which rolls far too many types of landform under the heading "Inselberg".  I was taught that this term referred to a peak _in a desert environment only_ which became isolated by the upward accretion and merger of alluvial fans and bolsons. Casu Marzu (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, I have seen a difference being pointed out earlier but only in creationist geomorphology . No such difference is mentioned in the relevant entries of Encyclopedia of Geomorphology (e.g. Piotr Migoń) nor in the work of other "inselberg people" like Karna Lidmar-Bergström or Charles Rowland Twidale. As for "far too many types" I think it is wrong assement, landforms always comes with many variations. I would rather say there are relatively few well defined inselberg types, compare to "volcano" that includes a myriad of subtypes like maars, cinder cones, calderas, stratovolcanoes, shield volcanoes, etc. Lappspira (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be separate articles until they were merged a couple of years ago (see discussion below). Having studied under Twidale some 25 years ago, my recollection of his position is that historically the term "monadnock" was of U.S. origin, and was developed as an element of W.M. Davis' concept of cycles of denudation and peneplain development, while the terms "inselberg" and "bornhardt" were created by German geomorphologists working in Africa. In his Analysis of Landforms (1978), Twidale mentions "monadnock" only twice, once in discussing Davis' contribution to the history of of theories of landscape evolution (p404), while on p420 he has" "Possibly because the Sherman Surface was earlier called a peneplain, residual remnants rising from it have been called monadnocks, though again they are so steep-sided that they would be called inselbergs by many workers." In his Australian Landforms: Structure, Process, Time (1993), the index has only 3 entries for "monadnock", while "inselberg" has 23 entries. The term "inselberg" is far more generic and widely used, so I don't support the creation of a separate article for "monadnock". Bahudhara (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Bahudhara, I agree you. Indeed I suspect the term monadnock has been neglected in more modern literature. I do think if we can source things like those you said then that would make good content in the article by clarifying things. Here is a link to a 1968 text by Twidale  explaining his view by then. Lappspira (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate monadnock and inselberg 

message: The word Kopje is not used in Southern Africa. Koppie, yes, but not Kopje. Dutch is not a language spoken in Southern Africa.--Michael (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst I agree that Afrikaans is not the same language as Dutch, you must agree with me that Afrikaans is based on Dutch mainly (I won't go into the historical and linguistic details here). In that sense it is not completely useless from an etymological viewpoint to mention the word kopje.-- Joekiedoe (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kopje 

message: Substituted at 18:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I am surprised in the etymology section of monadnock it does not point out that "monad" is defined as "a single unit, the number one" and the origin of "nock" is Late Middle English, possibly from Middle Dutch "nocke" meaning "point or tip." Therefore the word "monadnock" could be translated as "single point," which sounds a lot like "an isolated rock hill, knob, ridge, or small mountain that rises abruptly from a gently sloping or virtually level surrounding plain." Mseanbrown (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds convincing, but we'd need a good source for the etymology. Otherwise we'd be in violation of WP:OR... Any chance you know of one? DanHobley (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The term comes from the Abenaki word menonadenak or menonadenek, meaning "smooth mountain" or "isolated mountain". The presence of "monad" in the English spelling is coincidental. --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monadnock Etymology: "Single Point" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Inselberg. 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/20090320061630/http://www.vt.nrcs.usda.gov/Soils/so_NewsInd.html to http://www.vt.nrcs.usda.gov/soils/so_NewsInd.html
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) 05:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Would Huerfano Butte count?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to fit the term perfectly. Tomdo08 (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huerfano Butte 

message: Section Geology mentions volcanic and sedimentary composition, it also mentions nearby plateaus. To my knowledge sedimentary inselbergs may relate to plateaus in the vicinity, volcanic inselbergs do not. Should this be wrong, the relation between volcanic inselbergs and plateaus would need to be described explicitly. I assume this is just bad writing, but I don't know for sure. Tomdo08 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Geology needs cleanup